Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - June 5, 2001CITY OF CEN'I'I2AL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 5, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. a ~ ~ Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 518 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland -Candy Fish, Don Foster, Karolyne Johnson, John LeGros, Paul Lunte and Wayne Riggs III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of May 1, 2001, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Page 1 - 9 A. Public Hearing regarding a tentative subdivision that would create seven parcels in the Mt. View Plaza commercial development on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372 W02D, Tax Lots 1100,1200 and 1201. The project area is located in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. 10 - 35 B. Public Hearing regarding a tentative Planned Unit Development that would create 15 parcels and a small private park on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372 WO I C, Tax Lot 1200 and 372 WO1 CA, Tax Lot 3100. The project area is located in the R-2, Residential Two-Family zoning district. 36 - 45 C. Public meeting to review an application for a fence variance at 2799 Oakview Avenue. The applicant is requesting if portions of an proposed fence can be constructed 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-1-8, Residential Single Family zoning district on Map 37 2W O1CA, Tax Lot 4000. 46 - 63 D. Public hearing to review a site plan application for the construction of a utility building and sign next to the Rogue Express II coffee shop at 131 North Front The subject parcel is located in a TOD-GC, General Commercial zoning district on Map 37 2W 03D, Tax Lot 2300. 64 - 68 E. A review for the placement of a swimming pool in the Rosewood estates development on Assessment Map 372W10CA, "fax Lot 5910. The subject parcel is located in an R-1, Residential Single Family zoning district. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission 5/1/2001 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, John LeGros, Paul Lunte, Don Foster and Wayne Riggs were present. Karolyne Johnson was absent. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; Ken Gerschler, Community Planner; and Matt Samitore, Planning Technician. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Foster made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 20, 2001 meeting as presented. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; LeGros, abstained; Lunte, yes; Foster, yes and Riggs, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public hearine to review an application for a two lot land partition at 841 Greenleaf Way on Assessment Map 372W 11 D Tax Lot 1700 The subject parcel to be divided is located in an R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner presented the planning department staff report. This parcel was brought before the Commission a couple of years ago on a conditional use permit allowing two dwellings on a single tax lot. Mrs. Beane who recently passed away, worked with the City to determine adequate setbacks and construct the additional unit on Greenleaf Lane. All the improvements were done and all the setbacks are adequate for partitioning the lot into two separate tax lots. All sidewalks and infrastructure have been completed. The Agent for the Applicant, Herb Farber, stated that the parcels meet all the requirements for the zoning. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 516, approving the Tentative Minor Land Partition of 37 2W11D, Tax Lot 1700 subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: motion passed unanimously. B. Public meeting to review a site plan application that would allow the constntction of a mixed use development on two vacant parcels of land located at the intersection of Fourth and Oak Streets in a HMR, High Mix Residential zoning district The propert is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as 37 2W 02CC tax Lots 9400 and 9500. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner and Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the Planning Department staff report. The development will be the first of the Mixed Use idea for Central Point. The new TOD zoning which was adopted in January allows for this kind of use. The Four Oaks development will have 3 separate buildings. All three buildings have the ability to have bottom floor commercial with residential above. Two of the buildings will be dedicated to bottom floor commercial from the beginning, with the third building, located along Fourth Street, being constructed for alive/work combination. 24 of street parking spaces are provided for the development which is adequate for the developtent. The applicants will also be utilizing the 80 foot wide right of way on Oak Street to provide public parking. Alleyway improvements will have to be completed in order to handle the traffic associated with the development. A Local Improvement District will have to be made in order for the improverents to be constructed. The alley way direction will also have to be changed in order to allow for the building along Fourth Street to be located so close to the property line. An unique style of lighting will have to worked out with Staff for the development. Herb Farber, Agent for the Applicant, stated that the development will be a joint venture with the Orr's, Farber's, and W.L. Moore. The actual spelling of the development will be Four Oaks Centre (intentionally spelled as "centre"). They applicants would like the clrange the Public Works Staff Report on page 7, Under Water System item 2. Each unit or building shall be served by a separate water meter. This will be done because they don't know how the water system will work for each building yet. Each building will be on a sepazate tax lot and be stand alone once the lot line adjustment is made. Mr. Gerschler stated he would like to add a fifth item to the conditions of approval addressing the cross access agreement being part of the for mentioned lot-line adjustment. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 517, approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. C. Request to amend conditions of the Planning Commission approval for New Haven Estates Subdivision. Specifically to reconsider the creation of a 10 000 square foot lot "buffer zone" alone the north side of Rabun Way The subiect property is located in the R-1-8, Residential Sinele famil zoning district. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the findings. The approval of the New Haven Estates subdivision was also part of a zone change for that area. The area was changed from R- 1-10 to R-I-8. The lots along the Northerly side of Rabun Way were to be 10,000 square feet buffer lots. These lots were intended to buffer the Urban Residential uses in the City from the Rural Residential uses in the County. When the surveyor, I-Ierb Farber, surveyed the property it was shown that the property line was actually further north than the adjoining property owners thought. The fence was off in some places by as much as 15 feet. The adjoining property owners have claimed adverse possession of the land since the fence has been there for such a long time. The property line dispute involves 11 of the 18 lots along Rabun Way. If they tried to get this resolved in court they could not get the final plat on the lots. The applicants would like relief from the 10,000 square foot requirement. All of the lots still meet the current zoning requirements and all will be larger than the minimum 8,000 square foot minimum. Mr. Herb Farber, Agent for the Applicant, stated he believes the error in the fence has occurred for quite some time and that he believes the fencing was at one time part of a larger farm and included gates to adjoining properties. Not having the 10,000 square foot requirement will not affect the building footprints at all. They will still negotiate with the property owners to try to resolve the problems. Mr. Gerschler defined the meaning of adverse possession and told the Commission that if the dispute is not worked out the adjoining property owners will receive two tax bills. Commissioner Fish made a recommendation to the City Council that the developers be allowed to vary 11 lots, lots 190-201, along the Northerly side of Rabun Way, to a minimum of 8,000 square feet. Commissioner LeGros seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Recommendation passed unanimously. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Humpluey asked for clarification with the Malot Apartments. The developer was required to construct a 4 foot fence along the perimeter of the "tot lot". The developer has not built the fence. The Commission agreed the developer shall construct the fence around the perimeter of the "tot lot" prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the final building. VIII. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT I-IEARING DATE: June 5, 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: and 1201. Ap licant/ Owner: Pro e Description! Zoning: Summary Central Point Planning Commission Ken Gerschler, Community Planner Public Hearing- Tentative Subdivision for 37 2W 02D Tax Lots 1100, 1200 Mountain View Plaza L.L.C. 990 North Phoenix Road Medford, OR 97504 37 2W 02 Tax Lots 1100, 1200 and 1201, ] 5.08 acres C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District The applicant, Mountain View Plaza L.L.C. is proposing the minor partition of three existing parcels into a total of seven parcels (refer to Exhibit A). The property is located east of the intersection ofFreeman Road and Oak Street in a C-4, Tourist and Office Professional 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 plan for a land partition. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B). Ap~cable Law CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. Tentative Plans CPMC 17.44.010 et seq. C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District CPMC 17.60.130 et seq.- Access J ~ ~ Discussion As the Commission is aware, this parcel contains the Mountain View Plaza commercial development approved in1998. Since approval, the parcel has been subdivided several times to meet the needs of prospective commercial property buyers. Based upon local market considerations ,the applicant requests that the property be subdivided once again to create seven distinct lots derived from three existing lots while completing a right of way transfer of property adjacent to Freeman Road. The subdivision will continue to access Freeman Road using Reciprocal Easement Agreements (also referred to as Cross Access Easements) on the privately owned Plaza Boulevard. Jackson County Fire District 3 and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority have submitted correspondence for consideration by the Commission. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority has indicated that the proposed subdivision of this land would define the sanitary sewer facilities as a public system (Attachment "C"). The agency is recommending that individual service connections be constructed to each parcel, or that a public sewer main be constructed to serve the entire project. The Planning Department has reviewed the tentative plan for the proposed subdivision and have concluded that it complies with city requirements if all conditions of approval pertaining to site development, minimum lot size and, public works standards and specifications aze met (Attachment "D"). Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Subdivision CPMC 16.10.010 requires that applications for tentative plans be submitted with improvement plans and other supplementary information as may be needed to indicate the development plan. ^ The proposed minor partition satisfies the subdivision requirements listed in CPMC 16.36.030 and CPMC 16.36.040. The Public Works Department may request additional information to satisfy standard specification requirements. CPMC 17.28.050 establishes minimum area, width and access requirements for the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional district. ^ Parcels i through 7 of the proposed subdivision meet the area, width and access requirements for the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional district. In addition, the placement of the buildings originally depicted in the Mountain View Plaza site plan is not affected by this change. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Tentative Subdivision of 37 2W 02D Tax Lots 1100,1200 and 1200 subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit D ); or 2. Deny the proposed Tentative Subdivision; or 3. Continue the review of the Tentative Subdivision at the discretion of the Commission. Exhibits A. Tentative Subdivision Plat B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Comments from Other Agencies D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval 3 r a 7 ~___ s ~~ p~~S U i ~ ~' M ~~ N~ p~p~ 2~ ~~ >~ ~_ z u M• 88 R4 ~' ~ ~~J ~ ~~~ -i<~' ~ ~~z ~ - ~N~! ~ I?1B~!j ~~ N ~ o y ~ ol ;?:' om' ~ ~ C ~rr ~~",~ ~ i ~~ a~ a g~gg~ C~ ". ~ CYty of Ce€et~--~ :Point ,ttA t: ~~ Planning D ~ s rowtr ~ asxior ~ g ~«~,..~ d ~ Thn fSt'( _ ___°__ ___~.-~ .i ~ 11 g 1 t s E>• > li ~ ~ ~ ~ s~ a 1 §¢$ ~ `~ ~ ~ J '--~ .. i ,~(,~~ may' a.gre~.pos RR, ~~' ~ `\\ ` ` ~ \~ 2 My ~ Q¢ ;;;~ FF,, w „ ~~~~ g ~ S ~s .r S ~ 1 II ~~ '~~ ' ' ~ ~ c . (Q 11 ~ I I ~ s rowY N s ICI ~ n Yy Y d III i p ili _V.. ~ ~ x I 1 8 ~ 111 II B ~ s „~ a ~ q - I ^ ; ~`\i e $L ¢j ~;s~lill 1 ~ 1111 ro c I s ~~°~~il i yl ,e ~ ~ ~{ ~ ~S~ ~ 1 ~~ )11 1 ~} ~ 1 ~ ~_____1L~. I a U ~ ~~ y~ age / h S //l," ~~ p0 T ~ b ~;~~~ liii N ! ~ k N ~~ >x Y r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $~~ A ~ $~ 2 ~ ~ Y~ ~~ gg 8~ ~~ ~~ s~ ~~ ~~ B~ ~8 Ry rnm ~~ ~~ i I 1, II ,~ r II 1 I I 1 .~ I I 1~ ~ /, ~ ~sl ~ I I $$ya I I e~` I' II 1 ~I Ij ~I 1 Ij II II II II II bm O .~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~_~ ~~ g~A~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ >~ 4 ~~ 0 Z---iii ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ g ~b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ y~ Hro V ~~`^~i ~ VI ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ z ~~ CI ~ey o.f Central Pozn t PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Ilumphrey. AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Matt Samitore Planning 'Pechnician Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: May 15, 2001 Meeting Date: Time: Place: June 5, 2001 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall I55 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING ~TCiry oo7f Ceait~:ai Paint L.CI':1.'JL~ R~ 1 t1B; tf Planning Bepartment Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a Subdivision application for several parcels of property located within the Mountain View Plaza commercial development. The subject parcels aze located in a C-4, Tourist and Office-Professional Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W02D, Tax Lots 1100 and 1300. The Central Point Planning Commission will initially review the application of Tentative Subdivision to determine if the proposed subdivision of the existing two tax lots meets the requirements oflaw. If approved, the subdivision would create a total of seven commercially zoned parcels. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Partitions are set forth in Chapter 16 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations 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, June 5, 2001. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. r 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 Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Please refer to file 01025-TP. Copies of the same aze available at 15 cents per page. 5. Por 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 azguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Tentative Subdivision.City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 f (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 -~ vv/VG FrR~ DZSTR~CT' No, 3 ~ACK50N COUNTY $333 AGATE ROAD, wttZTE GFfY, OStEGOtJ 97503-1075 (541) $26.7100 FAX (541) 826-,4566 www.,Lcfd3.com May 22, 200], Ken Gerschler, City Crf Central Point Rl=; Mt. View Plaza Subdivision Ken, ~~~~~~ CITY OF CENTR4L POINT MAY 2 3 2001 PLANNING ^ BUILDfNG ^ DI IRI in ~ninovo n~r~r .-. CYty of CeLiirai I+oiriE ~.~5 ~~~~Z~ ~c~~~ Planning i)epartment l=ire District 3 will apply ail Uniform Fire Code requirements to this project when plans are submitted to the City for code review. To include Fire Department access, water supply and addressing. !_~ Don Hickman Deputy Fire Marshal ,JCFp3 _.. ._ ., ... ,,......,~..., ISI:VbR PAGE 01/01 BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY aete sours v~ci~ic Hwr. • r~earoRO, oaeaoN oreo+-eooa • (~r> aae-e+oa • ~aa~} rn-c~aq rNC (sH) Cs6-ea7s • wrrw.sew~.arp 1vTay 25, 2001 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: Mountain View Plaza Subdivision, Ftile # 01025-TP Dear Ken, ,All of the proposed parcels currently have sewer service to the existing buildings. Proposed lots A, 5, and 6 are connected to a single private pump station. Separation of these lots would make this pump station, by definition, a public system. This system was not designed or constructed to meet public sewer system standazds and cannot be accepted by BCVSA as a public system. The separation of lots 4, 5, and 6 should not be allowed unless one of the following is done: 1, individual servitee connections to the public sewer main be constructed for each parcel. 2. A public sewer main be constructed to serve the proposed parcels. 'T'here is a manhole near the Southeast comer of Parcel 3, Partition Plat P-54-1998 that could serve the entire projeot with gravity service. The other proposed lots already have individual service connections. BCVSA has no objection to separating these lots. if you need additional information, please call me at 779-41A4. S/in'c~e'x~elY~, Carl TL/" ' apP~ ~~E~~_... District Engineer L~DATA~AGENCIESICEN'['PT~PLANNG\01025-TP IvfI' VIEW PLAZA.DOC EXHIBIT D PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations . 2. 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. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE June 5, 2001 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing -Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Plan for Brookdale Gardens (372WO1C-Tax Lot 1200 and 372WO1CA-Tax Lot 3100) Applicant! Owner: Hamrick Road Investment Corporation P.O. Box 5163 Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Neathamer Surveying 145 South Grape Street Medford, Oregon 97501 Summary: The applicant has submitted a development proposal to subdivide two existing parcels into 15 residential lots, a remnant lot for an existing house and a public park. The proposal is being presented as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which permits more development flexibility without the need to apply for variances. As the Commission maybe aware, PUDs must also be processed as Conditional Uses in the R-2 zoning district. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on conditional use permits and preliminary development plans for planned unit developments. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060 (Attachment B). Applicable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.24.010 et seq. -R-2, Residential Two-Family District CPMC 17.60.130 General Provisions, Access CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. Planned Unit Development CPMC 17.76.010 et seq. Conditional Use Permit Discussion• In April of 2000, The Planning Commission approved the tentative plan for the Brookdale Gardens Planned Unit Development. At that time, the development proposed a 38 lot subdivision involving three tax lots. The tentative P.U.D. plan has since expired with one of the property owners opting out of the development on tax lot 1300 . The applicant is asking that the Commission review a new plan that would create fifteen (15) lots with access taken from varied . - ~Q width public street named Brookdale Avenue. Beginning at Meadowbrook Drive, Brookdale Avenue extends west approximately 100 feet with a night of way width of 52 feet then tapers to 36 feet to it's tern~inus. The reduced street width is the result of the exclusion of tax lot 1300 from the previously approved PUD application. Mr. Ralph Van der Star is the owner of tax lot 1300 and has contacted the Planning Department with concerns about the creation of a no-access strip adjacent his property and future access to Brookdale Avenue. He is concerned that the applicant will "hold him hostage" by charging too much money when he decides to develop his property. In a meeting with city staff, the applicant indicated that the no-access strip will be deeded to the City, who would later release interest when tax lot 1300 is developed. The applicant further stated that any reimbursements would be dependent upon costs derived in a documented bid process. The public works staff report gives a detailed list of recommended improvements. Conditional Use Permit: CPMC 17.28.0301ists Planned Unit Developments as a conditional use in the R-2, Residential Two Family District. Therefore findings for conditional uses must be considered with those for PUDs. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit• Conditional uses require special consideration so that they may be property Zocated with respect to ...the zoning title and their effect on surrounding properties. The Planning Commission in granting a Conditional Ilse Permit must find as follows: A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of lire subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code. • The 2.60 acre area will be subdivided into 15 residential lots in addition to a separate parcel for the existing house. There is a 6,608 square foot lot committed to park area. B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use. • Brookdale Avenue would be extended westward to serve this subdivision. Part of the park area is identified as a future street reservation which will allow eventual access to property on the north that is not now ready for development. C. That the proposed use thereofwill have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or permitted use thereof. ~~ 1i • The proposed subdivision would transpose a formerly rural character into a residential activity that is a permitted use in the R-2 zoning district. Accommodations are being made to extend City infrastructure and utilities to adjoining parcels that could develop in the future. D. That the conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Any approval would be subject to the requirements of Jackson County Fire District Number 3. Planned Unit Development: A planned unit development (PUD) may be permitted in an R-2 zoning district subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a preliminary development plan. If the preliminary development plan is approved, an application for final development plan must be submitted within six months of such approval. CPMC 17.68.010 states that the purpose of a planned unit development (PUD) is to gain more effective use of open space, realize the advantages of large-scale site planning and the mix of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation. This is achieved by allowing a variety of buildings and structures, types of open space, variable building heights and setbacks, and shared services and facilities. The applicant met with staff and other interested parties earlier this year to consider various design alternatives for the project azea. As a result, a 6,608 square foot privately owned park has been proposed more interior to the subdivision with some street options that preserve an historic conifer tree which is perhaps the only significant topographic feature on site. The park will need to be adjusted in configuration to accommodate a cul de sac turnaround to better serve emergency, garbage and other large vehicles. A reserved area will still be located in the park for future street connection to undeveloped parcels located to the north. A PUD can be residential, commercial or industrial in nature. The proposed PUD is a single family residential development that consists of fifteen (15) lots ranging in size from 4,256 square feet to 6,264 squaze feet. Each lot will be constructed with a single family detached residence. One lot has been reserved as a remnant for an existing single family residence on the site and will continue to take its access from Hamrick Road (refer to Attachment "A"). Access to the new development will be from Meadowbrook Drive (a public road) serving the 15 lots. The length of the roadway with a turnazound is approximately 600 feet which maybe a concern to Public Works. Fire District #3 is concerned about the width of the street and inadequate turn-around as proposed. The Fire District and the applicant have resolved the issues by proposing the widening of the street by two feet and through the installation of a cul de sac turnaround at the terminus of Brookdale Avenue. H:\Planning\01027. wpd ., 1. !m CPMC 16.20,080 states that a cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall in no event be more than 400 feet long or serve more than twelve single family dwellings. Eventually, a road connection will extend to adjacent property on the north through a portion of the park. A fifteen foot wide pedestrian access to Hamrick Road was shown on the previously approved plan which has been omitted.. For safety reasons, a direct street connection cannot be made onto Hamrick Road. Each dwelling unit will have atwo-car garage that will have a minimum 20 x 20 interior dimension. The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary development plan for compliance with the City's water, sewer, storm drain and transportation standards. The Public Works staff report is attached as Attachment "E". Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority will require that the development meet their agency requirements (Attachment "F") Criteria for PUD: The applicant has prepared documentation that addresses the development schedule for a PUD set forth in Chapter 17.68 of the Central Point Municipal Code (Attachment C). Staff has reviewed the development schedule and determined that the standards for a PUD can be met for this project subject to the recommended conditions of the Planning Department (Attachment D) and the Public Works Department Report (Attachment E). Findings of Fact 8c Conclusions of Law for PUD: In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases its decision on the following standards from Section 17.68.040: A. That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of this title; • The applicant's preliminary development plan proposes single family detached dwellings in the context of a planned community that is more consistent with R-1 zoning and compatible with surrounding housing styles. The overall housing density is less that the maximum for the R-2 zoning district. B. The proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the City; • This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals to the degree it ensures adequate housing will be provided; contributes to the variety of housing offered and promotes the open and free choice of housing for persons wishing to reside in Central Point. From a City policy standpoint, Brookdale Gardens promotes single family dwellings on smaller lots and other designs that potentially minimize the need for more costly and unnecessary municipal expenditures. Zoning code objectives can be met if recommended planning and H:\Planning\01027.wpd J ~ J- v public works conditions can be satisfied. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics ofthe PUD will have minimal adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area;. • As has been stated, the preliminary development plan is consistent with the R-Z zoning and compatible with surrounding zoning and Lousing styles. The self- contained nature of the development will have little impact upon the livability of surrounding neighborhoods particularly from the standpoint of generating pass through automobile traffic and limited pedestrian traffic. Infrastructure will be tied into new and existing systems which Lave adequate capacity. Property management and covenants will govern the maintenance and overall appearance of the PUD. D. That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they aze financially able to carry out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete said construction with a reasonable time as determined by the Commission; The applicants have provided design plans (Attachment A) and a letter of project description (Attachment C). The development schedule indicates that the applicants intend to begin their project within the time frame established by the City. E. That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking; • There is one vehicular point of access and a future street extension is planned to the north which will provide a second point of access. F. That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed; • There is no commercial development proposed in Brookdale Gardens. G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and track access and necessary storage; There is no industrial development proposed in Brookdale Gardens. H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; • The preliminary development plan depicts a private park and landscaping at various locations including pedestrian access to Ilamrick Road. An historic conifer H:\Planning\Ol 027.wpd ~~ tree has been preserved as part of the public park. I. The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area; • The Brookdale Gardens PUD is compatible with the surrounding area to the extent that it maintains a similar single family zoning density and architectural style. Its added benefit it that it will offer more affordable homes in the midst of expensive ones and will likely create a more diverse socioeconomic neighborhood. Consequently, the PUD Fvill be complimentary and compatible with neighboring properties. The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land. • Private streets and, if required, open space will be maintained by the property owner and/or a homeowners association thereby reducing the need for public services provided by the City. Narrower street right-of-ways reduce the amount of pavement that the City must maintain. Recommendation: The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the preliminary development plan for a planned unit development. 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving conditional use permit and preliminary development plan for the Brookdale Gardens PUD, 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 the staff reports; or 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit and preliminary development plan for the Brookdale Gazdens PUD based on findings of fact articulated by the Commission. 3. Continue the review of the subject application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments: A. Tentative Plan-Brookdale Gardens PUD, Building Elevations B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Applicant's Project Description D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions E. Public Works Staff Report & Recommended Conditions F. Correspondence H:\Planning\01027.wpd ~~ i~ ~. .. ~, .5 >,•• 5 °~ :a: Ei ~ "a ~ ~ U !~{ ~ Q v.. ~{ G ; REGISTERED TENTATIVE PLAN D, ~~~ PROFESSIONAL ~ BROOKDALE GARDENS ~ R ~ ' A PLANNED COMILf UNITY ~ laxaw n w xRu....a a»-~e«• ar e.Lexw !, Towunp DT SLVLr, Rome ZY4e4 Hlb»tte rWbby Llfy o/ Gm4W PoiM,..ALYinr lpNy LWSYMy J nernna~ nnceannn ... ro tux au~ T~ ~ac~ GenAw/ 1'oW,tG~vya,T ~7dO.T ) ~ i~56 el' ~4Se X 4]ap X ~~{]G611(' i Y 4 Y 4 N i Y NV / ( ~~ ~ tipw~lp v _ Tnd1+c t~aril~ ~ U end LZ t'MYIN gY1l1'y WIe MI. . 0 td[a1M of W' lFq eYWK PbMkI ~ gINM IW a11ea~ -LG~ YAY.>NN W11Y~yMypr ppW ['e ~M4aW epees agYly ereiw>t i Wu•. meWFy.Wel.xuwpewlw lWlbl.pe rM['nN11u'e• __' 0 aa,ar m wro ylroa weld ~t°~~°• »~w.~a~ "~~ "° Y~acawmeiaxxp tvrateN0loYM ~ cwMe p~µ eway.ew wnve av [ Mcr4. a+wM1p IW 144'ai q nev°.. aaN4xM Nxr pget Maxau. m ~*IM waor wN wr«. _•m [avalwm WtYq waww .,y YExMnT W11ag4y Mlr . m M4in meblM)yslxe m wau...~..wy..4ry e•.r e.x.r -es- `ww«.m+`^Uxp.a'4av r..•swnt / ..•. r~ x.ev ~ 1' wlee non.LCUS..kyr/ j (((~ l., et ]w CIL \ TN(Lm Ixo wewe.yn \ \.~. -- _ t I M e ... u~.^a.:;; N......~_-... .. yc ..::.. L..~. TAl(LOTI~ .. ...... . uCe.w~. >., ' . '. ~.e[ ~~w.b~°e(al 6~RirtltPe~c •-e•o. i•HUN L94Y~IN 0aLK ax rr/eO~SD Lb. .ma cav/cno ' STREET SECTION (xe• wwq sr Rn+l 8 _- ~;•_, a e r _n_ £ is ~ r G~ r y z~ k .. ~'e4a.. ~,,, 1' Rm.ueies w.nueoxo MM(N•I]IO.fO r~ 0 m z9 aci TNf LOT 6]00 4O s Ou• MnJ somvwe Tax Let NaWr Jt TRIG @~ .1.94.4 M Tex 1st NrtW !T 9YtlI0A 9100 • ObS lttee Total rcreage . ]59 Krn ~•~ 1• ~ ea' Bsefe o~ f 9~[` o eo Loo too ,~ >a.t Lw a oLC sa IaLel.a n n,. souo.+r.t CoNar hlrwl . I Ieet ei'xibn 1, Towna+p ST ~r rso.y Mex Cakx • 5 hM « a) Irr Wllarege Mer'Idkn,.hct~ca Gamy, t~ M(Mtln me•Yi ewu•by ° w[a...l..w,yw,,,,.....,.,µ. We6.b[. 6•c+e/I'lpN01LWxNe roLx MM/ a9mwanxroi~.~ •tix cas.•crzoro.x.oaaminr THIS IS A REDUCED ~~p- FdLtlM a\eaxYp {etx[e.tmn.wrr Cl.a'9N >; O~G%n.G [KFIL Y4l. CP`I•kt~D[G"1: aN~. COPY NOT TO SCAL twdi.a,enlvpNaw.e,1yey , E "°Y°"O""wM.IHM11yx LOCAL STREET SECTION TD'I ]~lY gLtiTml~LOl~ IDI~ (JB' n10E) egan. fLle/ to PNed Ovnrl Nmbe.9bf. PREPARED 8Yt Neet6emer 5urveyfnQQ, Iac. 80{ SouN Ceatrel Areatte Ledford OreQoa D760f Phoae 6{t) 782-2888 TAY ({i) 732-1882 rxorccr xmmml aawf Darxl Xv a soot 91wet 1 or I ®ax w N O i 0 c ro N r m d A O[[ ~i a 4",a v N yU~ yUM {'• H r a ~q 3 w ~~ k a t` ~ ~ d ~j Y ~~ A N pM M~ ~~~VVV :1 M H ~. ~ i ~- , !.~l s ~ .r ~i .a YAi1.787 i` v.tiL'~-it}1 ~ V m»..o. tro z a-c 'p _, s=* ° - '~:+'C $ i i GAAAGE , a-a x a-a MNN P_CCR ----' ~ UPPE-9 F{_CCA 7110 SW FIR LCOP SUITc 270 TIGARD, OR 97223 503 624 9251 33 Plans for Houses Less Than 40' wde PAtD VAlL71~ I 1 GF~AT (~.( I r ZFO X L+4 +61Y Lpt~~7p ~y~y I 1 ~ 1 Na ~ ~ YAtLSH7 I I I III 2-0X4-0 I I 11 ~~ a ~ ' IW (L.S I I 9-0 : f!-e BCtAA F-1 I ~ I ~ MAW RCCf? UPP~ F_CCR ,y_, ~cai I o~99~PO~rt-sraml~s.taoooferHaneDr~ncs r,c r h ~~ 3 2 io-o sw x ~-o ~ ,--. s ~~ ' ~s-a x zra ~ . O t t t t ' 1 PSans fot Houses Less Than 44' Wide D4N t YAt]L7'C~J ~~~ .t .. ~' O PLAN 1 ~~ 1192 sq. ~- itG.~~O. OR 47223 503 62n 9251 ~, 3-1 ~~ C_~ .;y of Cen teal Poln PLANNING DEPARTMENT Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: May 15, 2001 Matt Samitore Planning Technician Meeting Date: Tune 1, 2001 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner City of Central L'oiiit E~I-~~~~~T rtB.tt Planning Ilepartmen't Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Planned Unit Development on a pazcel of property located near the intersection of Hamrick and Biddle Roads. The subject parcel islocated in a R-2, Residential Two-Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W01 C, Tax Lot 1200 Plat 37 2W Ol CA, Tax Lot 3100. The Central Point Planning Commission will initially review the tentative plan for the Planned Unit Development to determine if the proposed subdivision of the existing 2.60 acre total lot size meets the requirements of law. If approved, the subdivision would create fifteen pazcels and a neighborhood pazk. CRITERIA. FOR DECISION The requirements for Planned Unit Developments are set forth in Chapters 16 and 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations 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 scheduied for Tuesday, June 1, 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. 2 ~. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration ofthe 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 arc 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 staffreports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and heaz azguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the tentative plan for the Planned Unit Development. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. 22 I55 South Second Sheet ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ®(541) 664-3321 ®Fax: (541) 664-6384 City Of Central Point Planning Department Tom Ifumpkrey, Planning Director 155 Soutk Grape Central Point, Or. 97502 City Of Central Point Public Work Department Bob Pierce, Public Works Director 155 Soutk Grape Central Point, Or. 97502 May 5, 2001 ai3' Of CCitti~.aj I'otIIt Planning DeParimen't Ile: Tentative Plan Application for Brookdale Gardens PUD Dear Tom and Sob, I am submitting to you today the Tentative Plan Application for the Brookdale Gardens PUD. As you aze aware this project was approved last year as a 401ot PUD. This application is for a total of 15 lots and one remainder lot that contains the existing home. Tom and I have already discussed the design and the reasons for the new application. The new application consists of only tax lots 1300 and 3100. I aelieve that you wilt fmd we have kept the most important features from the old approval and have incorporated many improvements as well, such as: 1. The new design has lazgec lots, but not as lazge as a standazd subdivision. This wilt allow for mae varied home designs and a wide range of sizes, while maintaining the concept of a small lot that can be easily maintained. 2. The pazk remained in the approved location, which as you recall was very important to the design and allows the existing sequoia tree to be saved. 3. The street has been placed completely on our properties, so as not to require the development of the neighboring properties, although not precluding their development either. 4. larger rear yard areas. 5. Amore pleasing street scene, due to the new home designs, which feature front porches, garages recessed behind the main fagade of the home and craftsman style appearance. I would tike to ask that the following considerations be and included as part of the Tentative Plan Approval. The standazd street be narrowed to 36' as follows: • 20' Paved Driving Surface, as requesfeil by Fire District 3 in our last approval • 8 'Parking Strip all on the north side of the street • 2' Rolled Curb and Gutter Section 4' Sidewalk • 2' Additional Right of Way behind sidewalk for water meters Investments in Central Point and other Southern Oregon locations 23 :~ ~, v z. . ~ 4 ~~ 1. f 2. A 1'non-access ship is deeded to the city along t}te south edge of the new street. This should include a reimbursement provision should the property to the south be developed using the new street. This provision should have a ] 0-yeaz renewable sunset clause. 3. The standard 20' front yard setback is deviated from to altow for the homes to be placed within 12' of the front property line. This provision would only apply so long as: • Front Loaded Garages -The front of the garage is recessed behind the front elevation of the home. in no event would the front of the garage be closer than 20' of the front property line. • Side Loaded Gazages -All side loaded garages could be placed withht 12' of the front property line 4. The standazd 5' per story side yard setback be deviated from to allow two story home to be located within 5' of the property line. I have included the following required items for your review: • Planned Unit Development Application with addendum's • Agent Authorization Forms from all owners indicating that Neathamer Surveying is to be the Authorized Agent • 81/2" x I 1"Reduced copy of the Tentative Plan • Typical Elevations and Floor Plans of the homes to be constructed • Development Schedule • Brookdale Gazdens Homeowners Association and related documents • Mazket Analysis • Legal Description and Sort Report prepared by Key Title • Typical Landscaping Plan • Typical Home Placement and Solar Orientation Drawing • 10 - 24" x 36" Tentative Plan Drawings After you have had a chance to review the application please call me so that we can meet and discuss any questions or concerns you might have about the project, As always, I look forward to working with you. I can be reached at 944-3438 if there is any other information you need. Thank you. Sincerely, /~--°'~-- /~ r- ,lYCevin Nering~'Pr sid~' Hamrick Road Investment Corporation ~ 24 ATTACHMENT D 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 the Brookdale Gardens PUD. 2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the development of the Brookdale Gardens PUD. Evidence of such compliance shall be submitted to the City prior to final plat approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the development and construction o£the Brookdale Gardens PUD. H:\PI arming\01027. wpd .. 2 5 /~ i,• N CITY OF CENTRAL POINT /1 TTAG}fn'~~i~1T ~ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for BROOKDALE GARDENS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TENTATIVE PLAN REVIEW PW#00007 Date: June 5, 2001 Applicant: Hamrick Road Investment Corporation (HRIC), Post Office Box 5163, Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, 145 Grape Street, Medford, Oregon 97501 Property Owner: Star (1200); Coryell and HRIC (1300); and DeCarlow Homes Inc. (3100) Project: Brookdale Gardens P.U.D. Location: North of E. Pine Street; East of Hamrick Road, and West of Meadowbrook Drive. Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 01 C, tax lots 1200; T37S, R2W, Section 01CA, tax lot 3100. Zoning: R-2 Area: 2.59 Acres (approximately). Units: 17 spaces (15 pad lots, 1 "pocket park", and 1 "remnant" lot). Plans: 1 page entitled "Tentative Plan Brookdale Gardens, a Planned Community", dated May 8, 2001 Report By: Public Works Department Purpose Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed planned unit development. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. Special Requirements Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, 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, and/or property owner involved. 2. Residential Lane: The Developer is proposing the use of public streets with a modified residential lane street section, a street outlet, and a private street. The PWD has approved development of this residential lane concept on Shelterwood, Griffin Creek Estates, Lindsey Meadows, Beall Estates IV, and Parkwood Terrace Estates subdivisions. Typically residential lanes have been designed to serve a maximum of 12 lots. The proposed layout will serve 15 lots in one direction. The Developer is proposing a "residential lane" public street with a 25- foot-wide paved section, with 2-foot-wide rolled curbs on one side of the street. The applicant has also proposed parking on one side of the street: the south side of the street. The PWD is concurring with the requirement that parking be limited to one side with a further restriction that 26 Brookdale Gardens PUD Tentative Plnn Xevrem PWD StaffRepw~t Page 3 from 12 to 15 feet. 4. Street Liahts: The Developer has requested the use of private street lights in lieu of the standard street lights required by the City. PWD would concur with the use of private street lights on the public and private streets, as long as the street lights installed provide the same or better illumination of the street and sidewalk areas as typically provided by the City's standard 5800 lumen street light, at 200 foot spacings. The street lights would be either privately (i.e homeowners association) owned, operated, and maintained (including power consumption costs); owned, operated, and maintained by the City at the homeowner's expense; or owned, operated, and maintained by Pacific Power (excluding the private street). 5. RRVID Facilities: If the development will require the alteration or modification of existing 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. It is suggested that the modifications to the RRVID facilities may include developing a surface water conveyance feature that may be incorporated into the improvements of the pocket park, if feasible. 6. Utility Easements: A dedication of a 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) should be required of the Development's property along the adjusted right-of-way on Hamrick Road, and adjacent to (behind) the City's right-of-way/easements of Brookdale Lane, along both sides of the public and private street section "A" of Brookdale Lane. A 10-foot wide PUE should also be dedicated immediately to the west of the private street section B easement boundaries. The public utility easements within the private street road sections shall be changed from "public utility easement" to "City/BCVSA easement". Any City infrastructure installed outside the City's right-of-way will require suitable easement dedication, meeting current minimum required easement widths for infrastructure separation for installation, maintenance, and repair. 7. Sight-Triangles: Field review of the subject property's access to Meadowbrook Drive indicates that the sight-triangles can be developed that afford the proper sight triangles for a local street connection to the collector streets. These types of street intersections require establishment and maintenance of a minimum 55-foot sight triangle. This will restrict development on lots 1 and 3. It is also recommended that lots 1 and 3 take driveway access off of Meadowbrook Drive, near the northern boundary of lot 3, and the southern boundary of lot 1, as safe driveway ingress and egress from these lots off of Brookdale Lane may not be able to be maintained. Current City standards require that the throat of the driveway be located a minimum of 25 feet from the right-of-way intersection of two-streets. Sight vision triangles at the park of 25 feet may also restrict development in these areas. 8. Pocket Park and Landscape Buffers: The PWD is encouraged by the proposed development of the pocket park within the development, due to the limited amount of backyard space available on the proposed lots. It is the PWD recommendation that these park facilities be designed, developed, and constructed by the developers (at the developer's expense) as part of the development of this project. It is our understanding that this pocket park will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association established with the development. 2~ &•ook~lale Gnrdens PUD Tentative Plan Review P~YD StajfReport Page 4 9. Sidewalks: Sidewalks within this proposed development (both private and public) will be designed to accommodate a single unit truck, and the weight requirements of Fire District No. 3. They shall be constructed of Portland cement concrete with a minimum depth of 6-inches. 10. Wafer Distribution S sy tem: It is recommended that the water system for the development and neighboring properties to the north and south shall be master planned, to not only accommodate the needs of the proposed Development, but to provide for mainline valves and stub-outs for future main distribution networks and "reinforced looping" of the adjoining properties to the north and south. The water distribution for the proposed Development shall be of "reinforced loop" design; a minimum of two connections will need to be made to the City's distribution system: one connection to the 12-inch line in Meadowbrook Drive, and a second connection to the 18-inch-diameter {ine in Namrick Road. The water lines shall be sized to accommodate all fire demand flows of the development (minimum 8-inch-diameter). 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 Mylar®) 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 shah 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. ~~ Brookdale Gardwu PUD Tetrta(ive Plmr Review PYVD Staff Report Page 5 5. If applicable, all existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures, clear and grub materials, and other deleterious materials shall be removed from the site and either recycled or properly disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the DEQ. 6. Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable)) should be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and 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. 7. Prior to the City PWD final approval of the construction plans for the proposed improvements, the following should be submitted: t] A copy of written approval from Fire District 3 of the final street and driveway {ayout, 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. 8. Field verify alt existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, top of banks, ditchlchannel inverts, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed development's infrastructure will connect into existing improvements, prior to 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 (excluding those major power and telephone facilities that are aligned along Hamrick Road) to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. Alt 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. 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. 11. 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 30 Brookdale Gardens PC/D 7entafive Plan Review P6VD StnJjReport Page 7 north and south of the proposed development). It is our understanding that the storm drainage infrastructure within the proposed PUD will be a public system, operated and maintained by the City. 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 north and south 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") north and south 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. 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. 4. 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 through a City approved "pop-up drain" located in the landscape area behind the City's sidewalk. 5. 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. 6. Storm drain pipe materials shall be PVC, HDPE, 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. 7. 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 maintenance/cleaning purposes. 8. 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. 9. 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: 32 Brookdale Gm~dens PUD Tentntive plan Revrew PWD StaJj'Report Page 8 b Gonvey the collected groundwater and storm water with the minimum cleaning velocities and without surcharging the collection and conveyance piping; and O 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. 10. 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 t 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 outset 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. 11. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. Sheet flow surface drainage towards the Hamrick Road right-of-way is unacceptable. Sanitary Sewer Ati 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 shalt 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, TV reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance. Water System - Existing 16-inch-diameter water line installed in Hamrick Road and 12-inch-diameter Meadowbrook Drive. 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 33 Brookdale Gardens PUD Tentative Plnn Review PWD StaJj'Report Page 9 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. The water system shall be of reinforced flow ("looped") design, with valved connections (taps) to the existing 12-inch- diameterwaterlines in Meadowbrook Drive and the 16-inch-diameter line in Hamrick Road. 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 originallexisting grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. 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 USC 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. 34 __ __ _.__ ~. ~...- .'~. Ll JYI JJ JJG /C$ BCVSA PAGE 01/02 BEAR CREED VALLEY SANITARX Al1TH4~NTY 79is seUYN PAGIfIC 1RV~'. • M~D!'ORD, oRlOCN 97661.6098 • (661) s1s-6199 • (541J 979di~6 tAX {sat) 6~6•s27s • www.brneot9 May 31, 2001 Ken Gerschler BAX 664-6384 City of Central Poiuat Pla aping Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Ite: Brookdale Gardena Tentantive Plan, kile # 01027-P1JD Dean Ken, City of Central 1'oirit ~~~rr~~~ ttF tt Planning Department Sewer is available to the above-Jeaentioned project from a manhole at the intersection of l3rookdale and Meadowbrook as shown on the plan. Coustntction of the sewer main to serve the proposed lots must be done in accordance with BCVSA standards If you need additional information, please call me at 779-4144. Si/nce~r~ely, CAN ' ~. Cazl Tappert, P.E. District Engineer 1V3CVSA41\VOLT\DATA\AGENCIES\CENTPTIPI.ANNG\01027-PUD BZLOOKDALE GARDENS.AOC "" PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: June 5, 2001 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Variance from fence requirements at 2799 Oakview Avenue (372WO1CA Tax Lot 4000). Applicant: Richard and Windy Middleton 2799 Oakview Avenue Central Point, Oregon 97502 Summary: The applicant wishes to vary from fence requirements in order to construct a 6 foot high fence in a side yard setback on a corner lot. The subject parcel is zoned R-1, Residential Single-Family. Authority: 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 Applicants have decided to request this fence variance and have provided their rationale as part of the attached application and exhibits. CPMCSectious I5.2D.050 states t1:at no fence shall be /tigher than three and one halffeet witlrir: Else required setback area. Requests for fence variances shall be made by application . . m:d shall be reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1.24 (rvl:ich involves Planning Coumrission coraideratiou without a prrblie hearing). Richard and Windy Middleton are requesting that the Planning Commission grant a variance from the 3 %2 foot height requirement for a portion of a proposed fence located within a side yard setback. When they purchased the property from DeCarlow Homes, they were told by the company that a six foot high fence could be constructed along the property line. DeCarlow Homes has paid the variance application fee as a measure of good faith to the Middletons. The portion of the fence that would exceed the maximum permitted three and one half foot height is located along the East and a part of the North property lines (refer to Attachment D). ~~ The Middletons' have observed that a parcel on a comer lot at the intersection of Naples and St. 3ames Way was granted a variance from the fence setback requirements and now asks that the Commission grant the same consideration for their property. As the Commission is aware, a similar variance request was denied a few months ago on a comer lot in the Mitchell's Landing subdivision. That application failed to meet the required findings of fact despite a neighborhood petition in support of the application. In a related issue, the Planning Department has been notified that there are Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) recorded at 3ackson County that could require an architectural review by a homeowners association. CC&R's generally are more restrictive than City codes and any approval of a variance would not circumvent the authority of these documents. The applicant and DeCarlow Homes aze aware of the CC&R's. If findings could be made for approval, the applicant would be allowed to construct the fence at six feet in height as proposed. If findings could not be made the applicant would need to construct the fence to code. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of LaFv A variance may be granted if findings are made as follows: 1. The strict application of the provisions would result in unnecessary hazdship; or The strict application of the Ordinance for this application 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, Thirteen neighbors have signed a petition in support of the applicant's request for variance since they feel that the proposed fence will not harm the neighborhood and will actually enhance the appearance. b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city, The construction of a fence with quality materials consistently results in the beautification of a neighborhood. At issue with this variance however is the location of the fence which could theoretically be constructed to existing setbacks and still look nice. 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 allofv the applicants a greater sense of security for their e~ children while providing the benefit of additional useable backyard space. d. The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city, An increased fence height will not provide any additional protection to the neighborhood or city. e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. Neighboring property owners have submitted a petition in favor of the variance application. The proposed fence does not interfere with the sight vision triangle at the intersection of Oakview Avenue and Meadowbrook Drive. This is the first application for a fence variance within the Central Point East Development and could be precedence setting. £ 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 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:\Ptanning\01028. WPD ~~ APPLlCATtON FOR FENCE VARIAP CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEPARTME APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Addres aty or Cezctr~i Paint Planning IIeparirnenf city: _ t~~str~-f~~ ~6r,ntl- Cdr . 97~r~~ Telephone: Business: ~/-• '~5= !S~"d- Residence:..SY/ 665-- 1 ~Z-g 2. AGENT INFORMATION ~"~ Name: Address: City: Telephone: Business: Residence: 3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet if More Than One) Name: ~~~~~ ~~ /,1.DO~~r <r- ~/i~~/ L~~ /~/1~'~/ft/ Address: _ ~.~`~ ~1~i~~r~12/ ,~j/~ city: _ C~72'~C~l: ~61~-" .r_.~'I~~%r~l>~ ~~~~d ~ -- Telephone: Business: 511~8~.~-!-S12- Residence: ~~~'~~~ - r~~~ _ 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION y~~ Township: 37 Range: 2w Section: f CR Tax Lot(s): Zoning District: ~ 3 Total Acreage; CD . l a°~ __ General Description of Variance: ' ~ ` ~~tl~ ~~~~ ~,~~' lf~~.~ ~y,~ C'~t'i/!r~~~~`//t~~ ~ ~kl S~~ 1 ~~ ~=~/I/~i' ~l,/i~~~ G11~,~`/, ~.5 Flo . c)~~ - ~tr~~ ~ ~{l~l~~'Z' ~~ ~~n~==~1T ~~_ra~' - ~.~F'~U~ ~' C~'i~~?n 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS [~ This Application Form [ j Application Fee ($200.00) ('~ Plot Plan & Elevat'sons Drawn to ~ Scale (10 Sets) [ One Copy of a Reduced Piot Plan & Elevations (8 1/2" x 11") Written Authority from Property Owner if!\gent in Application Process [~ Findings (Addressing Criteria In Section 15.20.080 of the Central Point Municipal Code) [ ] Legal Description of the Properly 1 HEREBY STATE THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRU ,CORRECT AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. S i certify that t am the : [ ] Property~wner or [ ] Authorized Agent of the Owner of the proposed i, ~ _ .. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for fences are set forth in Chapter 15 of the Centrai Point Municipal Code, relating to fence variances. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. 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, June 1, 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. 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 aze available for public review at City Hall, I55 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. 155 South Second Street ®Centrai Point, OR 97502 ®{541) 664-3321 ®Fax: (541) 664-6384 CI t o.f Central 1 ~``~°f `v~`~`~~'~°~t .Y ~X~~~~F~T =tg,tt Planning Department PLANNING DEPARTMEN ~ . Tom Iiumphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Matt Samitore Planning Technician Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: May 15, 2001 Meeting Date: June 5, 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 request to vary from the fence requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code at 2799 Oakvlew Avenue. This pazcel islocated in aR-3, Residential Multi-Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W O1CA, Tax Lot 4000. The Central Point Planning Commission is being asked if portions of a proposed fence can be constructed 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 Planning Commission. A decision by the Planning Commission could be affirmed by the City Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting ifa request for review is not received within the seven (7) dayrequestperiod. The Central Point City Council reserves the right to approve, deny or modify a request for a fence variance. ~F To whom it may concern, •-«y v, ~esztral RQiut ~~~~~~~ ccC» Planning fiePartment At this time, we would respectfully ask that the City of Central Point grant a "fence variance" requesting a 6' fence be allowed on the property at 2799 Oakview Avenue, in Central Point. In the following paragraphs, we have stated our reasons for asking for such a variance and we are hopeful that you will be in favor of such a variance after reviewing this. i . The fence variance will provide an advantage to the neighborhood or the City by keeping our lawn furniture and our childres' toys hidden from the view from the street. This will also maintain the high standards of our neighborhood and our community. 2. The fence variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood, because we are planning to plant attractive flowers, plants, and bark dust along the fence. The fence will be constructed with high quality material and will be consistantly mantained. We feel that will help add to our neighborhood. 3. The fence variance will provide safety, because with a 3' fence people driving or walking by could see into our backyard. There's a possibilty of our children being abducted. 4. The fence variance will provide protection to our neighborhood, because with a 6' fence it would assure that the property in our backyard would stay in the yard. The 6' foot fence would also keep balls, that children may be playing with, in our backyard. 5. This fence variance would not have any adverse impacts on our neighborhood because it does not interfere with the sight triangle in anyway. Attatched is a paper with signatures of all of our neighbors who approve of this variance. 6. This variance will utilize property within the intent & purpose of 4ie zone district, as this is a single family zoned district. If there is ever a need to access our property by the city, we will quickly be able to temporarily remove the section of the fence, given notice. In closing, our backyard is very small right now. With this fence vaziance, it will make our yard bigger for our family to spend time together in. It will also give us privacy, as with a 3' fence everyone can see in our backyard. We really appreciate you considering this fence variance, and aze confident that you will understand why we feel it is necessary. Sincerely, Richard A. Middleton Jr. ~~ ~~ W~ dy L. Mi dleton ~' ~q r (ti,~ L~ City of Central Point .` ~~~IBZT ~~v,T ;YI`'bN Planning Dcpartment >. 3C tip fi ~~ 1 3f 42 _ ~SU c~ c7 t ~ ~'~y ~u. c ~n'z~.~~y ` s~ t'' r ' a 41 ~r~yC'c~~• y 'Tey .. {~ ~ti .'$,'~w c+ !g Y '~ "`,. C . '!'~~~~~~'d~d1 ~~~4~~~~~. .i'?`>L2.~:4~ .. ., .~}~4rv_u :Ti.~.~.~ r...~ iii ,.~::s :~'.~... _~.1 .mac t~ty of Central Poirif ~~~;IIIBI`T ttE t~ ~o~zralv~r Planning Department Ttt~ MAP rroe n.,Errc AND TAXATION ]?U(2PCEE5 - .... Y'~~C ~~ ONLY c~ r 4349' ~1f ~f ~f'~ CS i8s09 ~ ~ ~ ~~ PARKW~9.ovnzyi3~G~ p9 / a it .~j ii.53 35.13 1 3t pp 1Ai'.1 APPROXIMATE 3`' ° 304 4305 30 4301 4303 0.97x o•a3!~, F 1~1t) t:UR. 4 ~ 9.07 Ac 2 0.01 Ac 0.'A+ rf 0.08 k ~: a~ !~ ~- '~ si 942 41.0 11,69 6 3{.905 s9.fe 4 Y ~3 3A' 74 09 - 75.00 13.51 16 55 4200 4100 ~~~ .~ S~f d 0,20Ac 0.21 Ac 2r!/ ~ _~ ~ s= ,,,/// '3.?~~ v ~~ ~.~ ('~ 54,99 ~' 75.09 27 ~1 69.1i ` i g5 o r A%~;7 1' S(Ht[T ,o vm9 ~ t4.q 11.53 27SU J T3.90 51.95 a 3900 3600 3700 ~ 0,21 Ac 339 v 0,22 Ac 0.21 Ac m 30 17sz e 2~F~ asst 6-28 SR• 2.5 ~ 4 W e 3800 0.22 Ac 3~1 b 1 28 CS 18017 ~ T3.o9 naz 29 i9s.a 31 Q 3500 :s3.33 `' 1 0.34 Ac ~~~, ,367 m ^" c ~°~ ~ 32 :.z1 190.31 , e 3400 ,, 0.28 AC ~~ e~ ~9° ~~i 146.11 33 ,~, „`° 2100 a7 3300 ~ Q 0,26 Ac 8.11 Ac Z6~ Q /Sf a iz1.3o 3a ~ ° 2200 3200 0.28 Ac ~~ ats Ac,~~F3 ~ ~a4~ ~~ ~ tito.oo 35 r Q ~) -. 6 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: June 5, 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Owners AQ~licants Pro er Descri to ion/ Zoning: Summary Central Point Planning Commission Ken Gerschler, Community Planner Public Hearing- Site Plan Review for 37 2 W 03D, Tax Lot 2300- Rogue Express Il David Rowell P.O. Box 688 Yoncalla, Oregon 97499 Linda and Willard Herzberg 131 North Front Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 37 2W 03D, Tax Lot 2300 - 0.53 acres total. TOD-GC, TOD General Commercial The applicants are requesting that the Planning Commission review an application to construct a utility building and sign next to the Rogue Express II coffee shop at 131 North Front Street. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Site Plan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060 (Attachment "A"). Applicable Law: CPMC 17.65.010 et seq. - TOD Districts and Corridors CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. -Off Street Parking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 et seq. -Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval -~ 46 Discussion• The applicants, Linda and Willard Herzberg opened the Rogue Express II in October of 2000 at 131 North Front Street. When the business opened, the zoning for the area classified the structure (formally used as a restaurant) as a Class B nonconfonning use which meant that no modifications could be made to the property. A building addition discovered by the Building Department is in the process of being removed to meet current building codes. Earlier this year, The Central Point City Council adopted the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zone amendments which rezoned this parcel as TOD-GC, General-Commercial which made the business activity and structure a permitted use. The Herzbergs' would like to construct a 112 squaze foot storage building towards the south boundary of the parcel and place a "teapot" and "cup"sign structure between the coffee shop and Highway 99 (Attachments "B" "C" and "D"). The building exterior is proposed to be constructed with lap siding and a red metal roof. The "teapot and cup" signage will be placed as depicted on the site plan. The ornamental "teapot" constructed ofinetal will be approximately four feet across at the base and 3 feet at the brim. The cup dimensions will be 12 inches by 18 inches. A building permit will be required by the Building Department for the proposed improvements. The Planning Department has evaluated the structure distance requirements for the zoning district and determined that the development is compliant with the zoning ordinance subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment "E"). Primary access will occur from Front Street with two curb cuts. The Oregon Department of Transportation has contacted the City by telephone and will evaluate the site plan for the actual location of the proposed sign. The agency who is responsible for Front Street (Highway 99) is concerned that the sign could present a vision clearance problem near the driveway access. The Municipal Code requires not less than one parking space per 500 square feet of floor area. The Planning Department has estimated that the aggregate total of building floor area is 1500 square feet and the three existing paved and striped spaces have met the requirement. The existing landscaping has been incorporated into the site plan. TOD zoning requires additional landscaping on site, particularly trees. The Planning Department recommends that condition of approval be assigned to have the applicant work with staff to add the required landscaping to bring the project site into compliance with the TOD standards. The existing irrigation system provides water via a drip irrigation system that is attached from a domestic water spigot. The Central Point Building and Public Works Departments' may require the installation of an approved backflow device. The Public Works Department may prepared recommendations for on and off site improvements which are believed to be reasonably related to the proposed development. These would include, but aze not limited to; driveway aprons, sidewalk improvements; site grading and drainage; on-site lighting; paving and utility (water, sewer and storm drain) connections. H:\Planning\01029.wpd ~i Jackson County Fire District Number 3 and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority have submitted comments that relate to the project (Attachment "G "). The fire district will require a "Fire and Life Safety Inspection". BCVSA will require fees if any new sewer connections are needed. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law• Site Plan Review In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 17.72.040: A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the maintenance of existing plants or the installation of new ones for purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ The site plan shows existinglandscapingintheprojectarea.ThePlanningDepartment recommends a condition that the applicant work with planning staff or the Planning Commission to formulate a landscaping plan t}rat meets the standards of the Transit Oriented District zoning. B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; Access is shown to be taken from rivo existing curb cuts onto Front Street. The Oregon Department of Transportation has voiced concern over the location of the "teapot and cup" signage as these structures may interfere with the sight vision of pedestrian and vehicle traffic accessing Front Street. If needed, the structures would need to be relocated. C. To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such a manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ CPMC 17.65 Table 3 requires that three (3) parking spaces be provided. The applicant has met this requirement. 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; H:\Planning\01029.rvpd 4~ ^ Any signage proposed for the project would require a separate building permit. 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 to include a Fire Life Safety inspection. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The project as presented by the applicant is in compliance with the requirements ofthe Central Point Municipal Code subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachments "E" and "F"). G. Compliance with such architechrre and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ^ The project is located ~vith the Transit Oriented District Corridor in a TOD-GC, General Commercial zoning district. Currently there is a low number of businesses occupying larger tracts of tand and the Rogue Express II is the first step in the development of the T.O.D. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Notice of Public Hearing B. Site Plan with Incorporated Landscape Plan C. Letter of Project Description D. Photographs, Building Elevations and tea pot sign E. Planning Department Reconmiended Conditions of Approval F. Correspondence HAPlann ing\01029.wpd 49 CI tey of Ce.z~ tral 1 ozn t PLANNING DEPARTMENT Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: May 15, 2001 Ken Gerschler Community Planner Meeting Date: June 1, 2001 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Matt Samitore Planning Technician aty or ee~t~~ mint ~~~3:[`~' ttA tt Planning Department Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a site plan application that would allow the construction of a utility storage building and a "coffee pot" sign at 131 North Front Street on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W03D, Tax Lot 2300 in the TOD-GC General Commercial District. At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications to determine that all applicable provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Site Pian 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 recommendation may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 1, 2001. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, I55 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 47502. 5Q CYty of C~itfral I'Qiut ~c~z~r~r «C„ Punning DeParknent May 15, 2001 Central Point Planning Commission Central Point Oregon To whom it may concern: We are asking for your approval to build a removable storage building at 131 N. Front St.. It will be built on the South side of the existing building, and will be used for refrigerators, freezers, supplies and gardening tools etc.. It will be built Yo resemble a train caboose as the coffee shop in Rogue River is. Ifany ofyou aze familiaz with the Rogue Express next to the railroad tracks in Rogue River on Classick Drive you know how much that business has added to the beauty and charm of the area. Please see the enclosed pictures. This is our intent for Rogue Express II in Central Point and why we are staying with the railroad theme. Since the original railroad station was located on the City Park land next to our business we would like to remind everyone of the history of the azea, in our small way. My family previously lived on Bursell Road & operated a nursery business for nineteen years. My pazents have lived in the area since 1946, we are connected and interested in this area and would like to do what we canto enhance the business I have chosen to bring to Central Point. Sincerely, c ' v in a Herz r" 'and Herzberg 53 /' '., "`~ ~.~~ ___~ s-4.. [.,4 4~ t~ ~ _ ~% .r. .. .J .. .~ City of Central Point r,~~~T~TT tt~~r 'j//~ /~'~ /~ i .~ T _. _ i~ .~T-_._ i _. ~- _~_. i .. - ~ i ._. ,~ ~._. ____ ~ _ _.. .. i .I ..- , ._ _ x ._ . ~ _ ~ __ - - " ~~~ _ ! _~ ~ ~ ' i ~ a I ~ ~ ~, I ~! , ~ I i I ~ ., I i I I ~ ! I I ~ I ! ! _ ~ _. , -~ ! ~ ± _ _ ! ~ -..L- .I , _ _ .rt..-~ i i j I oS ! ! ~ t< b-, fir. ^tbr ~ :I a ~ 1 ~ ~ ' ~ I I ~ ! ~ i ~~_T_ I ~! ~ i 1 ( ~~ i :1 ~ ! I ~. . _ ~ :. ! I I ~ t ~ _ f __ ~ T ~I ! fi , I ! _ 7 P ~~~ n ~~ ~ I I I ~ -6 ~ ---~/ . I ~ , i '. ., ,___ , _ ! { i ~, < i ' ~ ' I I 4 l i ~ , l I I i i I I, i i ~ ` i i ~ ! i ! ' i I i I ~ I i ! i I ~ ..; a~. a,a ~ i, , x ,, j ~ ; f_ ' I ~~e s ~e~ e cT ! g ~ i ~ i ~ I i i ; I is ~ ~~ "x~ or~.~ }~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ rte s ~a a .a. ~ __ ~ w ~~. ~ :, _' ', 1~~ r , i 1 E! ~~ i oi' ~ wa ~ !0 ~ i s t-~ ~ ~- ~ ~ -- I . --{=-- - -~ - ~' ~ - - ; ! ~ 7 - ~ ~ ;- j , -_ i , /~ 7 ! ~ ~ __-- .~_ __ - -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - -- - - -- -- -- - _ _ - _ ._ _ - - -- __ __.- ~ ~ i -,--- _~ - j i~ i f ~ _ I ~ ! ~ ! . i _ - - - - - . - ._, ' _ ~_ - ~- ---~ - - -,-_ _ - --T-~- . - -~- -- ---- 9 ~( ~io ~ f~l~ n ~~., _„ `t'~.. ~ l., ~ _ . _ Fes, ,,, i ~ n c^ i ~/ ,~' xL ~~ Sale-)~'o/0 i ~ r 4 a~r r ~ Vv (/i. . `~.~~.+ V` lI / 1 .T.., il~,a t/ d~ ~. h 'f 0 'fir ' e 'r ar O t' I ;~ I ~ I ' ~ 1. ~ : ' ~ -- ~ . .~ I I ~ n h ~ _ R. I I I ~ I ~.., I. . ~ ~ PRO POS ED UT IL ITY BUIL 3 I DING PARKING SPACES ' ~' TE AP OT SIG N ~ ~ ~, I ~ ~ ~ I ~ z ~ ~ ~J CUP SIGN ~ "''~ ~ P AV EM EN T b '?•my. ~i y tl. 1 ~ ~ ~' I .-r n; n r ---~ Sr a t I I -- - --- --_ ..._ ~ I ~ i C d l 1 UJ~ ~ ~ ATTACHMENT E RECOMMENDED PLANNING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on June 5, 2002 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public heazing within 30 days of Planning Commission approval. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations . The applicants shall work with staff from the Planning Department to bring the landscape plan into compliance with the T.O.D. standards. H:\Planning\01029.wpd 56 05(23(2001 17:06 8264566 1. JCFD3 BUS OFC City of Central L?oint I'~~iI~IB~`~' ttF t, Planning Department ANX B(?X WXTH AN `°X" S~A,LL AP~LX AAARESSING [] Approved address numbers (min. 3") shad be placed on all buildings in such a manlier to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. . Address sieats are available at no bharee from Fire District No. 3 2. FII2E APPARAx'i1S ROAAWAI'S [xj Fire apparatus roadways shall be within 150 ft. of every portion o£the first floor of a building, with a minimum unobstructed width of 20 ft. and vertical clearance of nat less than 13 R. 6 in. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed to provide an ail-weather ddviog surface, capable supponirig 50,000 lbs. load. A ternnorarv £ue apparatus access road stzall be established doting eozrstnretion. Temporary access roads sball be of a width, vertical clearance, and surface adequate to provide access for fire department apparatus until permanent roads ire installed. Aead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 ft. shall be provided with am approved turnaround for fire apparatus. The minimum turning radius is 28 ft, 3. WATEit SUFPL>ZES k'OZt FIRE PIiO'~CTION [x] Not required based ou current design of building and occupancy classification. [j Fire Hydrants are requred: A. Quantity of hydrants required: Lolick hereto eater in£ol B. Required &e £#ow: jclick Here to enter infol GPM. C. Fire flow duration: [click fiere to enter info] hrs. [] Fire hydrants are required prior to construction. [] T.ocation o££ue hydrants shall be approved by the fire district prior to 1IIStallation. J rd [) .Approval required by water provider (see Special Requirements Number I5), [j On-site water storage tanks ate required. Water storage required: [click here to enter info] gallons. [j Contact Fire bistrict No. 3's Fire and life Safety Division for installation requirements for on-site water storage tanks. (reference.NFYA 1142) [] On-site water tank construction plans shalt be submitted to the "Fire and )rife Safety Division" for review and approval pzior to installation of the water storage system. The water storage tank system shall be flow tested by the fire district prior to: [] Opening for business [j Construction 4. b~t1J E3~TINGUIS~RS [] )~ire extingrtisher types and placement shall be approved by the fire district prior to installation. 5. FIRE P3;20TECTTOIV SXSTEIVIS AN.D EQLiIpAIENF Q The installation and maintenance of automatic fire alazrzt systems, automatic sprinkler, or water spray systems, standpipes and hose or fixed extingursher systems shall be required as listed below. [xj No requirement [j Automatic fire extinguishing system zequired [j Alarm system required. Type of system: [click here to errter info] [] Automatic fue extinguiskiing and alarrrt systems shall be tested annually and documezrtation shall be available on request. ~J~ ~~ru~ nus urn, PAGE 05 6. HEA,TINGAPPLIANCE [j Beating appliances shall be insEalled and maintained in accordance with their listing aad the `Building, );lectrical, and Mechanical Codes." The fire district shall approve the use of non-vented fuel-fired space beaters. The use portable electric heaters arad fuel-tared space heaters in "Group 1 and SR occupancies" is grohibited. E7iI'I'S [j Evety building, or portion tlzeredf, shall be provided with exits as required by the "Uniform Building Code" and ",Article l2 of the Uniform Fire Code" (see 'Special Requirements, msmber .f5). S. FLAMMABLE ANA COMBUSTIBLE LIQUTAS [] Provide the fire district with a listitag of adl flarnn:able and combustible liquids artd quantities that will tie stored, used, or handfed. After ret~zew, all applicable code requirements will be issued to the applicant. 9. ~r1ZARDOUS D4ATEI2IALS [J Provide the fire district with a listing of all hazardous znatetiats and quantities. After review, all applicable code requirements will be issued to applicant. Material Safety Data Sheets (MS7AS) for hazardous materials shall be readily available on the premises. Technical report(s) may be required (without charge to the fire district) to determine the acceptability of technologies, processes, products, facilities, materials, and uses attending the design, operation or use of a building or premises. The opinions and report skaall be prepared by a qualified engiureer, specialist, laboratory, or fire safety specialty orgatization aecegtable to the fire district, [x] Technical report not required. [J Technical report required. ~~ --~ _--- -.. __ ___.___ .-.,. .-„ ..~.~ .~, ., rHUt 195 10. DUMPSTERS Al~1D CONTAINERS [] Duzupsters and containers with an individual capacity of 1.5 cubic yards (40,5 cubic feet) or more shall not be stored in buildings or place closer than 5 R. from a building. lI. ELEC~`I2ICAL WIRING [] Electrical wiring shall be in accordance with the "National Electrical Code." 12. SPRAX FINISIIING [} Alt spray finisltiug operations utilizing flauunable and combustible liquids shall be conducted in a spray booth or spray room constructed in accordance with the "Uniform Buitdung Code" and maintained in accordance with the provis"sons of the "Uniform Tice Code." [J Spray booth or spray room required (see Special ZZequiremestrs ttttrnber ZS). Spray booth and rooms zequire a "mechaztical permit" tzom the Building Department [] Approval by fire districk required. 13. )3IG$ I'LT,ED 5'I'ORAGE [) Any building that is used for storage over 12 ft. sball meet the requirements of "article 81" ©f the "Uniform )lire Code:' Contact k'ire District No. 3 for requirements. 14. FUEIG DISPIJN6ING [] Not allowed [] State Fire Marshal PERMIT APPLICATIOI~T required 15. SPACIAL ItEQU1ZtEMEN~S [] A. jclick here to enter info] [J B. [click hereto entez info] [] C. [click here to enter irrfoJ d ll _,. ____ _..,.~ ..~..-..,moo Jct-ll3 tiUti OFC PAGE 07 [1 A, [click here to ezzter info? 16. Fly AIVp LIFJ SAFETX INSPEC'1'I()N [x) A. "Fire and Life Safety Inspection" is required by Fire District No, 3 prior to opening for business. Contact the district at 826-7100 to schedule an inspection. If you have atzy questions regarding this review or fo schedule a meeting to discuss arty portion oi' the "Uniform Fire Code" requirements, please contact Don Dickman, plans reviewer, at 826-71.00. Lou Gugliotta Fire Marshal Plans reviewed by: Don Dickman ~~ ° BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AU'THORIT'Y ]976 SOUTH pACIFlC NIW. • MlDPopD, OpgODN 97ED1.0049 • (661) e9e~6193 • )dF7) T78JtdO rAx /!4+) q]e.es7q • wv,M,.eav...>rg Ivlay 31, 2001 Ken Gersclzter FAX 664-63&4 City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: Rogue Ezcprxess II, File # OI029-SP Dear Ken, mere is an 8" sewer main iua North Pront Street that has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed developnoent. Connection to the sewer will require a petnzit and payment of conueetion fees to 13CVSA. Please have the applicant contact ]3CVSA so that the fees can be paid prior to flee issuance of a building pezxnit. If you need additional information, please call the at 779-4144. Sincerely, Carl Tappert, P.>?. Dzstrict Engineer 1:WATA\AGENCIES\CErTTPT\PLANNG\01029-SP ROGiIE I/XPItESS 1T.1?OC ~`~ _ _ .. ..... .. .... .... ....... ..... ~,. vt ; ~ rnn lvv, 091 1190d4`J P, [)2 May 31, 2001 Central Point Planning department Ken Gerschler, Planner 155 S. 2nd Street Central Point, OR 97502 R>=: Site plan review for Rogue t=xpress ti, File 01029-SP pear Ken: DEPARTMEN'z' OE T'RAi3SFORTA't'3013 We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on this proposal to consfruct a storage building and a "coffee pot" sign, on a parcel located on the west side of Highway 99. The subject property is described as 37-2W-3D, Tax tot 2300 with an address of 131 North Front Street. ODOT has no concern with access to this property, as Access Permit #08A 35559 was issued on 1/12/99. However the proposed sign must comply with existing sign regulations for property adjoining state facilities. These regulations require that the sign must be for the identification of an on-premise use only, musf not be in the highway right-of--way and must not obstruct the visibility for vehicles turning onto the highway. If you have any questions regarding sign regulations, please contact ODOT Permit Specialist Mandy Carolan at 774-6394. Please contact Dan Dorreli, Traffle Engineer of 774-6354 ar me at 774-6399 if you have any addifional questions. Sincerely, Shirley Roberts, Planner Cc: Monte Grove, Area Manager [CentPt01029spsr] 63 -, L 200 Axurlcaye Ra,•~~1 ~.C%hur. City, C:>'R 97503 Phone (SA t) 32f>-3 L22 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: June 5, 2001 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public Meeting- Modification to pool location for Rosewood Estates (372W l OCA-5910) Owner Aeent Dallas Page 900 Windemar Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 Pro e Descri to ion/ 372WlOCA, Tax Lot 5910, 0.17 acres. Zoning: R-1-8, Residential Single Family District Authority CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public meeting and render a decision on site plans. A public notice is not required in this situation since the site plan review for swimming pools is typically processed administratively by planning staff. Apnlicable Law: CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Single Family District CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. -Planned Unit Development CPMC 17.72.020 et seq. -Site Plan Approval Discussion• In December 2000, Dallas Page received an approval for the Rosewood Estates P.U.D. and asked to relocate the swimming pool from lot 14 of Phase I to an alternative location somewhere in Phase II. Dallas has since reconsidered the pool location in Phase II and would like to return it to lot 14 and have it positioned within 15 feet of Rosewood Lane. The code requires a minimum setback of 20 feet from edge of water to contiguous street right of way. However in this situation Rosewood Lane is a private street and therefore has more flexibility with reduced setbacks as long as the structure does not impact utility easements or future road widening. Rosewood Lane is classified as a residential lane and will not likely be widened. ~~ Planning staffhas met with Dallas and determined that a request of this nature is unique and would need an approval by the Planning Commission as a special site plan review required by the code. CPMC Chapter 17.72.020 (d) typically allows staff to administratively review site plans in residential zones if no modifications are necessary to Qie existing access, driveway, or any other facilities on the site. The same section fiurther identifies that staff can refer the site plan to the Planning Commission when unusual features or circumstances of the site could result in an adverse impact on the neighborhood or adjacent properties. While this request does not have an adverse impact on neighboring parcels, it is a modification to the approved plan and requests a reduced setback along a private roadway. The Planning Department feels that this situation warrants a review by the Planning Commission. Recommendation: The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the preliminary development plan for a planned unit development. 1. Adopt Resolution No.__, approving the location for the swimming pool for the Rosewood Estates Standard Subdivision and Phase II PUD, based upon the 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; or 2. Recommend denial of the pool location based on fmdings of fact articulated by the Commission. 3. Continue the review of the subject application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments• Correspondence from Dallas Page G5 uF0."MOli PER sx 11430 S8357.42•w, a4r FROM COMP. POStITON I 40 t I \ I - - 50.349'i d'WI ~ 116.0 •~-. - 78.81 • `~- 8 FENCE PROHIBRS MONUMENT. BEING SEi AT ACTUAL PROPERLY CORNERS n 0 ~ ~ • ~ fy W ~.~ f« ~ b o ~'~ '+~' 0 o ~ X2 a ' I . , ----------------------°---- --------------------- 64.9x• s1.oa 4 c IS ~ NOP09.41fW 115.98• `~ ~. SO1'09.46'E 143.44' `23.70' 119.74' 01 W b n / / o / 1~ i h ry~vt ~~ / N ~~° ~ R 6 i 0~ 5 ~~ vCAP~MKD. ~R~ BRAUGHTON-LS 2657 SET. ruu11~ ® INDICATES 5/8" X 30" STEEL PIN W/RED PlAS11C CAP MKD. "R. BRAUGHTON-LS 2657' SET AS WITNESS MONUMENT. o INDICATES 5/8" X 30" STEEL PIN W/RED PLASTIC CAP MKD."R. BRAUGHTON-LS 2657' DEFERRED MONUMENT. FD. MON PER ~ ssa2e 3rw o.4s• ~ ~ i FROM coMP. PosmoN I E •s t o t e s _ Z~_ t t/n i t n.4o i 82.00• w 'p Oip n m~ n m bm g ~ 42,iB' 50523'4~E V -( sa R• ~ ~ VDO ~ l~ 9~1 W '° eti~ n N O Q~ ~ O b --- ~ L12 4 US , 20~~~ & P.u.E. N .___ ---' , -_°- u9 r~ }t,U6 LIZ L18 ,~ ~` ~ ~ m ~ N '23'M .-- - ,~ ~ o sa ~5 69. 1~~• ~ N~g~ 5TW i ~ .~ µ1T01 ;'~28.BB' ' A8.85' ~'fiJiJ•1 34.19' ~ ` 55.71' `^ N0300'35'W 89.89' CURVE and LfNE DATA `T No. CHORD BEARING CHORD DELTA RA C1 S7TS4.1~W iS.BO' 09'08'2 C2 58617'16W 65.34' 0T41'Oai" C3 N5312'S5E 47.45' 7349•Sfl C4 N0714 E 19.16• 2606'1 CS N2655.OSE 36.91' 7726'39" C6 NSS17'09"E 14.20' 20'42'3 C7 N2T4r3 E 23.39' 34'26.28' CB N4T30'2TE 35.Sr 740r c9 saro6rorw 25.46• oz5o• C10 N8554'irE 14.88' 062 C11 C12 N3603'STE S39'09'46•W 36.57' 81.37' S5 101.56.04' C13 50629.01E 51.48' 10'38'2 Ci4 NOT 34• W 44.64• 0627' C15 N0713.OYW 11.50• 0710'42' C76 N41.43'1J"E 21.25' 9413• cn N46or w 20.51• 9aoo'oo~ U6 No. BEARING ~ DISTANCE Li 589'Sr1dE - 14.93• l? N1T48'14"W 7.35• l.3 N6436.1 E S.BS' L4 N8438'i E 23.80' L5 SB436.14"W 25A0' L6 50523.48"E 12.93' L7 58650'12•W 12.9J' lB SOY09'48"E 25.00' L9 N8650°1 E 15.00' Lt0 58541'29°W 20.05• N034g•i~ ,, - _ . ~ ,AR.TH~l~IO \ ` ..CO~ISTRi7C~TION AND DEIGN INC. '. ~ ` ~¢ ' - _ Aii Oregon Corporatign #7Z~31 ' _ _ . ~. t .; , ~. - ~r ' ~ CitY,.of' Central Point„j, ~~'~ + _' ~_;\ _.. ~, " Attnc, City Planner. .. ~. ~, ." ~ ~. - ~ r - ~" ~ _ ,. i ~- ; Ka».Qarshler Regarding Rose.wgad.Estates'iPhase.l Pool Lacatio.n' ~. ~ " ~ , ~ ~r~closed 3s'a copy of the placement of'the~ pod.l,and because bf the - ' creek a'nd the angle ofi the ldt we ars asking ?f we.migHt trove th'e pool closer to~.the street;and~have a 15' set beck to, the'waters edge. , :Would you "plea e.`re`vue the drawing and let'.me krio~J.lf you need any' ," `"more infio~mst~oP. ~ ~ _ <~ ~.. ~ ,. ::~ __, ` Thank you.. ''' ~ , ,. .. St'neaPeYyY` p"aa ias Page ~ ~ i _ ~ /~ ~~/!G/~ ' - - - 1, ~ .- : _ \~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ - _ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ' ~< _ ~. -. - a `. ~ " - _ ~ i ~ i, ~ ~ - ~ - i `; ' - _ .. ~ , ' ~ t i .. ~ ~ ~. - -. - .,. ~ I ~ ` l .. ' ~'~ 900 WINDEMAR ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (5~I) X88-475 ~y ~;; ,~ o? i3. Q7 j (~ s `si/F~i_f' F~.vcE /" = zo' _. '1 i. ~ ~. ~/t/~