HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - May 5, 2000City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri14, 2000
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Karolyne Johnson, Candy Fish, John LeGros, Don
Foster, and Wayne Riggs were present. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey,
Planning Director, Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, Kevin Chrisman, Assistant
Engineer, and Matt Samitore, Planning Technician.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
The City received a letter from Fire District No. 3 regarding the placement of a new
fire hydrant for the First Baptist Church. It was determined a new fire hydrant would
not be required.
IV. MINUTES
Commissioner Riggs made a motion to approve the Planning Commission
Minutes from March 7, 2000. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL
CALL: Johnson, yes; Fish, yes; Legros, abstained; Lunte, yes; Foster, yes; and
Riggs, yes.
V. BUSINESS
A. Review a request by the property owners at 2262 Saint James Way to vary
from a maximum fence height of 42 inches in a side yard setback area. The
parcel is zoned R-1-8, Residential Single Family. This item was continued by
the Planning Commission on March 7'h, 2000.
Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department Staff
Report. This item was continued from the March 7, 2000 Planning Commission.
Since that time the Public Works Director and the Building Director went out to the
site to get accurate measurements of the lot. It was determined the side yard
abutting Naples Drive is 10 feet 8 inches from the house to the property line. The
fence would be used for privacy and protection. The Public Works Department is
asking fora 15 feet Vision Sight Triangle to be implemented on the back of the
parcel for any future driveway that maybe added to current underdeveloped lots on
Naples Drive.
The Applicant Mrs. Hadley stated that granting this variance would not be
precedence setting because of the narrowness of their lot. She also stated she
thought the item was already approved, at the last meeting, except for the Sight
Distance Triangle question on the back part of the property.
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri/ 4, 2000
Page 2
Commissioner Fish made a motion to Pass Resolution 480 to vary from the
maximum fence height of42 inches in a side yard setback area because of the
narrowness of the lot and because their fence will be out of any Sight
Distance Triangles. Also based on the findings of fact contained in the record
and subject to the recommended conditions of approval and the Planning and
Public Works Staff Report. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL
CALL: Motion passed unanimously.
B. Review a request by the Independent Baptist Church to add 756 square feet
to the structure located at 320 West Pine Street. The subject property is
zoned R-1-8. This item was continued from a previous meeting by the
Planning Commission.
Tom Humphrey Planning Director presented the Planning Department staff report.
In Novemberof last year, the applicant approached the Commission with a request
to add 756 square feet to the Independent Baptist Church. The item was continued
because it was determined that the existing building was inside the floodway of
Griffin Creek and would have to be moved in order to meet the City of Central Point
requirements for building in a Flood Way. In the past few weeks the church has
been moved out of the floodway and the applicants are requesting a foundation
permit to reorient the old building and to start the construction of the new portion.
Kevin Chrisman, Assistant Engineer presented the Public Works staff report. The
City of Central Point is requesting four feet of additional right of way on Pine Street
as well as a ten foot Public Utilities Easement. Any new road would have to meet
vision sight triangle requirements and be able to meet ASSHTO requirements. The
City of Central Pointwould like to enter into a Deferred ImprovementAgreement for
the length of West Pine Street for when it is widened and improved. The City of
Central Point would also request an engineered storm water plan forthe site as well
as having it paved.
The Applicant Mr. Fred Brown stated that they moved the building 25 feet from the
fence abutting Griffin Creek and 70 feet from the centerline of W. Pine Street and
agrees with all the requirements.
Mr. Gerschler stated he would like to request that the Commission give staff
digression to work with the applicant if any problems arise meeting all of the
requirements.
City of Central Paint
Planning Commission Minutes
April 4, 2000
Page 3
Commissioner Riggs made a motion to pass Resolution 481 approving the
revised site plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval, the
Planning and Public Works Staff Report, and also allowing City of Central
Point staff to work with the applicants if any problems concur when trying
to meet all of the requirements. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously.
C. Public hearing to consider a request submitted by Larry and Gorgiana Dodd
to vary from the minimum front, side and special setback requirements for
the R-1-6 zoning district. The subject property is located at 482 Freeman
Road.
Tom Humphrey Planning Director presented the Planning Department staff report.
The applicant would like to demolish an old home on the property and build a new
home on the parcel. Unfortunately, the Dodd's live on Freeman road which has a
very strict special setback area to accommodate future expansion of this road.
Thus, the setbacks of this new house would make the house legally non-
conforming. There is also an old sewer easement, which cannot be built upon. The
Planning Department is requesting thatthe Planning Commission denythe request
to vary from the special setback area on Freeman Road. The Planning Department
is requesting that only the front yard setback and sight distance triangle be
considered for a variance. The Planning Department also suggests attaching the
new house to the existing garage.
Kevin Chrisman, Assistant Engineer, presented the Public Works Staff Report. The
Public Works Department also recommended that the Planning Commission not
vary from any of the special setback areas on Freeman Road. The Sight Distance
Triangle can be adjusted to help the applicants if that is deemed necessary.
The Agent for the Applicant, Mr. John Curtis, stated that the sewer easement is
there so that a vehicle can service the line if any problem arises with it. The City of
Central Point will have to deal with the detached garage when Freeman Road is
widened since it is legally non-conforming.
The applicant, Mrs. Dodd, stated she would like to know her options
Mayor Bill Walton stated the county recently passed plans to improve Freeman
Road from Mountain View Plaza to Hopkins Road.
Chairman Piland asked fora 5-minute recess so the Agent and Applicant could
discuss their options.
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
April4, 2000
Page 4
Mr. Curtis requested continuing the item so that both applicants can discuss their
options.
Commissioner Fish made a motion to continue the public hearing requesting
to varyfrom the minimum front, side and special setback requirements forthe
R-1-6 zoning district item until the May 2, 20000 meeting. Commissioner Lunte
seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously.
D. Public meeting to consider a site plan submitted by the Grange CO-OP that
would allow for the demolition, renovation and construction of several
buildings for a new increase of approximately 20,000 square feet on site.
The buildings are located in the C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning
district on Jackson County Assessors Plats 372W10AA, Tax Lot 4600 and
372W 11 BB, Tax Lots 7100, and 7400.
Tom Humphrey Planning Director presented the Planning Department Staff Report.
During the last few years, the Grange CO-OP has been in the process of updating
and renovating its facilities in Central Point. The Grange would now like to conduct
a major renovation project that encompasses the warehouse area, phase 1, behind
the Front Street 7-11 store and the retail area, phase II, between Alder and Ash
Streets. The first phase would duplicate an existing warehouse and connect them
with a canopy so that customers can drive underneath the canopy to load large
retail items. The City of Central Point is requesting six feet of sidewalks and six feet
of landscaping along Front Street.
Kevin Chrisman, Assistant Engineer, presented the Public Works staff report. The
Public Works Department is requesting the Planning Commission to allow City staff
to work with the applicants on the Right of Way on Front Street to work out the
problem of grade in regards to landscaping and sidewalks. The City would also
request that the applicants add a streetlight either pole mounted or attaching it to
the building. The City of Central Point is also requesting testing the catch basins
currently in the parking lot to determine where the water flows and also remedy the
storm water problem that currently exists on First Street. The City is requesting that
the applicants build a catch basin and then pipe the waterto the existing catch basin
further south on Front Street.
The Agent for the Applicants Chuck Beck and Russ Batzer stated they would like
to work with the City of Central Point on the Right of Way dedication on Front Street
to work on a plan that will work for both sides and with working out the best way to
handle the storm water.
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
April4, 2000
Page 5
CommissionerJohnson made a motion to pass Resolution 482 approving the
Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval, the Planning
and Public Works staff reports, and that the Applicants be able to work with
the City of Central Point staff on the storm drainage plan and the Right of Way
on Front Street for the landscaping and sidewalks. Commissioner Fish
seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion Passed unanimously.
E. A Public Hearing to review the Tentative Development Plan fora 38 lot
subdivision to be known as the Brookdale Gardens Planned Unit
Development. The proposed subdivision is located in the R-2, Residential
Two Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessors Plats 372W01 C,
Tax Lots 1200, 1300 and 372W01 CA, Tax Lot 3100.
Tom Humphrey Planning Director presented the Planning Department staff report.
The Plan is fora 38 unit Planned Unit Development with one remnant property and
one pocket park. The Applicants and the Planning Department met early in a
Planning Charette to work out some of the problems with the original plan. The only
topographic feature of the site is a large conifer tree, which is now inside the pocket
park. The homeowners association will maintain the Private Park and two private
street segments. The applicant is requesting a change in the front yard setback of
20 feet to 17.5 feet on approximately 9 lots to allow for staggered housing.
Kevin Chrisman, Assistant Engineer, presented the Public Works Staff Report. The
City of Central Point would like to change a 3 feet easement depicted on the site
plan to a 2.5 feet Right of Way, for a total of 45 feet. The Property line would still
be measured from the back of the sidewalk making approximately 25% or 9 lots
unable to meet the requirement of a 20 feet front yard setback. The City of Central
Point would like to request that the front yard setback be allowed to be 17.5 feet for
the 9 lots this affects. The City of Central Point is requesting a easement for
infrastructure, with a 12 feet wide path that is unique and meanders from the
development to the sidewalk on the east side of Hamrick Road. A change would
be allowed from a 10 feet PUE to a 5 feet PUE on Hamrick Road if the applicants
get a letter stating that is fine with the utility companies. The Sight Distance
Triangle can be changed to better accommodate the applicants on Brookdale Lane
and Meadowbrook Drive from the standard 55 by 55 feet to 30 by 70 feet. The
applicant would only maintain the Landscape buffer on Hamrick Road for one year,
and then the City of Central Point would take responsibility for it. A 40 feet street
reservation will appear on the final plat for a possible street that would go north. A
10-year sunset clause will be enacted on the street, if after the ten years it is
determined that the street will not be built the money will be returned to the Home
Owners.
City ofCentraiPoint
P/arming Commission Minutes
April4, 2000
Page 6
Bob Neathamer the agent for the applicant and Kevin Nering applicant stated the
17.5 feet front yard setback would be used to get away from the row house affect.
Lots one through 6 will access the private street. The Home Owners association
will pay for the lightening on the private street. The applicants are requesting that
they be able to work with staff to work out the definitions on several pages of the
Public Works Staff Report.
Commissioner Lunte made a motion to extend the meeting past 10:00 P.M.
James May, District Engineer for BCVSA, stated that the only way for this
subdivision to hook up to BCVSA is through Hamrick Road and they are working
quickly to get that accomplished before the county paves the road.
Mr. Nering stated he would like to have permission to change the setback
requirements to 1 foot on some of the lots to allow for a side entry garage.
Mr. Gerschler requested that the Planning Commission allow forthe building of one
model unit for display purposes only once adequate water and sewer services are
available.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to pass Resolution 483, approving
conditional use permit and preliminary development plan for the Brookdale
Gardens PUD, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in
the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set
forth in the staff reports. Also subject to allowing a 17.5 feet front yard
setback on 25% or approximately 9 lots, changing a 3 feet easement to a 2.5
feet right of way, changing a 10 feet PUE to a 5 feet PUE on Hamrick Road if
the applicants can get written authorization from the utility companies, a 10
year sunset clause on the possible road, allowing for the construction on one
model unit, allowing fora 1 foot side yard setback to allow for a side entry
garages, and allowing staff to work the applicants on the wording of the
Public Works Staff report. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL
CALL: Motion passed unanimously.
VI. Adjournment
Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission
Meeting. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri118, 2000
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
11. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, John LeGros, Don Foster, and Wayne Riggs
were present. Commissioners Karolyne Johnson and Candy Fish were
absent. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, Ken
Gerschler, Community Planner, Matt Samitore, Planning Technician and Lee
Brennan Public Works Director.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
There was no correspondence.
IV. BUSINESS
A. Study session to review changes to the Central Point Municipal Code
as they pertain to the establishment of a tree ordinance, barrier
ordinance, and the Bear Creek Green way.
Ken Gerschler, Community Planner presented Item A on the agenda. It is
to review the Tree Ordinance and make recommendations to staff for future
revision. The ordinance is intended to preserve of existing trees,
recommend a minimum number of trees per lot or development, preserve
historical trees, and produce a list of recommend trees that offer a variety of
characteristics and shapes that will fit any situation. The two ordinances in
the packet from the City of McMinnville and the City of Ashland.
Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, went through the tree list and
suggested removing several trees from the list that would have an adverse
impact on City utilities and maintenance. Mr. Brennan also suggested the
Commission look at the City of Grants Pass ordinance pertaining to the
removal of significant trees and setting up a fund for tree planting.
Discussion involved the Commission making recommendations on the
number of trees per lot/ and per acre when a per lot basis does not work,
adding a grandfather clause to the ordinance, defining the differences
between a frontage tree and a street tree, when trees have to be planted,
before final inspection, and that perpetual maintenance be enforced.
The Commission next discussed the Bear Creek Green way Ordinance. The
Commissioners recommended the City of Central Point make its own
ordinance to better suit the citizens of Central Point. It was also
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 2
recommended that staff get recommendations from the Police Department
on enforcement.
The Commission finally discussed the barrier ordinance. City Councilmen
Bob Gilkey has done some preliminary sound tests throughout the city and
has determined that the Southern portion of Central Point is significantly
louder than the Northern portion of town. This is because of the pavement
on Interstate 5, and buildings and pavement on Highway 99. Existing walls
don't appear to be tall enough. A comprehensive ordinance will need a
significant amount of scientific knowledge and will need more data for
completion. Councilmen Gilkey volunteered to collect this data. The
Commission determined that the staff needs to work on the ordinance more
and then bring the ordinance and supporting technical data back to them for
further review.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed
unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
HEARING DATE May 2, 2000
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing - to consider a request to vary from the front
and side setback requirements along Cedar Street and Freeman Road
Ap licant/
Owner: Lany and Georgianna Dodd
482 Freeman Road
Central Point, OR 97502
Anent: John D. Curtis
55 North Third Street
Central Point, OR 97502
Summary: The applicants, Larry and Georgianna Dodd have applied for a variance
from the front and side yard setback requirements at 482 Freeman Road so
that the existing home can be demolished and replaced. The subject parcel
is zoned R-1-6, Residential Single-Family.
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 Variance.
Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC
1.24.060.
Applicable Law: CPMC 17.28.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Multiple-Family District
CPMC 17.80.010 et seq. -Variances
Discussion:
At the April 4°i meeting, the Planning Commission began a review of the variance request by
hearing the staff report and the applicants testimony.
The Planning and Public Works Departrnents expressed reservations about granting the variance
along this secondary arterial roadway since Freeman Road is in the process of being widened. If
the variance were approved, the new home would need to be relocated or demolished in the near
future when the additional right of way is needed.
A variance from the front lot line would not necessarily affect the Freeman Road improvements
if a suitable sight vision area is established at the intersection of Cedar Street and Freeman Road.
The Public Works Department is willing to analyze the intersection and revise the current 55 foot
triangle to assist the applicant. If a variance were approved in the front yard setback, the new
house could be constructed. The existing garage would remain until the Freeman Road
improvements were needed and then could be moved further onto the property if needed.
The applicants and their attorney John Curtis requested a continuance to this meeting so that they
could discuss the options. Tom Humphrey telephoned Mr. Curtis earlier this week to ascertain
the status of the Dodd's variance request. As of Apri125"', the Planning Department has not
received a response and therefore recommends another continuance.
q9~ -
1o'S~(baFt~ ~
t
!
'~ !
m
!o !
P ~
`
\9 -' ~
~+ !/7d1 [p LIVING 111CF.11
s ~
o !
Fron'1'!~Y'ti'~t \
17.08. 2fl0 ~ ~~
7Keexith~~sbo~ ea cl4ss~F4~+o~ ~p ~ .
csS aYt a cG[J sort' 5'1`r~o'{drZ ' "~
reC.P~~G$ ConS~eQEJn-'f'1bn VneQC.r;
GPM !7.60.030, ~
\ !o.
SH.
SS l~ .ir I 2z\
Jisi•~ clt..t~ ~ _ y.
af(q,
~~
l ~,
99'
F~esMn~ ~a
r _E-11T/+b SNOO/~e/~yyly E _
.b<I
O
FL07 PCAN l~-jOr
..~ .. "' yP2 GEfEMRnI RD j~
Secoa~ar(~~/ A~tu~1, SPeci~,I s-e~-b~~K e~mm, x~~rr a2 a7sa2
O ~ '6o j~£Efi' MRH-t~r-tA Fro~.n C~.. 372W l!A'fl/5oo '
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAPF REPORT
HEARING
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUB,TECT:
Owner:
Agent:
Property
Description/
Zonine:
Summaiv
May 2, 2000
Central Point Planning Commission
Tom FIumpluey, AICP, Planning Director
Final Development Plan- Miller Estates P.U.D., Phase I
Marian Miller Irrevocable Trust
2364 East McAndrews Road
Medford, Oregon 97504
Brad Miller-`T'rustee For Owner
2364 East McAndrews
Medford, Oregon 97504
37 2W03B Tax Lots 500 and 600- 13.99 acres
R-I, Residential Single-Family and R-2, Residential Two-Family
The applicant, Brad Miller requests that the Commission review and approve the Final
Development Plan for the first phase of the Miller Estates Planned Unit Development. The
site is split zoned as R-1, Residential Single-Family and R-2, Residential Multiple-Family
and is located in the vicinity of Scenic Avenue and the Rogue Valley Highway.
Authority
CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review and approve
Final Development Plans for P.U.D.'s. No public notice is required in this situation.
Applicable Law
CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. Plaimed Unit Development
CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. R-1, Residential Single Family District
CPMC 17.24.010 et seq. R-2, Residential Two Family District
~~~
Discussion
CPMC Chapter 16.68 describes the requirement and application processes for Planned Unit
Developments. Initially, the applicant submits a preliminary development plan with maps
describing lot configuration, property boundaries and a schedule of the planned completion
dates. If the plan is approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant is allowed a period
of six months to provide the City with a copy of the Final Development Plan demonstrating
that all of the conditions and requirements of the Preliminary Development Plan have been
met. The Planning Commission will then review the Final Plan and decide to approve or
deny the plan as submitted. The City Council will review the Commission's decision at a
subsequent meeting.
The preliminary development plan and a Conditional Use Permit for the Miller Estates
P.U.D. was approved by the Commission on September 15, 1998 subject to certain
conditions of approval described in Resolution 433 (Attachment "B"). The applicant has
submitted a portion of the entire project as Phase I and is confident that the project has met
the assigned conditions of approval. He has submitted a Final Development Plan for the
Commission to review.
Following an approved extension, the applicant has requested that the project proceed in a
phased approach since Griffin Creek has created special flood considerations that will need
additional time to address.
The Final Development Plan is in substantial compliance with the approved Preliminary
Development Plan (Attachment "A") subject to the conditions required by the Building,
Planning, Public Works departments, BCVSA and Fire District Three.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the final
development plan for Phase I of the Miller Estates Planned Unit Development.
1. Approve the final development plan, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law
contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth
in Resolution 433: or
2. Deny the final development plan based on findings of fact articulated by City Staff.
3. Continue the review of the final development plan at the discretion of the Commission.
J v v [y
Exhibits
A. Final Development Plan- Miller Estates,, Phase I
B. Planning Conunission Resolution 433
C. Public Works Memorandum Dated April 24, 2000
~~~
..
d
~[by( s~- a
V ~ .ra'
b•,
yam, y
xL' ~ GM
V ~
W~
LLER ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PHASE 1 - -- --- L "'
A PLANNED COMMUNITY _
Located In:
\ (7)
The N.W. 1/t of Section 3, T.37S., R.2W.,
W,A1.
I
I \ - - _ - -
!Si
IGf:F_4; c! ~ 4: 5!kiiN':'!Sitl4!
City of Central Poln}, Jackaon County, Or eBOn I
{NORTkl 4L.L!
_'i
ESTFTES Sl1HUIVISI01? I
UlilT hIU
ti I Uhil° Idii.
~~
~
I .
1 I I I ,
.
I r --- - l9LL`Cf: /
;
I (24) (23) (22) I (27) ~ (20) (19) ~ (I$)
\ ~~
I`I
NOD'K'Y'C
DOI.Cb'I I
'
•
I
/ IEi
~i- M{P{D'b•C 1]I.3v' McPt9
{b
[ bIPA>' ~ "~ /
~'-,\ \ 1WOA' la fIU[ AVD \` []D.>3' a bG N.01 ' NAP I ~ Ox' - bD.01' _eD.DI' eD.%' - 6].DI' 6].DP `\i , : N pp lP [ u~.w'
•% I PYVA O$@CEt) (~ 4
~
Y
3 ~ $ ~ . w s PU, I
\=• o ~
i PUC ~ ~ f+ w wl
' w 31.D9' ]6.01
' ' e ~ a
b/a
,D'PN[16'w
.,,
pa, + ~~O ~
M,wun 3 \
. v®., PNAS[ I • Ar t. a Iw.es' w
9 6 ~
o 0 7 ~
n
., I
il
= 8
w
.
~
I
I 9 ~
:
'a
~ ~^
& 10 P,
a
11
~
'n
a
„
° ~
12
¢ ~
P t3 s~o
a~
n
14 s;.
ap 15
g
w 16
~ s
~
a .
; 17 aS
a~
\~lo• PuE
,o a 2 t
,~ \\
\ a90b'l l•
GI ~ w.f e•
v
9L o{
r ~` °
y'c '
ti~
q~~'Z.
~~
J
~ e 1II.JIC
e
~ ~ ~
i O.ne n s,roJ
a.uo v 4vD2
~ e.b3 xv s.ws
SAJJ b 6.003
e me i s,a°~
s i 4svv
> 6,>u v
i 'iiu v e~ei
eADv
'0 6AH b
S.Mq T
43v.
13 e.Ja3 N >.16a
u s.wY s9 J stD
u sAU
n 9:a6x
ie sspA O.vw
asw [2 O.Dn
n s.ws u D,at9
ii Biro u
ew
z~ 'x
e
ro ` s,lu
,
3 a> A
33 63M Ae jpp
= ].20a µ
A e,aw w iiii
u ~E° m m.Jea
xe 4013 OPCN aPACC 1 },ppJ
oP[x uu:E z 2Na9
aJ xW ]D. iL pW 6Rw0
5
l6• Pu[ ~
1' SIRffi PLLW
50
z
rv fo' WER A
m•E 49 t~' o ° *: i 6' 29
5 1 V,iD.i•39.1{ 9'I~Y a(b. 44Y ~~
48 .,a. ~~9,
26 a~8 25 ~~$ 24 a~8 23 ~~$ 22 a~$ 21 a~g 20 ~x 19 a~~ 18
30 a~8 31 a~~ 32 a~8 33 aI8 34 a~8 35 a~$ 36 dux 37
~`Po ~ - I{YaE'It•W - be.vY MAHIAN _AVEH
'.xy ~ 10' PU (PUE M'D P AR 5[REETI 36A0
~ ~.
'`'w. at,,. ~'
\ \
216. w'
'~~-_ 31 ?x`17_ __°4ffi_ - ioq]__ ?9e?'_ _w.°_°'_ __~.A_
I
45
x
g
a
= 43 d
e 42 ~
~ 41 a
~ 40 a In' puE I p
8 39
3
. 44 1
a ' a ' a ` a ' a s a - ~~
u w. w.w' J
Js.oD' I
?~3LDC_ 1' snrc[r Pwc
~ +3' ru[
s
s~ 38?_e
k1s.w' R
•~ J
~~
•
~__
_
S
ae10'K1V {220>'
_ .-" aC0'b'ae•w
_
NOfJHUXP k bSOe
I[
Y
5. IMC,
iDe2 C. JACNeON S1RCC! YCONPD. OaCWN
(at) 77D-b91
0V: MUOLIS C. YpYNCW P13 Na. 191]
scut, 1• a w' uvn~ so, xmD
eels Dr euAlxe: awml vouxo9xr Dr xDNN vuur
6TA]21 wDave:gx, uxrt xo.
o - sY a/e•n9' m..xn w.YY opP .lomw6
'0. YoWXAN IS 1N3 .
m WYY mD em:W
~ 6
o
~ Y
YIIWI L[ ID1]
• relee a/a• x
w, w.
Qo aw s/e• . a' mo..xn :,,.w mwa
'IS 191]' p. NCa[M V,WCY CS[A1E wpplltegN.
uxrt xo. 1, wa.
OQ rw,e woe mP mprwXr,l
PUC • Cwllxnl le. 9uwb uxlXy, .1mn yq,np.
,
N wMb> e.v wev.Wn altl vnlnl.,pv,
tors
i
_~
HOFFBUHR
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
Douglas C. McMahan
. &eBistatd Profeudowf Laid Surveyaa i
Sxrvty Oyera#aw bfanagcr i
1062 E Jackson '.
Medford, 6R 97504
{S41) 77'9-4641 i
FAX (5411 T7Q-2573 '
i
1
V ,,i -
~q~~ ,
s
L3a~nJaJSay Fi2oI~ ~'iFr'm /~A.v~~ ~/o, d4uzl3
"M{LLER ESTATES"
TENTATIVE PLAN
:1 PLANNED COMMUNJIY 0£VELOPMENI"
(Proposed Manutaclured home Subd)vfsion)
Located In:
the N.W, 1/4 at Section 3, T,37S., R.2W.. W.1A.
Jackson County, Oregon
Scale: 7" = -b8'~SCt) u' Date: JULY 7 6, 1998 ~ Z
Tax Lot SDO & 600 '~
1 {.0 A¢na, mon ar [ps tP" '~
~J __-~.
--- X33 ~ (i7) ~~
~ Ilf r
"r. ~24) (23jj} K22 (21) (20) (19) (18)~ _
r r.
a
.r 6 7 B
5
3L9, ~ '~ ~ 3.
40
\ at qy ~
to ~71 ~rz ~t~ ~ta ~ts ~1s
~,
AP[TIICANT;
~. ~ v~~
. oa~ca+ nsoa - t2S.Sr
(su)ns-sego
atn~ to~1r, oracon s~sax
(s~~)bsa-vn
SlFE17CYRi4:
oouctu o. w.x.wx~
~`
Norre~wa a ~a `V
you c suxsas smm ~
u¢croaa occr;ar+ vrso.
cs.,yr,~-~.~ Z
:-/~ yr7~~ Jrlc~t~ rn
£ W.
~„_u t
-_ tdOPA _UV
~' o
`~"
--
1 1 1 7r
r~.~ .
_
'
~
~
!8 79 20 2f 22 °1 ~
'
,
;,
1
-- ---'-'
J 23 i~
- ~p; , ~ Q'~
' Gin
24
Y
(P
W
m
r
n
z
D
d
4l
~~ ~
~~
¢,5, 3a 33 ?~2 91 ~ ~ 28 29 25 '
•~ ~
~_
r
04 . ~
48
ary ~
4y9
SY
_
52
~. ..r
53
~4
6
,9 ~!' ~
55 4 . x.11
1l
S ~ 1
5 , f
-_-
ar.~. ~
~
-t7
ss
~ ~
g, ~
SS' ff~
64 S~
ff3
s1
so
s,~ 5a
s7 1 ~ i
I ~
s'.
~ r~iw.r,
---
,.r
v
~
rr srr
.:JG C.i
~3
~
~
~ o
'."Y.5 /~T~ Y
N
J2¢: ~
m
Y
A
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 433
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(Applicant: Brad and Marian Miller)
(37 2W 3B Tax Lots 500 and 600)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY 1
CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS:
~~
~
~ ~
.
d o
b ~s
y R
~
~° ~ ~'
n.M
ti
ti R
This matter came before the City on applicant's Planned Unit
Development ("PUD" hereafter) application for a 78-unit single-
family residential manufactured home development located on North
Pacific Highway south of Scenic Avenue in R-1 and R-2 districts
of the City.
On September 15, 1998, the Central Point Planning Commission
held a duly-advertised public hearing wherein it considered the
application, the City staff reports, and written comments and
testimony from all interested persons in favor of and opposed to
the application.
2. Criteria Applicable to Decision. The following chapters
of the Central Point Municipal Code apply to this application:
A. Chapter 1.24, Public Hearings Procedures;
B. Chapter 17.20, R-1, Residential Single-Family District;
C. Chapter 17.24, Residential Two-Family District;
D. Chapter 17.60, General Regulations;
E. Chapter 17.64, Off-Street Parking and Loading; and
F. Chapter 17.68, Planned Unit Developments (PUD).
3. Findings and Conclusions. The Planning Commission
hereby adopts by reference all findings of fact set forth in the
City staff reports, and concludes that, except where addressed in
the conditions to approval, the application and proposal comply
with the requirements of the following chapters of the Central
Point Municipal Code:
A. Chapters 17.20 and 17.24, relating to allowed
uses in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts;
B. Chapter 17.60, relating to paving and landscaping
requirements;
C. Chapter 17.64, relating to off-street parking and
loading facilities; and
D. Chapter 17.68, relating to Planned Unit Developments.
1 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 433 (102098)
J v ~ ~°
4. Conditional Approval. The within application for a
Preliminary Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development is
hereby conditionally approved, subject to the conditions set
forth on Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein.
Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by me in
authentication of its passage this t5"#"'` day of .
C,..,.1.~__\,.~~ 1998.
Planning Commission Chairman
ATTEST:
City Represent e
Approved by me this _ day
of c~f~~b " , 1998.
~P~~ ~~~~
Planning Commission Chairman
2 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 433 (102098)
„ ~ C~
RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A final development plan, containing in final form tine information required in the
preliminary plan shall be submitted to the City within six months of approval or by March
15, 1999. A six month extension may be granted by the City upon the applicant's request
and for good cause.
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations including,
but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Fire Code and Structural Specialty Code.
The applicant shall submit final parking, landscaping, lighting and sign plans to the
City for approval as part of the final development plan.
4. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or any
comparable agreement governing the use, maintenance and continued protection of the PUD
as part of the final development plan.
The applicant shall schedule and attend pre-design meetings with WP Natural Gas, Fire
District No. 3 and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority to more specifically identify
utility easements and the placement of fire hydrants and pipelines and other utilities.
The applicant shall provide a tot lot in addition to adult recreation facilities, the number
and location of which to specified by the Commission.
~~
Mr. Tom fGunplare}'
Reconmeendations and Conditions (a' Final P/nn ifpi» ~nro! of P/ruse 1 ojA~liNer Ea7ales Uevelpment
;(pril2d, 2000
Page 3
separation. Power, telephone, and cable lines, transformers, pedestals, and associated
appurtenances shall be positioned to be placed at opposite sides of the lots where the City's
water meters are to be located, and aligned to avoid close proximity to City and BCVSA
infrastructure. Centerline of buried City infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five (5) feet
from the edge of the easement, right-of-way, and centerline of other City infrastructure, with a
minimum clear separation of 2 feet. Variances to these requirements are only as approved in
writing and verified in the field by the Public Works Director or his designee. Some of the storm
drain alignment, manholes, street lights, water meters, water service laterals, and sewer laterals
may need to be relocated to facilitate the required separation.
10. All lots shall be graded to meet the City's Building Department and UBC requirements, with the
grading of the lot to drain to the street on which each lot fronts, or to an approved private storm
drain collection and conveyance system. Grading the lot to drain to adjacent private property,
the ODOT right-of-way, or to adjacent lots shall not be permitted. The cut and fill slopes shall be
a maximum of a 2H to 1V slope, and a minimum 1 foot buffer shall be maintained between the
start of the cut or fill slope and the property line or the edge of an easement, as applicable.
11. Any water wells or septic systems on the property shall be properly decommissioned/abandoned
in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements. If a water well is to be maintained,
then proper cross connection control shall be implemented by the developer in accordance with
OHD requirements.
12. All concerns and requirements of the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, Rogue River Valley
Irrigation District, Fire District No. 3, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (as
applicable) must be addressed and completed before City PWD approval of the final plat for this
subdivision.
1 i3
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: May 2, 2000
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review of 37 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 8400 - Addition of 900 square feet to the
US West "switching" facility at 336 Manzanita Street.
Owner/ US West Communications
Annlicant: 421 S.W. Oak Street, Room 112
Portland, Oregon 97204
ent: Philip J. Gall
WEGROUP pc/Architects & Planners
300 Country Club Road, Suite 130
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Pro er
Descrintion/ 372W03DD, Tax Lot 8400 - 0.18 acres
Zonine: C-2, Commercial Professional District
Summary
The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review that would allow an additional 900 square feet to be
constructed at the US West phone building located at 336 Manzanita Street.
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
Discussion
US West Communications is requesting that the Planning Commission review a site plan that would
allow approximately 900 square feet to be added to the existing building located at 336 Manzanita
Street in the C-2, Commercial Professional District. A twenty foot wide unimproved alley separates
the C-2 district from the C-3, Commercial Downtown District behind the Central Point Florist.
The project adds 800 feet to the north side of the building that would be used for new
communications cquipment and an upgraded heating and air conditioning ventilation system.
Currently, the building is at capacity with rows of mechanical switches that route all of the telephone
calls for the 664 and 665 prefix numbers. The new generation of communications equipment is
generally smaller (but more temperature sensitive) than the mechanical switches that have been
commonly used by the phone company for 30 to 40 years. US West will eventually remove the
,mechanical system as the new electronic communications equipment enters service.
An additional 100 square feet will be added to the rear of the building to provide adequate cover for
the replacement of an emergency backup generator. The generator, used to charge batteries during
power failure, would vent exhaust towards the alley.
The exterior appearance of the building will retain the stucco appearance and will receive anew coat
of paint. There are no plans to modify the existing trees, shrubs and hedges along Manzanita Street
or the adj oining alleyway. The Planning Department would like to work with the applicant to ensure
that the project retains adequate landscaping on site.
A new gate and paved driveway access is proposed on Manzanita Street to allow vehicles to enter
the decreased parking area. The applicant has indicated that the three spaces provided meet the
minimum parking requirements since the structure is typically unmanned. CPMC 17.64.040 (I-3)
requires one space for each vehicle kept or operated in connection with the use. The Planning
Department made a site visit on April 24`h and found a total of eight US West trucks and sedans
parked at the building. If parking demand remains high, an agreement should be worked out for
shared parking on a neighboring parcel.
The nearest fire hydrant is located at the northwest corner of Manzanita and Fourth Streets. Any
approval would be subject to the recommendations of Jackson County Fire District No. 3 enclosed
as Attachment "C "
The Public Works Department did not submit a staff report to address which improvements should
be made by the applicant. The Planning Department would recommend that the applicant be
required to work with the Public Works Department on any curb, gutter, sidewalk or paving that may
be necessary as a result of the improvements. The storm drainage system may need design or
engineering to ensure that storm drainage does not sheet flow across the sidewalks or alleyway. The
applicant has requested that the Commission consider forming a Local Improvement District (LID)
for the alley improvements and is willing to participate in such improvements.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
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 mamler 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.
~_ 1
^ The applicant has submitted a plan that shows no change to the existing landscape
scheme. The Planning Department will work with the applicant to ensure that
adequate landscaping is retained or added on site as necessary.
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;
^ Anew driveway access would be created from Manzanita Street with an existing alley
access remaining unchanged. The Public Works Department will require standard
improvements which will be discussed at this meeting.
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;
The applicant has proposed three parking spaces for this project. A higher demand for
off street parking would require an alternative solution. The Planning Department has
added a condition requiring the applicants to participate in shared parking and or
contribute to the development of a public parking lot (Attachment "D").
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;
^ There is no signage associated with this project.
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 apparatus;
^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any requirements of Jackson County Fire
District 3 who has requested review during the building permit development process.
F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations;
The project when constructed, will be 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.
^ This building is similar in appearance to others in the C-2 zoning district.
. ~~
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 Plau at the discretion of the Commission.
Attachments
A. Site Plan, Building Elevations and Applicant's Letter of Description
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Correspondence
D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval
.. ~~
CYty of Centr}if'oinE
E~iHIBYT t'A"
Planning Department
A C
gg p gg c C //~j
?~i~~ ~~t€ 3~p7B a m ~ V
gg q33 m
~$g 1 ~~ ~ ~~a~~ a c
f r
e~ o z m
~~
~o
~ a VJ
m
a
z z
~ ~ US WEST CENTRAL POINT EQUIPMENT BLDG. ADDITION
y 336 MANZANITA STREET, CENTRAL POINT, OR
j pp WEGROUP pc/ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS
l C 900 N1rMRY pU810.'+AD,BIA]E 1~p/EUOEIIE OREOCN V]1011(61175NJVAp
- F a
wem
~ . I
aa~
I ~ Y~
.
( / w
. ~ ma w~a
~ ~ ( 4
uF ~.:
~ I t
vue i'. w.'
~.A,,~a~- 3
- -
- --
---
--- _ ~=~
-- ~
EAST ELEYATION
I ~ I
"' I I u er~u.r~
0a S
'°
~
= ,;;
'
--;E
------
- -
-
--~--
-
--~---
-
-
es NORTH ELEVATION OF NEW ADDITION
~ ~~1. _~
e80UTH ELEYATION OP NEW ADDITION
~ ~
z
0
a
c~
J
m
Z
CW
L
°- o
~ ~
WO w~
Z_Q z~
O~ am
aW ~~
J c~ ~ g
a~ Ww
°CW ~-~
z ~ U $
W~ rte
U_¢ <m
~ U
F- zQ a g
N N Q m
WN¢ ~~
`~ ~
C7
M
APMq/m: Rq
awwH: eua
DATE RV18O0
JJB: 1310
A2
ez WEBT ELEVATION
.~ ..~ ~~
WEGROUP,>~/ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS
300 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE t30, EUGENE, OR 97401 (541)344-3243
FAX (541) 4G4~G435
March 27, 2000
City of Cenfrai Point
Planning Department
155 S. 2nd
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Re: Site Plan Review Application
U.S. West Equipment Building Addition
Dear Planning Department
The project consists of a Building Addition for new communications equipment and for
mechanical heating ventilation and air conditioning equipment to serve the building. The
emergency power generator space will be enlarged with a small addition to receive a
replacement generator.
The existing site paving will be repaired and new paving wi(f be installed at the unpaved
portion of the existing drive and south side of the building. U.S. West is prepared to enter
into an agreement to include alley paving as part of a Local Improvement Districf (L(D} for
Site Review Approval condition.
The addition for the new equipment space at the north end of the building reduces the
space for onsite secured vehicle parking, equipment delivery and unloading. The addition
of the curb cut and gate in the security fence along the north property line off Manzanita
Street will improve entry/exit for Phis limited operation and the site vehicle circulation in
general. The number of vehicles at this normally unmanned facility is usually not more
than 2 or 3 on an infrequent basis.
The exterior of the building is very utilitarian and intended to be low maintenance.
Repainting the entire building is proposed to blend the existing and the new additions.
Enctased in this package are the submittals fisfed as required in the Site Plan Review
Application. The only exception is a landscaped and irrigation plan. The site presently
has no landscaping on the property. The adjacent bank has landscaping along the west
property line and the parking strip landscaping along Manzanita Street will remain for the
most part, except fora 14`t new curb cut for the east side drive.
M MHRF.7_I;K b.IP / P ,AU.. A_fA I G iviARSH/+tl_. AIA
%. SiUSAi%%I'~KO F(! ~ P iiEfSER~b1AA! hIP. /a SKGWHEDE. AI/~
~ ~ ~ V
City of Central ~~oint
PI.f1NNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Community Planner
Matt Samitore
Planning Technician
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: April 11, 2000
Meeting Date
Time:
Place:
May 2, 2000
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
NATURE OF MEETING
CYty of G'entral Point
E~H~~~~'I' itB tf
Planning Bepartment
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an
application for a Site Plan that would allow the construction of an additiona1900 square feet to the
commercial building at 336 Manzanita Street (US West Communications). This parcel is located in
a C-2, Commercial Professional Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W03DD
Tax Lot 8400.
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 are set forth in Chapter 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, May 2, 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
N~
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.
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 arguments 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.
><
y
s~,
~~
<'-
~~~,~
~~
z
,~ , ~~•
~~~~
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ f ax: (J41) boo-o304
s
ti~
04(25(2000 07:45 6264566 JCFD3 BUS OFC PAGE 02!63
FIRS DISTRICT No. 3
,JACKSON COUNTY
8333 AGA7E ROAD, WHITE QTY, OREGON 9 7503-10 75
(541) 826-7100 FAX (541) 816-4566
April 25, 2000
Ken Gerschler
City of Central Paint
RE: US West Communications Bldg Addition
City of Central Point
E~:HII~IT «C"
Planning 1)eparfineul
The Building Department v~ill request a set of blue pants from the app4icant for
submittal to Fire District #3 for review. The plans shat! include a plot plan showing
placement of buildings, main access roads and driveways. Fire District #3 wit! apply
Uniform Fire Code requirements, which may also include on-site water storage andlor
hydrants for fire protection, and road access prior to construction.
If you have any questions please contact me.
/ (~ ~ ~li~-ate
Neil Shaw
Deputy Fire Marshal
~ *n
l -
Tom Humphrey
From: SO Florists [soflorists@wave.net~
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 8:03 AM
To: Tom Humphrey
Subject: Tom, question.
Tom,
I understand that US West plans to e;tpand their switching station
behind
our
shop. Are they going to take out their parking behind the building?
If
so,
where do they plan to park their vehicles (trucks & private vehicles)?
Also, are you going to tie the paving of the alley into their building
permit? This would solve our dust/mud/pot hole problem with the alley.
Can't you guys just say, To get the permit, you have to pave the
alley"?
They can afford it better than we can. It would make for a nice
neighbor.
Thanks for your reply,
Lloyd Smith
Southern Oregon Florists, Inc.
1
N ~
J '~
Page 1 of I
Tom Hu
From: SO Florists [soflorists@wave.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 2:20 PM
To: Tom Humphrey
Subject: Ref to Letter of Meeting, May 2, 2000, 7pm, comments on US West
Written comments for meeting, May 2, 2000, 7pm. Referring to letter of April 11, 2000
Re: To US West's expansion of their building.
From: Rick Samuelson
Lloyd Smith
Central Point Florist
337 East Pine Street
Central Point OR 97502
664-1878
The two main problems we see are the alley and parking for their employees. Since the City of Central Point
will not/does not, enforce the two hour parking zones, local employees park in the downtown business district
taking parking away from customers. (I cannot figure when I see owners parking in front of their store.)
Central Point Florist requires all their 20 employees to park away from the two hour zones and not to park near
any businesses. Will US West request the same? It seems that if their business expands, there will be more
trucks and personal cars. Where will they park? Haw many work/will work in the building? Will employees
increase?
The alley is a mess from all the pot holes during the winter and dust during the summer. Instead of
an improvement district where everybody pays, why not just tie the permit for US West to improving the alley?
For us little guys, this could be very expensive but for US West, this would just be a pimple on the apple. They
run the heavier trucks down the alley that washes out the pot holes and creates the dust. It would be a
neighborly thing to do to pave the alley.
During construction, how much of the alley will be blocked with their construction team? Will the construction
affect any of the local businesses?
Central Point Florist wanted to improve their back parking area but by the time the City got a hold of the plans
and added their wish-list, our costs shot from $3000 to over $20,000. So, we still have dust and potholes
because the City wanted the whole pie and would not let us settle for a slice.
US West has been a good neighbor.
4/13/00 2 °~
ATTACHMENT D
RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on May 2, 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 60 days of Planning Commission approval.
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations .
The applicant shall work with the Public Works Department to make appropriate
improvements or arrangements to improve curbs, gutters, sidewalks and paving in the public
Rights of Way.
4. The applicant shall participate in a shared parking agreement with other property owners in
the vicinity or contribute to the development of parking if their parking demand exceeds the
on site supply.
ti ~-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
I-IEARING DATE: May 2, 2000
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Tentative Subdivision of 37 2W 11AD Tax Lot 6300 -
Elden Smith.
Owner/ Elden Smith
Applicant: 9171 Sterling Creek Road
Jacksonville, OR 97530
Anent: L.J. Friar and Associates
816 West Eighth Street
Medford, OR 97501
Pro er
Descri tion/ 37 2W 1 lAD Tax Lot 6300, 1.14 acres
Zoning: R-1-8, Residential Single-Family District
Summary
The applicant, Elden Smith is proposing the partition of a 1.14acre parcel into six parcels.
The property is located near the intersection of Pittview Avenue and Sydney Court in the R-
1-8, Residential Single-Family Zoning District.
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 a tentative land partition. Notice of the public
hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B).
Applicable Law
CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. Tentative Plans
CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. R-1, Residential Single-Family District
CPMC 16.36.010 et seq. Major and Minor Land Partitions
~~
Discussion
Last year, Elden Smith purchased the parcel at 764 Pittview Avenue and received tentative
approval to partition the existing home from a larger undeveloped portion of the property.
The City is nearing completion of agreements and a storm drain plan on the final plat
application in hopes of completing the earlier partition soon.
Elden would now like to further subdivide the undeveloped portion into a six parcel
residential subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 8000 to 8794 square feet (Attachment
"A"). Each lot would be accessed via a 30 foot wide residential lane (Shayla Lane) with
connection into Pittview Drive.
The Planning Department has reviewed the tentative plan for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the City's zoning code. The area is designated for low density
residential development and is zoned R-1-8, which is an 8,000 square foot residential lot
minimum. This infill development will result in a more efficient use of residentially zoned
land and improve the overall appearance and value of this neighborhood.
Setbacks for each lot would be 20 feet for the front, 5 feet per story on the sides and 15 feet
for the rear lot lines. Since most of the lots are shallow in depth, any rights of way or
easement dedications could directly affect the building envelope.
On sheet parking, traffic circulation and sidewalk installation will be limited in this
subdivision due to the residential lane standards. The layout is similar to the previously
approved Beall Estates, Phase IV subdivision.
This general area contains some of the last large acreage lots that should be considered for
park land and this development should be tied into an open space plan. The City has been
in contact with neighboring property owners to discuss a future park. Staff would like to
work with the applicant to establish a future pedestrian connection to the surrounding
potential park areas.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the tentative plan with the City's water, sewer,
storm drain and transportation standards. Unfortunately, t]re submitted tentative plan lacks
certain specificity pertaining to existing infrastructure and the Public Works staff have
summarized department requirements in the staff report included as Attachment C.
Jackson County Fire District No. 3 (Attachment D) recommends that parking be limited to
one side of the street with no parking in the "hammerhead". The agency further requests that
each residence display an address sign visible from the street.
., ~ ..
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Staff suggests the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as applicable to the
project and necessary for its approval.
1. The project site is located in the R-1-8, Residential Single-Family Zoning
District and increases residential land use efficiency in this area.
The proposed tentative plan for single family residential development is a permitted use in
the R-1-8 zoning district. The zoning in turn is consistent with the Low Density Residential
Comprehensive Plan map designation. The Comp Plan encourages innovative residential
planning and development techniques that would help to increase land use efficiency and
reduce costs of utilities and services (Comp Plan, page XII-12). Infi11 projects of this sort
are consistent with this city policy.
2. The project consists of a tentative plan application for the subdivision of
approximately 1.14 acres for the purpose of developing asingle-family residential
subdivision, Cody Subdivision. The total number of lots proposed for the subdivision
is 6.
The proposed single-family subdivision meets the density requirement for the R-1-8
residential zone which is a maximum of 4.5 units per acre. Each lot within the subdivision
could meet the requirements of the City's subdivision and zoning codes for residential lots
as well as the specific requirements of the R-1-8 zone. The tentative plan includes most of
the information required by CPMC 16.10.010 et. seq.
3. The Panning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the tentative plan
for the proposed subdivision and the findings of fact and determined that the project
meets all City standards and requirements subject to the recommended conditions of
the Planning Department (Attachment E) and the Public Works Department
(Attachment C).
\\CPPDPDC\P lann ing\00009. W PD
N
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt Resolution No., approving the tentative subdivision subject to the recommended
conditions of approval (Attaclmient E); or
2. Deny the tentative subdivision; or
3. Continue the review of the tentative subdivision at the discretion of the Commission.
Attachments
A. Tentative Plan
B. Notice of Meeting
C. Public Works Staff Report
D. Correspondence
E. Planning Department Recommended Conditions
\\CPPDPDC\Planning\0000 ). W PD
.. ~~
2( tO7I ft t0
7
t
t
w
~~
0
~~
F~~~
4gaA~:
~~w~~
~ eke
~ $R
U $~~ /
~~ g
'cam
~o
1'6
$ i
Off,
b
m..
) t•
'r~ryi NoiSNip8~
5
b
by ~
e` t <( to7 I 8` lp'
~t
p7
58p'SJ'1YE + >B 00
t
's
~~
9~
n
r ' - - - - - -x..LL.csBax- - - ~
Bu. m
l
tB9~'f' - a+s ir+. s os w- - e .s
00 .I Irv
~ n~. esr ~_ a~
~
n 4
i Ig I I
~1~~
"
" b. I I
I ~
I
I
u ~~
1 ~ I~ ~I I ga
~ ~
I Is el I ~
c
da ~ ~~ ~ I
Oy~ Y J60a
sBBSBLrE
I l CI
I n
/»
3+.1
' yy
yWq
1
1 £
y+
S3 3 E
SB9 J 5
6 5
" ~ ~ I m I
s
l ~ I
n
dl l
` N$
9~ a
~ >
I I
I
~ II
~ i i
l ,~,
R ~ ~
I e+
xBSSS'zzw
~ l
I
I
~I I e
a
3B I o
nra
+ l
~, I
..
S+.B5 p151p411'RC - - O
MOG oss*n'ves ~
~i
~ GY OLt
p~p~~y AVENU E
Sams3...kG.,.
w+~~'
city of (~ntr~i ~?61nf
EXI~iIBi'~" MAse
Planning Department
31
6l t07 10
E
7
aC
S0
F
o a
W° a
b g.~` S
tl~ i
°a 8
Y
I
~n
CL
R
a
A
~`~ City of Cent~a~''oint
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Community Planner
Deanna Gregory
Administrative/Planning Secretary
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: April 11, 2000
Meeting Date
Time:
Place:
NATURE OF MEETING
May 2, 2000
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
CYty of Centcai Point
E~-I~~:~T rrB tr
Planning Deparhnent
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an
application fora 6 lot Tentative Subdivision (Cody Subdivision) to be located north of Pittview
Avenue in the vicinity of Bursell Road. The subject parcel to be divided is located in an R-1-8,
Residential Single Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W11AD, Tax
Lot 6300.
The Central Point Planning Commission will review the application of Tentative Subdivision to
determine if all of the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. If the
Commission determines that the subdivision can be created, a tentative approval could be issued .
Once a tentative approval has been issued, the applicant must file for a final plat of the subdivision
within one year of the Commission's decision.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for Tentative Subdivisions are set forth in Chapter 16 of the Central Point
Municipal Code, relating to General Information, tentative plan approval and conditions on tentative
plan approval. 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, May 2, 2000.
32
,.._
~~
2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting fo Central Point City Hall, 155
South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
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.
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. 231.
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 arguments 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 Tentative Subdivision. City
regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission
decisions.
r ~~~ ~~ i i i u Q~ t-1 I _I~V~ d~u H I \
ti
l_1J_LJ_ll~~`
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STAFF REPORT
for
CODY SUBDIVISION
TENTATIVE PLAN REVIEW
PW#00009
C1ty of Gentry lEfaltiE
EXIiIS~I'T «C"'
Planning DepartmmY
Date: April 24, 2000
Applicant: Elden Smith, 9171 Sterling Creek Road, Jacksonville, Oregon 97530 899-1720
Agent: L.J. Friar and Associates,. P.C, 816 W. 8"' Street, Medford, Oregon 97501
Property
Owner:
Project:
Location:
Legal:
Zoning:
Area:
Units:
Plans:
Report By:
Purpose
Same as Applicant
Cody Subdivision.
East of Bursell Road and Sydney Court, on the Northern Side of Pittview Avenue.
T37S, R2W, Section 011AD, tax lot 6300
R-1-8
1.14 Acres (approximately).
7 lots (6 new lots and one remainder lot with an existing house and garage.
1 page entitled "Tentative Subdivision Plat Cody Subdivision, dated March 27, 2000,
prepared by L.J. Friar and Associates.
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 planned unit development. Gather
information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development.
It should be noted that this plan was absent of any designation or delineation of existing infrastructure,
which is required to be placed on a tentative plan for any development. As such, the plan is
incomplete. In working with the Developer, it is believed that infrastructure services (i.e water, sanitary
sewer, storm drainage, power, telephone, cable,. etc.) can be provided to the proposed subdivision.
Our staff report is based on a cursory review of the surrouhding connecting infrastructure. If during
design, changes to the conditions may need to be made to make sure that the subdivision is
adequately served without overtaxing the existing infrastructure and to provide adequate levels of
service to the proposed development.
The proposed intersection connection of Shayla Lane to Pittview Avenue provides for an intersection
separation of approximately 240 feet from the intersection of Sydney Court with Pittview Avenue. This
exceeds the minimum intersection requirement of 150 feet for a local street to local street connection.
Special Requirements
Existing Infrastrucfure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing
infrastructure (i.e. streets; 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 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
., . 3 ~~
Beall Estates IV Tentative Plan Review, PWD Sta,/j~Repor!
February 22, 1999
Page 2
the affected facility, as approved by (as applicable), the regulatory agency, utility owner, and/or
property owner involved.
2. Residential Lane: The Developer is proposing the use of public streets with a residential lane
with a "hammerhead" (Shayla Lane). The PWD has approved development of this residential
lane concept on Shelterwood, Griffin Creek Estates, Lindsey Meadows, Beall Estates IV, and
Parkwood Terrace subdivisions. Typically residential lanes have been designed to serve a
maximum of 12 lots. The proposed layout will serve 71ots. The residential lane has the
following standards:
^ A 25-foot-wide traveled section (curb-to-curb width), with a 2 percent crown
^ Standard curb and gutters
^ A 2-foot-wide strip located behind the curb for installation of water meter service boxes,
fire hydrants, street lights etc.
^ Requires a 30-foot-wide right-of-way.
^ Street parking not allowed on residential lanes.
Another concern regarding the use of a residential lane for this development is the lack of
visitor parking within the development and on the closest street to the development (Pittview
Avenue. We would suggest the possibility of inclusion of an off-street visitor parking area within
the development.
The "T" shaped "hammerhead" turnaround shall be designed and implemented, as approved by
the City PWD and Fire District No. 3.
The connection to Pittview Ave will be a standard driveway connection with a 2-foot concrete
"landing° behind the driveway apron; the driveway apron shall have a 30-foot throat. A
temporary asphalt connection could be made and the final concrete driveway connection
completed when Pittview Avenue is developed to urban standards.
3. Removal of Driveway Connections to Pittview Avenue: It should be required to have the
existing driveway connections of the remainder of tax lot 6300 removed and require connection
to Shayla Lane. This driveway connection would have to start a minimum of 25-feet behind the
right-of-way of Pittview Avenue, to provide for proper sight distances and allow turning
movements onto these lots from Shayla Lane that are not made on Pittview Avenue.
4. Street Parking: As we are proposing in the revised PWD standards, the use of residential
lanes require that street parking not be allowed. We would recommend that street parking not
be allowed on Shayla Lane.
5. Connecfion to Pittview Avenue: Need 30-foot radii on right-of-way as it connects to Pittview
Avenue right-of-way.
6. Sidewalks and Sidewalk Easement. The residential lane does not provide for sidewalks. The
City PWD is recommending that a 5-foot wide public sidewalk section (with a suitable public
ingress and egress easement requirement) be provided adjoining the right-of-way on the east
and west sides of Shayla Lane. This will also require that the structure setback be increased to
25 feet to afford driveway parking that does not interfere with pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk.
The 10-foot-wide public utilities easement would be moved to the outside of the sidewalk
easement to mitigate interference with public utility installation and facility placement (i.e
transformers, risers, pedestals, etc.). The 5 foot sidewalk easement would not be a P.U.E., as
J ~
3
Beall Fstates IV Tentative Plan Review, PWD StaJfReport
Febrr~ary22, /999
Page 3
shown on the tentative plat. As required on recent developments utilizing the residential lane
street standard, the sidewalk would be installed at the Developer's expense as part of the
development and will be maintained by the property owner, similar to the City's current sidewalk
ordinance requirements. It is further recommended that sidewalk also be required along the
remainder parcel to the connection with Pittview Avenue.
Utilifv Easements: A 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) will be required outside the
City's right-of-way of Shayla Lane, on both sides of the lane. To facilitate placement of the
sidewalk section, the PUE would be located adjacent to the sidewalk easement, and extend 15-
feet behind the right-of-way.
Easement to the City of Central Point shall be dedicated across a selected lot to the north for
connection of a new water line to the existing 8-inch waterline in Juanita Way. The minimum
easement width shall be 15-feet wide. Additional easements on lots to the north may be
required to facilitate connection to the existing storm drain and sanitary sewer collection and
conveyance systems.
8. Pittview Avenue Riphf-of-Way: Pittview Avenue is identified as local street and currently has
a right-of-way width of 60 feet. No additional right-of-way dedications is warranted.
Sighf-Triangles: Field review of this property's access to Pittview Avenue indicates that the
proper sight triangles for a local street that connects to a another local street can be afforded at
the proposed intersection of Shayla Lane with Pittview Avenue, with removal of the interfering
trees and vegetation. This type of street intersection requires a 25-foot sight triangle.
10. Improvements to Pittview Avenue: Improvements to Pittview Avenue including, but not
limited to, street section widening (to 30 feet from centerline to curb-line), curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, bikeways, street lights, storm drainage, and traffic control and delineation, shall be
coordinated and approved by the JC Roads and the City PWD. The improvements should be
constructed at the expense of the Developer and as part of the development of the proposed
subdivision. These improvements extend for the entire frontage of the tentative plat: from the
southeast corner of lot 1 to the southwest corner of the remainder of tax lot 6300; a distance of
approximately 127 feet.
As approved by the City Administrator, the Developer may request or be required to defer any
or all of the required improvements along Pittview Avenue until a later date. If any or all of the
improvements are to be deferred to a later date, then the Developer will be required to enter
into a suitable deferred improvement agreement with the CitylCounty for the
development/improvement of the street section and appurtenances (i.e. sidewalks, curb, gutter,
street lights, storm drainage, etc.) along the development's frontages with Pittview Avenue, as
required and approved by the JC Roads and City PWD.
11. Reinforced Water Connection: The Developer should be required to constructed an 8-inch
diameter water line which connects to the existing 8-inch diameter water line in Pittview Avenue,
and which "loops" into the 8-inch-water line in Juanita Way. This would prevent this line from
being a °dead-end" line, which would require significantly more maintenance and "flushings".
Waterline stub-outs and suitable easements shall be provided to extend the 8-inch water
service to the large parcels to the West (tax lot 100) and East (tax lot 6400) of the subject
Development, with the stub-outs possibly being located at the "hammerhead". tax lots to
3f
Bea11 Fstates IV Tentative Plan Revrew, P[VD StaJJ'Report
February 22, 1999
Page 4
General
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 implementation.
2. Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals, and conditions as may be
required by other agencies, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (DFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Division of State
Lands (DSL), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), affected irrigation districts, and JC
Roads, as applicable.
3. 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
Mylarr~") 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 that 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 fire 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.
4. 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.
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.
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 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.
3'~
Beal! Fstates IV Tentative Plan Review, PWD Staff Report
February 22, 1999
Page S
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 final street and driveway layout, site
access, fire hydrant placement, and water system improvement plans for the proposed
development.
^ 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.
^ A copy of written approval from JC Roads regarding Pittview Avenue improvements (as
applicable) and street connections to Pittview Avenue.
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
development's infrastructure will connect into existing improvements, prior fo final construction
plan design and submittal for final approval.
9. 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 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.
10. 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 and as-built drawings.
11. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a drawing
of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Mylar® and in an acceptable electronic form in
AutoCAD® format. The Final Plat shall be tied to a legal Government corner and the State Plane
Coordinate System. The Final Plat shall either reflect or be later modified to reflect any
applicable "red-line" changes noted in the construction "as-builts", at the discretion of the City
Administrator or his designee.
Streets/Traffic
Existing Improvements - Pittview Avenue -Local Street. Current ROW 60' wide, varying
street width. Right-of Way required: 60 foot width. Jurisdiction -
Jackson County.
Construction drawings for this Tentative Plan shall include a Street Lighting Plan and Traffic
Delineation Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City PWD. Street lights shall be
placed in a "zig-zag" pattern along the streets and at maximum 200-foot spacing (as measured
from light post to light post) to afford better lighting of the public rights-of-way. The Street
Lighting Plan shall include two street lights along the residential lane. The street lights on the
residential lane will be of a design and at locations as approved by the City PWD and Pacific
Power. Street lights will also need to be installed or possibly modified along Pittview Avenue to
afford proper lighting of the street intersection.
~~
Beall Estates IV Tentative Plan Revrew, PWD Sta,/J~Report
February 22, 1999
Page 6
The City PWD, at the cost of the Developer, shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and
determine the street section designs for Shayla Lane and Pittview Avenue in accordance with
the City PWO Standards. The City's engineering staff or selected engineering consultant (at
Developer's expense), shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the street
section designs in accordance with the City PWD Standards. Minimum street section for
Shayla Lane shall be as follows:
- 3-inches Class "B" A.C.
- 6-inches of 1"-0" crushed rock
- 8-inches of 4"-0" crushed rock (City of Medford specifications),
- Woven geotextile fabric over compacted subgrade.
Minimum street section for Pittview Avenue shall be as follows:
- 3-inches Class "B" A.C.
- 6-inches of 1"-0" crushed rock
- 8-inches of 4"-0" crushed rock (City of Medford specifications),
- Woven geotextile fabric over compacted subgrade.
Street section (excluding the asphalt concrete portion) shall be extended underneath and a
minimum of two feet beyond the curb and gutter section, and underneath the driveway apron
connection with Pittview Avenue.
3. As applicable, stop signs and traffic delineation (i.e. "stop bars") shall be required and installed
by the City PWD (at the Developer's expense) at the proposed development's intersection with
Pittview Avenue. No parking signs and yellow curbing (as needed) will also be placed along
Shayla Lane, by the City PWD at the Developer's expense.
Storm Drainage, Irrigation Improvements
Existing Improvements - Various Sized storm drainage pipes along the southern sides of
lots 17 and 18 of Tyler Park Subdivision.
During the design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system (SD System), which
shall provide for and convey 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.
2. 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 downstream facilities, and polling
water on City streets; or must be provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and
be designed to not impact existing public storm drainage facilities. Any private storm drain
system exceeding 3-inches in diameter shall be designed to directly connect to the public storm
drain system (at a manhole or curb inlet only), and shall not be designed to discharge to the
:. 3 ~
Beal[ Estates IV Tentative Plan Review, PWD S(aJj'Report
February 22, 1999
Page 8
All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design, construction and
testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEO, 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.
3. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary approval, will
forward the plans to BCVSA for completion of the review process. Upon completion of the
review by BCVSA, completion of final revisions to the plans by the Developer's engineer, and
following the final approval and signature on the construction plans by BCVSA, the Public
Works Director will approve the plans in final form.
4. All testing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be done in accordance with BCVSA
requirements, at Developer's expense. The Developer shall provide BCVSA and the City with
test reports, N reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final
acceptance.
Water System
- Existing 8-inch-diameter water lines installed in Pittview Avenue and Juanita Way.
The water system shall be designed to provide the required fire flow demand capacities for the
proposed facility, which meet Fire District 3 requirements, with fire hydrant placement as
approved by the City PWD and Fire District 3. Maximum spacing of fire hydrants shall be 300
feet. Water service lateral connection stationing and size shall be provided on construction
plans and as-built drawings.
2. Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for backflow
prevention.
3. Water service meter boxes shall be City PWD specified "Christy" brand meter boxes, that
accommodate the Sensus touch-read equipment. City PWD will perform all "hot" connections
to active water lines, including service lateral taps, unless otherwise approved by the Public
Works Director.
Site work, Grading, and Utility 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
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.
2. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage
away from the building.
3. Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company which reflects all utility line
locations, crossings, transformer locations, valves, etc.
41.
Beall Fstates IV Tentative Pfau Review, PWD StaJJReport
February 22, 1999
Page 9
Utility locations must be accurately included on the as-built drawings, or as a separate set of
drawings attached to the as-built drawings.
5. All fill placed in development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in
accordance with City PWD and 1994 UBC standards, except for the upper 1.5-foot of fill placed
outside of public rights-of-way and that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular
access ways or parking areas.
Rights of Ways/Easements
If applicable, Developer shall provide a Statement of Water Rights (on a City approved form),
for any affected properties. For properties determined to have water rights, the developer will
coordinate with the State Watermaster the re-allocation of any waters attached to lands no
longer irrigable as a result of the proposed development.
4~
94>2512999 97:45 8254566 JCF'D3 BUS OFC ~ ~ PAGE 93103
FIRE DISTRICT No. 3
JACKSON COUNTY
8333 AGATE ROAD, WHITE CITY, OREGON 97503-1075
(541} $26-7100 FAX (541) 826-4566
www, jcfd3.com
April 25, zooo
City of Central point
Ken Gerschier
RE; Cody Subdivision
City of Central Point
~xxl~rT tt~ t~
Planning Department
Fire District 3 has reviewed the tentative plan for the Cody Subdivision with the
following requirements.
I. The fire hydrant on Pittview shall be within 50oft of the most remote
part of Shayla Lane,
2. Parking on Shayla Lane will be restricted to one (1) side only.
3. No parking shall be permitted in the hammerhead turnaround at the end
of Shayla Lane.
4. Approved "NO PARKING" signage shall be provided in all areas where
parking is restricted. Contact Fire District 3 for requirements.
S. Al( New home shall have an address sign visible from the street.
~ ~ s~~
Nei( Shaw
Deputy Fire Marshal
4~
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the Tentative Plan shall expire in one year on May 2, 2001 unless
an application for final plat or extension has been received by the City.
The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
The tentative and final plats shall depict utility easements requested by the City,
BCVSA and WP Natural Gas. Any changes to utility layout including fire hydrants
shall require subsequent approval by the respective service provider.
\\CPPDPDC\Ylanning\00009. WPD
e
~~