Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Resolution 719 - Clark - Vilas - CUP
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION IN PREPARATION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND TENTATIVE PLAN APPLICATIONS LOCATED IN CENTRAL POINT, OREGON Applicant: Heritage Development Inc. 375 2W 01BA, Tax Lots S00 & 700 File No. 07033 WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a Conditional Use application in preparation for Planned Unit Development and Tentative Plan applications for the creation of 53 zero lot line single family Iots located within the R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district on approximately 7.11 acres on properties identified on Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 01BA, Tax Lots 500 & 700, in the City of Central Point, Oregon; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2007, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted aduly-noticed public hearing on the applications, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district section 17.24, and Conditional Uses, section 17.76 of the Central Point Municipal Code; and BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. `71 ~ does hereby approve the application based on the findings and conclusions of approval as set forth on Exhibit "A", the Planning Department staff report which includes attachments, which is attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 6~ day of March, 2007. Planning Commission Chair Page 1 of 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. "`!1~ {03062007) ATTE~'I': a tw ity R~_~~7~~~~~nt~~tive Apprc~ve~ by m phis ~ c~~y a ,; - 0~3~. / TxP ~ 7 T~I~n~'iiit~C~~~~,~~i7.ia~i~~n C~:~,i;~ ~'ag 2 of 2 PLAI~TNII`~TG CC7MMIS5IC7N RE aCtLUT1C7N ;NCB. ~ ~ ~ i (r ~~62007) Planning Department Tom Hum hre AICP, T FF REPORT p y. PO' NT' Community Development director/ ~ Assistant City Administrator STAFF REPORT March b, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: File No. 07033 Consideration of an application for a Conditional Use Permit to develop a 53 lot Planned Unit Development located in the R-2, Two-Family zoning district located an the south side of Vilas Road approximately 500 feet west of Table Rack Road and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 372W O1BA, Tax is 500 and 700. Applicant: Heritage Development Inc. STAFF SOURC ~ : Lisa Morgan, Pl ing' clan BACKGROUND: a. Zoning Overview. The applicant is requesting ~ v,.Y ~-, ~ ~: g~ .x ~n ~, ,Kh'~11 L7~Tt ~TTt;1~T approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the ~ -- development of a zero lot line single-family - ~ - - - ~; - ~~ ~~~ SdtS detached Planned Unit Development. In addition , ~` ;~ . - „ ~..,:`~ to the consideration of this Conditional Use ~• '" _ ,. ~~~-~ Permit the Planning Commission will also be ';; ~~ - - ~ ~~ -~ ' ~: reviewing the Planned Unit Development ~~ ~.~ ~, ~.' ,. ., application, and a Tentative Plat application. '°,:Fn~ k Because each application has a unique set of `"`'`~' "° ~~~ . criteria it is necessary that the Planning •~ Commission take separate action an each ~ -~~ ~ ~ _ ~ application. This report will focus on the criteria ,. applicable to a Conditional Use Permit as set ,• Earth in Section 17.76. - ~~~-,--, --_.._ .. i r ... i t "' ' ' The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit ~ : r~ ° m ~~ ~. ~ _ ... .-f process is to assure that certain designated uses ~~ _` "_~- __ . _ _ - '~ ry are properly reviewed for compliance with the intent of the underlying zoning district and abutting land uses. As applied to this application the Conditional Use Permit will determine the extent to which the proposed Planned Unit Development complies with the intent of the R-2 district and its compatibility with abutting properties. The intent of the R-2 district as set forth in Section 17.24.010 is io: 1. Promote and encourage a suitable environment far family life at a slightly higher density than permitted in the R-1 districts; 2. Provide opportunities for lower cost duplex and attached dwellings; and 3. Allow replacement housing within existing single-family neighborhoods at slightly higher densities while assuring that the character of the neighborhood is preserved, Project Description.. When combined the subject properties (Property) total 7.11 gross acres. The Property is designated as Medium Density on the acknowledged Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map (Ordinance No. 1525, Exhibit "A"), The Property is zoned R-2, Residential Two-Family; which is consistent with the land use designation for the Property. Within the R-2 district Planned Unit Developments are allowed as a conditional use. Proposed Uses; The proposed planned unit development is limited to single-family detached dwelling units, a use that is permitted within the R-2 district. Other than. the Project being defned as a planned unit development the proposed use of the Property is consistent with the intent of the R-2 district and the uses permitted in the R-2 district. No commercial activities are proposed. Proposed Density: The maximum allowable density for the Property is 85 units (Section 17.68.100). The Project's design provides for a maximum of 53 dwelling units. if developed as a standard R-2 subdivision it is estimated that a maximum of 48 units could be developed. The Property's conf guration (deep and narrow) and the need for a public street significantly reduce the Property's yield potential. The Planned Unit Development process allows flexibility in lot configuration making it possible to provide public street access and connectivity to the project, while attaining an adequate lot yield to support construction of required public improvements. A more complete discussion of circulation is provided in the Planned Unit Development Staff Report. Exceptions: As presented the Project requires the approval of four (4} exceptions. These exceptions are fully discussed in the Planned Unit Development application (File No. 07033} and are summarized as follows: Lot Area. The R-2 district requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. ft. on which a duplex may be sited, far an average per unit area of 3,000 sq. ft. The proposed Project has a minimum lot size of 3,140 sq. ft. on which is allowed one single-family detached zero lot line dwelling unit. The lot area and density are consistent with the minimum per dwelling unit requirements of the R-2 district. 2. Lot Dimensions. The R-2 district requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet on which a duplex may be sited, for an average per unit width of 30 feet. The proposed Project has a minimum lot width of 35 feet on which is allowed one single-family detached zero Iot line dwelling unit. The proposed lot dimensions are consistent with the minimum per dwelling unit lot dimensions of the R-2 district. 3. Flag Lats. Flag lots are permitted provided that each flag pole is a minimum of 20 feet in width. The Project proposes the use of four (~} flag poles serving a total of eight (8) single-family detached dwelling units. The proposed flag poles measure a minimum of 16 feet in width. The flag pole design has been revie:wcd ley the Fire District aged f~~und i<> l7c acceptlale as drivc~vays. jacent Land Uses: "1"he Project is surrounded by a variety of land uses as follows: East. Lands are zoned and develaped as industrial (1V1-1 ~ and commercial (C-N). South, Land uses are single-family detached (R- 1-8) and industrial (M- l ). West. Land uses include Don Jones Park. and a small Rd 1-6 parcel. ~: ,,... ..~ ~ a p~~„ ,: ~~~ N & ~ Y :'.~, k . r.~ ,:; lRly ~ `. w rq _. ~ tl~ . ,, ~ ;„ . m.....,.,... ~ ,. t d~ 4ANt }1 g N k W ,, ... n ~ , :~.,.~ win' ~ <~„ ° ~ ~ . , ~ : .. .. ~„ Y, m ~~ I ~ °~ " ~ f North, Land uses include residential (R.-1 ~) and "~ civic (Civic). ~..: Within the general Project area (southwest) there are three approved single-family attached pl ed unit developments. This application is consistent with and similar to previously approved planned unit development applications in the general area. ~1[l~ ~l~lV~; p$ ; ~, ~ ~~; ., 4.. d h K fi ~.~~C ~Y R ,, ., p i.4;1 .,, M ': ~ See attached Attachment ~` " ISSUES. With respect to the Conditional Use Permit there are no apparent issues relative to compliance with Conditional Use Permit approval criteria (see Attar ent "D"). As noted above and discussed in the Findings the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit for a Pl ed Unit Development application is to a11ow the design flexibility necessary to provide for connectivity and public access, while allowing the reasonable development of the Property. The proposed uses and requested exceptions are consistent with the residential character to the south and adequate buffering has been included where the Project abuts commercially and industrially zoned lands. C II NS F APP" VAL. l . Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is subject to approval of the Pl ed Unit Development as presented in File No. 07033 and compliance with all conditions attached thereto, EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" -Proposed House Layout & Landscaping Exhibit "B" -Applicant's Findings Exhibit "C" -Public Works Staff Report Exhibit "D" -Planning Department Findings Exhibit "E" - Proposed Resolution ACTION: Consideration of Resolution No. _, approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution No. _, granting a Conditional Use Permit approval. N. N+OISNTAIN AVE 1:^1 ~ ...~~.~. ' F! W F3EG3~- k a3 _ ~ r C? O Q 5. o~' I p.90' s~• t 9.~' ~-~ --~ - tlm' I PN' 'E" - - P.x "r Da' a '[' ]. LOT 30i ~' .H ' ~ Z ~ C~'1 'J Gs'v 30' SC~J9' JK ixy' PN ~(. N "E" SK i50' PA "R"~ 50'v79' ~ ` .. J ~ ~ r•~e• (3TP7 ¢ra} (Bm7 s9'. i. io'.so' (rYP) ru o. o'.n' PW •N• C;rPI ! Lr1 L07 45 LOT a' L07 (Try (frP} LOT 36 LOT 37 ~; ~ (PiP) LOT 32 LOT 31 Inp~ L07 27 LOT 28 ~ Q ~ ~ ~. 29. s. a' r 29.cc J 11 'y~ (?~1 fl m U I ~~~~ y . 16. .:/4'I ~\`'L~' ~~J '`',• ~'k: ~', e~)H ]~ :.~X~' RYA` '~ t 7 k.UOSCwe aLrui ro - -so,oo .. (St Z ~DSC-wr: nk7HC -a- ?ARKWAY DRIVE ~ v C7 i ~ I I k r r '~~ ~ ryYly ~ ~~ h~k , a ~ ` ~ ~ Q rQn © 0 :. ,, ., = I 3 f J ••^-s I x.:x:. "'1^h j ~ U V J ~ z_ PW 'E- Pr,' •C' PN "0- ~ ~ PN "k~ 3 L 5v'vS4' ' 62's `0' 62' SO' Sd' 30' I 3 PW~ ~ PN 'E" (~~ ~' Q (1TP) p . 'P' (1YP) (SYP) d' ~f- ~ ~ri'i) 62'.]0' i 20 1 so.ao' ca'yi5' j (Iw) Px r• (T~'~7 ax -r- Ena E A SPrP) (SYP) I ~ (10`rP}0 ~ 61YP~ ~'IT'_' ~ W O ..1 l ~ G'D:'lIT ) VIMi ~ H © ~ I FE~GE S I VIN. L P kCE ~ {-^ ! v L., .~ V h _h_E µYA 2-': -~ I V k' 3` '': w_y LOT II I LOT 2 I L0T 3 E LOT a I LOTS L0T 8 L07 "7 ~ LOT tl L07 9 LOT SO L07 5 5 LOT i2 LOT S3 LOT 54 LOT 15 LO7 16 LOT 17 LOT F$ I LOT f 9 LOT 26 LOT'25 LOT 22 40T 2.3 LOT 24 LOT 25 q I ` Z ~®6~ ® e9 ~fp H31. ~~® WE~Lif3~®~ W6'i~ 0S•~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ b®EJ® ®(3h9~d0L1a69 ~~Q9PA 93®~~~ ~b® +8'C9® ~ $3~~ ®~ @3EUlA®:r3 1 Q U v' V.J'E ' r:-:. ~s:~.~ i ~~-a p: ~' l:w:IrW 5N12L's~ + G~"~t1NC700yER ~„~EAD pa_a TAE LEGENOAkOTESNUBS & TREES 4YILL NAVE A ire' ~ ~ p~j J „r v~rL FET~c ~m~, cra'~-kaa >~c h6 N~FCI ©L:ic' rTYr ) RQi, Gt7k1.I~Ei1E RAINBERD "DRIP ZONE" (ttP). NOSES !Z"'~ FED PSAPLE L ~' - _ ----" 1'V7$Ci~E :".ET:,;L n Ge-L ccrr5a.k ooX-kuoov PHASE Il ~ ~'P~° Giilh-6w p1::.uTYBE2~:" Y _ __ PHASE i b:JJ-H ~6F.+LAY f7Af'7,~ Pel"F' pslpiltilG ~~on~e'vxx~+o^rrG rr¢am.w 6a 5n.e w.+Ma>Mr> ~aP'A5'rJwcw r 1 /C(i~ ~ .., 'v'. ~.,..' Rrn'~>xnn Yico xcR><."i.°sw:vam"rccar'a:a`n,w::,-t c-r (y' W O i,.L. PARKWAY SUBDIVISION "DTES: - Gt2APHIC ~C~ HOUSES SFOVf ON THIS PL1.ty ME FOR N GR%.Pk1Grw f'UR'GSES OIL:' (TYP), lOn ~,, PHASE: 31 PHASE l n L>:IM P,JtKil.: 9.9J' PA 4{i\D tl.6J' S G.~' .IXS~ LAIUS:R°E CETNL -C' (a 5~' F ~ PARY.IN^. 20.90' k In<a . r0 n ~ Z lb.9o' LOT b.3 ~ IS' ~ ~ LOT 48 I -50.9' LOT 34 20.90 Z O s ..::r-' P«• - - --3 --- 5o.oa' ssm' I 5seo i i sa.co• P ~ u~.l j - ..c>. ' -)C' ~..D. ~ Pr( 'A' PN •p• - 59. W' ~ . ~f'•IR.OJ ~) 5.00' 62'.9 S' 152.00'-~. Px 'C- 50 vK6' G2'sik' 10,00'- So aKn' {rrv) ~, ~ sx'xd7' (nt) lam) sr.si' (nP} I • - ~ ~B• m7) T.52' Pd' "A" (iYP) ~ ~ Q 4 ~ -< :.H - - LpT nT -~.- i- Cn») IB'xl`i 26.00' LOT 33 - (:Ti')90 30.09' 2r5.t5S`.%Jy l^'P, r-F-r _.. l ~ ' -_ ~ LOT 41 LOT a0 ip " ' LOT 28 ` ~ A} Z jj _J 752 i riV.2S LOT ~r:s.2i -; •~ .-i9.2f' ~ D ;t) i FOtZ FUTURE DEVELOAMENT g ~ Q Lr°i J .,' ;'~ L07 5i~sf~~-r--'-1 5+~_i I{ LOT 4B ' I 15.xa' LOT 42 ' ' LOi 39 i~'2<~ LOT 3a I I ----- LOr Zl~t~~~ ry:;~ ] s~'° ' III 5 (YPJ N ~ t~. LOT 60 56.2A" RIJNBRO -pAP raYr xcz o7s ' CA-5MB µ'nv ~+~ OO ~~ r"a-n uxr Nut"~ R-h ~_ k (3-S.YrB-[u I {9-5~-CTFl~ r-f I ~` uvri f Lax:i {.ANDSCAPE BE(AIL "D" n n rurww.•~ CPC RY OTI.~RS w~. ~ ~ ~ <6 ~.~.~ar.~.~.~a~u.~~aR~r~. ~~.o~.a~~~r. g , R .:,.p~~~~,~::~,o~aR a.~~~~.a~.~. ~ ~ c8~t1~u~G10~n ~~- h4sYKe n.ixni~w,e>ectec.a,vo[.u~vno a•ttx'u.ea wiz ~+ne.ocun' ~ P,AYIUt. ~,- W ~ N r ncc `~ I ~~ ~r........~~r.. r.J ~ ~ O r,..raaw.~.da«va O ~ ~.r 6 w s.._....w ~ M=+r~10' Wwi 4v ~ Ir[o:a~c(r M fw u. nwv iy w.1 n ,; o.w r.-....., Z m Irarmrnl tiL ro r.+ w M1r.-~ ti.w. • ~ w a sal irtr..u.sml y ;y ~J~q , ~ y °~ A...rN,n I, 7 s r ,_~ D rm ! ~; , ,~k ~ r ' _ E P irr.., ti,.~.. 1.,.. L• / ~ ° d m ~ ~ i z5 S-T,N3 , , f ow. ~+....._. . M1 . I 3 &' ~ 1 ' ~~ ~ ~ I IF "" 1 •"' u 0 a.. O "~ kT9 ln~~ ao=.~.nt ana me iacao w~a aen9n; mcworowo bo.am. cc rn Ina:emon5 1 pro!evdonai sfrYZO, Iv lna p: opsrty of Bupar P~nv Canuviling LLC.. orE Is ral to be vwa. ~ +.M1ai o:., pan. ra e~y oi>ar PaS. eo< vim( vine, p,:pe,o WitM1wk Ino wnllrn oainor~zal:'an of Supor Phe Cansu:tlrp k=0.. Th'~v c+arL`0 i fa yo~>.ica: i-rPOSe .rni a, nok to Le uaca for eanvlr,.el~en. tlus a:a.inq b<a sego d Ei!ker~nl Ga.i~Gp eemb:nee- ~ 2 ~i o z Z ~ ~ yV.,r Z ~ w w cA x'~ `p p O U u O BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION } FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT } ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF } WEST VILAS ROAD AND WEST OF TABLE ) ROCK ROAD; THE SUBJECT SITE IS ) FINDINGS OF FACT DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR'S MAP NO. ) AND T,37S-R.2W-SEC. 01BA, TAX LOTS X00, ) CONCLUSIONS & 700; DALE CLARK, HERITAGE DEVELOP- ) MENT CORPORATION, THE APPLICANT; ) PARKWAY SUBDIVISION, A PLANNED ) UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT. ) RECITALS: Owners- Dale Clark Dennis Patterson Heritage Development PO Box 1410 3365 Snowy Butte Lane Eagle Point, OR 97524 Central Point, OR 97502 Consultants- Richard Stevens & Associates, lnc. PO Box 4368 Medford, OR 97501 Property Description- ~ 37-2W-01 BA, Tax Lots 500 & 700 Acreage- 7.11 gross acres Zoning- R-2, Residential Two-Family Distric# Land Use- Detached Single Family Residential 1 NARRATIVE: The purpose of this Planned Unit Development application for Parkway Subdivision is to establish a detached single family dwelling project. The project includes requests to deviate or take an exception from the Code far side yard setbacks and exceptions to the lot area and lot width standards for the land use designation present, R-2 Residential Two- Family Districtviathe Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. The purpose of this PUD application is to identify the residential to#s with the requested exceptions within the subject property. The intent of Parkway Subdivision is to provide for.entry level housing on narrow lots for the future residents of Central Point. This process affords both the City and the Developer assurances that the land use modifications are agreed upon and established by a review process. The attached site plans adequately defines the proposed residential uses for the property. The proposed development for detached single family homes on narrow lots, with the requested exceptions, is to provide for zero lot line dwellings. These dwellings will have a zero side yard setback on one side of the lot with a minimum of 5 feet to the other side yard setback. This style of developmentstill provides usable private backyard outdoor living area, to assure that the livability of the neighborhood is maintained. The differing styles of homes proposed on the lots have considered the placement or design of windows on the house to support privacy for the occupants. The applicants have submitted a landscape plan, in conjunction with this PUD application. The applicant will provide landscaping in accordance with the Central Point Parks Department for the street scope along West Vilas Road, Parkway Drive and Sugar Pine Court. The nature and planned use of the proposed Parkway Subdivision PUD is to provide for a detached single family residential development within an R-2 zoning dis#rict. The ownership ofi Parkway Subdivision a PUD is held by Dale Clarkwith Heritage Development Corp and Dennis Patterson. The proposed development schedule is to construct the project with #wo separate phases, starting in 2007. The engineering and design will include the entire area, while the improvements and construction will be conducted per respective phase, as soon as the infrastructure is in place for the development. The total net acreage far the Parkway Subdivision PUD site consists of 7.11 acres. There will be maintenance of the common areas (private minimum access} that will be the responsibility by owners of property that are served by these access ways, and the costs will be accrued with the mutual access and maintenance agreements that will run with the PUD. A copy of the Homeowners Association and CC&R's are attached far review and will be submitted with the Final PUD Plan for compliance. 2 CHAPTER 17.24 CPMC: '17,24.0'10: The purpose of the R-2 district is to promote and encourage a suitable en~ironmentforfamily life at a slightly higher density than that permitted in the R-1 district, and also to provide opportunities for the development of lower cost duplex and attached dwellings. Where this district is applied to areas of existing single-family homes, the intent is to preserve the low density neighborhood character, promote continued home maintenance and rehabilitation, and allow replacement housing at slightly higher densities that is compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. Subsection 1 T.24.030(G) identifies that Planned Unit Developments are a Conditional Use within the R~2 district. The demonstration of compliance with the CPMC are addressed below for this PUD application. APPROVAL CRITERIA: The application procedures and applicable approval criteria fora Planned Unit Development within the R-2 district are listed in Sections 17.68 and 17.76 Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC). The criteria are: CHAPTER 17.76, C4ND1T14NAt_ USE PERMIT: 1'T.'1fi.0'10, Purpose: In certain districts, conditional uses are permitted subject to fhe granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual characteristics or fhe special aftribufes of the area in which they are fo be located, conditional uses require special consideration so fhaf they maybe properly located with respect fo the objectives of the zoning fide and their effect on surrounding properties. 17.'T6.040, REQUIRED FINDINGS: 17.76.444(A}: That the site for fhe proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate fhe use and to meet al! other development and tot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code. 3 Discussion: Parkway Subdivision area totals 7.11 gross acres of land that is suitable in size for residential development. The proposed development is a zero lot line development far single family dwellings on narrow Iots. This is similar to a duplex development with the addition of a boundary line to separate the dwelling units. There are exceptions to the Gode that are being requested and discussed below, all other provisions of the Code Gan be met. The proposed development does meet the density requirements and is suitable for residential uses as outlined within the Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The City of Central Point can find that the size of Parkway Subdivision area is suitable for the proposed development as zero tat line single family dwellings. With the requested exceptions the project meets all other standards of the Cade. 'i7.76.040(B}: That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and fhat the sfreef or highway is adequate in size and condifion to effectively accommodafe the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use. ^ISGLISSion: The subject property nos direct road frontage on West Vilas Road, along the northern boundary. The proposed Parkway Drive will eventually connect with North Mountain Avenue via. Sugar Pine Court, to enhance street circulation in the neighborhood. There is sufficient street capacity t© accommodate the proposed 53 dwelling units on the subject site. FINDING: The City of Central Point can find that there is sufficient street capacity on '(Nest Vilas Road and North Mountain Avenue to provide adequate access for the project site and the development of t~3 single family dwelling uni#s. '17,76,040(C} That the proposed use wifl have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use fhereof. Discussion: The proposed development of the site for residential purposes will not have a significant adverse impact on surrounding lands. The location ofthe site with the R-2 district is bound by R-~ zoning to the north (across West Viias Road), south and west, excluding Tax Lot 600 James Clark property. Tax Lot 600 is also zoned R-2 and contains a single family dwelling. With the proposed Parkway Drive along the eastern boundary, Tax Lot 60Q can feasible be redeveloped. The land towards the west is planned to be a new City park "Don Jones Park". The proposed uses on the subject property are identical in character to the existing urban residential uses. With the similar uses proposed, no impacts on their permitted uses are anticipated. The property east of the project site, along West Vilas Road is zoned C-1 a commercial zone in the City. The other properties to the east and along a portion of the southern boundary are zoned M-1 an industrial zone. Any future development of these lands will not be adversely impacted from the subject site and design of the project. In addition, Parkway Subdivision is proposing a 6 foot solid vinyl fence along the common boundary along with an evergreen vegetative screen. These commercial/industrial lands have frontage along Table Rack Road and West Vilas Road to create a commerciallindus#rial street system. This will keep the commercial truck traffic separated from the residential neighborhoods. These commerciallindustrial lands can be developed consistent with the Central Point Municipal Code provisions. FINDING: The Gity of Central Point can find that the proposed residential ores - will not have a significant adverse effect on the abutting properties ability to develop consistent with the Code provisions. 17.76.00(©) That the establishment, maintenance oroperation of the use applied for wil! comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety or genera! welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community based on the review of those factors listed in subsection (C) of this section. Discussion: The proposed use of the site is for de#ached single family dwellings. The proposed Parkway Subdivision will comply with all safety and health regulations through the engineering standards and requirements for public water, sanitary sewer and street circulation. 5 Appropriate measures have been included in the site plan to ensure that the health, safety and general welfare of residents and businesseslemployees will not be significantly impacted, particularly to the east of the site. These include fencing and an evergreen vegetative screen. FINDING; The City of Central Point can find that Parkway Subdivision PUD will have the engineering and design consistentwith local, state and federal regulations. In addition the project does include buffering measures to ensure that the general health, safety and welfare are protected for the community as a whole. 17.76.040(E) That any conditions required far approval of the permit are deemed necessary to project the public health, safety and general welfare... Discussion: The applican# is agreeable to any reasonable cnndi#ians for approval of the PUD application, in the event that evidence is presented to warrant the condition to mitigate the concern. FINDING: The City of Gentral Point can find that the applicant is willing to accept reasonable conditions, consistentwith the Cade provisions to mitigate any.warranted concerns far public health, safety and general welfare. CONCLUSIONS: The City of Central Point concludes tha# the size of Parkway Subdivision being 7.11 gross acres is suitable for the proposed developmentas zero lot line single family dwellings. With the requested exceptions to the Code development standards, the project meets all otherstandards of the Code for the R~Z district. The City concludes that there is sufficient street capacity on West Vilas Road and North Mountain Avenue, with improved street connectivity, to provide adequate vehicular access for the project site and the development of 53 single family dwelling units. The City concludes that the proposed residential uses within Parkway Subdivision will oat have a significant adverse effect on the abutting properties ability to develop consistent with the Code provisions, 6 SECTION 17.88, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: Section 17.68,D1D Purpose: The purpose of planned unit development {PUD) is to gain more effecfive use of open space, realize advantages of Large scale site planning, mixing of building Types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation by allowing a variety of buildings, structures, open spaces, allowable heights and setbacks of buildings and strucfures. A PUD should have a harmonious variety of uses, utilize the economy of shared services and facilities, and reduce municipal costs of operating and maintaining services while insuring substantial compliance with the district regulations and ofherprovisions of This Gode. DISCUSSIOn: The purpose of this PUD application is to allow for zero lot fine detached single family dwellings on narrow Pots within the R-2 district. The project will provide far several styles and sizes of single family dwellings. The square footage of the dwellings will range from approximately 1550 to 2250 square feet. This provides for a varied residential neighborhood development that will not look like a typical tract home subdivision. The standard size lots fronting an the planned Don Jones Pant will be accessed by minimum access easements private drives). Additional off street parking is also provided for each lot to accommodate visitors to the future residents. These common areas will be maintained by the individual owner of the property that ensures that the maintenance will be provided by the home owners thru the CC&R's. With the development of the site to provide detached single family dwellings on narrow [ots, when considering the density requirements far the R--2 district, exceptions to the lot area, lot width and the side yard setback standards are being requested with this application. The density of this project and all other development standards for the R-2 district are in compliance with the zoning district and only the design of the project as a zero lot line detached single family residential development justifies the PUD review. The use of public street right of ways, Parkway Drive and Sugar Pine Court, that will include landscaping, bicycle lanes and sidewalks will be constructed by the developer of the project. The minimum access way will be maintained by the owners of the properties being served. The provides an economy of shared facilities for the project, and no additional costs to the City for maintenance. Fin__._drn~_ The City finds that the purpose of this PUD application for parkway Subdivision, is consistent with this section of the Code, with the exception to the dwelling setbacks, lot area and lot width standards. The provision of private access ways, that will be maintained by the property owners, does not impose a financial responsibility onto the City and the shared facilities also provides far an economy of scale. Section 17.68.02U Size: A PUD shat! be on a tract of land five acres or larger. Discussion: The subject property within the project area contains approximately 7.11 acres, which does meet the minimum 5 acres requirement. The proposed PUD does satisfy 17.68.020. Finding: The City of Central Pointfinds thatthe subjectsite does contain greater than 5 acres to qualify for a Planned Unit Development. G4NCLUSION: The City of Central Point concludes that the site consists of 7.'1'I acres and thatthe purpose ofthe application for detached zero lot line single family dwellings on narrow lots justifies this PUD application, in compliance with Section '17.6$.010- fl20 CPMC. Section '17.68.00, Criteria: A PUD shall be permitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards and procedures of this chapfer. In the case of a use existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and classified in this chapfer as a PUD, a change in the use orin lot area, oran alteration ofsfructure shall conform with the requirements forPUD use. 7o approve or deny a PUD, the planning commission shall find whether or not the standards of fhis chapter, inclcrding the following criferia are eifher mef, can be met by observance of conditions, or are not applicable. A.) That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions fo fhe normal requirements of this fifle; Discussion: The site plan identifies the most efficient development of the land that integrates the mailable land for residential purposes with buffers toward east buffering the commercial and industrial lands. In addition the project is minimizing the wall effect with a 4 foot fence toward the west adjacent to the park land, with the existing surrounding land uses. The proposed detached dwelling units are two story with up to ten differing styles of homes, to ensure that window placement and livability are preserved. The exceptions requested is #o the lot width and lot area standards of the Code. Lots numbered as 9-25, 26-27, 30-33, 36-39, 42-45, 48-53 do not meet the minimum tot width being 60 feet, and the minimum lot area standards being 6,000 square feet for the R-2 zoning district. The R-2 zoning district typically allows for duplex development within the minimum 6,000 square foot lots. The narrow lots vary in size from 3923 - 5979 square feet, each lot containing a single dwelling unit. if the development area was to a conventional duplex subdivision, this would allow for the same or similar number of dwelling units with the development of streets that would not need an exception to the lot width and lot area standards of the Code, All other standards of the Ordinance for development will be in compliance. Another exception being requested is the side yard setback standards of the Cade far the R-2 district. The R-2 standard prescribes that a minimum of 5 feet be provided per story. These fats are proposed to be developed with zero lot line detached single family dwellings on one side of the lot with a minimum of 5 feet side yard setback on the opposite side. l~indina: The City finds that the development of Parkway Subdivision is not practical as a standard subdivision with the R-2 district providing for duplex to#s. The applicants desire to provide entry Revel housing for the first time home buyer with detached two story single family dwellings. This proposal is consisten# with the existing land use pattern towards the south and west while providing street connectivity, B.) The proposal will be consisfent with the comprehensive plan, fhe objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of fhe city; Discussion: The subject property is zoned for two family residentia{purposes (Low Density} consistent with Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. The Low Density designation allows for the R-2 zoning district. The purpose of the R-2 district is to provide for a suitable environment for families at a slightly higher density than the R-1 district. This is typically expressed as duplex lot developments. The proposed zero lot line development of Parkway Subdivision is very similar to the duplex development. The difference is that an additional property line is included separating the two family homes onto individual lots. This will provide home ownership in an area that would other wise be rentals. This low density development will promote and encourage a suitable environment for new residents. Development of urban areas will provide additional housing opportunities for the future residents of the Gity. The policy of the City is to encourage well thought out developments within the boundaries of the City to accommodate the future residents without enhancing sprawl or need far expansion of the UGB. Fin__ ding- The City finds that development of Parkway Subdivision and the proposed uses is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site and that the uses are also consistent, including the requested exceptions, with the zoning ordinance and policies of the City of Central Point. C.) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have minimal adverse impact on fhe livability, value or appropriafe development of the surrounding area; Discussion: The location of the site with the R-2 district is bound by R-1 zoning to the north (across West Vilas Road} excluding Tax Lot 60a ,lames Clark property, south and west. The land towards the west is planned to be a new City park "Don Jones Park". The property along West Vilas Road is zoned C-1 a commercial zone in the City. The other properties to the east and along a portion of the southern boundary are zoned M-1 an industrial zone. The size of the project consists of approximately 7,11 gross acres. The proposed use of the site is zero lot line two story single family residential dwellings. 10 Livability - Lands to the north and south are currently developed to urban low density residential standards, similar #o the subject proposal. Land to the west is planned for a City park consistent with the R-1 district. The proposed uses on the subject property are identical in charac#erto the existing urban residential uses. With the similar uses proposed, no impacts on livability are anticipated. The lands to the east are zoned for commercial and industrial uses, there will be no impact on livability. Value- The value of the surrounding properties may increase with the development of the site due to the improvements on the subject site along with the enhancement of the street circulation. Parkway Drive can provide alternative access to West Vilas Road from the residential development to the south. The proposed use is consistent with the planned surrounding area, thus, no impacts on value are contemplated. Appropriate Development- The properties to the north, south and west arelar can be developed appropriately to urban standards consistentwith the zoning standards. Lands to the east are currently developed to Jackson County standards and are planned for City Commercial and Industrial uses to Table Rock Road. Any future development of these lands will not be adversely impacted from the subject site and design of the project. These lands have frontage along Table Rock Road and West Vilas Road to create a commerciallindustrial street system. This will keep the commercial truck traffic separated from the residential neighborhoods. These commerciallindustrial lands can be developed consistent with the Cade provisions. Finding: The City finds that lands to the north and south are developed to urban residential standards, consistent with the Code; the land to the west is planned as a City park consistent wi#h the R-1 zoning and Code; the lands to the east and a portion of the southern boundary are currently developed to County standards, and are planned for commercial and industrial uses. The development of the subject property will not have a significant impact an Linability, Value or Appropriate Development to the surrounding lands. 11 D.~ That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that fheyare financially able fo carry out the proposed project, That they ir7fend to sfarf construction witiain six monfhs of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and infend to complete said construction within a reasonable Time as determined by the commission; Discussion: The developer for the project, Date Clark, has received financing approval to construct the project in its entirety. It is anticipated to have final PUD plan and final plat by springlsummer of 2007. At which time construction for Phase 1 of Parkway Subdivision would occur during the summerlfall of 2007 with completion of the project by the end of 2009. Fin.~.V._di. The City finds that Dale Clark the developer forthe project has approval far financing to start and complete the projectwithin a reasonable time frame. E.) That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed developmenf or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking; Discussion: The development of the project will not have a significant impact on the transportation system in the area. Parkway Subdivision will construct 53 new dwellings that will generate approximately 508 ADT based on the ITE Manual 7`" Edition. It is anticipated that approximately 50% of the trips will travel west along West Vilas Road to Pine Street. The balance of the trips generated may go east along West Vilas Road to Table Rock Road. There will be no significant impacts on the local transportation system in the vicinity, .Finding: The City finds that the generation of approximately 508 average daily trips will not have a significant impact on the local street system and that there is sufficient capacity existing to accommodate the development, 7~ 2 F.} That commercial developmer~f in a PUD is needed at fhe proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of fhe type proposed: Discussion: Not applicable. There are no uses proposed that deviate from the underlying R-2 two family residential zoning. The proposed uses are for residential purposes exclusively. Finding: The City finds that the proposed use for the project is strictly residential and that this standard is not applicable. G.) That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; Discussion: Nat applicable. There are no uses proposed that deviate from the underlying R-2 two family residential zoning. The proposed uses are for residential purposes exclusively. Finding The City finds that the proposed use for the project is strictly residential and that this standard is not applicable. H.) The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present.• Discussion: There are no natural features present on the subject property. There are also.no wetlands present on site. The existing irrigation ditch will be realigned and piped underground consistent with the Irrigation District standards. Finding. The City finds that Parkway Subdivision does not include a natural feature within its boundaries. 7.3 I.) The PUD will be compatil~Ie with the selrrairndir3g area; Discussion; This PUD application is not proposing any non-permitted uses. The only proposed use is single family residential, consistent with the surrounding Comprehensive Plan designation and the R-1 zoning to the north, south and west. The proposed uses are identical and compatible with these surrounding existing and planned uses. The lands to the east and a portion of the southern boundary will be separated from the residential development with a 6 foot solid vinyl fence with an evergreen Photinia hedge to screen and mitigate any potential conflicts. The proposed street circulation can also provide a separation of residential neighborhoods and traffic from the industrial uses and traffic. Findina• The City finds that the proposed use is single family residential, consistentwith the R-2 zoning districtand surrounding residential uses to the north, south and west. The proposed landscaping and 6 foot solid fence will ensure that the residential uses are screened from the commercial and industrial uses to the east. J.) The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to ofher permitted uses for the Iand. Discussion: The permitted uses for the R-2 district are: Single-family dwellings; Single-family manufactured home, Onetwo-family dwelling; Public and private schools; Churches; Public parks and recreation facilities. This PUD is proposing zero lot line Single family dwellings. There will be no greater demand on the public facilities than the permitted uses listed. ii~indinq: The City finds that the proposed €~se being single family residential is a permitted use and that there wilt be no greater demand to serve the site with public facilities. :1. ~ CONCLUSIONS: The City of Central Point concludes that this PUD application for Parkway Subdivision is in compliance with Section 17.68,040 CPZO, in that this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation forthe site and thatthe uses are also consistent, including the requested exceptions, with the zoning ordinance and policies ofthe City of Central Point. The City concludes the project is consistent with the R-2 zoning district for density, The exceptions to the Code are the Lot area, Lot Width, and setbacks for the R-2 dis#rict. All other development standards of the Ordinance will be met, The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses and zoning districts, thus, no adverse impacts on surrounding lands are contemplated. 17.68.050, Preliminary Development Plan: A preliminary development plan shall contain a written statement and maps and o#her information on the area surrounding the proposed development to show the relationship ofthe planned unitdevelopmentto adjacentuses, both existing and proposed. Discussion: Submitted with this application are the site plan maps and detail plans with the applicable standards for development. The standards found in Chapter 17.57, Fences, will be addressed during the review and permitting processes. A[I proposed uses and locations for the development of Parkway Subdivision are in compliance with the applicable Chapters. Tl7e site plans clearly reflects the proposed uses and locations far development consistent with the Central Point Municipal Cade. The submitted Preliminary PUD plan along with these Findings of Fact have addressed the applicable standards of the Code and Section 17.68.050 CPMC. BINDING: The City finds that this application with the submitted site plans and maps for Parkway Subdivision a PUD has addressed the site plan standards of the Ordinance and has identified the applicable information required for review. 15 CONCLUSION: The City of Central Point concludes that the applicant for Parkway Subdivision PUD has identified the existing and proposed uses on the submitted si#e plans and has prepared 1=findings to demonstrate compliance with the Code criteria for review, consistent with the standards of Section 'I7.68.050 CPMG. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: The City of Central Point can conclude that this application for a Planned Unit Development has addressed the applicable approval criteria as outlined in Chapters 17.24, 17.68 & 17.76 CPMC and that this application is in compliance with the Central Paint Municipal Code, Central Point Comprehensive Plan, and state law. With the attached documents, site plans and information before the City of Central Point, the applicant respectfully requests approval of this application for a Planned Unit Development for Parkway Subdivision. Respectfully Submitted: Dale Clark Heritage Development Corporation _~ 6 Public Wvrks Departmenf #, u x k.. ~GI V t ~L ~~~ ~~ PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT February 15, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Boy Pierce, Direcfar Maff Samitare, Dev. Services Coord. Fifty Three Lot Residential Subdivision for 37-2W-OI BA, Tax Lots 500 and 700 Applicant: Heritage Development Inc., 33G5 Snowy Butte Road, Central Paint, OR 97502 Zoning: R-2, Residential Twa Family Zoning Traffic: Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, a 53 lot subdivision will generate approximately 53.53 peak hour trips (PHT}. The City has recently updated the City's Transportation System Plaza (TSP}. The recent analysis shows that the intersections of Beebe/Hamrick Roads and Meadawbrook/Biddle Roads to be failing in the PM Peak. A signalized intersection is scheduled to be installed at the intersection of Beebe/Hamrick Road as part of the Noz-th Valley Subdivision land-use application. The secondary access point onto North Mountain Avenue must be approved by City Council because the proposed street access proceeds through Don Jones Park. The access cannot be granted without City Council approval. The Council may impose financial or other obligations upon the developer for this access. Existuzg Infrastructure: Water: There is an existing 8-izach ductile iron waterline in North Mountain Avenue and a 12-inch ductile iron in West Vilas Road. Storm Drain: There is an existing 15" HDPE storm drain line in West Vilas Road and a 24" in North Mountain Avenue. Street Section: W. Vilas Road is improved with no sidewalks. North Mountain Avenue is an improved city street. Engineering azxd Developr~aent Plans and Pernnits: The Central Paint Public Works Department is charged with management of the City's infrastructure, including streets, waterworks, and storm water drainage facilities. In general, the Department's "Standard Specifications and Unifoz-m Standard Details for Public Works Construction" shall govern how public facilities are to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Works Department. In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and profile for streets, water, stoma drainage and sanitary sewers, stone drainage calculations, storm drainage basin map, erosion control plan, utility and outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a 140 South Third Street ~~ Central Por`nt, OR 97502 0 541.664.3321 -~ Fax 541.664.6384 traffic contz'ol plan. A Public Works Permit will only be issued after the Department Director approves the ~zial const~'uction drawings. After approval, the fees associated with the development will be calculated and attached to the public works permit. All fees are required to be paid izr full at the time the Public Works Permit is issued. Conditions of Approval; 1. West Vilas Road Frontage Improvements: West Vilas is classified as a Minor Arterial. Developer will be responsible for constructing sidewalk and landscape raw, with street trees, for the West Vilas Road frontage. 2. Quiet Title and Access: The City and the applicants are currently working in collaboration to resolve a boundary and ownership issue regarding the twenty to thirty feet of area along the south boundary of Don Jones Park and the applicant's parcels. Until this is resolved the City cannot legally grant a road right-of way or sell a portion of Don Jones Park to the developer. Until this is legally resolved the connection onto North Mountain Avenue cannot occur. 3. Dan Jones Park: The City Council has ultimate authority on selling a portion of Don Tones Park to the Developer for legal access to the development. Until the City Council has given approval for this sell the connection of the proposed Parkway Drive to Noz-th Mountain Avenue cannot occur. 4. Street Tree Plan: Tree plantings shall have at least a l '/2" trunk diameter at the time of installation. Ail street trees shall be irrigated with an autozz~zatic underground irrigation system. Maintenance of the landscape row will be of the property owners who own the property directly adjacent to the landscape raw. 940 South Third Streef ~ Centro! Poinf, OR 97502 •549.064.3321 ~ Fax 541.Oi04.6384 ATTA~HM~NT " ~ " FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW File No. 07033 INTRODUCTION: In the matter of consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application to allow a Planned Unit Development applications for two (2} tax lots identified an the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 01BA, Tax Lots 700 & 500 (Property}. The property is located within an R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district. CPMC 17.24.030 -Conditional Uses, states that Planned Unit Developments (in accordance with CPMC 17.b8 - Planned Unit Developments) are allowed in tl~e R-2 district when authorized by the Planning Commission in accordance with CPMC 17.76 -Conditional Uses. The first element to consider in the applications for this proposed development is whether or not it meets the criteria to grant approval for a conditional use permit. CPMC 17.76.010 -Purpose. In certain districts, conditional uses rise permitted subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual characteristics or the special attributes of the area in zohich they are to be Iocnted, conditional uses require special consideration so that they niay be properly located with respect to the objectives of the zoning title and their effect on surrounding properties. Findings: The Property is long and narrow, and in two ownerships, making development under standard regulations extremely inefficient. The primary challenge is in assuring adequate public street connectivity that complzes with the City's land development requirements. If developed as individual properties construction of a public street would not be passible due to the limited width of each parcel. The applicants have collaborated in preparing a plan for the development of the Property that allows efficient use of the land. The planned unit development design is for single-family detached zero lot-line homes on individual lots. Single-family dwellings are allowed a s a permitted use in the R-2 district. The planned unit development does not include any uses not allowed as permitted within the R-2 district. CPMC 17.76.011 --17.76.020 - Application arcd Review; Infornxatiofc Required. Relating to review of applications, fees and required inEormalion. \\Serverzilla\pI\2007 Land Use Files\07033 -Clark - Vilas -CUP\FINDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 1 of 7 Findings: The applicants have submitted alI of the inforrr~ation required for review at this time. Conclusion: The applicants have complied with these sections. CPMC X7.7&.040 -- Findings and conditions. The Planning Commission, in granting a conditional use permit, s]zall find as follozc~s: (A). That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accorrtrnodate the use and to meet a21 other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code; Findings: The proposed project site consists of two (2} tax lots. Combined, the approximate grass acreage is 7.11 acres. Pursuant to CPMC 17.68.200 -Planned Unit Developments - Densiti~, an R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district may have up to 12 dwelling units per acre. Using this calculation the applicants could be allowed up to 85 units based an 7.11 gross acres. The applicants are proposing 53 lots. Because of the width of the Property and public street connectivity requirements it is not practical to attain higher densities. As a Planned Unit Development, CPMC 17.&8.080 -Planned Unit Developments - Exceptions to Zoning and Subdivision Titles, the Planning Commission may allow exceptions Zvithin a PUD for dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, structure heights, distances betzUeen structures, street zc~idtlrs or off street parking and loading facilities differing from the specific standards for the zoning district in zaHicH t]ze PUD is Iocated. The proposed lots range in size from 3,123 sq. ft. - &,720 sq. ft. The applicants are pursuing a PUD for the purpose of varying from: 1. The standard setback requirements to allow for zero lot line homes. 2. The minimum lot area requirement of 6,000 sq. ft. 3. The minimum lot width requirement. Conclusion: The proposed exceptions do not conflict with the intent of the R-2 district. The setbacks, lot area, and lot width exceptions are consistent on a per unit basis with the R-2 district requirements for a duplex. (B). That the site has adequate access to a public street or Highway and that the street ar Higlzzoay is adequate in size acid condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use; Findings: The site has direct access onto West Vilas Road, which is classified by t11e County as a county arterial road. Jackson County has expressed safety \\Serverzilla\pl\2007 Land Use Files\07033 -Clark - Vilas -CUP\F1ND1NG5 OF FACT.doc Page 2 of 7 concerns about the "partial road" that intersects with West Vilas Road. As a mitigation requirement to the sight distance concern Jackson County is requiring the applicants to provide a sight distance analysis for the intersection of West Vilas Road and Parkway Drive. Public Works commented that typically a project of this size based on the estimated PHT {Peak Hour Trips) would require a traffic study. The Public Works Director has waived this requirement due to a previous study that anticipated further development in this area. The applicants are proposing to provide secondary access by connecting into North Mountain Avenue, which is a City public road located at the south boundary of the project area. rn order to accomplish this connection, the applicants will have to purchase a portion of Don Jones Park. AddztionalIy, there is a quiet title issue to resolve with a portion of Don Jones Park. Therefore, the City Council cannot make a determination as to whether or not this can be accomplished, until the quiet file action is completed. Once this is cleared up, the City Council will review the applicants' proposal to purchase the required land for this connection pending the Planning Commission's decision to approve or deny these applications. Conclusion: As proposed the Project provides adequate public access. (C}. T'l~r~t the proposed use zuili )2~ve no significant adverse effect on abutting property ar t11e permitted use thereof In making this determination, the Commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements on tl~e site; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; heights of buildings and structures; zc~alls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs; Findings: The subject project area is adjacent to Don Jones Park on the west side, with Industrial and Commercial Neighbaxhaod zoned properties to the east. To the south are existing subdivisions such as Central Point East, and Beebe Woods, PUD. The proposed development would have no mare of an impact on adjoining properties than development of the Property with permitted uses. The traffic would increase somewhat to the south with passible access through Central Point East to Beebe Raad. Construction traffic would be limited access from West Vilas Road, so as not to disturb or disrupt existing neighborhoods off North Mountain Avenue. The applicants are proposing a pedestrian crosswalk from the east side of the development to the west side with pedestrian access continuing through to Don Jones Park. There will be a white vinyl fence along the eastern side of the development with Photinia on the inside of the fence. The applicants •~vill \\Serverzilla\pl\2007 Land Use Fiies\07033 ~ Clark - Vilas -CUP\FINDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 3 of 7 provide a four {4j foot vinyl fence on the west side adjacent to fhe park that matches the fencing proposed to the east. The vehicular access and internal circulation will depend upon successfully acquiring access to North Mountain Avenue. The applicants have provided 10 different louse designs to fit the Lots proposed. With the exception of the zero lot-line configuration all house designs meet the height and setback criteria of the R-2 zoning district. There will be no variances other than those addressed in the approval of the accompanying applications for this development. Any signs would have to go through the building permit process and meet the criteria as outlined in CPMC Z5.2~4 -Signs. Signage is not addressed in the application. Conclusion: The applicants Dave adequately addressed the Criteria C. (D). That the establishment, maintenance or operation of use applied for will comply with local, state and federal health and safeh~ regulations and therefore zvilI not be detrimental to the health, safefzf or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to fhe property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the commurzity based on the reviezo of those factors listed in subsection C of this section; Findings: Refer to the findings as outlined in detail in subsection C above. Conclusion: The applicants have adequately addressed the Criteria C (E). That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessart~ to protect the public health, safeh~ and general welfare and may include: T . Adjustments to lot size or yard areas as needed to best accommodate the proposed use; provided the lots or yard areas conform to the stated minimum dimensions for the subject zoning district, unless a variance is also granted as provided for in Chapter T 7.13. Findings: The proposed lot sizes and yard areas comply with the equivalent per dwelling unit requirement of the R-2 district. As an example the minimum lot area is 6,000 sq. ft. on which can be located a duplex for 3,000 sq. ft, per dwelling unit. The proposed Project has a minimum. per dwelling unit lot area of ,3,1()0 sq. ft. \\~erverzilla\pl\2007 Land Use Files\07033 -Clark - Vilas -CUP\F1NDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 4 of 7 The applicants are not proposing any variances as provided for in Chapter 17.x.3. Conclusion: Any changes to the proposed PUD, will be addressed in the final development plan as an amendment, when brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. 2. Increasing street zvidths, modifications in street designs or addition of street signs or traffic signals fo accommodate tl~e traffic generated b~ tl2e proposed use, Findings: This is yet to be determined depending upon whether the applicants can acquire the additional land necessary to make the North Mountain Avenue connection. Conclusion: Any changes to the proposed PUD, will be addressed in the final development plan as an amendment when brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. 3. Adjustnietzf fo off-street parking requirements in accordance with and unique characferistics of the proposed use, Findings: The applicants have provided additional parking for proposed lots 28 & 29, Lots 34 & 3~, Lots 40 & 41, and Lots 46 &47 along the western portion of the project area adjacent to Don Jones Park. There will be approximately 7 on-street parking spaces between driveways where the narrow Iots are proposed. Combined, there are approximately 14 additional off-street and on-street parking spaces, as well as the required covered parking provided for each Iot. Conclusion: With the narrow lat configurations, the applicants were able to still provide some on-street parking. ~. Regulation of poinfs of velzicuIar ingress and egress, Findings: Meeting thzs criterion will be dependent upon successfully acquiring the necessary Iand to make the North Mountain Avenue connection. Conclusion: Once the quiet title action is resolved, the City Council will determine whether or not the City can proceed with selling approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of Don Jones Park to make the cannection. If not, the applicants will need to come up with an internal circulation plan. This could result in a Loss of the \\Serverzilla\pI\2007 Land Use Files\07033 -Clark -Vitas -CUP\FINDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 5 of 7 number of lots and will be addressed as an amendment in the final development plan. 5. Regziring landscaping, irrigation systetais, lighting and a property maintenance program, Findings: A landscape & irrigation plan will have to be submitted and approved by the City prior to final plat approval. A property maintenance program would be controlled by a Homeowners Association. The City shall receive a copy of the CC & R's to ensure that common areas axe maintained. The CC & R's shall be provided with the final development and final plat applications and approved for recording with the final plat. Conclusion: These requirements shall be satisfied prior to signing final plat. 6. Regulation of signs and their locations, Findings: The applicants have not addressed signage in their applications. Any signs will meet the criteria outlined in CPMC 15.24. Conclusion: A building permit would be required, and compliance verified through the review process. 7. Requiring fences, berms, walls, landscaping or other devices of organic or artificial cotatposition to eliminate or reduce the effects of noise, vibrations, odors, visual incotatpatibiIify orother undesirable effects on surrounding properties, Findings: The applicants have identified perimeter vinyl fences. W1zen the industrial property to the east develops, they would be required to screen their uses to reduce the above mentioned effects. Conclusion: The applicants have met this criterion for the proposed use. S. Regulation of time of operations for certain types of uses if their operations may adversely affect privacy of sleep of persons residing nearby or otherwise conflict with other community neighborhood functions, Findings: N/ A Conclusion: N/A 9. Establish a tithe period within which the subject land use must be developed, \\Serverzilla\pl\2007 Land Use Files\0'7033 -Clark - Vilas -CUP\FINDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 6 of 7 Findings: A development schedule has been provided with the associated Planned Unit Development application. The applicants Have identified that the proposed development will be completed in two (2) phases. Conclusion: The applicants have met this requirement. 10. Requirement of a bond or other adequate assurance zc~itliin a specified period of tinge, Findings: The amount or type of assurance accepted by the City will be determined by the Public Works Department in conjunction with required improvements. Conclusion: The Public Works Department will make sure that this is satisfied prior to Public Works signing the final plat for recordings. 11. Such otlzer conditions that are foi.ctid to be necessary to protect the public health, safetz~ and general welfare, Findings: In the applicants' findings, they have agreed to comply with any additional conditions imposed to ensure the protection of public health, safety and general welfare consistent with CPMC. Conclusion: The applicants have agreed to comply with any additional requirements. 12. In considering an appeal of an application for a conditional use permit for a home occupation, the planning commission shall review the criteria listed in Section 17, 60.19Q. Findings: N/A Conclusion: N/ A \\Serverzilla\pl\2007 Land Use Files\07033 -Clark - Vilas -CUP\FINDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT " ~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION IN PREPARATION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND TENTATIVE PLAN APPLICATIONS LOCATED IN CENTRAL POINT, OREGON Applicant: Heritage Development Inc. 375 2W 01BA, Tax Lots 500 & 700 File No. 07033 WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a Conditional Use application in preparation for Planned Unit Development and Tentative Plan applications for the creation of 53 zero Iot line single family lots located within the R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district on approximately 7.7,1 acres on properties identified on Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 01BA, Tax Lots 500 & 700, in the City of Central Point, Oregon; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2007, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted adult'-noticed public hearing on the applications, at which tune it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district section 17.24, and Conditional Uses, section 17.76 of the Central Point Municipal Code; and BE TT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. does hereby approve the application based on the findings and conclusions of approval as set forth on Exhibit "A", the Planning Department staff report which includes attachments, which is attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 6~ day of March, 2007. Planning Commission Chair Page 1 of 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. {03062007} ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this day of ___ _ _, 2007. Planning Commission Chair Page 2 of 2 PLANNING COMMISSION REESOLUTION NO. (03062007)