HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - February 1, 2000CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
February 1, 2000.- 7:OO p.m.
Next Planning Commission
Resolution No. 473
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II: ROLL CALL
City Planning.
Chuck Piland -Candy Fish; Don Foster, Karolyne Johnson, John LeGros,
Paul Lunte and Wayne Riggs
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. NTINUTES
A: :Review and approval of January 4, 2000, Planning Commission Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
Page 1-19 A. Public :hearing to :consider a situ plan for the construction of a 48 unit
apartment complex at the East edge of Sunrise Way on Map 37 2W 02BC;
Tax Lots 1506, 1507 and 1508.
20-37 B. Public hearing to review and modify certain conditions of approval for the
New Haven Estates as they pertain to a block wall on lots 9 and 53: The
subject parcels are located on Map 362W36DD, Tax Lot 3400 and Map
372WO1BB; Tax Lot 800.
38-55 C. Public hearing to review and modify certain contains oPapproval as they
.relate to the placement of a 2,250 square foot office building at 348 Oak
Street on Map 372W 11BB, Tax Lot 400.
56-70 D. Request#o extend the tentativeplarrapprovalfor#he2i lot Lindsey Meadows
Subdivision on Map 372W11D; Tax LotS00_
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIII: ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
January 04, 2000
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A'T 7:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Pilaud, CandyFish, John LeGros, Dott Foster, and Wayne Riggs were
present. Also in attendance were Jim Bennett, City Administrator, Tom Humphrey ,
Plamling Director, Ken Gerschler, Conununity Planner ;Lee Brennan, Public Works
Director, and Matt Samitore, Planning Technician.
III CORRESPONDENCE
There was correspondence from Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority and Jackson County
Roads and Parks regarding items A and B of the agenda.
III MINUTES
Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes from
December 7, 1999. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion
passed unanimously.
IV BUSINESS
A. A public hearing to consider a site plan and change of use for the building
located at 155 North First Street in a C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial Zoning
District on Map 372W03DD, Tax Lot 7000.
Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The
applicants, Rogue Valley Council of Governments, recently bought the old Hard Bodies
Gym, and will be moving out of their current location in City Hall into the new building.
The applicants would like to add 1040 square feet ofineeting space to the building when the
funding becomes available. Based on criteria and a projected total square footage of 7, 460,
the RVCOG would need to provide a minimum of 25 spaces. Since there are currently only
I S spaces available, the RVCOG would like to work with the city on an agreement to use
parking at the Senior Center. The RVCOG will use 10 spaces during working hours.
Lee Brennan, presented the Public Works recommendations. The city will re-stripe the
parking lot so that it could handle more parking. The City will either stripe the gravel
periodically, put in railroad ties, or typical parking bwnpers. The City would eventually like
to pave the lot.
Allen Hudson, Finance Director for RVCOG, 5980 Shady Brook Drive, Central Point, OR,
97502, stated that they plan on building an addition as soon as they have the funding. Mr.
Hudson also stated that RV COG has no problem entering into an agreement with the city and
that the employees will probably ask for a bicycle rack.
Cin~ of Crnnrrl Pninr
Planning Conrmi.rrion A4inules
Jmnrnrr ~. 1000
Page
Jim Bennett, City Administrator, answered questions on the particulars of a parking
agreement, including remuneration.
Commissioner Riggs made a motion to pass Resolution 471 approving the Site Plan for the
RVCOG located at 155 North ]s' Street, in the C-5, Commercial Thoroughfare District.
Subject to the Planning and Public Works staff reports, and entering into a shared parking
agreement with the city. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: motion passed
unanimously.
B. Public Hearing regarding a Tentative Partition that would create Z parcels at
764 Pittview Avenue. The subject property is located in an R-1-8, Residential
Single-Family Zoning District on Map 372W11AD Tax Lot 6300.
KenGerschler,CommunityPlanner,presentedthePlanningDepartmentStaffRepor-t. Elden
Smith the applicant began talking to the City over a year ago about plans to develop the
property. Since the road is currently a county road it would have to be improved in order to
handle additional traffic. The Partition would only add one additional lot to the area at the
moment, with the idea to further develop the property in the future. The applicant would
have to improve the portion ofPittview Avenue that borders the property. Mr. Gerschler also
informed the applicant that the city is looking into future parkland in that area.
Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, presented the Public Works StaffReport. Their cun-ent
storm drainage that exists on Pittview does not have enough capacity to handle additional
runoff so the applicant will have to provide on site detention. The City would like to stub
water north and south for possible development. The City would also like to master plan the
water and storm drainage for the area, as well as have the applicants sign a deferred
improvement agreement for both properties.
Elden Smith, 917 Sterling Creek, Jacksonville, OR, has no problem with the requirements.
Commissioner LeGros made a motion to adopt Resolution 472, approving the Tentative Minor
Land Partition of 372W 11AD Tax Lot 6300, creating two parcels of 0.31 acres and 1.39 acres,
in a R-1-8, Residential Single Family District. Subject to the recommended conditions of
approval and that the applicant sign a deferred improvement agreement on both parcels with
the city, and work with the city for storm and water master planning as development occurs
in this area. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: motion passed unanimously.
V ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Fish made motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 P.M. Commissioner Foster
seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DA"fE: February 1, 2000
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Heazing-Site Plan Review for 37 2W 02BC, Tax Lots 1506, 1507 and 1508 -
Malot Apartments.
Owners/ Freel Charles D. Malot Enterprises
Aanlicants: P.O. Box 587 650 East Pine Street
Shady Cove, Oregon 97539 Central Point, Oregon 97502
Pro e
Description/ 37 2W 02BC, Tax Lots 1506, 1507 and 1508 - 2.17 acres total.
Zonine: R-3, Residential Multiple Family District
Summary
The applicants have requested a Site Plan Review for the construction of a 48 unit apartment
complex at the end of Sunrise Way. The subject property is located in an R-3, Residential Multiple
Family district on Tax Lots 1506, 1507 and 1508 of Plat 37 2W 02BC.
Authority:
CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public heazing and
render a decision on any application for a Site Plan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in
accordance with CPMC 1.24.060.
Applicable Law•
CPMC 17.28.010 et seq. - R-3, Residential Multiple Family District
CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. -Off Street Parking and Loading
CPMC 17.72.010 et seq. -Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval
Discussion:
The applicant, Tommy Malot has been working in conjunction with property owner Dave Freel to
develop the remaining lots of the Bluebird Heights Subdivision into a 48 unit apartment complex.
Each of the units will have two bedrooms and two baths while some apartments will have access to
an outdoor deck. The project will be similai in architecture to an apartment complex constructed
recently on South Pacific Highway in Medford (please refer to Attachment "A" ).
.J 1
fhe ground elevation ofthe property slopes noticeably towards the northerly boundary. "I~he applicant
has been in contact with the Puhlic Works Department to discuss the issue and it appears that the
land can be adequately prepared for building construction through engineering and site grading.
The Planning Department has evaluated the project density and building distance requirements for
[he zoning district and determined that the development is compliant with the zoning ordinance. 'fhe
landscape plan will need additional specificity as to the type and location of shrubs and trees. Due
to the lack of recreational facilities for children residing in this high density class, the applicant
should be required to install play equipment.
Access to @te site will be served from the east cul-de-sac entrance of Sunrise Way and on a private
road that connects the Willow Glen development from Cherry Street south toward North Tenth
Street. The applicants have obtained an access and utility easement agreement (Attachment "A" )
from the Willow Glen Limited Partnership that will allow the use of the private road.
The Municipal Code requires two parking spaces for each dwelling unit, at least one of which shall
be a garage or carport; plus one guest parking space for each four dwelling units. The minimum
number of parking spaces required for this development would be 108. The applicant has provided
53 covered spaces and 58 uncovered spaces, 25 of which are compact spaces for a combined total
of 111 spaces.
The Public Works Department has prepared recommendations for on and off site improvements
which are believed to be reasonably related to the proposed development. These include, but are not
limited to; driveway aprons, sidewalk improvements; site grading and drainage; on-site lighting;
paving and utility (water, sewer and storm drain) connections.
Jackson County Fire District Number 3 has submitted comments that relate to the project
(Attachment "D")specifically access to some of the dwelling units. They would like to review the
landscape plan when completed.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law:
Site PZan Review
In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision
on the following standards from Section 17.72.040:
A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause
the same to not substantially interfere with the Landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such
a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing
neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the maintenance of existing plants or the
installation of new ones for purposes of screening adjoining property.
The site plan shows landscaped areas distributed throughout the project area but a
~~CPPDPD( ~Plannmg:0907~ wpd
,_~ 2
landscape and irrigation plan was not submitted.
B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid
interference with the traffic flow on public streets;
^ Access is shown to betaken from Sunrise Way and from a private roadway that serves
the Willow Glen apartments. No access will be taken directly from Cherry Street.
C. To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in
such a manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable
of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public
streets;
^ CPMC 17.64.040 (A-2) requires that 108 parking spaces be integrated into the site plan.
The applicant has provided 111 parking spaces.
D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter
from traffic control signs or devices and that they are compatible with the design of their buildings
or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs;
Any signage proposed for the project would require a building permit. Directional
signs and building address identification should be installed in a manner that satisfies
emergency service agencies. Signs located in sightvision areas determined by the Public
Works Standards sFrall not exceed 42 inches in height.
E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the
reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads
and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire appazatus;
^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any requirements of Jackson County Fire
District 3. No additional fire hydrants are necessary -however the fire district would
like to comment on the landscape plan as it affects access to the dwelling units.
F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations;
The project as presented by the applicant is in compliance with the requirements of the
Central Point Municipal Code subject to the recommended conditions of approval.
G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in
relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs.
^ The apartment complex is designed to be aesthetically compatible with the higher
density development located in the surrounding area.
P~CPPUPDC\Pinnnuig\99075 wpd
~_., 3
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No., approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of
approval; or
2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or
3. Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission.
Attachments
A. Site Plan, Photographs from similar development and Willow Glen Access Agreement.
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Planning Department Conditions
D. Correspondence
E. Public Works Staff Report
\\CPPDVIK\Planning\99075 wpd
.., 4
F~-3
kxJ
b
C Y #{ ,`~
P-~ / ~ Y
~y ~ yA' y e 1
e
J ~~ Y~ a 1
\'' ~ e ~ i
Y` y '~,N`
/ gp ar /,-
~ E / \F ~~ ~
/`S~/ v
L 1 ~ o
a~ • / ~ ~
~'~ .~
r +
b
~+ i,, ~ ~
.~ ~
i
1 i~
~;~1
~'ij ~~/
~ ~~--
1 ''
..-- m
~~
fM 1
--"'~_
„\ \
'•,,
tt G ~ ~
p96 n R'6~ '.11 ~ ~~
°0 ~ 1111
~~~~~p a ~°~ ~ ~ ~~ i
6 K y _ ~ ,-
`{Gli~ \
{~ ,\ +
FFBY ~ /
~,~ ~~~
~ _ ~
~.~ ~~ r
:.~E / ~
~3
~./~
H...
r
~// f /J/j/[~i~
// /j/!1l
n
~~$~
j ~Y~
~= R2~~'
J ~' a~ ~S ~:CTftT~l~'pt~~tt
~ ~~ ~~~a~~nt
K-~-'
Ica ~'~'
,• ~
:~+ ~~ gab ~ , , , ~
ax
~~ ~~y ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ' ~~
~ ~ ~~ ~
-B~pILXE'
rOdl hlALOT CON ~ ~ -a _.-.m,,,~..~,.~
~N~~ritse ~- t
~. ~~°,
93-h37S~
AFTER RECORDIPIG RETURN T0:
Gary C. Peterson
Foster, Purdy, Allan
Peterson & Dahlia
P.0. Box 1667
Medford, OR 97501
AFTER RECDRDING RETURN T0: ~{rj
~O AMERICAN PACIFIC TITLE ~ ~s~5O-~P ~
ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT
WILLOW GLEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Oregon limited
partnership, ("Grantor"), foz valuable consideration the receipt of
which Ss hereby acknowledged, does hereby grunt and convey onto
GERALD E. CORCORAN and ESTHER J. CORCORAN, Trustees o~ the rORCORAN
FAMILY TRUST u.a.d. November 7, 1991 ("Grantees") a perpetual and
non-exclusive right-of-way and easement for ingress, egress, and
utilities over and under the real property described on Exhibits
"1" and "5" attached hereto and incorporated herein and a perpetual
and-non-exclusive right-of-way easement for ingress and egress over
the west 24 feet of the real property described in Exhibit "2"
(including reasonable access to and from Grantee's property) which
private street access is to be constructed by Grantor at its
expense for the purpose of connecting Cherry Street and the access
described on Exhibits "1" and "5". Grantor also agrees to grant
and convey to Grantee, at no expense to Grantee, a sewer easement
from a location on the common boundary between Grantor's and
Grantee's property to the "new manhole" shown as Exhibit "3"
attached hereto and incorporated herein and also, an easement to
hook up to the 8 inch water main (at reasonable locations) which
will lie under the 24 foot private street running along the west
boundary of Grantor's property.
Said easements are appurtenant to and for the benefit of
Grantees' real property described on Exhibit "4" attached hereto,
and shall inure to the benefit of Grantees, their heirs,
successors, and assigns forever.
This grant of easement is subject to the following covenants
and conditions, which are accepted by Grantees, and may not be
waived, altered or released without the express written consent of
Grantor, its successors or assigns:
r;;~ In the event the benafitted property (Grantee'.e property) ;
i~:rpartitioned, subdivided or otherwise developed, Grantees or
their successors shall enter into a road maintenance agreement with
ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT - 1
,~_ g
~3-'1;J7;i3
Ce done In a manner so az not to unduly or unreasonably Interfere with the continued use of the street as
access to Gramor or othu partys adjacent property. Following mnstruction, Oramca or tbev successors
shall rutore she surface of the casement to lu odglnal condiuon, all ^t Grantees' sole expense.
3. 'Ibe use and enjoyment of this easement shall be I(mlted In scope to the beacGt of Grantees'
property described oa Eshlbit'2', In a manna coattsteot wdth the applicable roning and use rcquGemcnts of
the Clry of Ceatnl Point, and sway not be used by Grantee In conJuacttoa with any othu property. 73is
easement may not be solo tnas(ene4 hypothecated or alienated stpanteiy from the sale, ua¢s(cr,
hypotheatton or alienation of Oraatees' property described oa Exhtblt 7'.
W WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Orantca have ececuted th6 Access and UtIDry Fasemcat
on thu 1'L day of November, 1997.
WIl1AW GLEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a^ Oregon limited partnership,
BYYa 7 ~.ss ,
rry oka(~H, General Partner
v ('Grantor')
G ~.-o-~^Gr~7sr'L
GERALD E COACORAN
r
'f_~/... o. ~~ ~
E51TlER I. COR RAN
('Gramea')
STATE OF OREGON )
u.
County o(Marion )
On this ~~ day o(November, 1997, personally appeared the above named Larry Tokarski, who
being duly sworn, sated that be b a General Panner of WILLOW GLEN LQ.171'ED PARTNERSHIP, an
Oregon UrNted panaenblp, and that the toregotnj Lsswment was voluntarily signed oa bchair of Bald
pannershlp and by authority of its panners; and acknowledged Bald instrument to be It: voluntary act and
deed.
Before me:
2 -ACCESS AND LJ7TI.ITY FASF1r(FJ
3 ' , , "~
VO,I4 NO. la ~ I.C,(NO WlLOO4 LNT
STATE OF OREGON, """""" "~'"' "~" "'~"" "''
as.
County ol.... JACICSCN
..................................
BE 1T REMEMBERED, Thet on th'L._3QTH ..................dey of........~~~Q?...... ...._........ ......., 19.93 ,
belore m<, the vnd<rsignad, a No(ary Public in and for Leid Counfy end Sfafe, personally app<arcd the within
narncd GERALD E. CORCORAN AND ESTHFA J.,. CY)RCORAN, 'TRUSTEES OF THE CORCORAN FAMII.'
TRUST._U. A. D.... NO.VEMBE3t..71.._1991 ...........................................................................................................................
knavn m m< fo be Jhe
a<knawlcdl;ed to ma Jhel
sdividuals... d<auibed in •nd who ereculed the wirhin imtrument end
.........ezacutad the Lame Iraely and voluntarily.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand end allir<d
m 'gel seat the day aryl year last above written.
anaAF suF
9[SCRS
JEANNF 1
LL
' .Y-f.~~~~_, _,~
''~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
.
~,
,
„
~: ~~ NOV.~tT rosuC - OLtcON No(ary Public for Oregon.
coN.r.usi~ON NCI, oisu9 MY Commiaaion expires ................................
'""""~~~~~~""~~~~~
ea tOnwld STUN W~AES/MT], 1996
7 • ACCESS AND IITQ.CiY EASEMENC
~ -- - 8
;~<:
.., , :~~r:~~r
--:./.
y
-~
~.~
.- _ .~
~
~,n" _.. ...~
~ ..
r. _,~
~
, n '~ '~~ np~.i±tirvt,.
~~
i ;~.
~
'
1~ C
G
~a
-, xY
~s~zd. .`.s .~ t2~ L `~
City of Central Point
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschter
Community Planner
Matt Samitore
Planning Technician
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: January 11, 2000
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
NATURE OF MEETING
February I, 2000
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
CYty of Central Point
EXHI~Y'T ttB,t
Planning Department
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an
application for a Site Plan Review that would allow the construction of a 48 unit apartment complex
at the end of Sunrise Way. This pazcel is located in a R-3, Residential Multiple Family Zoning
District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W02BC Tax Lots 1506, 1507 and 1508.
The Central Point Planning Commission will review the Site Plan application to determine that all
applicable provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for Site Plan Review aze set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal
Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street pazking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction
Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit
written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February I , 2000.
Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, ] 55
South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
~~
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the
expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about
the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated
cleazly to the Planning Commission.
4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant aze available for public review at City
Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same aze available at
15 cents per page.
5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-
3321 ext. 291.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE
At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear
testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear azguments on the application. Any
testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of
the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the and Site Plan. City regulations
provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions.
~,\
J
~~~j.
Q~~\~G
P~ ~S
~ O ~2
~~
~.
>\~o <
~~~ /
~~~, i
~ r .~_ 1
9NVi8i- ~/.~- ~~1--r~~
- ~-~
T~ / '-1
~, J ~ ri
,E.~ oo~ ~ l ~~=
/~ 5~'' .-r\J'~I~-,'mil-{!~~I''J__.
~/ I ~/
.-. Subject Property ~~
~~
~~
~ ~~ ,
srH r -` ~`~ iC ~ fT`es
11
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 • Fax: (541) 664-6384
ATTACHMENT C
RECOMMENDED PLANNING CONllITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on February 1, 2001 unless an
application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the
City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and
approved at the public heazing within 30 days of Planning Commission approval.
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations .
3. The project must meet the off-street parking requirements for high density residential
development, and the parking, access and maneuvering azeas shall be paved with durable
materials for all-weather use and approved by the Public Works Department.
4. The applicant shall prepare, submit and obtain approval from City Staff for a landscaping
plan including an acceptable selection of shrubs and trees and an irrigation plan.
5. The applicant shall locate a tot lot playground facility similar to that shown in the
photographs in Attachment "A" as a part of the project site.
\\CPPDP[X:\Plznning\99075 wpd
.. ~ 12
1@/18/1999 10: @4
6333 AGAPE ROAD, WHItE LITY, OREGON 87503-iQ22
(541) 628.7100 fAX (5411 6Z6-4666
City of Central Point
EXHIBIT ttB tt
Planning Department
10/18/99
Ken Gerschler
City of Central Point
Matot Apartments:
Fire IJistriet 3 has reviewed the site plan for the Matlot apartments in the Bluebird
Heights Subdivision. Based on the site plan no additional fire hydraats will be required. The Fire
District does have some concern on access to a couple o£the units as it relates to the landscaping.
The developer shall contact Fire District 3 with the landscape plan ibr approval. This review is
based on the site plan received on 10-14-99 and could change when the building plans are
received. Any Uniform Fire code requirements for the building will be applied at the time the
building plans are received. Please contract me i£you have any questions.
~~ ~5~~,
Neil Shaw
Deputy Fire Marshal
cc. Pommy Malot
8264566
JCFD3 BLIS OFC
,~
FIRE D157'R[CT No. 3
JACKSON COUNTY
PAGE 02/02(
13
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STAFF REPORT
for
Site Plan Review
Sunrise 8-Plexes
PW#99075
Date:
Applicant/
Owner:
Project:
Location:
Legal:
Zoning:
Area:
Units:
Plans:
Report By:
Purpose
____
C~iry of Ce~ttral EQint
EXHI}3IT t'E.tt
Planning DeParimen~t
January 25, 2000
Malot Enterprises, Inc., 650 E. Pine Street, Central Point, Oregon 97502, 664-1258,
Contact: Tom Malot
6 Eight-Plex Apartment Buildings (48 dwelling units)
East End of Sunrise Way, West of Willow Glen Apartments
T37S, R2W, Section 026C Tax Lots 1506, 1507, 1508
R-3, Residential, Multi-Family
2.17 Acres.
3 Parcels: either to be combined, or lot Tines realigned.
1 "Site Plan" illustrating tentative driveway, road, building, and parking layout for
development; prepared by Tom Malot Construction Co., Inc., dated July 1999.
Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director
Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer")
regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be
included in the design and development of the proposed commercial/professional office facility.
Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development.
Special Requirements
Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing
infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, stone drain systems; natural drainage
systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective
level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure
facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed
on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's
infrastructure, or will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the
additional flows and/or demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of
the affected facility, as approved by (as applicable) the regulatory agency, utility owner, and/or
property owner involved.
2. Easements: Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if
applicable]) should be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for
public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines shall be dedicated to the City and not
just a P.U.E. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five (5) feet
from the edge of the easement. If two or more City-owned utilities are located within an
easement, then a minimum of 20-foot width should be required. Easement dedications in final
deeds or CC&Rs need a statement which should clearly indicate that easements must be
maintained with suitable, driveable vehicular access to City public infrastructure facilities, as
determined by the City PWD.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access to All Proposed Development: The Developer shall obtain
access agreements or similar documents from the adjoining Willow Glen Apartment property to
14
Svn'ise Alxrrtnrents (A1n1oQ
Pii'D St6/f IZeporl
rarvn„~ zs, znon
Poke z
allow for public and private vehicular and pedestrian access (ingress and egress) on and/or
across the Willow Glen Apartment property. A copy of the recorded agreement should be
submitted to the City prior to construction plan submittal.
All construction plans and as-built drawings shall accurately portray (both horizontally and
vertically) utility line and appurtenance locations and the locations of any existing and new
easements on the proposed development. All final plats shall accurately portray the horizontal
location of all easements and right-of-ways dedicated as part of the development of this
project. All right-of-way and easement dedication shall be completed prior to final construction
plan approval.
3. Driveways, Access Roads, and Parking Areas: The driveways, access roads, and parking
and turning areas on the proposed development must be designed and positioned in a manner
that should accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO single unit truck
and the Fire District's requirements. All driveways, access roads, and parking areas should
either have asphalt or Portland cement concrete surfaces.
4. Sife Drainage/Sform Drain Plan: The developer shall design and implement a site
drainage/storm drain plan that corrects and enhances existing site drainage for the entire
property noted on the site plan. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public
rights-of-way, or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. The storm drainage
infrastructure will be privately operated and maintained.
During the design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system (SD System), which
provides for storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (either
surface run-on or culvert or creek ditch conveyance), the Developer shall demonstrate that the
storm water flows from the completion of the proposed development (and at any time prior to
completion of development) do not exceed predevelopment flows; or that existing capacity,
allowances, or provisions have been made (and approval of the applicable properties owners
and regulatory agencies has been obtained), which accommodate any additional flow which
exceed predevelopment flows. The Developer and the City PWD shall agree on the applicable
run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc., to be used in the engineering
calculations. Developer's engineer shall provide a site drainage plan with the facilities being
designed, at a minimum, to accommodate a 10 year storm event. The SD system must be
designed to adequately drain the 10-year storm event without surcharging or must be provided
with adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to not impact existing private
or public storm drainage facilities. The potential retention of storm water run-off shall be
coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide an aesthetically pleasing,
efficient, non-hazardous, and low maintenance facility. If applicable, the storm water retention
facilities shall be suitably landscaped; designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and
hydrocarbon deposition; and to mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with
these facilities. Catch basins, curb inlets, and area drains shall be designed for sediment and
petroleum hydrocarbon retention.
Any connection to the City storm drain conveyance system shall be at a manhole or curb inlet,
or as otherwise approved by the City Public Works Department (PWD). Any storm water
collection and conveyance facilities constructed within the public rights-of-way shall be
constructed in accordance with City PWD standards, including the provision for water-tight
joints.
15
Sunrise Apartments (Molar)
PWD StafjReporY
January 25, 2000
Page 3
5. Domestic Water Service and Fire Protection: Currently, the three tax lots are served by a
total of four 3/4-inch water service laterals. The number and size of these service laterals are
not adequate to service the proposed development. Each building will be required to be
served by a separate meter, with the meter size ranging between 1-1/2-inch to 2-inch,
depending on the number of "fixture units" in each building. The number and sizes of the
meters and service laterals, and the location of new service lateral taps will be jointly
determined by the Developer, and the City Public Works and Building Departments. All
connections to the City's water supply system should comply with OHD and City PWD
requirements. City PWD will do all "hot" connections to active water lines, including taps and
water service lateral connections, at Developer's expense.
The preliminary site plan does not illustrate the location of any fire hydrant on the property.
The closest fire hydrant is located on the northern side of Sunrise Way, at a distance of
approximately 160 feet from the property. There are two 6-inch valved tees on the 8-inch-
diameterwater line that is aligned through the property. These existing 6-inch connections
may be used for any required fire protection facilities. If these facilities are not used, then they
will be abandoned by the City at the Developer's expense. The location and number of fire
hydrants or other fire service connections shall be as determined by the Developer, City and
Fire District No. 3.
6. Aboveground Utilities: If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power, US West, and
Falcon Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities within
the proposed development to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD
of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and
costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities,
shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer. Any relocated utility facilities
on site should be placed underground, as feasible.
Development Plans: Developer shall submit to the City's PWD for review and approval, plans
and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or modifications within the
City or public rights-of-way and easements or for connections to City infrastructure. Public
improvements include, but are not limited to, streets (including sidewalks, driveway aprons
and, curbs and gutters); storm drainage and sanitary sewer collection and conveyance
systems; water distribution system (up to the service meter and including fire protection); street
lighting; and traffic control devices, street signs, and delineation. All construction of public
improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and
stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards,
and/or upgrades as may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the
approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction,
changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer
to the City PWD for approval prior to installation.
8. Approvals: Fire District No. 3 (fire hydrant placement, waterline sizing, and emergency
vehicle access) and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA, for sanitary sewers) written
approval of construction plans shall be submitted to the City PWD prior to final construction
plan review and approval by City PWD.
~ F
Suwise Apar(nrenCr minlolJ
PND S~q/f~Repav
Janumy 25, 1000
Page 4
9. As-Builts: Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or
surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the
Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form
(produced on Mylal~ and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD®, or other form as
approved by the City PWD.
As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final
approved construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of
actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot
elevations identified on drawings; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer
lateral; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet; street light locations; other
below grade utility lines; etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on Mylar`®), or an approved
alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD®
compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to
acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development,
or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee.
10. Elevations: All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on
the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be
so noted on the plans. At least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed
development, the location of which shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the
Developer's surveyor.
11. Existing Infrastructure: As applicable, field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and
locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed
development will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design
and submittal for final approval. The accurate locations of any existing underground and
above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these
facilities, shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) on the construction
plans.
12. Fill Placement. All fill placed in the development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed
and compacted in accordance with City Public Works and Building Departments standards,
except for the upper 1.5-feet of fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does not
underlie building, structures, or traveled vehicular access ways or parking areas.
13. Road/Driveway/Parking Areas: The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils
and determine the access road, parking, and driveway section designs to handle the expected
Toads (including fire equipment) to be traveled on these private driveways, access roads, and
parking areas. Need to provide section for review. The driveways, access roads, and parking
and turning areas on the proposed development should be designed and positioned in a
manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of a single unit truck, and
expected fire fighting equipment. The street section design for street improvements or
connections to be constructed within the City rights-of-way (i.e Sunrise Way) shall be as
follows:
1'7
Sm~rise Apartrnettts (Malot)
PWD Sta_jJ'Repart
Jm~uary 25, 2000
Page S
- 3-inches Class "B" A.C.
- 6-inches of 3/4"-0" crushed rock
- 8-inches of 4"-0" crushed rock (City of Medford specifications),
- Woven geotextile fabric over compacted subgrade.
14. Ufllity Plans: Utility plans (i.e. telephone, electric, natural gas, cable, etc.) must be prepared
and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final construction plan approval by
the City. The utility plans shall be drawn to scale with accurate horizontal and vertical
depiction of utility lines and appurtenances (transformers, valves, etc.). The as-built drawings
shall include the depiction of these facilities, and any changes made during their construction.
15. Flre Hydrants: Provide locations of existing and any new required fire hydrants. Fire hydrants
need to be connected to 8-inch-diameter and larger lines, with the supply lines being "looped"
as feasible. If applicable, steamer ports at hydrants located near the building shall face the
buildings. Fire hydrants shall be suitably protected from potential vehicle damage and
encroachment.
16. Wafer System Cross Connection Confrol: Developer shall comply with Oregon Health
Division (OHD) and City requirements for cross connection control. If a pressurized irrigation
system and/or domestic water wells exist on the property, the Developer will be required to
install the required backflow prevention assemblies directly behind the City's water meters.
17. Roof/Area Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with
positive drainage away from the buildings. Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the
public storm drain system, but could be connected to the private storm drain catch basins.
18. Grad/na Plans: Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted
on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final
grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width
and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations.
19. Site Lavout/C/rcu/anon Plan: The developer shall prepare and submit for City PWD approval
a suitable site circulation plan for the proposed development and neighboring parcels. The
circulation plan shall illustrate that all driveways and connections to streets shall accommodate
the tuming and access movements of all expected truck and emergency vehicle (i.e fire truck)
tuming movements.
The driveway approach to the connection to Sunrise Way must be designed to have a
minimum 20-foot long approach, as measured from the back of sidewalk, that is at a maximum
slope of 2 percent.
20. Erosion Control Plan: A suitable erosion control plan must be prepared and submitted to the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and City PWD for the construction of any
improvements associated with this development. The construction plans associated with this
development will not be approved by the City PWD until the City PWD receives a copy of the
written approval of the erosion control plan by the DEQ.
j. s
Sunrise Atxtrmrents (d falotJ
P{fD Strifjl2eport
Jamtmy 25, 2000
Page 6
21. Area Lighting Plan: Need to provide and implement an adequate area lighting plan for
parking and public access areas, including the driveway entrances.
22. Sanitary Sewer. All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design,
construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEQ,
1990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and
the City PWD Standards, where applicable. The construction plans and the as-built drawings
shall identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals.
19
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF IZEPORT
HEARING
DATE: February 2, 2000
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Request to Modify Conditions of Approval for the New
I-Iaven Estates Subdivision, specifically a requirement for the construction
of a concrete block wall along Hamrick and Vilas Road lot frontages.
Annlicant/ Van Wey Homes & Key West Properties
Owner: 1762 East McAndrews Road
Medford, OR 97504
Pro er
Description/ 37 2W 01BB Tax Lot 800 and 362W36DD Tax Lot 3400, New Haven
Estates, Phase 1
Zoning: R-I, Residential Single-Family District
Summary
The applicants have requested that the City reconsider its requirement for a concrete block
wall along the applicable road frontages ofthe New Haven Estates Subdivision. Any changes
or modifications to project conditions must have Planning Commission approval.
Authority
CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing
and render a decision on any application for or revision to subdivision tentative plans.
Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit "B").
Applicable Law
CPMC 16.10.090 et seq.- Conditions for Tentative Plan Approval
CPMC 17.20.010 et seq.- R-1, Residential Single-Family District
20
Discussion
The Planning Commission initially approved the tentative plan for the New Haven Estates
Subdivision in November 1997. On January 20, 1998, the Commission approved an
amendment to the subdivision that resulted in the conveyance of an additional 2.5 acres to
Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park for use as a recreational vehicle storage area. The
RV storage area was subsequently moved and replaced by the clubhouse and park azea that
exists today. In May 1998, the Planning Commission allowed the Walnut Grove Mobile
Home Park to construct a sight obscuring fence instead of the masonry wall.
At the meeting of April 6, 1999, the applicants requested that the requirement for the block
wall on lots 9 and 53 of the New Haven Estates Subdivision be changed to allow a vinyl
fence instead. The minutes of the meeting (Attachment "C ") indicate that the request was
denied unanimously by the Commission.
In a letter and schematics dated December 8, 1999 (Attachment "A"), the applicants aze now
requesting that the Commission consider replacing the block wall with photinia hedge.
The Commission can consider the below listed findings when considering this request. Since
only the issue concerning the wall has been raised and noticed for this public hearing, the
applicants will be expected to adhere to all other conditions of approval.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
1. The specific condition for a concrete block wall attached to tentative plan approval
given under CPMC 16.10.090 are deemed necessary in the interests of the public health,
safety or welfare. Furthermore, said improvement is reasonably related to the development
and would serve a public purpose such as mitigating negative impacts of the proposed
development.
The Commission must determine whether this finding can be made. According to the
Public Works Staff Report (Attachment "F"), the block wall was intended to provide
sound attenuation(forpropertiesborderingVilas/HamrickRoads). Theintentionwas
to benefit the residents of the new subdivision from noise emanating from a busy
secondary arterial road. Unfortunately, the extent of the block wall construction is
limited to properties controlled by the developers and there will be `breaks' along the
wall until other properties are developed further. Noise attenuation will be incomplete
and may be ineffective until a wall can be constructed along New Haven Estates and
other properties adjacent to it which front Hamrick/Vilas Road.
21
2. This request involves the amendment of a condition to New I-[aver Estates
Subdivision tentative plan approval.
The request is limited to New Haven Estates and not other property controlled lry tare
developer.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No._, anrending Planning Commission Resolution No. _ which
conditionally approved a Tentative Plan for New Haven Estates, based on the findings of fact
contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or
2. Deny the request to amend Tentative Plan conditions; or
3. Continue the review of the requested amendment at the discretion of the Commission.
Attachments
A. Letter and site schematic from Clayton Johnson and John Schleining.
B. Notice of Public Hearing.
C. Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 6, 1999 keeping block wall instead of
vinyl fence.
D. Planning Report and Minutes, dated May 19,1998 amending Conditional Use Permit
for Walnut Grove Manufactured Home Park and requirement for block wall.
E. Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 20, 1998 retaining requirement for
block wall.
F. Public Works Staff Report, dated October 15, 1997 with original requirement for
block wall and landscaping .
G. Note from neighbor Ruby LaFon in Favor of modification.
.; ~ 2 2
December 8, 1999
City of Central Point
Planning Commission
City of Central Point
~~iH~~zT t,A~t
Planning Department
This is in regards to our request to have the requirement of the block wall
removed from Lots 9 and 53 of New Haven Estates, Phase 1.
When New Haven Estates was originally approved, we had provisions for
seven lots in the area now occupied by the clubhouse, swimming pool,
basketball and tennis courts, and playground area for Walnut-Grove Village -_
Manufactured Home Park. Those lots would have been lower than the
street, so we decided to put up a block wail in that area.
At the public hearing, the question of aesthetics was brought up regarding
Lots 9 and 53, so we agreed to put up the wall on these lots so that the wall
matched the wall on the other side. Later, the land south of New Haven
Road was deeded to Walnut Grove Village.
The Richard Stevens Co. was hired to have the entire wall requirement
removed. This was done i'or all the area south of New Haven Road.
Unfortunately the wall requirement for Lots 9 and 53 still remains.
We would like to plant a sold photinia hedge on Lots 9 and 53, per the
landscape plan, instead of the block wall. We feel this would blend in nicely
and have a softer appeal.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Van Wey Homes Inc. Key West Properties
,, ._ 23
Mi4~Nth i rl stitvNb~
~ rrn ¢.E F`CLav~1~
_.~
T7
G
~\
k
3J74G~GMarrtl C~iPU-I
t ' 1z"I.~UPe2
5161.1
r r
~~
9
\~~`~~~
21 PI-16T1tJ it
2l~at._
24
d-
~' ~ °~~a
~~~~.
+I = _ ~"~°
~~`
~~ ~ _
~. i
I
(~i 53
'J ~7iL4UEM~h1711 i5 ~EC)~
~ ~ ~i~~ ~U f,:L
ANNIYt~ CoL~-- - - -
- -~-
~ r<<o~~i~ ~~~5~~
~~~
., ., 2 5 ~,n~~~~,
T YPiC,~ CNO~N~A CJ~~/~i7oty
~NNUht
2 I PNb11N IA ~ CA~i
~~~~
...~ ~ R
City of CentYal Point
PIANNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Community Ptanner
Matt Samitore
Planning Technician
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: January 11, 2000
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
NATURE OF MEETING
February i, 2000
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
C1ty of Central Point
~.~~~~~T ttB, tt
Planning Depu-tment
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an
request to modify certain conditions of approval for the New Haven Estates subdivision. The
affected lots are located in a R-1-8, Residential Single Family Zoning District on Jackson County
Assessment Plats 362W36CD, Tax Lot 3400 and 372WOiBB, Tax Lot 800.
The applicants would like to install a screening hedge instead of the block wall that was previously
approved by the Planning Commission.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for Tentative Plans and Site Plan Review are identified in Chapters 16 and 17 of
the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan,
Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's
Public Works Standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit
written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February I , 2000.
2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155
South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 • Fax: (541) 664-6384
3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the
expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about
the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated
clearly to the Planning Commission.
4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City
Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at
15 cents per page.
5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-
3321 ext. 291.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE
At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, heaz
testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and heaz azguments on the request. Any
testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of
the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the requested modifications. City
regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission
decisions.
28
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
City ol'Ccntral Point
Plmv:ing Commission Minutes
April G, 1999. Page 4
CYty of Central soffit
I+;~:HII~IT «C"
D. Public hearing to consider a site plan introduced b~ Planning Department
existing 5508 square foot apartment building to resident
subject property is located in the vicinity of I aurel Street in the R-3 Residential
Multiple Famil zy oninf' district
Mr. Humphrey presented the staff report for the Planning Department. 1 fe explained that
the relocation of an eight unit apartment complex to the vicinity of Tenth and Laurel Streets
is to accommodate the Rite Aid development on East Pine Street. A lot line adjustment will
need to be completed prior to the move to ensure set back requirements are met.
Mr. Brennan presented the staff report for the Public Works Department. He stated that
Jackson County Fire District No. 3 is requesting a hammerhead turnaround or access to
another street. They would also like Mr. Sullivan to move the stairs on the South East
portion of the building to the south end of the building allowing more room for emergency
vehicles to maneuver in the pazking area.
Commissioner Piland opened the Public Hearing.
Michael Sullivan, 4303 Tami Lane, Central Point, addressed the Commission and stated he
agreed to the hammerhead turn around. There was discussion of additional landscaping
along the Tenth Street access, and parking requirements.
Commissioner Lunte made a motion to conditionally approve Planning Commission
Resolution No. 445, approving a site plan to relocate an existing apartment building to
the vicinity of Tenth and Laurel Streets subject to the conditions of staff reports with
amendments to moving one set of stairs to the south end of the building, the additional
landscape requirements, and providing a hammerhead turnaround for emergency
vehicles or other alternative access. Bob Gilkey seconded. ROLL CALL: Motion passed
unanimously.
E. Public hearing to consider a request by Van Wev Homes and Kev West Properties to
reconsider a requirement for the construction of a concrete block wall along the Hamrick
and Vilas Road frontages of New Haven Estates subdivision. The subject property is
located in the R-I-8 Residential SinPle Familv zoning district.
Mr. Humphrey presented the staff report for the Planning Department stating that initially
the Planning Commission approved the Tentative Plan for the New Haven Estates
Subdivision in November, 1997. On January 20, 1998, the Commission approved an
amendment to the subdivision resulting in additional acreage for Walnut Grove Village
allowing space for recreational vehicle storage along Vilas Road. As a requirement to the
approval of the storage area an original condition for a masonry wall was kept along the
frontage of both developments. In May 1998, additional changes were made to Walnut
Grove Village authorizing the relocation of the RV Storage area creating a Clubhouse and
park area along Vilas Road and allowing a vinyl fence to replace the masonry wall around
., .. 2 J
City of Central Point
PlannineCommission Minutes
April 6, 1999, Page i
that area. The applicants are now asking the Commission to amend the Public Works
condition for a concrete block wall and allow in its place a vinyl fence along Vitas/[ lamrick
frontage similar to the one constructed in the Central Point East Subdivision.
Mr. Brennan explained that the original requirement for a block wall was to create a sound
barrier and provide protection from increasing traffic on Vitas Road.
Herb Farber, Fazber Surveying, 120 Mistletoe, Medford OR, explained that a sound barrier
wall would not be practical for the amount of wall that is now required along lots 9 and 53.
He stated that it would look more uniform if they could match the other vinyl fencing along
Vitas and Hamrick Roads.
Mr. Brennan clarified the frontage in question and stated that there were other lots beside lots
9 and 53 that were part of the development.
Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to extend beyond 10:00 p.m. Paul Lunte seconded.
All said aye.
Tim Whitten, 164 %2 West Vitas Road, Central Point, inquired about the fencing along the
east property line of New Haven Estates.
Chuck Francis, 164 West Vitas Road, Central Point, also inquired about the fencing along
the East property line. He is concerned with animals going under a vinyl fence.
Commissioner Piland explained that the fence along the east would be at the discretion of
the new property owners.
Closure of the Public Hearing portion.
Commissioner Lunte stated that the original reasons for sound and safety aze still viable
reasons for requiring a block wall. He also stated that when the attached lots begin to
develop the commission could require block walls along those to secure the area with a
sound barrier.
Bob Gilkey made a motion to deny the request by Van Wey Homes and Key West
Properties to reconsider a requirement for the construction of a concrete block wall
along the Hamrick and Vitas Road frontages of New Haven Estates subdivision. The
subject property is located in the R-1-8 Residential Single Pamily zoning district.
Candy Fish seconded. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
Update on Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
30
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1998 -Page 3
CSty of Cents! Point
~-~'HII3IT ttTj tf
Piannin~ Deparhn~t
privacy, (5 potential deterioration of the Merritt building itself b- e- cause of
exhaust, vib tion and possible collision, (6) Issue of ety on the particular
corner which i congested because of proximity of ighway 99. Mr.
Shearer requeste a 10 toot setback between th driveway and their
residence and requ ted that the driveway cut e 40 foot from Pine Street.
Mr. Casey stated that cross the street fro the Merritt building on two
sides, are businesses th have much to er hours of operation and
generate noise, light and hicle traffi They originally considered an
attractive wall to deflect th lights.
Commissioner Gilkey made a ion to adopt Resolution 421 approving the
application to position a mobi spresso cart near the intersection of East
Pine and North First Street mcl ing all conditions of the staff report and
adding the following: The pelican shall enter into a maximum of five-year
Deferred improvement greement f a 6 foot sidewalk; a standard
driveway approach s II be installed for to occupancy with a 40 foot
setback from Pine eet and a ZO foot adius in the alley; a pitched roof on
the espresso cart• mplement a landscape plan using wine barrels; aone-
way, 12-foot dr' eway northbound with di ctional arrows; surface water
drainage shall a controlled so it will not dra on the street, alley, sidewalk
or remain o the property; hours of operation al( be 5:45 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. Co issioner Fish seconded the motion. OLL CALL: Fish, yes;
Foster es; Gilkey yes; Johnson, yes.
Chairman Piland declared a recess at 9:47 p.m.
Chairman Piland opened the meeting again at 9:57 p.m.
B. Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Tentative Plan for the
Walnut Grove Manufactured Home Park
Chairman Piland opened the public hearing. There was no ex-parte
communication or conflicts of interest.
Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report.
,/~ Richard Stevens, P. O. Box 4368, Medford, OR, representing the applicant,
stated that this is an amendment to an approved manufactured home park.
The proposal is to exchange the open space designated for the park and the
R.V. Storage area. The R.V. Storage area would then be in the middle of
the middle of the project for more security and the park would be on
Hamrick Road. The proposal will add 7 additional lots to the manufactured
home park, however, 7 residential lots have been lost from New Haven
Subdivision. He stated that they recognize the previous conditions and
31
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1998 -Page 4
continue to accept those in the approval process. They had considered a
masonry wall, but that will be replaced with a 6 foot chain link fence with
green slats. Given the park and other changes, the masonry wall is no
longer needed.
Commissioner Fish suggested that all along Hamrick Road the fence at the
park should be made up of corner posts so that if a car goes out of control
the fence will catch the car.
Wayne Christian, 2821 Bullock Road, Medford, OR, agent for the applicant,
stated that the area along Hamrick will be raised to the level of the
roadway.
Sam Inkley, 5055 Gebhard Road, Central Point, stated that he circulated a
petition to those families on Gebhard Road and he entered the petition into
the record. The petition stated that the neighbors would like to see a
maintenance gate on the entrance from Gebhard Road so traffic will not go
through the park and out onto Gebhard Road. It is a farm road according to
Jackson County, not a secondary road.
Jerry May, 5098 Gebhard Road, Central Point, Or, stated that he feels a 6
foot, chain link fence will not be enough buffer or security. Children will be
able to get over that fence into his farm and orchard. He will also be
spraying the trees and the spray will filter through the fence. Mr. May
wanted to make sure the covenants include a "right to farm" clause for the
neighbors.
Mr. Stevens and Mr. Christian stated that the issues raised in Mr. Inkley's
comments were addressed at a previous commission meeting and they are
not an issue now. They also stated that Mr. May does have a right to farm
however, he is next to land designated for urbanization. Mr. Christian
stated that they are required to plant a tree on each lot and may look into
planting more trees on the lots next to Mr. May's property to give a visual
buffer.
Commissioner Fish suggested that the lease agreements with the tenants
should include a statement that there are farming activities behind them and
there may be spraying.
Tom Humphrey stated that the City has an agreement with Jackson County
concerning a buffer between farm land and the land in the city limits. There
are several buffer options that can be considered which include special
setbacks adjacent to urban growth boundaries, acquisition of land by public
agencies, lower densities at the periphery of the urban growth boundary,
~, . 3 2
Cate of C~itraj Puirf i
CTTI' OF CENTRAL POINT EXIiIBTT ttE tr j
Planning Commission Muwtes ~ ~ Planning Department
January 20, 1995 -Page 2
Skyrman stated tha he did not realize the significance of this until others
mentioned the size, th Ilergens and the leaf drop of these particular trees.
Karolyne Johnson came in~t 7:20 p.m.
Mr. Skyrman stated that he uld be satisfied only the Photinia Hedge.
He would like for them to re ove the trees r replace them with a much
smaller tree, possibly a Golden ingko.
Carl Skyrman, Lucille, Idaho, broth
practicing landscape architect. He
the trees is the size. It is not a
sidewalk, curb or paving because
and would severely impact the ei
any water pipes underground
to .Wally Skyrman, stated the he is a
t ed that one of the biggest issues with
e to put in a confined area, next to a
h root system. It puts out a lot of shade
~e. The root system would also damage
Shannon Bennett, Jacksgr(ville, Or, state that the Golden Gingko is a very
good tree, but they nee to specify mate t es rather than female trees.
Commissioner Du p made a motion tat the Planning Commission
recommend that Oregon State Police remov the London Plane trees a.k.a.
Bloodgood Syc ore trees on the north side o the property, let the Photinia
hedge grow a ugh to cover the fence area, and, the State wants to replace
the trees, re ace them with a smaller tree, posstbl a Golden Gingko. Motion
was seco ed by Commissioner Johnson. ROLL :Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes;
Foster, as; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes.
B.
Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. New Haven
Estates would eliminate Lots 1 through 7 south of New Haven Road and
transfer ownership to the Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park via a lot line
adjustment. There are a few areas of concern: (1)There is a 15-foot
easement proposed for access from the mobile home park to the RV storage
area. The City feels it needs to be a 20-foot easement and the Fire District
concurs; (2) if the entrance to the RV storage area (s gated and locked, the
Fire District would like to have a lock box on it or some kind of device so they
have access to it; (3) This area would be for RV storage only and there would
be no occupancy allowed in any vehicle in that area; (4) This area was to have
33
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Ivfiriutes
January 20, 1998 -Page 3
a masonry sound wall when it was a part of the New Haven Estates
subdivision. The applicant has assured the City they would still build the sound
wall and would continue it around the R.V. storage area along New Haven
Road all the way up to the entrance of the mobile home park so that it would
be completely screened from the roadway. The City would Tike a minimum
height of 8 to 10 feet for the wall to adequately screen the R.V.'s.
Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, stated that there is a visibility issue with the
masonry wall and it might be an appropriate location for an entry sign or
landscaping with low shrubs.
Herb Farber, 120 Mistletoe Street, Medford, OR, agent of record for New
Haven Estates, stated there will be no problem with giving a 20-foot easement.
There is enough space to accommodate that.
Commissioner Fish stated that there has to be an adequate sight triangle at the
intersection of New Haven Road and Hamrick Road.
Herb Farber stated that the mobile home park would be responsible for
dedicating, by deed, the 20-foot additional right-of-way for Hamrick Road. The
engineering and design for the intersection, road improvements, and the wall
will have to be reviewed and approved by the engineering department to make
sure that the sight triangle is free and clear. It is the intent of the applicants
to do some landscaping along the wall when it is built. The applicants have
stipulated that they are willing to build an 8-foot wall and whatever style is
chosen will be used for all of the frontage of both the mobile home park and
subdivision. He stated that on tots 15, 16, 17 and 18 they dropped one lot
and changed the alignment of the lot lines.
Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 412, amending
Resolution 403, approving the following modifications to the Tentative Pian for
New Haven Estates: 1) Lots 1- 7 and Lot 15 are eliminated; 2) Lots 8 - 14 are
renumbered Lots 9 - 15; 3) Lots 16 - 18 are reconfigured and will require
driveways that are curved to provide proper access to Hawthorne Way; 4) The
20-foot dedication of street right-of-way along Hamrick Road for Lots 3 - 7 is
removed contingent upon transfer of ownership of Lots 1 - 7 to the Walnut
Grove Village Mobile Home Park and completion of a lot line adjustment.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Fish. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish,
yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes, Johnson, yes.
34
New Haven Fstatet. Tentative Plan
PWD Stq//'Report
October 1, 1997
Page 1
City of C'entril E'oitf
E~HIET3' t:F tt
Planning Department
the additional flows and7~r demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the
affected fadlity, as appro d by (as applicable), the regulatory agency, utility owner, andlor property owner
involved.
4. Master Plans: Thornton Eng Bering (Thornton) has submitted to the City preliminary master plans (dated
July 9, 1997, and hereinafter re ed to as the 'Northeast Central Point Master P ns') for the proposed
development and neighboring pro rties. These preliminary master plans end e a stone drain master
plan (mapping of stone drainage b ins and proposed primary off-site conve nce fadlities), sanitary
sewer master plan (mapping service yeas and proposed alignments of trunk conveyance lines), and
a water master plan (identifying a pro sed layout of main [12-inch-diam er and larger) water distribution
lines). The City PWD is currently world with Thornton on the refine nt and adjustment of the noted
items, and will continue to work with Tho ton and the affeded Deve rs on the design refinement and
implementation of the master plans throug the development in the oted service areas. The Developer
shall provide plans for City approval of sto drain collection, ret lion, and conveyance fadlities, the
sanitary sewer colledion and conveyances tern, and the wat distribution system which address the
items noted in the master plans and which i ude allowance for the flows or demands of the proposed
development, any existing demands or flows, nd any futur evelopment on neighboring properties, as
noted on the Northeast Central Point Master P ns and/or n other master plans prepared by the affected
utilities or other regulatory agendes.
5. WaterDlstributlon System and New Waterhfa to eter. The Developer shall design and construct, at
the Developer's expense, the large diameter (12-i i-diameter and larger) waterlines that will be aligned
through the proposed subdivision, in accordance h the Northeast Central Point Water Master Plan being
developed. The City will reimburse the Develo r (i the form of credits against water SDCs) for the
material's price difference (as bid to the City), r pip nd appurtenances with diameters larger than 8-
inches~diameter that are required by the Ci o be ins sled as part of the proposed development.
The proposed development and sureoun ng developme t v
meter (induding a suitable connection the Medford Wa r
associated appurtenances) to be ins led on the north sid
Roads. The Devek>per shall work the City DPW and
development and installation of meter. It is the City's tnl
of this and other currently appro development, and to be
surrounding land owners, Bet fined on a per acre of Bevel
ill require the installation of a new water master
Commission's water main line, and other
~f the comer intersection of Hamrick and Ylas
Medforci Water Commission on the
rt to have this master meter installed as part
tailed at the expense of the Developer and
>p nt basis as established by the City.
6. ~hfs-of--Way and Eas r e s: Provide dedication for expanse n of the right-of-way along Hamric~ias
Roads to 100-feet in wed (50-feet each side of centerline). Pro a suitable and acceptable easements
for any public works inf strudure located outside the public rights f-way. A separate 10-foot minimum
width public utilities a ement (P.U.E.) should also be required outs a the HamriduVlas Road right-of-way
for utility installation he City PWD is also recommending that a mi um 20-foot-wide City/BCVSA utility
easement (with a II weather surtace) be aligned between Rabun Wa and the property to the north,
somewhere be Ben bts 196 and 202, to facilitate City/BCVSA utilities connection (in possible combination
with bicycle an pedestrian access) with future development to the north.
7. Landscape Buffers: As part of the proposed development, to provide for noise attenuation and a visual
buffer along the secondary arterial roads that border the proposed development, it is the City PWD's
recommendation that the Developer provide designs for and be required to implement a City and JC Roads
approved landscape plan, which, at a minimum, indudes a landscaped buffer consisting of irrigated
landscaping and sidewalks along the applicable portions of the HamrickNlas Road rights-of-way that
border the proposed development from the southwesterly comer of Lot No.7 to the easterly property
r,
35
New Haven Estates. Tentative Plan
PWD Staff Report
October 1. 1997
Page 3
extension of Lot No. 8, and from the westerly end of improvements at the intersection of Naples Drive and
Vilas/Hamrick Road to the easterly end of Lot No. 53. It is recommended by the City PWD that a suitable
sound wall be required to be constructed by the Developer on the proposed development's property along
the applicable portions of Hamrick~las Road, for sound attenuation purposes.
8. Traffic Study. A study entitled `Traffic Impact Study for Walnut Grove Villag ew Haven Estates" dated
August 5, 1997, prepay by Hardey Engineering and Associates, Inc (here' after referred to as "Traffic
Study") was received by City on October 2, 1997. City PWD staff hav not had adequate time to
thoroughly review The Tra Study; nor has the City received any Comm nts from JC Roads staff
regarding the Traffic Study. rsory review of the traffic study by City P staff indicated that the Traffic
Study did not include the additi al traffic impacts for future developm t to the east and west of the
proposed development that will h ve access to the proposed develop ent's streets; or for any impacts as
the result of 'cut-through" traffic fr Gebhard Road to Vilas/Hamri Road, through the proposed
subdivision. The Traffic Study shat a revised to include these ad rtional impacts. The developer shall
implement and construct, as applicab ,any associated infrastruc re as recommended in the Traffic
Impact Study and/or as determined by C Roads and the City
9. Collector Sfreet Designation It is the ity's PWD recomme anon that New Haven Road (the portion
between the intersections with Vilas/Ham 'ck Road and Ha orne Way) and Naples Drive (the portion
between the intersections with Vilas/Hamr k Road and Ra n Way), be designated as "collector" streets
as described in the City's comprehensive p n, which shall e provided with a minimum of two travel lanes,
traffic turning lanes as required, and bicycle nes. It is al o the City's PWD recommendation that street
parking would not be permitted on these colle or street with the exception of allowing parking on the
eastern side of Naples Drive. It is also the Ci PWD's ecommendation that no parking restrictions and
bicycle lanes should be provided on Hawthorne ay tween New Haven Road and Savanah Drive.
10. Erosion Control Plan: A suitable erosion cc
construction of any improvements associated
11. Off-S/te Stonn Drainage tnfrastructure: For
outside the City's rightsvf-way or easements, I
documents which contain approvals for the im~
which describe:
12. ~`
^ Who is responsible for the operatio , mainten
maintain the original design pars tern asso<
and maintain the infrastructure, t applicable
improvement district) for the ass ciated City e
O How will access be afforded a~d maintained
facilities;
i must be prepared and implemented for the
development.
drainage infrastructure constructed or improved
per shall provide a suitable document or
n of such connection and/or improvements and
and repair of the infrastructure facilities to
with the infrastructure. If the City is to operate
ng mechanism that will be created (i.e local
to maintain and repair the infrastructure
^ That an easement or other uitable conveyance docu ent has been granted, as necessary, to
provide suitable access o private property for the ins coon, maintenance, and repair work to be
performed on the infrastr lure facilities. The easeme shall include a statement which allows
access by City personn for inspection and maintenanc purposes; and
ff" on rol ev ce t t coon f ew a en oad r les D " e d amr"ck/V'las oad:
A park site has been design ed for development in an area to the utheast of the proposed development.
Pedestrian or bicycle acre to these facilities will require crossing of HamrickNilas Road. The City shall
36
City of Central Point
PI.ANNXNG DEP.A.RTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
' Cftp Of C%PIILra.I }?Qfjxt Planning Director
~~~~~ .t+Gtf Ken Gerschler
Community Planner
Punning Department
_ _ __ Matt Samitore
_: ~ Planning Technician
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: January 11, 2000
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
NATURE OF MEETING
February 1, 2000
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an
request to modify certain conditions of approval for the New Haven Estates subdivision. The
affected lots are located in a R-1-8, Residential Single Family Zoning District on Jackson County
Assessment Plats 362W36CD, Tax Lot 3400 and 372WOIBB, Tax Lot 800.
The applicants would like to install a screening hedge instead of the block wall that was previously _
approved by the Planning Commission. / ~%= ~°
c
~,Z CRITERIA FOR DECISION ~~~~ ~~~6'`-~'~'~'~~1 <~ ~ C~~I`
~ 3 cw. u~,z,4,
The requirements for Tentative Plans and Site Plan Review aze identified in Chapters 16 and 17 of ~ ~
the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street pazking, Site Plan,
Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's
Public Works Standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit
written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February t, 2000.
Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Centrai Point City Hall, i SS
South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
37
155 South Second Strect O Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) G64-3321 • Fax: (54I) 664-6384
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF RrPOR7'
HEARING DATE: February I, 2000
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Modification of the approved site plan for 37 2W 11BB, "1'ax Lot
400 -Tyerman Dental Clinic Building.
Owner/ Curtis L. Tyerman P.C.
Applicant: 57 North Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Agent: CEC
Mr. Pat Havird P.E.
P.O. Box 1724
Medford, Oregon 97501
Pro er
Description/ 37 2W 11BB, Tax Lot 400 - 0.18 acres
ZOn1nE: C-2, Commercial Professional District
Summary:
Last year, the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan for the construction of a 2250 square foot
dental building to be located at the southwest corner of Oak and Fourth Streets. The applicant has
revised the original plan and is requesting that the Commission approve the modifications.
Authority
CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and
render a decision on any application for a Site Plan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in
accordance with CPMC 1.24.060.
Applicable Law:
CPMC 17.36.010 et seq. - C-2, Commercial-Professional District
CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. -Off Street Parking and Loading
CPMC 17.72.010 et seq. -Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval
38
Discussion:
On November 2, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan that would allow the
construction of a new dental office on a vacant lot located at 348 Oak Street in the C-2, Commercial-
Professional District.
The developer's engineer has requested that the Planning Commission permit modifications to the
approved site p1an.The revised site plan (Attachment "A")shifts the building footprint towards the
reaz alley while relocating all nine parking spaces to the front of the building. The resulting
configuration could reduce the cost to the developer since the alley would not likely require
significant improvement. This has not been confirmed by the Public Works Department. The
pazking azea would be positioned out of the clear vision azea required in the public works standards
and would offer increased vehicle maneuverability for employees and patients. The ten foot Public
Utility Easement along Oak and Fourth Streets and is proposed to be reduced to five feet in width
for the portion of the easement adjacent to the building.
The trees located in the public Rights of Way on Oak Street will not need to be removed and will
be integrated into the applicant's landscaping plan.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the changes and prepazed recommendations for on and
off site improvements which are believed to be reasonably related to the proposed development.
These include, but are not limited to; driveway aprons, sidewalk improvements; site grading and
drainage; on-site lighting; paving and utility (water, sewer and storm drain) connections.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law:
Site Plan Review
In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision
on the following standards from Section 17.72.040:
A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause
the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such
a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing
neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the maintenance of existing plants or the
installation of new ones for purposes of screening adjoining property.
^ The applicant previously submitted a landscape plan for the project. The new
configuration will allow the existing oak and elm trees to remain on the adjoining
R.O.W. Various shrubs are proposed along the perimeter of the property and around
the building.
\\CPPDPDC\Planning\99053c. WPD
~~- 3 9
B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid
interference with the traffic flow on public streets;
A new access is proposed from 4th Street with curb side pedestrian access from both
Street. The alley access to the parking area has been eliminated.
C. To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in
such a manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable
of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traff c flow on public
streets;
^ Nine (9) parking spaces have been proposed and granted through the variance process
for this project. The revised site plan depicts the parking area to be positioned in the
front of the building rather than split between the front and back.
D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter
from traffic control signs or devices and that they are compatible with the design of their buildings
or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs;
^ No signage has been proposed at this time however the applicant will be required to
apply for a sign permit and submit his plans to the City prior to any sign installation.
Any signage located in the sight vision area will not be allowed to exceed 42 inches in
height.
E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the
reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads
and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises aze accessible to fire apparatus;
^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any requirements of Jackson County Fire
District 3.
F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations;
The proposed construction will meet the minimum setback requirements for the C-2,
Commercial Professional District. The Public Works department has allowed the
Public Utility Easement to be reduced from 10 feet wide to 5 feet wide immediately
adjacent the building along Fourth Street.
G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in
relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs.
^ The proposed structure is similar in architecture to other structures located within the
C-2, Commercial Professional District including both residential and commercial
buildings.
\\CPPDPDC\Plamting\99053 c. WPD
40
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the modifications to the Site Plan subject to the
recommended conditions of approval; or
2. Deny the proposed modifications to the Site Plan; or
3. Continue the review of the proposed Site Plan modifications at the discretion of the Commission.
Attachments
A. Original and Revised Site Plans
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Revised Conditions of Approval from November 2,1999 Staff Reports.
D. Letter from Dr. Tyerman dated January 25, 2000 designating Pat Havird to act as agent.
\\CPPDPDC\Planning\99053c. W PD
,, ., 41
ppgp~ED S~.,rE pL,AN
A
~1 :111 11 C I I c°~~~~~~~~ ~.
! ~~11 <GCC~ i
`11 pl 5115 }`~ ii
1 p` 11j]1 1 1 1, 1 ~(~;~16~~
sii~~~~~{~~: ~~ ~~~~~ ~
4q 3~
i~~
f ~~ ~ ~ q
t~~~ ~ S ,
~~{~ ~ ~ .
! ~ a ~'
~;
~~
~~,~ ~
><
~~
1
a
qty of ~~' ~~~ et _.----
p~a~tng DeP
u _ _. , ~"
~ a„~T _--
~-
~~ _ \
~S
t \
~_` _1~ 'i ~, n ~ 1
_~~ .%
~~~~g{~xgy-~i~4~~';~i~R4~y r 111 ;\ tl~;• ijli ! 11
of ~~ 'i ~~4_E zz2''~~~~~~ ~~~'41:i -f-.._ 1 ~ t ~"~:~ ._ PI g i I
~~ ~ ~ t ~~iS a~~F~}}~ *`6§`j{~
~°~t ~i~~ia6 p1
~{ ~ ~~~ ~
~i x x ~,
~t, ~~~~ ~
~~ ~;~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~ ~s
€ ~ ~ ~>~ ~e
~It x~'
~; ~ ~ :~
~~ ~ ~ t~
c ~r
~a
9
Y~
~_
')
~.-J
~,
1"1
a
a
W
l
r~
W
FpURTH SiREE7
SITE PLAN ~~
SCALE 1/0' 1'-0' xpR iH
(.,,,~w ~. ,.(<
Y
a
0
< _..
SITE STnTSiICS. _
SITE AREA. ~ )GO SF IGO'r.
BLDG. AREA. 2.250 S.F 25'/.
UM Hl PA6'K INL - I JI ALI
OO CMPLOYEE PAkK1Nts 6 STALLS
U CUSTOMEk PARKINCs 3 STALLS
ipTAl PARKING 9 STALLS
LEGEND
6' FENCE cSTYLE ip 6E SELEC TED BY pvrvEk
LANDSCAPING (Tp BE SELECTED BY pu NEk)
-u- IkRIGATIpN DRIP LINE
Z W A
RH. ~.
N NQ
}
(" Y C
OO
~_bi
W~Wg
~_
b~
~~
~<
~W~W
ti0~t+
!J
:~
~._
!;
---
< ~o
i- ~
~j 1/~ m
}F Y~
W 00
mUf[b2
~py2~~
.] > <
~~~~
VP~V
WEST ELF Eva, iION ,
i`i:k
. ~,.~ .: ", m ~ a..
NORTHNORTH ELF Oak StJ
EAS TEASi ELE~ <4 th StJ
SOUTH EL~TVATION (Alley)
City of Central Point
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Community Planner
Matt Samitore
Planning Technician
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: January 11, 2000
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
February I, 2000
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
NATURE OF MEETING
Qty of Central Point
EXHIBIT itB tf
Planning Department
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an
request to modify certain conditions of approval for the proposed Tyerman Dental office building
at 348 Oak Street. The subject lot is located in a C-2, Commercial Professional Zoning District on
Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W 11BB Tax Lot 400.
The applicants are requesting a modification that would shift the location of the proposed building
towazds the reaz alley.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for Tentative Plans and Site Plan Review are identified in Chapters 16 and 17 of
the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street pazking, Site Plan,
Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City.'s
Public Works Standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit
written comments up until the close ofthe meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 1, 2000.
2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155
South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
A ~
3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior te.the
expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about
the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated
clearly to the Planning Commission.
4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant aze available for public review at City
Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at
15 cents per page.
5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-
3321 ext. 291.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE
At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear
testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear azguments on the request. Any
testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of
the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the requested modiftcations. City
regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission
decisions.
U
~~~~
~~ ~ ~~
~ ~~~~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~
~a~~~o
~~b~t Property
~ ~~ ~~~ ~
~~~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~~
o~~~~
A `/
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541)A664-3321 • Fax: (541) 664-6384
J .. ~ A
ATTACHMENT C
RECOMMENDED PLANNING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on February I, 2001 unless an
application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the
City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and
approved at the public hearing within 30 days of Planning Commission approval.
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations .
The project must meet the off-street parking requirements for professional offices, and the
parking, access and maneuvering areas shall be paved with durable materials for all-weather
use and approved by the Public Works Department
4. The applicant shall submit detailed landscape, irrigation and lighting plans for review by the
Planning and Public Works Departments.
5. Any signs installed an the site will require a sepazate building permit.
VACPPUPDCAPlamm~g199053c WPD
Attachment D
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
J915 SOUTH PACIFIC HWV. • MEOFOfi D, OREGON 47601-4099 • (5!1( 779-{f/• FAX (5!1(5755278
August 4, 1999
Ken Gerschler
City of Central Point Planning Department
l55 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Subjc-ct: 99053 SPR - Tyem~an Building
Dear Ken,
We have reviewed the proposal with regazd to providing sanitary sewer service. There is an
existing 8 inch HDPE sanitary sewer in Oak and a 15 inch PVC sewer in 4`h Street. A 6 inch
service line is stubbed near the Westerly property line on Oak Street. The service connection to
the proposed building should be located and routed around the existing tree at that lot comer.
Have the applicant contact BCVSA for connection and permitting information.
If you need additional information, please call me at 779-4144.
Sin e
James May, Jr. P.
District Engineer
4B
u~~sr~
COMMUNICATIONS
Tuesday, August 24, 1999
City of Central Point
155 S. 2"d Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
ATTN: Ken Gerschler
RE: Planning Commission meeting on September 7, 1999:
AUG ~, 0 1999
U S West does not have a problem with the Tyerman building or the Mountain View
Plaza Land Partition as long as a 10 foot P.U.E. is attained for alt street frontages for the
Tyerman project. We would like to see a IS-foot P.U.E. along all street frontages for
Mountain View Plaza Land Partition.
Any questions can be referred to myself at 132 W. 4`s St. Medford, Oregon 97501,
Tel # 541-776-82,65.
Yours truly,
Mike Shannon
49
PlJ'Ah`1MEN7 U1 /~(/L3Ll(; tNC11~i~~
STAf=F REPOf2]
for
Tyerman Dental Clinic f~ff8C~111]t'tlf (;
348 Oak Street
Convnerciaf Faciiity Site Plan
PW~99053
Date:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Agent:
Project:
Location:
Legal:
Zoning: '
Plans:
Report 8y:
Purpose
September 14, 1999
Curtis L Tyerman, P. C,, 57 North 2"' Street, Central Point, bR 97502
Same as Applicant
Steven G. Sherbourne, 29 South Grape Street, Medford, OR 97501
Dental Clinic Building
348 Oak Street (SW comer of Oak and 4'" Streets)
T37S, R2W, Section 1188, Tax t_ot 400
C-2
Site Plan w/building elevations submitted by Pacific Pioneer Oesign Group,
dated 6/28/99
Paul W. Worth, Public Works Technician
Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer")
regarding Public Works standards and additional standards and requirements to be included in the
design. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding proposed development.
Special Requirements
Oak Sfreef and Fourth Sfreef lmprovemenfs:
Sidewalks: tt is recommended that the Developer be required fo construct new 6-foot wide
curbside sidewalks, wheel chair ramps and driveway aprons meeting City PWD standards
along the Oak Street frontage. Developer should also be required to remove and replace the
existing sidewalk on the 4"' Street frontage with a new 5-foot wide sidewalk, separated by the
existing landscape strip between the curb and sidewalk. The landscaped strip on 4"' Street
and the Right-of-Way (ROW) behind the Oak Street sidewalk shall be planted and maintained
in compliance with Cify Ordinances and PWO standards.
2. Alley Imnrovemenfs: The alley along the southern boundary of the property is unimproved.
The plans indicafe that there will be parking movements that will take access off fhe ai(ey,
which will result in backing and turning movements in the alley. This is prohibited in the City's
Municipal Code under Section 17.64,100 (E) (3).
If access will be taken from the alley to the property, then it is recommended fhat the
Developer be required to improve the alley to current PWD standards. Typically this requires
a minimum of a 3-inch fhickness of Class B asphalt over 6-inches of 3/4-inch-minus base rock
and 8-inches of 4-inch-minus sub-base rock. Woven geotextile fabric is required to be placed
ovedaying the subgrade. The broken concrete alley apron and sidewalk will also require
removal and replacement to current PWD standards. Construction of the alley apron to
current standards vrill require that the existing catch basinlinlet be relocated to the north
~~, 50
,G'JYrmh~. if lJJJ
I'a\•< f
Ci Cfl Cfdl
Deve/opmenf P/ans. Developer shall submit to the City's PWD for review and approval,
engineered plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or
modifications within lfle City or public rights-of-way and easements or (or connections to City
infrastructure. Plans shall show all existing utilities and City facilities, existic~g contours,
property lines, benchmarks and other physical site information needed for review. All plans
submitted for PWD review shall be presented in a common engineering scale sized to fit on
24- by 36-inch, O size drawing sheets. PWD requires 3 sets of plans for review purposes.
Public improvements include, but are not limited to, streets (including sidewalks, curbs and
gutters and landscape buffers); alleys; storm drainage and sanitary sewer collection and
conveyance systems; water distribution system (up to the service meter and including fire
protection); street lighting; and traffic control devices, street signs, and delineation. All
construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the
conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special
specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as may be approved by the City
Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed
development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in
writing by the Developer's engineer to the Cify PWD for approval prior to installation.
Approvals: Fire District No. 3 (fire hydrant placement, wafer(ine sizing, and emergency
vehicle access), Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA, for sanitary sewers), and City
of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (commercial/industrial wastewater discharge
permit) written approval of construction plans shall be submitted to the City PWD prior to final
construction plan review and approval by City PWD.
As-Bui/fs: Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or
surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the
Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form
(produced on Mylar°) and in a 'digital" format compatible with AutoCAD®, or other form as
approved by the City PWD.
As-built drawings are fo be provided to the City which provide 'red-line" changes fo final
approved construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of
actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot
elevations identified on drawings; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer
lateral; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet; street light locations; other
below grade utility lines; etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on Mylar°), or an approved
alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD°
compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to
acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development,
or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee.
E/evafions: All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on
the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be
so noted on the plans
52
„ ,
..
:, Ears(rng hrlrasrruchrm ns apphcablc. held vcnfy all exisluiq mfra5lnuaure clevalrons and
focatrons (i e pipe inverts, curb elevations, street eleva(~ons, etc ), to which the proposed
development wtll connect mlo exis(rng improvements, pnor to final constructron plan design
and submr((al (or final approval The accurate locations of any existing underground and
above ground public rn(rastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these
facilities, shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) on tfie construction
plans
6 Fil/ Placement- All fill placed in the development shall be engineered fill That is suitably placed
and compacted in accordance with Cily PWD and tuilding Department standards, except for
the upper 1.5-feet of fill placed outside o(public rights-of-way and that does not underlie
building, structures, or traveled vehicular access ways or parking areas.
7 Road/Orivewa~Parkinq Areas: The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils
and determine the access road, parking, and driveway section designs to handle the expected
loads (including fire equipment) to be (raveled on these private driveways, access roads, and
parking areas. Need to provide section for review. The driveways, access roads, and truck
parking and turning areas on the proposed development must be designed and positioned in a
manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO Single Unit
Truck without crossing into an opposing Zane or additional travel Zane of traffic
8. Utility Plans: We did not receive any utility plans for the proposed development. The utility
plans shat{ be drawn to scale with accurate horizontal and vertical depiction of utility lines and
appurtenances (transformers, valves, etc.) As built drawings shall reflect a(I utility
locations; located both above and below ground.
9. Area Li hc~ling P/an' Provide and implement an adequate area lighting plan for parking and
public access areas, including the driveway entrance from 4~' Street, and if applicable, the
alley as may be required by the City PWD. Plans should include the mast height, luminosity
and effective light spread at ground level. Lighting shall be designed so as not to interfere with
vehicle traffic on city streets.
10. Public Utility Easements: A minimum 10-foot wide public utilities easement (PUE) shall be
dedicated on the proposed development for the installation of public utilities and shat( be
located outside the public rights-of-way. At a minimum, the PUE should be aligned along the
exterior boundaries of the property that border 4~' and Oak streets, if a PUE is not currently
present in this area
11 C/ear Vision Areas The site plan indicates that the proposed building is outside the sight-
vision triangle necessary for the alley connection to Oak Street. A 55-foot minimum sight
vision triangle shall be maintained at the property's corner of Fourth and Oak Streets
12 Fire f~dran(s Provide locations of existing and any new required fire hydrants Fire
Hydrants need to be connected (o II-inch-diameter and larger lines If applicable, steamer
ports at hydrants located near (he building shall face the buildings. Fire hydrants shall be
suitably protected from potential vehicle damage and encroar_hmenl
53 ,
/.r<.
1 :l Wafer SVSfem Cross Connecfron Control Developer shall comPlY witlr Dregon f iealilr
Oivrsion (OHD) and City requrements for cross connec0on control Need to know protected
activities and wafer uses for existing and new conuneraal buildings to determine requirements
(or cross connection control and (ire protection t3uilding service will likely regwre a backflow
prevention assembly (o be installed directly behind the City's meter
14 Wafer System Construction drawings shall include fhe size, type, and location of all wafer
mains, hydrants, valves, service connection, meter, service laterals, and other appurtenance
details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD.
15. Sanifary Sewer /ndustriat Discharge Permit If applicable, obtain industrial discharge permit
from City of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (Medford RWRF). Obtain Medford
RWRF's written approval to connect to the sanitary sewer system. Copy of application can be
obtained from City PWD.
iG. Root/Area Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with
positive drainage away from the building Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the
public storm drain system.
17. Gradi~: Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted
on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final
grade contour Tines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width
and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations.
18. Overhead Power Lines: If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US
West, and TCI Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities
within or adjoining the proposed development to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance
by the City PWD of (he public improvements associated with the proposed development. All
agreements and costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to
underground facilities, shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer.
19. Storm Drain System Design: Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this
development plan, the Developer's engineer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of
hydrology and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the site storm drain system.
The engineer shall use the rainfall~ntensity curve obtained from the City PWD for hydrology
calculations, and the negotiated run-off parameters.
54
City of Centtai Point
F,Xj-~jgl`3' ttTj tt
Planning Department
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
To: City of Central Point Planning Department
Re: Proposed Tyerman Dental Building
I would like to formally request that the location of our proposed dental office be moved
south towards the alleyway as per the suggestion of our engineer, Pat Havrid. The
reasons for this move are to consolidate the parking into one area with total handicap
access for both patients and employees, and to avoid using a public alleyway for private
use. The new layout also facilitates the Public Works requirement for onsight stoRn-drain
storage.
I am anxious for the approval of this dental builing, as I look forward to being able to
better serve the communities dental needs.
Sincerely,
~"
~~-~/"f .~-5~a
Curtis L. Tyerman, D.M.D.
55
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: February 1, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
Owner/
Applicant:
Pro er
Descri tion/
Zoning:
Central Point Planning Commission
Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director
Review of a request to extend the tentative plat approval for the Lindsey Meadows
Subdivision.
Richard Voigtman Bob Fellows Construction
4294 East Barnett Road 150 Manzanita Street
Medford, Oregon 97501 Central Point, Oregon 97502
37 2W I ODA, Tax Lots 500, 600 and 700 - 4.03 acres total
R-1-6, Residential Single Family District
Summary: The applicants are requesting that the Commission extend a Tentative Plat approval
for the Lindsey Meadows Subdivision.
Authority:
CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and
render a decision on any application for a `Tentative Plan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given
in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060 (Attachment "B").
Applicable Law:
CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. -Tentative Plans
CPMC 16.12.010 et seq. -Final Plats
CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Single Family District
CPMC 17.72.010 et seq. -Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval
Discussion:
On November 7, 1997 the Planning Commission tentatively approved the 21 iot Lindsey Meadows
Subdivision in the vicinity of Timothy Street and Chicory Lane (Attachment "C"). For reasons
related to infrastructure, the final plat was not filed prior to the one year expiration date designated
in the Central Point Municipal Code. A set of improvement plans was submitted in December 1997
and approved by public works however subsequent work on the site has been limited.
6CPPDPDL7PIann i ng\9703 Rcxtcnsioa W 1'D
56
The applicants are now requesting that the Commission approve an extension that would permit the
project to be built under the requirements ofthe previously approved construction plans (Attachment
"A"). If the extension were to be approved by the Commission, developer Bob Fellows would
ultimately purchase and complete the Lindsey Meadows Subdivision from Richard Voigtman, who
has been involved with the project since inception.
In a letter dated January 4'h, 2000 (Attachment "B" ), "tom Humphrey notified the applicants that
two years have passed since the original plan had been approved (Attachment "D") and that the
Commission has the option to approve or disapprove the extension with the original conditions of
approva( or with an entirely new set of conditions.
Since Daisy Creek flows along the westerly boundary of the project, the applicant has submitted a
revised tentative plan which complies with special setbacks and does not substantially change the
previously approved plan.
If the Planning Commission were to deny the request For extension, an entirely new application for
subdivision would need to be filed with the City.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Final Plats
16.12.010 requires that a final plat application be filed with the City within one year after the
approval of the tentative plan.
The applicant's received a tentative approval from the Planning Commission on
November 7, 1997. This approval has expired however the code is not explicit about
what this means and the City Attorney has said that the Commission may interpret
their role to include granting an extension under the circumstances.
Tentative Plan Approval
16.10.080 recognizes that an approved tentative plan is binding upon the City provided the approved
plan is in substantial compliance with the conditions of approval.
The project is in substantial compliance with the original conditions of approval and
engineering plans have been submitted to the Public Works Department. Since the
tentative plan has expired, the Commission is under no obligation to be bound to the
conditions of the previous approval.
:ACPPUPDCAPlanningV9703Rcxtcnsimi. WPD
. 5'7
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the modifications to the Tentative Plan subject to the
recommended conditions of approval; or
2. Deny the proposed modifications to the Tentative Plan; or
3. Continue the review of the proposed Tentative Plan modifications at the discretion of the
Commission.
Attachments
A. Request for Extension
B. Letter from Planning Director to Applicant
C. Tentative Plans
D. Planning Commission Resolution 404
''ACPPDPDC\PI&nning\97038extcnsion. W PD
58
Cttp of C:enttyu Iaolnf
~~xr~r~r nA
Planning DePartme¢'t
January I t, 2000
City of Central Point
City Planning Commission
155 South Second Street
Central Point, (1R 97502
Please accept our request for an extension of the approval of the tentative plans for the Lindsey Meadows
Subdivision located in Cental Point and described on county assessor's maps as 37 2W 11 b, Tax Lots 500,
600 and 700
The reason for the extension being the subdivision is to be sold to Bob Fellows of Bob Fellows
Constniction. We are in the process of forwarding all data to Mr. Fellows who is wilting and financially able
to finish the project to city standards.
Please see a revised tentative plan on which our surveyor identifies the building envelopes for each lot as per
city request.
Sincerely,
~~~~ , v ~~
Richard Voigtman
59
City of Central Point
Plannin>? Department
Tom yurnphre}°
Plarooing Director
January 4, 2000
Richard Voigtman
4294 East Barnett
Medford, OR 97501
Dear Mr. Voigtman:
City of Centrai Point
~xr~rr~~rr tts ,~
Planning Department
Ken Gerschler
Comntuniry Planner
Man Santirore
Plnnning Technician
I am writing in response to an inquiry you have made about the Lindsey Meadows Subdivision located
in Central Point and described on county assessor's maps as 37 2W 11D tax lots 500, 600 and 700.
A tentative plan for the subdivision was approved by the City Planning Commission on November 7,
1997 and you subsequently submitted development plans that were approved by the Public Works
Department on November 2, 1998. Since that time however there has been little activity on site and
the City has not received a final plat application which is typically required within one year after
approval of the tentative plan.
The question that you have raised is whether or not the tentative plan can be extended, given the fact
that two years have passed since the Planning Commission's original approval. There is no clear
direction given in the municipal code regarding extensions of tentative plans and City staff is clearly not
in a position to interpret the code. Therefore, I have recommended that you request an extension from
the City Planning Commission and be prepared to justify the reasons for your request. It is my
understanding that you are not proposing any changes to the original subdivision layout and that you
wish•to keep the same number of tots originally proposed.
I have told you that if the Commission does authorize an extension you may still be subject to new laws
that have been passed since November 1998. One of these laws includes a special creek setback 25
feet from the top of the creek bank or the boundary of the floodway. Consequently, at the same time
you submit a letter requesting the Commission consider an extension, you should also submit a revised
tentative plan on which your surveyor identifies the building envelopes for each lot, given new setback
requirements. This will ensure that the tentative plan can be implemented as it was originally submitted
and conditionally approved.
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ext. 231 • Fax (541 )664-6384
~. 60
t.cller to Kichar<I Vuigmvm
lanunry J, _'000
Page ?
I want to emphasize that any decision by the Planning Commission to Brant an cstcnsion is purely
discretionary. The municipal code does not guarantee you a nght to an c~lcnsion and the Planning
Conunission could decide to deny your request or defer a decision for extension to the City Council
Once you have provided the City with the above listed intormation the Planning Department will place
your request nn a regularly scheduled Commission agenda. If you have any questions once you receive
this correspondence you may contact me at (541) C64-3321 ext. 230.
Sincerely,
I ---_.
Thomas F, ism hrey, AICP
Enclosure
C: James H. Bennett, City Administrator
Doug Engle, City Attorney
Lee Brennan, Public Works Director
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OIZ r~7S02 ~ (S41) GG4-3321 ext. 231 • hax (541 )h6•~-G384
F1
~_
~ ~ ~~
J
~ ~ ~
O
~.. 1~
~ ~
I c
~~
+~ ~
~..,+a• s 13~.
, f3y~ -_"
~~
~~°`•, ~1335~
rK~: '
~..u
~oic. ~, z
m.~ ~-'-
--'~""`~EpNSUL~~NG ENGINEERING
C KANIMOND~ ~~ E~EFt1tiG
ucao~, (ax (511 ess-zaae
PH (5+1) TT6-331T '"'
~ ~d
OAT 2 ~ 1997'
Cit'{ OF ~~K~ RRl- PQiNrt
T4M~ -..."""_--_..
.'"`..r
i
C~2
GQ
I .
t
i
I
t
4q
1
~,1i~w ~s ^ i.u~v«
vw w. o.
°Mwi-anm woo w. v.
Hu c.
~DSEY Dp$pp 700
37 ENTRAL P NT' pRE~p ~_ 1 "6
TENTA'fN~ZO~..._.
__-----~
`~
~~ .~•
o~ a..~
„., .n.a
us~.,y..r.,a.~,
<~~~
+~ ~.
Kvn a'
cr•t ...-.v'
~.~. ~~... C.C.tr
a~y~ W~Y_.~
C.E G.
TJ9T I9T'~{
~ ~
s ~ ~a.
a x~
~ $3
~~
a
a~
fia
~~
a
s
~ &
': ? CI
x t~~
a.oox~
C ~~
~-
~a~~~
$
~~S A
~
T
s,<
~
y
{r b Y y ~4 ~ ~ 'fS
X
&
'~
'
~
.j ~
C[
C ~
~
~ ~
p
yyy
~
5 O~
~
~~
~
5 ~ ;
~~m- ~. o'~~~33ryry,
JIYN~4~x~ `S~S~«b'88g~
x
Q ~,/
S ~~~
'da t; ~. i
~ ~ a
a~ ;s ~° ° q ~ b b ~§q~~~ `~,N40 ~ Y;`
t
tax ~~'~~ a ~ ~~ ~~/, ~ ~~~
~ E
z
~~K~~
i k#fl ~'
'~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~w I
i g~ a ~ s
i
~~ ~g.z j ~~ ii _ ~ ~i ~ li
w
>.a / ~ ~
qMT tt+~ / .. \ ~~7
ar5'~"eNi ~ s~ \'a'S i
~' x ~ ~ ~ ~ gg I
~ . - -nt 5~ oSaAATvr ~ T _ _ ii 18 ~ y
~ ,~ `: ~ '< ~r ~ i y5f - ~ ~ H
1 b '~
$ ~` r .
x A k
'~ + 3 E^ I :a
$ I ~' ~ I~ ° V ., i ~ ``` ~t ~ ~ G
~°~, J ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ t ~ t i j
a~ L „e,~c¢ 1 ! S° ~ °s I i i L r
~~ I - I I t ' 6 ~5g,,lbv -~
~r'w~~ e>s~ i tiA` -yy1f116 _ ~ae~~ ~ um _
1 ~ p. I ; y, Petri l 6>m - _ ~='~'- ~ ...--- "1
~ ~ ~
~ ~ gN
~~a>~ }s :i _ ~ Bet >' I g_ C 1 Ba Ili - ~
''Jj (~ C l g$
cr E t 1 1 ~ ga i~ I I { IL ^` ' u~ J
I ge 1 ~ J L ~- -~ uee ea»
~ ~ 1^ 1 a i~ ~ L ~ eiw 1
$ ,_,_. eiee ~
i ` ~~
i I nee 5~;s.., } ~
m ~~ i i \ ~ I r~
-i
t ~ r I I z~ 14g'~ ~ ~' I~ li~
nR3 t M I ~ (;, e1 ~ 1&~ I
~~ es I i' i - - t
a ~, 2 ii i ~ ~..
m ~cT
g ax mb
~Y~~~y~/ x('IFi~i »W 5e'N'16N .5N-ri
~~ ~~~)
~~M~ M~'P
~*M}
y
-~ g 3
N
~~
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~_
Qty of central faint
EXHI~I`' `~'I?'E
Planning ~epzrtznent
A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PLAN
FOR LINDSEY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION
(Applicant: Richard Voigtman)
(37 2W 11D Tax Lots 500, 600 and 700)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Nature of Application. This is an application
for approval of a tentative plan for a 21-lot subdivision in an
R-1-6 district of Central Point, Oregon. The Planning Commission
reviewed the application and tentative plan at a duly-noticed
hearing on October 21, 1997.
Section 2. Approval Criteria. The criteria for approval of
this subdivision application are found in CPMC Title 16, relating
to tentative plans and subdivisions, and in Title 17, relating to
zoning and lot sizes.
Section 3. Findings and Conclusions. The Planning
Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. Tentative Plan Requirements. The application and
tentative plan herein are in the correct form and contain all of
the information required for the same under CPMC Chapter 16.10.
B. Area and Width of Lots. The subdivision lots all meet
the R-1-6 district lot size requirements of 8,000 square feet for
interior lots and 8,000 square feet for corner lots. The minimum
width requirements are also met, with interior lots at least 60
feet wide and corner lots at least 70 feet wide.
C. Blocks and Streets. The tentative plan proposal for the
layout and dimensions of streets and blocks is in compliance with
the requirements of CPMC Chapter 16.20 regarding streets and CPMC
Chapter 16.24 regarding blocks.
Section 4. Conditional Approval. The application for
tentative plan approval for the within subdivision is hereby
.approved, subject to the conditions listed on Exhibit "A" hereto,
imposed under authority of CPMC 16.10.090.
Passed by the Planning Commission .and signed by me in
authentication of its passage this ~_ day of ~~»yf,~~t,.r- ,
1997. `
Planning Commission Chairman
1 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. yoy (102797)
~. 64
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this ~ ~ day of ~DU~-M-b~~ ~ 1997.
Planning Commission Chairman
2 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. y oy (102797)
65
EXHIBIT C
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
I. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit to the City a copy of the
proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions (GCBs) for the Lindsey Meadows
subdivision.
2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of affected public agencies and
utilities as they pertain to the development of the Lindsey Meadows subdivision. Evidence
of such compliance shall be submitted to the City prior to final plat approval.
3. The applicant shall comply with alI federal, state and local regulations, standards and
requirements applicable to the development and construction of the Lindsey Meadows
subdivision.
6 ~?
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STAFF REPORT
for
LINDSEY MEADOWS
PW#97038
Date: 10/15/97
Applicant: Richarcl Voightman
4294 East Barnett Road, Medford, Oregon 97501
Agent: Darrell Cooper, 1500 Spring Street, Medford, Oregon 97501
Project: Subdivision
Location: Northwest of Timothy Street and Chicory Lane.
Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 10DA, Tax lot 500
Zoning: R-1-6
lots: 21 total (no phases proposed)
Units: 20 New, one existing
Plans: Lindsey Meadows, Hammond Engineering, revision 3 dated 8-13-97.
Report By: Lee Brennan, Public Works Director
Purpose
Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding
City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and
development of the proposed subdivision. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding proposed
development
Special Requirements
6esldentlaf Lanes: The tentative plan illustrates one street which does not meet the City PWD's current
minimum width requirements and which the City PWD understands is to be a public street (in lieu of a
private road). The tentative plan Illustrates a 20-foot wide right-of-way. In consideration of this plan and the
"infill" conditlons of this subdivision, the City PWD is recommending,the utilization of a new Residential
Lane standard which consists of the following:
^ A 25-foot-wide traveled section, with a 2 percent crown
^ Standard curb and gutters
^ A 2-foot-wide strip located behind the curb for installation of water meter service box
^ Requires a 30-foot-wide right-of-way.
^ Street parking not allowed on residential lanes.
The "hammerhead" design of the turnaround at the southern end of this street needs to be as approved by
the City PWD and Fire District No. 3. The City PWD is also recommending that a 5-foot wide sidewalk
section (with a suitable public ingress and egress easement requirement) would be provided overlying the
pubiio-utility-easement to facilitate pedestrian traffic. The sidewalk would be installed as part of the
development and will be maintained by the property owner, similar to the City's current ordinance
requirement. The City PWD is further recommending that a concrete drive approach (constructed
somewhat similar to a driveway apron) would be required at the intersection with Shanthi Drive; the design
of which would be jointly determined by the Developer and the City PWD.
Exlst/ng Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure
(i.e. street; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not interfere
with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure
6'7
l,vidsry Mendnus
Pli'D Sniff Report
Or/obcr lS, l99°
Page ~
provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form (produced on Mylar~) and in a "digital" format compatible
with AutoCAD®, or other form as approved by the City PWO.
As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved
construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items,
including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings;
road alignment; water lines, valves, and fre hydrants; water and sewer lateral stationing; modifications to
street section; manhole and curb inlet locations; street light locations; other below grade utility line locations
and depths; etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on Mylar®), or an approved alternative format, of
construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD®compatible drawing electronic file to the
City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as
part of the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee.
All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark
shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. At least two
permanent benchmarks shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of which shall be as
jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer
5. If applicable, all existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures, clear and grub materials, and other
deleterious materials shall be removed from the site and either recycled or properly disposed of in
accordance with the requirements of the DEQ.
6. Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable) should be a
minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary
sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and notjust a P.U.E. Centerline of buried
infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five (5) feet from the edge of the easement. If two or more City
owned utilities are located within an easement, then a minimum of 20-foot width should be required.
Easement dedications in fnal deeds or CC&Rs need a statement which should clearly indicate that
easements must be maintained with suitable, driveable vehicular access to City public infrastructure
facilities, as determined by the City PWD.
Prior to the City PWD final approval of the construction plans for the proposed improvements, the following
should be submitted:
^ A copy of written approval from Fire District 3 of the f nal street and water system improvement
plans for the proposed development.
O The plans relating to the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the
appropriate signature blocks should be completed on the plans.
8. Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, top of
banks, ditch/channel inverts, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed subdivision will connect into
existing improvements, prior to fnal construction plan design and submittal for fnal approval.
9. If the proposed development places structures within the 100-year floodzone, the Developer will be required
to explain and provide detail as to what affects will the placement of these structures have on the floodzone;
what affect will the development have on the floodplain elevation and floodzone boundary; and what affects
will the modifcation of the floodplain elevation and floodzone boundary have on the existing and proposed
facilities, and properties surrounding the proposed development. As applicable, the Developer's engineer
shall determine the existing Base Flood Elevation contours and illustrate the existing boundaries of the
floodplain and floodway fora 100-year storm event (commonly referred to as the "Base Flood Event")
68