HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - March 6, 2001CITY OF CENTRAL, POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
March 6, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.
~ ~ ~
Next Planning Commission
Resolution No. 513
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. MINUTES
A. Review and approval of February 6, 2001, Planning Commission Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
Page 1-16 A. Public meeting to review aii application for a fence variance at 543 Mitchell
Way. The applicant is requesting if portions of an existing fence can remain
at a height of six feet in a side yard setback where the code allows a
maximum height of42 inches. The subject property is located in the R-1-10,
Residential Single Family zoning district on Map 37 2 W l OBB, Tax Lot 512.
17 - 35 B. Public Hearing regarding a tentative subdivision that would create 84 parcels
in an area north of Taylor Road and west of State Highway 99 in the recently
approved Transit Oriented Development (TOD) on Jackson County
Assessment Plat 372W03C, Tax Lots 200, 202 and 4403. The project area is
located in TOD Low Mix and TOD Medium Mix Residential zoning districts.
36 - 42 C. Public hearing to clarify the flood plain boundary for Unit 1 of the Griffin
Oaks Subdivision located north of Taylor Road and west of State Highway
99.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
Planning Commission
2/6/2001
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, John LeGros, Karolyne Johnson, Paul Lunte,
Don Foster and Wayne Riggs were present. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning
Director; and Matt Samitore, Planning Technician.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
There was correspondence from the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District
regarding item B on the agenda.
IV. MINUTES
Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the minutes from the January
16, 2001 meeting as presented. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Johnson, yes; Fish, yes; LeGros, yes; Lunte, yes; and Foster, yes
and Riggs, yes. Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
A. Continued public hearing to consider a site plan application that would allow the
construction of a four unit apartment complex (four-plex) on the northwest corner
of Hiatt Lane and Haskell Street The subject property is located in the R-3
Residential Multiple Family Zoning District and the Corridor (Medium Mix
Residential overlay zone on Man 372W10AA Tax Lot 7200
Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. This item
was a continuation from the January 16, 2001 Planning Commission. The Applicants have
submitted a new site plan that moves the building east to save a Redwood tree. The applicants
have shown the six required parking spots and have a landscape strip which is required for the
new TOD corridor zoning. A Landscape and Irrigation plan still needs to be submitted to the
City.
Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 510 approving the Site
Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Lunte seconded the
motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously.
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Pfinntes
I'ebniary 6, 2001
P~e3
C. Public Meetine to review a request by George Gardner to modify the original
conditions of annroval for the Parkwoocl Terrace Planned Unit Develonment The
subdivision is located in the R-2 Residential Two-Family zone district on Map
372WO1B, Tax Lot 2500.
Tom Humphrey, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The applicants are requesting
that the Commission consider modifications to their earlier approval of the Final Development
Plan for Pazkwood Terrace Estates Planned Unit Development. The applicants are asking for
four changes; 1.) That they have the ability to do both attached and detached zero lot line homes
and the ability to build more single story homes as well; 2.) Reduce the front and rear yard
setbacks on lots 43-44, from 10 to 8 on the rear property setback, 18 to 12 feet on the garage
setback, and 18 to 10 on the living area front yard setback; 3.) Reduction of front setbacks on lots
36-40, garage from 18 to 10, living area from 18 to 10; 4.) The ability to work with staff to
eliminate up to 61ots with lot line adjustments. The City would like to add to the fourth
stipulation that the lot elimination could occur through either Lot Line Adjustments or through a
Re-plat, whichever staff determines most appropriate.
George Gardner, the Applicant, stated that he would like the changes in order to sell homes.
Curently, the market is looking for small lots that are single story. In order to do that, he needs
to have a product that fits those plans. The only way to do that is by getting changes to the
previously approved Final PUD plan. With strong CC&R's the setback can be enforced so
people will be required to park their cars inside the garage.
Frank Minor, of 629 Meadowbrook, stated they shouldjust make the lots bigger in order to get
the types of housing they want. Also, the zoning should be changed in order to match the Central
Point East development.
Larry Frank, of Windermere Van Vleet and Associates, Inc., stated the market is for single family
small lot, single story homes. The setbacks can be enforced through CC&R's. The fnarket for
this price range is single professionals, retired people, who do not want to climb stairs, or empty-
nesters who only have children visit occasionally.
Dixie Hackstedde, of Windermere Van Vleet and Associates, Inc., stated there is a real need for
small lots with a single family home on them.
The Commission discussed the issues regarding setbacks and stated they would not be granted.
Mr. Gardner, stated he would table the items regarding setback criteria.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution 512 to approve the final
City of Centrist Point
Planning Commi~iott Minutes
Febmiary 6. 2001
Page 4
development plan, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of IaFV contained in the
record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval asset forth. 1.) That they
have the ability to do both attached and detached zero lot line homes and the ability to
build more single story homes as well. 2.) The ability to work with staff to eliminate up to
6-8 lots with lot line adjustments or with a re-plat of the subdivision, which ever works
better with the City of Central Point. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL:
Motion passed unanimously.
VII MISCELLANEOUS
VIII ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Lunte seconded
the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
PLANNING DEPARTMF,NT STAFF REPORT
MEETING
DATE: March 6, 2001
TO: Central Point Plaiming Commission
FROM: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner
SUBJECT: Variance from fence requirements at 543 Mitchell Way (372W10BB Tax
Lot 512).
AP lip cant: Richard and Kelly Tibbets
543 Mitchell Way
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Summarv: The applicant wishes to vary from fence requirements in order to retain a 6
foot high fence that was previously constructed in a side yard setback.
The subject parcel is zoned R-I, Residential Single-Family.
Anthority: CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to
review and decide , without a public hearing, any application for a fence
variance. Review is being performed in accordance with CPMC 1.24.050.
Applicable Law: CPMC 15.20.040 et seq. -Fence Height on Lots
CPMC 15.20.080 et seq. -Fence Variances
CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Single-Family District
Discussion•
The Applicant decided to request this Fence variance and has provided his rationale as part of
the attached application and exhibits.
CPMC Sections 15.20.050 states that no fence shall be hig{zer than three and one {:alf feet
wit{zin the required setback area.. Requests for fezzce variances shall be wade by application .
..and shall be reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1.24 (which involves Planning
Commission consideration without a public hearing).
Richazd and Kelly Tibbets are requesting that the Plamring Commission grant a variance from
the 3 %2 foot height requirement for a portion of a previously constructed fence located within a
side yard setback.
The portion of the fence that exceeds the three and one half foot height is located along the East
and a part of the South property lines (refer to Attaclunent D)
The City first became aware that portions of the fence exceeded the maximum height in the side
yard setback when the Code Enforcement Officer notified the Planning Department.
1
Thirteen of the neighbors surrounding the parcel have signed a petition requesting that the fence
remain as is (Attachment P).
If findings could be made for approval, the applicant would be allowed to leave the current fence
in place. If findings could not be made the applicant would need to reduce the fence height to
code immediately.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
A variance may be granted if findings are made as follows:
1. The strict application of the provisions would result in unmecessary hardship; or
The strict application of the Ordinance for this applicatiou would not appear to create an
unnecessary hardship on the applicant.
2. The following considerations will either result from a granting of the variance or the following
considerations do not apply to the requested application:
a. The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city,
Fourteen neighbors have signed a petition in support of keeping the fence as it is
currently constructed since they believe that the structure looks nicer at a 6 foot
height as opposed to 3 %: feet.
b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city,
The applicant has invested time and money in fencing and landscaping for his
property which likely has resulted in increased property valve.
c. The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the city,
While the increased fence height would not necessarily provide additional safety to
the neighborhood, it would allow the applicant a greater sense of security in keeping
his small children in the yard.
d. The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city,
An increased fence height will likely to provide additional protection to the
neighborhood since a 6 foot high fence as opposed to a 3 %2 foot fence provides a
better barrier.
tea.
e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighbgrhood.
t~-~_
Neighboring property owners have submitted a petition i favor of keeping to fence
as it was constructed at 6 feet in height. The existin~febce oes not interfere with
the sight vision traigle at the intersection of Mendolia and Mitchell Ways'.
f. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district.
Wood fences like the one constructed by the applicant are commonly constructed in
residential neighborhoods but usually comply with the required setbacks.
The applicant has submitted findings for consideration by the Commission (Attachment C).
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
Approve the fence variance application based on the findings of fact contained in the
record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or
2. Deny the proposed Variance application; or
3. Continue the review for the Variance application at the discretion of the Commission.
Attachments:
A. Application for Fence Variance
B. Notice of Meeting
C. Applicant's Findings of Fact
D. Applicant's Site Plan showing fence height
E. Assessment Plat
F. Correspondence from neighbors
H:\Planning\tibbetsrpt. W PD
it ~~
~~jj}cHlr'leki A
APPLICATION FOR FENCE VARIANCE
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Hanle; Richard T. & Kelly J. Tibbets
Address: 543 Mitchell Way
City: Central Point
Telephone: Business: 210-1093 Residence: 664-7918
2. AGENT iNFORMATiON
Name:
Address:
City:
3.
Telephone: Busiress: ~ Residence:
OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet if ~Jlore Than One)
Name: Richard T. & Kelly J. Tibbets
Address: 543 Mitchell Way
Clty: ('antral Point _-
4.
Telephone: Business: 210-1.093 Residence:
PROJECT DESGRIPTION
664-7918
Township:`~~__ Range: 'Z_p__[,~}__ Section: IIl ~l~i Tax Lot{s): 5~
Zoning District:
Tota! Acreage: . z s a c r e
GeneralDeseriptionofVarianee: '~ii~w 6' fence on side yard.
See attached.
5. R///EQUfRED SUBMITTALS
This Application Form
Application Fee ($200.00)
[~ One Copy of a Reduced Plot Plan &
Elevations (8112" x 11")
~ritten Authority from Property Owner if Agent
in Application Process
[~ Findings (Addressing Criteria in Section 15.20.080 of the
Central Point Municipal Code)
[vj~ Legal Description of the Property
6. I HEREBY STATE THE FAGTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS
AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT AND ACCURATE TO
THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. /~
I certify that I am the : J[~] ~oper~ Owner or [ } Auth`~rized Agent of the Owner of the proposed
/1 ~ .,
Ci tey o~ Central Poln t
PLANNING DL'PARTMFNT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Community Planner
Matt Samitore
Planning Technician
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: February 13, 2001
Meeting Date
Time:
Place:
NATi THE OF MEETING
March 6, 2001
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 Cormnission will review an
request to vary from the fence requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code at 543 Mitchell
Way. This parcel is located in a R-1-10, Residential Single-Family Zoning District on Jackson
County Assessment Plat 37 2W l OBB 512.
The Central Point Planning Corrunission is being asked if portions of an existing fence can remain
at a height of six feet in a side yard setback where the code allows a maximum height of 42 inches.
At the meeting, the Commission will review the documentation submitted by the applicant and will
decide whether or not to grant the Variance.
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission may request review of such action
by the City Council. Such a request must be filed in writing to the City Administrator no more than
seven (7) days after a notification of the decision is given to those parties whom provided comments
to the Planhing Commission.
A decision by the Planning Commission could be affirmed by the City Council at the next regularly
scheduled meeting if a request for review is not received within the seven (7) day requestperiod. The
Central Point City Council reserves the right to approve, deny or modify a request for a fence
variance.
5
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for fences are set forth in Chapter 15 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating
to fence variances.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Anyperson interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit
written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 6, 2001.
2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 1.55
South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
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.
PROPERTY
6
- - __
I55 South Second Street ®Central Point, OR 97502 ®(541) 664-3321 ®Fax: (541) 664-6384
Richazd T. & Kelly J. Tibbets
543 Mitchell Way
Central Point, OR 97502
February 5, 2001
City of Central Point Planning Dept.
155 South 2"d Street
Central Point, OR 97502
Re: Application For Fence Variance
Deaz Sir or Madam:
At this time, we would respectfully like to ask that the City of Central Point grant a "Fence Variance" requesting a 6'
fence be allowed on the property located at 543 Mitchell Way, Central Point. In the following paragraphs, we have
stated our reasons for asking for such a variance and are optimistic that you will be in favor of such a variance after
reviewing each point.
a) The fence variance would provide an advantage to the neighborhood by keeping our dog kennel and
swingset well hidden behind the 6' fence, thus maintaining the high standards of the neighborhood and
community.
b) The fence variance would provide beautification to the neighborhood and/or city because the fence has
been constructed with high-quality material and has been stained with a natural stain and will consistently
be maintained.
c) The fence vaziance would provide safety to the neighborhood and/or city by keeping our pets and children
contained in the backyazd. If a 42" fence were erected, there would be a high risk that my small children
would climb over and get into the street. Although I supervise my children when in the backyazd at a
young age, there is the occasion when I may be called into the house momentarily, and with a higher
fence, I can at least rest easy that they are not able to get into the street.
d) The fence variance would provide protection to the neighborhood and/or city because if the fence was kept
at 6' it would contain any play equipment in the backyard and lessen the chance of stray balls going out
into the street and causing an accident that would if the fence were reduced to 42".
e) The fence variance would not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood and/or city because it does
not interfere with the sight triangle in any way. In fact, the neighbors directly across from the fence would
be able to view a nicely constructed 6' fence from their fiving room window instead of our children and all
the play equipment that can be strewn around the yazd at times. In fact, we would realize an adverse
impact if the 42" height code was enforced because we would lose all privacy in our back yard The house
dvectly behind us, which faces Mendolia Way, is on a lot that has been built up and they can see
completely into our backyazd. If a lower fence were built along Mendolia Way, we would then be faced
with the neighbors across the street being able to see everything in our backyard also. One of the main
reasons we chose this particulaz house was of the comer lot and the privacy it allowed.
f) The variance would utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district because if there was
ever a need to access our property by the city, we would quickly be able to temporarily remove a section
of the fence given due notice.
Attached please find a list of signatures from neighbors in favor of the fence variance request. Again, we would
respectfully ask that when reviewing our application your findings aze favorable and the variance is granted fora 6'
fence on our property.
Sincerely,
s~
Richard T. Tibbets
,~,
Kelly r is
~'~.~GF(/i'I~NT
.,z -
=~-
T CpNSTRUCTIC}N ANC.
TpM 1VtAtp
P.O. BOX 3847 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
1503) ~~`' SS ~ 03) 654.4b73
a ~ ~O~~a~
A
1 1 l- V ` 1204X ~~~~
pwkK ~
in Q-1~5~¢z,~r
i ; ~_~
f
`,S, ~ a ~-- ` 6
~ ~ - ~~ ~9
F, ~~ I
~ ~ `'.
:~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
:. ~I
_._... o
~ __ ...~.
Z~,
r
-~ .: ~
't ~~, 3D' ., '~~.~::: ~. log
V \1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ID ~~~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~~.lov
f. v "~ ~
,~ 9
~ 5
~s' ' z, ~ .; , E;L
a.~~ :: ..
d : c'P'n QQ
.~ I ~. '..1~:
!. ~ - :Y
i. 6 Zy.
`~ ~ ~ - ~CN>:-
. .. i.
~~tv leas
,-
Gt2'~~"F•4K„ ypq~
r _ bJ
?-~3 i.- i S
~r1c,'- C~°r~w~- tL.
;~
~ / F 1 w
,~ 9
V ~ v,/
~~~f~~
~~
., i i "_t"_~?a3 ~ T S
t , ~~z, ~="~~
S
11
~ Gk
12
13
14
m
'+
i
h
m i~
l-}1y'RcFlwt~t~{T ``E`~
~' ~ SR-2.5 _.
Pa ~ f Pa z
_.... ._ .....
r3.v n _ ..,.o. _
r, ,n "'~t'~+€8 airs
m
~
501 502 -
~ 503 504 505 506 507 ,"
a
0.23 Ac .23 Ac
G 0 23 Ac 0.23 Ac O 23 Ac O 23 Ac ~ 0 32 Ac G
'~
/ ~
s_ ~
~ A v,
q ~ •~: oI V) is
~
``
r V/
rVI 0 0 1.
Ili
1x" 5oe
34
ya
^ r ~
-
l
G . 7
,
g
~~ Ysg 5tt
af' 023 Ac r. q
,A I
•~~ S1~1 3 S(.1~ 4 rJ~
g 5 $~` ~ o
6 q4: b955 66 ~6'~ ~
~
~J.y£
/a-sr
/s.yd j
rJ. yr n. us $~.11f ~
~~, m
Wf3
MITCHELL
-WAY O 9
119.1{
- Q
os-SSn~
5
, a
0
b
0
2
322 P 42
20,14
5.30
I
Ac
r N ~ 0.12 Ac reETENmn ,
S 82 6a. d2 61 d2 $p: y6 a_ + ~ X89 -SJ-yOt LOT > ~. I P COUNTRY ME0.0JW
I5 514 513 512 ,..r /ry.,2 O E5T SU6 JNIT2 PH.I
2a Ac o.2a Ac o 2a o 25 Ac Q 5f0 ~
SS 25 v 023 AC < INITIAL POINT T
(0'1 1~ Sll3 O H a ~ WSC 53 R w+rcHELL's LANOlr6~
4 ~.J CS 1570 y` ~y ~py'^ I~ ~ 8 M'EST PINE VILLA ~
9
~ " ~ °• ~ o ' 511 c,s.;y e°iN t ' X00 /9s2
`~~ '^ @ ~ ~ i 2 a 0.24 Ac. ~ 0.21Ac
45 IA 13 12 o INT ELL COR ^ ajll R
r dz sr az sa dz ~o zs ~ ^ ULC 52---'-- n
~ ~ .. .: co Ptl; 27y
u 1a.22 BOB /vJ.nv -. ;
23. B2 ~ `! IIOO o,
ti :~24AC ~ COtI" 0.21Ac s
.,•,~ ~ Q a ~.. 800 z3-o-aa2a q.
703 ~ ~ ~ `' ~ ~~ o.3e Ac b `' ~
,„ 32 ~ 9.'N.
M19o 0.29 AC /41.15 A /4,f. bl 26 M.D6
807/' S 1200
l/ ~ H RE TEN TIUN POHU
' v24 n" 3' 0 0.21Ac ab7
~~ ~ ~ a~ 0~ ° I O BOI 'w~ 25
/Sd 23
96.16 57 31 r 024 Ac' Y, ~ Q
/vs.oc `+` ~ ~ 1300 e~GS' ^ Z
702 v ! G °~ 0.23Ac
0.13 Ac ~ QQ ~ ~ / zo 9 BLK I o Z
6 , „ ..'neon G~v ~ ao2 /ygao ,~~.~ z4' O
63 ti ~e 55
a 19 57.00
HERON DRIVE
I
~clu
(
0.24 Ac
C S 16018
21
803 /yv`n
0.24 Ac
22
1400 apj "`¢
0.23Ac
0
/~z.se 23 ~
1500 stagy.,
o.2oAc aot
22 n
1
~~ 15
~¢%t~cf~WiEN7~ ~`f ~~
Application For Fence Variance
Page 2
February 5, 2001
~.
As the neighbors to Richard and Kelly Tibbets, we would like our favorable position noted on the variance being
requested fora 6' fence at 543 Mitchell Way. We in no way feel that the fence would be harmful in any way to the
neighborhood or city and, in fact, would be considered an improvement over a 42" fence.
~l~ ~-~~1.2-c
~, 9/G /~'tcndvC,va,
~~a- lYls~e N~
5 S8 ~nntrtc~-~,u- c~y~-
~~,~ ~"5 7 n:7r-mil( ~~ y ~
~~tQ ~ ~t~t ~ 't
1~
f~lii!.cvte~~c.
~. ~ a ~Q~
N i~
~-
16
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
MEETING
DATE: March 6, 2001
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Ken Gerschler, Community Plamrer
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - To consider a Tentative Plan fora 841ot subdivision
known as Griffin Oaks Subdivision, Unit Number 2 located north of
Taylor Road and west of Haskell Street in the TOD-LMR and TOD MMR
zoning districts (372W03 Tax Lot 4403).
Applicant/
Owner: Twin Creeks Development L.L.C.
1461 McAndrews Road
Medford, Oregon 97501
Agent: Herb Farber/Farber Surveying
120 Mistletoe Street
Medford, Oregon 97501
Summary: The applicant has submitted a development proposal to subdivide 22.61
acres of land into 84 residential lots. This tentative plan is located within
the recently approved Transit Oriented Development (TOD) master plan.
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.
Applicable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. -Tentative Plans
T.O.D. Design Requirements and Standards Book
Discussion•
Griffin Oaks, Unit Number 2 is a portion of a rnultiple phased commercial and residential
development proposed north of Taylor Road and west of Highway 99 in the Transit Oriented
Development (TOD).
The Planning Department has reviewed the tentative plan for compliance with the TOD Design
Requirements, Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan. The area is designated for low mix and
medium mix residential development and is zoned TOD-LMR and TOD-MMR. The mix of
housing types anticipated have numerous lot sizes and configurations. The 84 lots that comprise
the Unit 2 of the Griffin Oaks Subdivision range in size from 3,501 to 9,063 square feet with the
average lot size being 7,085 square feet (Attachment A).
~~
This proposed subdivision is one of seven distinct neighborhoods located within the Twin Creeks
Development which has been master planned with stringent standards designed to ensure project
quality with a creative form of community that targets less reliance upon the automobile by
emphasizing public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian activities.
Griffin Oaks , Unit I3umber 2 has been presented in compliance with the Twin Creeks Transit-
Oriented Master Plan which includes components relating to pedestrian and bicycle paths, traffic
calming measures, parking, landscaping and street light standards.
Water service is provided to the site via a 16 inch line on Silver Springs Drive with 6 inch lines
branching to Black Oak, Griffin Oaks and Oakley Streets.
Park and open space has been accommodated along the northerly boundary of the proposed
neighborhood where three park areas of 35,619, 29,040 and 12, 863 square feet have been
identified. A pedestrian path is shown to meander from a pocket park near the north subdivision
boundary, travelling east across Silver Springs Drive towards Griffin Creek.
An issue of concern for this development and the tentatively approved Brookfield Estates
Subdivision along Taylor Road has been the need for traffic circulation and signal improvements,
particularly at the intersection of Haskell and West Pine Street. The TOD Master Plan identifies
that Unit 2 of the Griffin Oaks subdivision will "trigger" geometric and signalization
improvements at Pine and Haskell Streets with coordination through the Oregon Department of
Transportation. The traffic improvements will be designed to minimize the vehicle queue length
on the westbound approach to Haskell Street. Griffin Oaks Drive, Black Oak Drive and Oakley
Street have been designated as standard residential streets. Courtyard lanes will be established
with easements to serve 121ots along the west subdivision boundary.
Traffic calming measures will be implemented with curb extensions at most intersections within
Griffin Oaks with the exception of the Silver Springs and Taylor Road intersection where a
traffic circle is depicted in the master plan.
The Rogue River Valley Irrigation District, Jackson County Roads and Parks and the Bear Creek
Valley Sanitary Authority each originally submitted comments and recommendations (see
Attachment C) in 1999 for the original subdivision named Bohnert Estates. These agencies have
been notified of the second phase and the Planning Department anticipates the receipt of
additional input.
The Public Works Department has provided their comments, recommendations and requirements
for this application which can be found in Attachment D.
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.
The project site is located in the TOD-LMR (Low 1VIix Resideutial) and TOD-MMR
1~
(Medium Mix Residential) Zoning District and increases residential and mixed use land use
efficiency in this area.
The proposed tentative plan for low mix and medium mix residential development is a permitted
use in the TOD zoning district. The zoning in turn is consistent with the TOD Comprehensive
Plan map designation. The Comprehensive Plan encourages innovative residential plamring and
development techniques that would help to increase land use efficiency and reduce costs of
utilities and services (Comprehensive Plan, page XII-12).
2. The project consists of a tentative plan application for the subdivision of
approximately 22.61 acres for the purpose of developing a mixed use development, Unit 2
of the Griffin Oaks Subdivision. The total number of lots proposed for what the
applicants have identified as the second phase of their subdivision is 84.
The proposed mixed use subdivision meets the density requirement for the TOD-LMR (Low Mix
Residential) and TOD-MMR (Medium Mix Residential) Zoning District which is a maximum of
12 units per acre in the TOD-LMR and 32 units per acre in the TOD-MMR. Each lot within the
subdivision meets the requirements of the TOD Design Requirements and Guidelines. The
tentative plan includes all information required by CPMC 16.10.010 et. seq.
3. The Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed both 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 found in
Attachments D and E.
Recommeudation:
Staff recommends that the Plaiming Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt Resolution No., approving the tentative subdivision subject to the recommended
conditions of approval (Attachment E); or
2. Deny the tentative subdivision; or
3. Continue the review of the tentative subdivision at the discretion of the Commission.
Attachments:
A. Copy of Tentative Plat
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Correspondence Received from Affected Agencies
D. Public Works Staff Report
E. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval
H:\Plann i ng\01 OOS.~i~pd
19
i
RSe
„~~ _
O
1
I_
PLR 1l GUAR WOw,IrY unp
FUTURE PHASES OF TWiN CREEKS (SCC NOBS)
LPG' ~ \~~ , ~~ 1
,2ta~ A1, i E~ 1~
~ 30' T \\~\~%
/ 24' R/w ALLEY R '
z9~9ose.n. i ~ ~ ~ .,
q m I2Q9X4
30 A100.09 80g r~ 9- .- N- . L. MN \
73 LOT 72 'o.oD I
se+l. ~ en. zPn, I ~51 50.00 50.0~6p.00 50T65.00 35. _ ^~ `_ _ _ . 6 P ' ~~i 1 .~... L., 'i
~' O ]{ 8 s 76 w(
(n 2J 'n0
V easy ¢ D Sq..
D.oo I
~'
rv
LOT 77 8
6A
LOP 7a
d (~
6 e 9 Sq.(4~ BB.
sall.
m I
>8.64 9 00
~
r
LOT ]8 $ IOT,J9
(7yi\\ 6mD s4+t
J
J W B'oD fTp`n. IX 1
4
3 I 9
a. ,00.00\ ~ °
~
~
eV p eon
o ~
J a 9 Sq, B9p'1 D.II.
m
_
Y c J6.a4 `
LOT 02 90.00
LOT 83
Q
~ bJ33 54tt.u aB90 $e.ll.
~ 1
^
N~ 88.93
90.00
.
®~ LOT BD " LOT a4
e J6] Sp(I.8 Baw 59.11.
9
~ J9.o2 90.00 190.0
D
r LOi 89 8 LOT 87 .o.DD
,
Lal 6 A 6692 59.(1. m 8900 99.11.
~ ~ J9.ET 100.00 I
LoT ac
6]29 sou. ~ es
m 9sao se.n. F
6
J9.22
ml J
' LOT 80 90.00
LOT 91 I
6695 rl.g
s4 89505q 11. n
89.31 9000 ~
O7 93 a LOT 92 1
lal 9 ~ 5411,E JD20 5411.
90.00
Jy 9o
LOT m.ao 9aa
95
699z son $ eeoo sq.u. I _
R I °I tOT DDI LeT 34
0 6152 Sq.((1 J1 sq.N.
8152 $q
n 1 8 ' ~'
LOT D7 I
I LOT 32
9
4 I ~ 6]1] $pll, ~ 019 5-.11.-
8
J se.n. ( w, Ese;
NI R 125
w 8 LOT a3 ' t To
1 ro e>IJ son. 1O^
S LOT DD I ~ ep0
I rain s9.u.x
8 LOT 89 i IJ m>t~z
900] 54(1.
LOT IOD
IM39 $nf
~ ~,I pa D2H 5 .II.
LoT too8
I $ 00.
99
8698 29ALW
9
0B.J2
O
~ 8000 39.11.
~~~
yyyy
~u+
T 97 P
,
N
lOT 98
5 sav. "9j ~ m ee¢s san.
~~SILUER SPRINGS DRIVE
A$SESSOR$ MAP N0. JJ 1W OJC Jt 20 , 202 4105
J W J3.95 J200
LD LOT 54 LOt Sa
690 11 6610 59.11 6960 5411
T a9 LOT a8
8 0530 59,R,
T BO tAT at
o S9.n. e9eD Se.n.~
ss Lor as g
E s9.(L g9e0 2911.
T DO LOT 87 °o
e e s9.n. e9eo s9.u. ~
~ ~
6 1, e9 .IL
1 l J
~. 1 \\ \~
\ ~
\ \ \\ ~ AL01922RC0
PROFES ON
\
10101®iL00 Fl1W
tt
_~
\ A
LAND 9
[R
uxE ABxISnENt m .~.
- .
L1£ x ux[ rc am]PAn
. OR OON
26, 1995
/
- PCNCWM. DALE IR-]1-01
11 /
1 ;
~ , BRA WA~ i
\rPLR F.I ~WR~W~YtNAPOVL)
(9CC NOiCS)
Y
~I.J
U
W
TENTATJVE PLAN
GRIFFIN OAKS UNIT No. 2
TWIN CREEKS
ICCOfnO ;n
NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SEC710N 36
TOWNSHIP 38 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST
WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, JACKSON COUNN OREGON
for
TWIN CREEKS DEVELOPMENT, LLC
1661 EAST IACANDREWS ROAD
MEDFORD, ORCGON 9]501
NC(NITY MAP
$CCNIC flOAO NO SCNC
Y~
~
s ~a~
`
aq.
O
~ n
DETAIL CLUSTER 'y.
b
EASEMENT AREAN b
_
4 PRM[CT AREn
A3.56 R
lAnox gono
113.02
plxf '~
Y~
NOTES:
3 mIL 0[ NCMOVfp BEfCRC CWh[11ry1 Of CAICMNPMASC. .
AoomDNnE IxrogNARCN;
A rvnuugm ww[s WiN coxra9u io ML YwlxvY/
9. A ID' PoeIISCi ViivArtiv EwAYirviN Vnvv 6[ hARDPp~i L
LOTS ADJACCN] i01xC RICeI Of WAY tmC AHY
AOOITONAL EASEMENTS AHD iNEM LOCAIIOV 1NLL BF
CFRPUINFO InM iXE [ONiPUC110.v OPAw,NL2,
L, iX[ SNAUEii LO112 }501 50 ri.
D. AREAS CEyCNAiF fCR PagMi AND P[DiSIR1Ax PaXXS
ME SMDVM.
E, AKRACE LDi ySC 15 i085 SD ri.
PCNA {1qY AVD fLOWWAY Y.NS PCq CONYNNItt No.
915509-0902 DA1E0 APRLL 1, 1902
SurveYea Dy
FARBER & SONS, INC.
dbo FARBER SURVEI7NC
(547) 778-0846
OFFICE LOCATION: )RAILING ADDRESS:
620 MISTLETOE P.O. BOX 5266
MEOFORD. OREGON 9>501 CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 9)502
scut r - loD•
DALE: O[C[MBCR JO, 2000 AHMfHDED h'fBgVARY IT, 2001
J9B N0.: 09.190-96
ORAWNC {iLf: JOB$\LRANTB\TNN_CRC(A'S\LR-T-DARS.FL.t
Cz ty ol" Cen t.ral Pozn t '~'~~"'"`~~
PLANNING DL'PARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Community Planner
Matt Samitore
Planning Technician
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: February 13, 2001
Meeting Date: March 6, 2001
Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Place: Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
NATURE OF MEETING
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an
application fora 841ot Tentative Subdivision (Griffin Oaks UnitNo. 2 of Twin Creeks) to be located
in an azea north of Taylor Road and west of Highway 99. The subject parcel to be subdivided is
located in the recently approved Transit Oriented Development (TOD), Low Mix Residential and
Medium Mix Residential Zoning Districts on Jackson County Assessment Plat 3~2W03C, Tax Lots
200, 202 acid 4403.
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
Standazds.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit
written continents up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 6, 2001.
21
2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to 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 abort
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
Ha11, 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.
SU]
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ®(541) 664-3321 ®Fax: (541) 664-6384
/T / /.4'C~%n~/Y~ ~~Gtl
r~oGV~ oe~~~ v~.L~Ey ®~oeo~~r®oa ®~s~r~~cT
3139 MERRIMAN ROAD d
MEDFORD. OREGON 97501-1277 6 (541)T736727
Apri123, 1999
~~45U U
APR 2 9 1999
Ken GerschIer
Ciry of Central Point
Planning Department
Central Point, OR 97502
RE: 99003-TP
Bohnert Estates Subdivision
Deal Ken:
The subject property is within the boundaries of the Rogue River Valley
Irrigation District. The District has its Oakleigh Lateral running along the South
side of the property in a 15" pipeline. Care should be taken to avoid damage
during construction activities.
No fences, deep rooted plants or structures will be allowed within the
easement. Any road crossing over the pipeline will need to be upgraded to City
load standards. There is an existing ditch on the North side of the property that
drains back towards Griffin Creek. The District w'sll need to see any proposed
drainage plans to be able to comment. The Districts Blue Moon Dam is adjacent
and downstream of the property. It has been in operation since the early 1920's
and will probably impact the drainage of the property when in service. The
developer should contact the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District office to avoid
possible flooding of both sides of Griffin Creek.
The developer will need to install separate irrigation system access to each
individual lot ofthe proposed subdivision to maintain Rogue River Valley
Irrigation District water on the property. Plans should be submitted to the District
for approval of the secondary system or options.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the District office at 773-
6127.
Since ly,
.,c~-
Jim Pendleton
District Manager
(r_ -~-
23
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON JOSEPHL3TRAHI,DIRECTOR
200 ANTELOPE ROAD WH4T£ CnY, OREGON 97503 t641) 8267722 or (641) 776-7266
FAX:(541)830.6407
April B, 1999
Attention: Tom Humphrey
City of Central Point Planning
115 South Second Street
Central Point, OR 97502
RE: Bohnert Estates Subdivision off Taylor Road - a county maintained road.
Planning File 99003-TP; 48-lot residential subdivision
Dear Mr. Humphrey:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the application for Bohnert Estates, a
48-lot residential subdivision located on the north side of Taylor Road, across from Brad
Way. Roads and Parks Services has the following comments:
The applicant shall submit construction drawings to Jackson County Roads and
Parks Services and obtain county permits if required.
2. We recommend that half-street frontage improvements to Taylor Road be required
to urban standards. Improvements shalt include road widening, curb, gutter,
drainage facilities, sidewalk and bike Zane.
3. If additional right-of-way is required for the improvements, dedication should be
required before permits are issued. City of Central Point standards may be
utilized for road improvement if the City agrees, in writing, to future maintenance of
the urban improvements.
4. The applicant shall obtain a road approach permits from Roads and Parks
Services for the new Otto Boulevard road approach to Taylor Road. The paved
approach shah have 30' approach radii and a 30' minimum width.
We recommend no direct parcel access to Taylor Road.
6. Jackson County Roads and Parks Services would like to review and comment on
the hydraulic report including the calculations and drainage plan. Capacity
improvements or on site detention, if necessary, shall be insfalled at the expense
of the applicant.
If you have any questions or need further information feel free to call me at 774-6230.
Sincerely
Ear/ijc Niemeyer, PE
Traffic & Development Engineer
BEAR OREEK ZtREENWAT~EI `~K~RfE~R/Nd /3R.EfAOfMENr / dIOTORP OAD MgINTENANCE / VEOErATIONMAtIAOEMENr
776.7264 426.7122 d26~?J22 776.73: 426$122 4267!22
., _ 2 4
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
3915 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFORD, OREGON 97501-9099 • (541)779-4144 • FAX (541) 535.5270
March 25, 1999 MAR 2 9 1999
Ken Gerschler
City of Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Subject: 99003 TP - Bohnert Estates Subdivision 37 2W 3C t14403
Deaz Ken,
We have reviewed the proposal with regazd to providing sanitary sewer service. The property is
within the BCVSA service azea, and is identified on the sewer Master Plan as connecting to the
West Branch of the Lower Bear Creek Interceptor (LBCT). The LBCI runs through the site as a
36 inch diameter pipe, flowing North.
The collection system within the proposed subdivision will need to be designed by an Oregon
Registered Engineer to BCVSA Standards and processed through BCVSA for approval.
Connection to the Interceptor will be limited to existing manholes, requiring parallel collection
sewer main in Otto Boulevazd.
Have the applicant contact BCVSA for information on design, permit, fees, and processing.
Sin e y i~i`~ _ /
James May, Jr. P.E.
District Engineer
25
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
REVISED STAFF REPORT
for
GRIFFIN OAKS UNIT NO. 2
TENTATIVE PLAN REVIEW
PW #01005
~~4c.~iu~~6`~ tl~ ~t
Date: March 1, 2001
Applicant: Twin Creeks Developments, LLC, 1461 McAndrews Road, Medford, Oregon 97501
Agent: Herb Farber, Farber Surveying, 120 Mistletoe St., Medford, Oregon 97501
Property
Owner:
Project:
Location:
Legal:
Zoning:
Plans:
Report By:
Purpose:
W.L. Moore Properties, LLC, and John A. Duke, 1461 McAndrews Road, Medfortl,
Oregon 97501
Griffin Oaks Unit No.2
North of Taylor Road, East of the Intersection of Brad Way.
T38S, R2W, Section 36
R-2
1 page entitled "Tentative Plat of Griffin Oaks
by Farber and Sons, Inc.
Central Point Public Works Dept.
Unit No.2, dated January 23, 2001 prepared
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 residential subdivision. Gather information
from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development.
Special Requirements
Existing /nfrasfructure: The Developer shat{ 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
the affected facility, as approved by (as applicable), the regulatory agency, utility owner, andlor
property owner involved.
2. Riahts-of-Way and Easements: Taylor Road is designated as a secondary arterial type street.
Developer should provide dedication for expansion of the right-of-way along Taylor Road to a
minimum of 88-feet in width (44-feet each side of centerline). Since the existing right-of-way
width for Taylor Road is 70 feet (40-feet north of centerline), the City will require a minimum of
an additiona{ 4-foot dedication for right-of-way along the Developer's property frontage with
Taylor Road. This requirement of right-of-way dedication may be increased or decreased in
width pending the conclusions and recommended street cross-sections to be provided in the
traffic impact analysis and street network plan studies as approved by the City, that are to be
prepared for the studied streets.
The Developer should provide suitable and acceptable easements (minimum 15-foot in width)
for any existing public works infrastructure, or public works infrastructure required for the
Page I
Cri~n Daks Unit 2
Tentative Plat Revrew
PWD StafjRepa~t
development, that are located outside the public rights-of-way
A separate 10-foot minimum width public utilities easement (P.U.E.) should also be dedicated by
the Developer for utility installation outside the Taylor Road right-of-way along the property's
exterior frontage with Taylor Road. Other P.U.E. are also required for dedication along the
proposed streets in accordance with City PWD standards.
3. Street Layout. See Transportation Plan for Framework Infrastructure on page 10 in "Twin
Creeks Transit-Oriented Development, Master Plan"
4. l~rovements and Access to Tay/or Road: Taylor Road along the frontage of the subject tax
lot is a rural road that does not meet City or County urban standards. The road will need to be
improved, as a minimum, to meet City standards. The Developer will be responsible for, as a
minimum, all "half-street" improvements to Taylor Road along the proposed development's
property frontage with Taylor Road, and any applicable taper or end sections. The
improvements include, but are not limited to, street section, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, an
irrigated landscape buffer, bike lanes/ways, street lighting, storm drainage, and traffic control and
delineation, which shall be coordinated and approved by the JC Roads and the City PWD, and
designed and constructed at the expense of the Developer as part of the development of the
proposed residential subdivision. The planned street section for Taylor Road will have acurb-
to-curb width ranging from 60 to 72 feet. The actual paved street width required will be
determined by the estimated traffic flows expected for the intersection presented in the traffic
study and impact report to be completed for this area, and the road design determined by the
City PWD. Sidewalks will need to be 6-feet in width.
We are also recommending that no permanent access be allowed onto Taylor Road from the
Development's property. If the Developer will require temporary construction access to Taylor
Road to facilitate construction equipment traffic, then the City PWD would concur with this
temporary access if it is approved and as permitted by the Jackson County Roads and Parks
Services (JC Roads).
As approved by the City Administrator, the Developer may request or be required to defer any or
all of the required improvements along Taylor Road 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 City/County for the
development/improvement of the street section and appurtenances (i.e. sidewalks, curb, gutter,
street lights, landscape buffer, storm drainage, etc.) along the development's frontages with
Taylor Road, as required and approved by the JC Roads and City PWD.
5. Other Roadway /mprovemenfs: Developer Shall construct improvements in phases
according to ADT counts specified in TODs' "Phasing Plan Triggers", Page 81 in "Twin Creeks
Transit-Oriented Development, Master Plan".
6. Erosion Control Plan: To meet current DEQ requirements, and pending federal mandated
Phase II Storm Water Quality requirements, a suitable erosion control plan, utilizing best
management practices and procedures, must be prepared and submitted to the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the City PWD for review and approval 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
Pale 2 n ~y
Gruen Oaks Uni12
Tentative Plan Review
PN'~ S1afJReport
receives a copy of the written approval of the erosion control plan by the DEQ. The approved
erosion control plan must then be implemented to control and mitigate construction site storm
water run-off, erosion control, silt and sand migration, nuisance dust generation and migration,
and pollution prevention.
Water Distribution Svstem: The primary water service will come from the City's existing 12-
inch water main that runs parallel to Highway 99, east of the site (refer to Exhibit 14, page 18 in
the "Twin Creeks Transit-Oriented Development, Master Plan"). Other connections will be
made to the existing water main that came from the south, off Taylor Road (currently connected
from Phase I). Collector streets will typically have 12-inch service lines and neighborhood
streets 8-inch. The system will be looped to assure adequate pressure distribution throughout
Twin Creeks.
8. RRVID Facilities: If the development will require the alteration or modification of existing Rogue
River Valley Irrigation District (RRVID) irrigation facilities, then the Developer should be required
to coordinate with and perform the required alterations/modifications to accommodate the
proposed development and maintain the RRVID facilities, as approved by RRVID.
9. Sight-Triangles: TOD residential local street connection (Griffin Oak Street) to secondary
arterial street (Taylor Road) and TOD residential local street connection (Oak Wood Street) to
secondary arteria{ street (Taylor Road), these type of street intersection requires establishment
and maintenance of a minimum 55-foot sight triangle, unless othervvise permitted by the PW
Director in accordance with AASHTO/ITE standards. The location of the sight vision triangles
shall be illustrated on the construction plans prepared and submitted for the proposed
development. The sight vision triangle areas should be cleared of any obstructions prior to the
commencement of construction work on this project.
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 shalt 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. 1f 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.
Page 3 ~ Q
J J tJ
Grim Oakr Unit 2
Tentative Plan Review
PR'D StnJjRepa~t
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.
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 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 for the easement 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.
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 Taylor Road improvements (as
applicable) and temporary construction access connections to Taylor Road.
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.
Pale 4
29
Gruen Oaks Unit Z
Tentative Plan Review
PIVD StajfReport
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, as-built drawings, and final plat map, as
applicable.
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, and as permitted bylaw.
12. If applicable, Developer shall provide a Statement of Water Rights (on a City approved form), for
any affected properties of the proposed development that have existing water rights, or which
are going to obtain water rights. 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.
Streets/Traffic
Existing Improvements - Taylor Road -Secondary Arterial. Current ROW 60' wide, varying
street width. Right-of Way required: 44 feet north of centerline.
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. Additional street lights
will also need to be installed at the intersection of Griffin Oak Street and Taylor Road, along
Taylor Road, and the streets and intersections of the proposed subdivision in accordance with
City requirements. The street lights on Taylor Road will be at approximate 200-foot spacings.
Street lights installed within the Development 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
proper lighting of the public rights-of-way. The Street Lighting Plan shall be of a design and at
locations as approved by the City PWD and Pacific Power.
2. The City PWD, at the cost of the Developer, shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and
determine the street section designs for the subdivision's streets and Taylor Road in
accordance with the City PWD 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 the subdivision streets shall be as follows:
Page 5
30
Grim Oaks Unit 2
Tentative Pfan Review
PWD Staff Repaz
- 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.
Minimum street section for Taylor Road shall be as follows:
- 4-inches Class "B" A.C.
- 8-inches of 3/4"-0" crushed rock
- 14-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.
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
Taylor Road, and the intersections with Griffin Oak Street.
Storm Drainage, Irrigation Improvements
The developer shall develop a plan for the storm drain collection and conveyance system which
provides for run-off from and run-on onto (including surface water conveyance) the proposed
development, any future and existing development on adjacent properties, and any areas
deemed by the City that will need to tie-into the proposed development's storm water collection
and conveyance system (i.e tax lots to the west of the proposed development).
2. Storm drainage conveyance pipe stub-outs, through suitable easements in the development, will
need to be provided and storm drain conveyance lines may need to be up-sized as necessary to
accommodate existing and future developed property storm water run-off from the applicable tax
lots (i.e. "Area of Benefit") located to the west of the proposed development. If the storm drain
lines are needed to be up-sized from the size necessary to accommodate the proposed
development and the storm water flows from the existing development of the tax lots (i.e. "Area
of Benefit") in the vicinity of the proposed development, to provide additional capacity to
accommodate the projected future developed flows of the Area of Benefit tax lots, then the PWD
would propose to compensate the Developer for the upsizing above a minimum pipe size of 24-
inch-diameter as per the methodology approved by the City Council.
3. During the design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system (SD System), 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 have 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.
Page 6
3l
Griffin Oaks Unif 2
Tentative Plan Review
PJf'D Staff Report
4. 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 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 street surfaces.
5. Roof drains and underdrains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain lines, and shall
drain either to an on-site private storm drain system or discharge at the curb face.
6. Any discharge points of the storm water facilities shall be designed to provide an aesthetically
pleasing, useful, and low maintenance facility, that are designed to mitigate erosion, damage, or
loss during a 100 year storm event associated with Griffin Creek, as applicable; and that mitigate
the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these types of facilities. Developer's engineer
shall determine how SD system will work during 10-year and 100 year flood events associated
with Griffin Creek. Identify the HGL in Griffin Creek during the 10-and 100-year storm events,
and what affect it will have on the proposed outlets and storm drain system. System should be
designed to adequately drain 10-year storm without surcharging or should be provided with
adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to prevent backflow of water from the
creeks up into SD system during storm events.
7. Prior to City PWD construction plan review, the Developer shall provide the City PWD with a
complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the SD system,
which shall incorporate the use of the City PWD's rainfall/intensity curve, and City approved run-
off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, pipe roughness coefficients, etc., that are used in
the engineering calculations.
8. Storm drain pipe materials shall be PVC, HDP~, or reinforced concrete, with water-tight joints
meeting the requirements of ASTM D3212, F477, and C-443M, as applicable. Provide concrete
(in areas within the rights-of-way) or sand-cement slurry (in areas outside the rights-of-way)
encasement where required in areas of minimum cover.
9. If inlets/catch basins are to exceed 4.5 feet in depth from the lip of the inlet to the bottom of the
catch basin, then the inlets and catch basins shall be designed to afford suitable "man" entry for
maintenancelcleaning purposes.
10. Developer's engineer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations and flow line plots for
private and public storm drains. Plot HGL on profile or provide a separate profile drawing that
indicates the HGL on the profile. Pipes should maintain cleansing velocity (minimum 2.0 feet per
second) and have adequate capacities without surcharging during the design storm.
11. The Developer may wish to incorporate the use of a perforated SD system. If so, then the
perforated storm drain system shall be designed to have adequate capacities to:
^ Convey the collected groundwater and storm water with the minimum cleaning velocities
and without surcharging the collection and conveyance piping; and
r~~e ~
32
Gruen Gals 11nir 2
Tenta[ive Plnn Review
PYf~D StaJjReport
^ Minimize silts, sands, gravels, and fines migration from the native soils into the SD
system.
The plotted HGL shall include both the groundwater infiltration, and the storm water run-off and
run-on inflows into the SD system.
12. Maintain a minimum 0.2-foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes and curb
inlets, unless flow-through velocities during the design storm event exceed 3.0 feet per second
(fps). If flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps and the inlet pipe is in relatively direct (i.e. 180 ± 5 degree)
horizontal alignment with the outlet pipe, then as a minimum, the pipe slope shall be maintained
through the base of the manhole or curb inlet. If flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps, and there is other
than relatively direct horizontal alignment between the inlet and outlet pipes, then a minimum of a
0.1-foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes or curb inlet must be maintained.
A bottom channel shall be formed in the manhole or curb inlet base to mitigate transitional
losses and enhance flow through the manhole or curb inlet.
13. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring
properties is unacceptable, with the exception of surface drainage from front yards. The City
has been permitting a variance from this requirement (and the municipal code) in regards to
allowing surface drainage from front yards of residential development.
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.
2. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction
of sewer laterals.
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 the Developer's expense. The Developer shall provide BCVSA and the City
with test reports, TV reports, and certification, as applicable of the sewer system construction
prior to final acceptance.
Water System
- Existing 12-inch-diameter waterline installed in Valley Oaks Boulevard
- Existing 8-inch-diameter waterline installed in Red Oak and Black Oak Drive.
Page 8
~~ 33
Grim Oaks Uni! 2
Tentative PJnn Revietiv
PYf'D StnJJReport
The water system shall be designed to provide the required fire flow demand capacities for the
proposed development, 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, unless otherwise approved by Fire District No. 3 and City PWD. If feasible, the water
system shall be of reinforced flow ("looped") design, with valved connections (taps or direct
connections) to the existing 12-inch-diameter waterline in Taylor Road. Water service iateral
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 backfiow
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 ttre 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 tines 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
fines 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.
4. 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 current adopted 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.
Page 4
34
ATTACHMENT F,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit to the City a copy of the proposed
covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) for Unit 2 of the Griffin Oaks
Subdivision.
2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of affected public agencies and utilities
as they pertain to the development of the Unit 2 of the Griffin Oaks Subdivision.
Evidence of such compliance shall be submitted to the City prior to final plat approval.
The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and
requirements applicable to the development and construction of the Unit 2 of the Griffin
Oaks Subdivision.
H:\Planning\O1005.wpd
35
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: March 6, 2001
TO: Central Point Planning Conunission
FROM: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner
SUBJECT: Public Meeting- Modifications to the Phase 1 of the Griffin Oaks Subdivision
on 37 2W 03CC Tax Lot- 4403
Owner/ Bret Moore
Applicant: W.L. Moore Properties
1461 East McAndrews Road
Medford, OR 97504
Pro er
Description/ 37 2W 03CC Tax Lot 4403, approximately 12.68 acres
Zonin TOD-LMR, Low Mix Residential District
Discussion
Last year, the Commission approved Phase 1 of the Griffin Oaks Subdivision which has
subsequently been final platted. One of the conditions recommended by the Public Works
Department and approved by the Commission was to place a majority of the lots in Phase 1
within the 100 year flood plain. Upon further investigation it has been determined that the
City cannot expand the boundary shown on the FEMA maps without appropriate
justification. In fact, City staff believe that further study of Griffin Creek and associated
chaimel modifications will actually result in a narrower map boundary.
Accurate flood plain identification is significant since srivctures located within the flood
plain require special construction techniques designed to ensure a reduction of flood damage.
Parcels in flood plain areas also have significantly increased insurance costs. Staff is seeking
to revise the Commission's earlier approval and use the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
boundary for Phase 1 of the Griffin aks Subdivision rather than the boundaries recommended
previously in Attachment A.
Planning Department staff has asked that the Commission consider a revised map
(Attachment"C") that depicts Phase 1 of the Griffin Oaks Subdivision with the federal map
delineation. Five of the lots shown in Phase 1 are out of the flood plain and should be
recognized as such. These lots have been identified as 6,7,12,13,20,and 21. Part of lot 6 is
within the flood plain but not the portion where a home would be constructed.
36
The Central Point Municipal Code requires that changes to approved subdivision plats be
approved by the Plamiing Commission and this is why staff is bringing this issue back to
you.
Attachments
A. Public Works Staff Report
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Applicant's Map
3'7
' ~ Bohnert Estates
~`~~ Tentative Plan Review
PWDStaJfReport
3~~ May 25, 1999
Page 3
reach of Griffin Creek from Taylor Road to the point where Griffin Creek
discharges under the railroad and highway crossings should be performed to
identify floodway and flood zone boundaries, problem areas of flood conveyance,
and potential mitigating measures which could be implemented prior to or
concurrent with the development of the lands in this area to reduce the flooding
potential and narrow the "area of special flood hazard" associated with Griffin
Creek and raise the City's "Community Rating System" standard which could result
in lower flood insurance rates for the affected City residents. The existing "area of
special flood hazard" associated with Griffin Creek, as mapped by FEMA, nearly
encompasses the entire proposed development.
- A storm drainage master plan should be developed which illustrates how areas will.
drain to Griffin Creek and the required pipe sizes that will need to be installed to
convey storm water run-off and surface drainage from the outlying areas to the
west and east of Griffin Creek, to Griffin Creek.
Based on the limited master planning that has been performed, and on the assumption that this
development will be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the completion of the required
infrastructure master planning, PWD staff have made some conservative recommendations and
requirements as part of this staff report. If results, findings, and recommendations of the on-going
infrastructure master planning indicate that less conservative assumptions and measures are required,
then the recommendations and requirements of this staff report could be modified by either staff approval
or by Planing Commission action, as required by law.
The City PWD is recommending that if the proposed development is approved then the proposed
Development should be conditioned with requirements that are forthcoming from required traffic impact
and street networking analyses, the TOD study, and flood studies that are currently under development or
that will be completed as part of conditional approval of this and other planned or approved development
in this area of the City. tt is also recommended that this Development be conditioned with the
requirement to participate in and pay an allocated portion of the cost for preparation of the traffic impact
study and street network analysis and to complete floodway and floodzone supplemental analyses of
Griffin Creek. It is proposed that the allocation of costs associated with the traffic impact study and street
network analysis would be based on the tax lot(s) size in ratio to the total area to be developed that is
encompassed by these reports. The requirements, recommendations, and suggestions stated in this staff
report are based on these premises.
It should be noted that this staff report only addresses the first 24 lots, as subsequent development on the
property to the north may will require supplemental or revised conditions of approval.
Special Requirements
Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing
infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, sform 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
.~ 39
C~ ty o.~ Central Pozn t
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Community Planner
Matt Samitore
Planning Technician
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: February 13, 2001
Meeting Date: Mazch 6, 2001
Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Place: Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
NATURE OF MEETING
Beginzung at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an
application for a modification, to review the 100 year floodplain requirements for Griffin Oaks
subdivision. The property is located North of Taylor Road and West of Highway 99. The subject
parcel is located in a TOD-Low Mix Residential Zoning District on Map 372W03C, Tax Lot 4403.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for the Planned Unit Development 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
Standazds.
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, March 6, 2001.
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
cleazly 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) G64-
3321 ext. 291.
SUMMARY OF PROCEAURE
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 applications. 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 and Variance. City
regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission
decisions.
155 South Second Street ®Central Point, OR 97502 ®(541) 664-3321 ®Fax: (541) 664-6384
41