Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 693 - Gray Court PUD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING TENTATIVI. PLATAPPI~OV'AL FOR. T1-IE CFtI-~Y Ct~CJI~'1" SUI~I~1Vl ~ lON AND PLAIti ~' 1 17 UNI`1' DEVELOPMENT (Applicant; Jatx S. Gray) {37 2W 11A Tax Lots 140(? aid 1500) Recitals 1. Applicant has subttzittecl concurrent applications far tentative land s~t1_~cii~risic~n a;~<l tenl ~zi,rc planned unit development an two parcels with an ag~~regate total of 2.154~srca cn~ prol,~c:riics identified by Jackson County as Accounts 10202489 and 10202497 in the Ciiy of Central Paint, Oregon. 2. On, May 2, 2006, tl~:e Central Point ~~Plant~ing Car~~z~:~isT~,n conducted adult'-noticed public hearing an the applications, at wl~i~~l~ time it reviewed the City staffrcparts and heard testimony and comments an the applicatia~~. Now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT,. OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Cr~lcri<~ ~h iic~~hic to T3ecision, The following chapters afthe Central Faint Municipal Code apple to this application; A, Chapter 17,28, R-3" Residential Multiple-Family District B. Chapter 16,10, Tentative Plates C. Chapter 17.68, Planned Unit Devclaptnent Section 2. Fit~diz~g anc~ C`e~t2cl.tzsians. "T"he Planning Comtnissian herehy adapts by reference all findings affact set firth its the Planning Commission report attached hereto as "Exhibit "A"", and concludes that, except where addressed in the conditions of approval, the applications and proposal comply with the requirements of the fallowing chapters afthe Central Paint Municipal Cade: A, Chapter 17,28, relating to uses, eat size, eat coverage, setback and building height. B. Chapter 16.10, relating to required infarnnatian on plat, processes and the assi~ntnent of conditions by tl~e City pertinent to the application. C. Claap~~r 17.68, relating to properties «~itlx unique qualities, mixing ofbuilcling types and land uses. Planning Cammissian Resolution Na. ~- + - (05102/2005) Seetiazx 3, C~~tx~ii~ic~r~,ri .,"~~~,~~~~c~~y~~l. Tl~zc cu~ncr~r'r~fit applic~tti~~r~!s i~~cr tciitatil,~, land subdivision and. tentative i~lanned rr~~it cievelopn7ca~i 1~~~rcin are l~~r~l~r- ~rrl~jcct tt~ t1~e conditions set forth an Exhibit "A", being, the Pla~nnin~ Com~r~is~ir~n Report attached i~rereta by rcfcr~;r~ce incorporated herein, imposed under authority of CPMC Chapter [ 6.3fi. Passed by the Platztiira Cominissic~n at~d signed try me in authe;xatication af' its passa~,e this 2nd day of May, 2000. ~=- _ ~,~_ ~Planzxi~. ~ C~, > ~ ~~ ~ . ~u ~.;h~iir ATTEST: City Rci~resezitative .. "~` t Approved by me this 2nd day of May, 2.006, .1=.` ~ ~,~. ,~.~ Plann~~rr~ C,~.~~11~~~,;~„~~~~1~a~r Planning Commission Resolution Na. &~"~„ (OS/02i200S) Planning Department STAFF REPORT Tom Humptjrey, A1CP, Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator REVISED PLANNING CONIMI~SI4N REPORT May 3, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Planning Commission review of tentative plan far the Gray Court Planned Unit Development. The proposal is located within the R-3, Residential Multiple-Family Zoning District on property identified as Map 37 2W 11A, Tax Lots 1400 and 1500; Jon Gray, Applicant. (L. Calvin Martin, Agent) SOURCE: Planning Commission Chair BACKGROUND: The subject property is located east and south of the Meadows Planned Unit Development on two lots with long and narrow configuration. The applicant has proposed a total of twenty-five (25) lots; twenty- four (24} of which will contain townhomes and a designated "tot lot". The remaining lot will retain the existing house at 745 Hopkins Road. FINDINGS: This application is being processed as a Planned Unit Development because there is a single component that does not meet the standard subdivision requirements relative to the 20 foot front yard setback. The Planning Commission is aware that the PUD application was submitted a day after a code change increased the minimum lot area from one acre to five acres. The Commission could approve the applications as submitted provided the applicants meet the criterion listed in Chapters 16.10, 17.28 and 17.68 together with the numerous conditions recommended by staff in Attachments "F", "G", "H" and "1". The applicant has submitted Endings for consideration by the Planning Commission (Attachment «E„ ISSUES: In considering an approval of this site plan approval application, the Planning Department identified to the Planning Commission several items worthy of consideration: 1. This Planned Unit Development application was submitted on April 13th, 2006; a day after a code amendment increased the minimum lot area from 1 acre to S acres. Planning Staff recommended that the application be denied because the proposal failed to meet the minimum area requirement. The Planning Commission decided in good faith to take action on the item since there may have been some confusion with the applicant in knowing when the new code would take effect. 2. The application proposes a significant redevelopment of land which far the most part has been vacant open space. The two tax lots involved are surrounded by the Meadows PUD on the noz-th and west boundaries and for this reason, the construction of 24 multi-story townhomes will have a direct impact on residents of the Meadows. Particular care should be taken in the placement of landscaping, windows and decking as to minizxzize the effects an the neighbors. Gray Cauz-t Planned Unit Development Gray courtPC_REVISED.doc Page 1 of 2 3. The proposal requires approval as a Pla~~ned Unit Development only sizace the setbacks for the second story "deck" extends into front setback. All other code sections and public works standards have been mot. 4~Deputy Fire Marshal Mark Moran is retluesti~~g a condition that the applicant to desig~i an adequate turn-around that meets Izre code requirements. It may be necessary to shift the location of the most northerly unit. The applicant has the option of using fire sprinklers as an alterzaative to aturn-around modification. EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" - Preliminary PUD Plazi, Tentative Plat Exhibit "B" -Conceptual Building Elevation Exhibit "C" -~ Conceptual Floor Plan Exhibit "D" -Applicants Development Schedule Exhibit "E" -Applicants Findings Exhibit "F" -Public Works Staff Report Exhibit "G" -Building Department Staff Report Exhibit "H" -Correspondence from Rogue Valley Sewer Services Exhibit "I" - I'lanzzing Depaztznent Recommended Conditions Exhibit "J" -Proposed Resolution ACTION: Consideration of Resolution No. _, approving the tentative subdivision and tentative planned unit development plan. Gray Court Planned Unit Development Gray courtPC_REVISED.doc Page 2 of 2 2 3 f. 5 m oLhtir N/+ti1E G7IZ~ C.bNO AG?{~-.. GJI~GGHPFLIM 2'ICxJ1°E~ ~~.b G.f~py ~~eJYN: Gis,f'cM;AI~{°I~. NltlAtlQLfP X ryO1JL'h~lCtl ti,UA .~' Ta %' ~b'ry y/tJGe4. MrGl~lol-!h W IL'jdN CPRPF_~' JIJNI PC^.4, i GFl- F I ~ ~ ?-Mf^PHedi.e.PF,lh.'~,pWr+G fzPYTUap.' S Got. { Ii I '', _.VG*i`F"rU~i. Jh~, G1oiLE~1 Jl~'g7`IILh Cl1oN'r-!Uy CYfILL'~M1{ ~7 LIhL ~ ~ ~ ~ - I 1 !~ p¢u~JU~, o~~~tvp. 2"cN~~ ad 6 o L..~ ~.Y._.~ _-- ~ I I ti!~ N °.. vlaa§.vUna o~vlalr Gxvira'h ~, evf+ra uHt . 2 C~At-. - ~{ ~-~' ! ~ I' ; ' i I.JfC 4GJ (y~.f?~VI~~lJLa corrlMOV eoxNooG .~ U,r~4+ I I I/ ~v w ' •. '~'` .. ' ' ' , _ -~ Ikx'~+u[1~,psJfs2lPi:,l F/ F~4.~ 6WL~. ,~ I M;'~NlULnt+ fL`!G GIWhh .. ' w : , .., .~GaH. ._..... ;, .. L~---' -'T,.-~ ,~~ ! Q. ~ I~a'peNCeJ.O•.' NL ~,a.~.tca.~~c. I_, ~ :.p° ! .. E{ I ~.~,. ~ wer Y\i. .~: f ~ .. .. ' ~r' I ~NGG .~ ' ~ ~ ~.:. ~_~ ........ .... .. _._.W_-. .. . ...~._ _..... ...... _ jam'... 1~10~`-E ` ?`!€`~iG~~- LAND~GP~~~ FLAN. ,T~ 'ra,...eip s'r.u.ec~sw,s«n.. un.x.. ~anl~on..a.isuo ~ .i~~:f~17~pi~ ..._ -- ^~S I ~I~ 7 En I•Iget ~eJe P.<fe PI.n SAret~ ~ftypPF,+e. gr[,[ / S~Typic~l Lx,bsnpe l'Itrrt P(iOPLiCTY LINL 5'r 9.9t 6'perime erw~wJ kneiuz~~ 7 O--_ n _ w .r 7777 M __ LAF` _ -.-~ 'l11 ...... ..._._..:;_._ V71 8. 32' rY3 , ~ _ 32 ~ .. 2 ! ~a "F' ~ \ o t ~ ssI~ mw. . _,.._..._ ~ F G 4~ I I, i .ate \1 I ~~~ I I ~ ro` ~. I i I -- ..:_ _ ~ v_ f 3 I t '- o - ~,r---__. _ ' "~G + ,o o ~ ~ .. .mac ~'. ~ P V fL ~ `.YF.ee7 cc..lgat F..rNar''~ -r.,~a.r~~..t.¢ I a '~ f ~ 4s. r I r ~ 0 A. ~ O ~, pQ 4 W ;~ A~ ~ s OF ~'-:p?o(+EFZ]`( L"~E i Exlh`iNG ~na6~lee .. - _ _ .__ _. ~»•~~~ ~ 9 ' ~~ 15.~ 1E 5'f ']4 7 14 'S6 17 118 FR 17A E7 ~ 22 E3' 1 7; A d c>_ ~ ~ ! , i ~ I I I ~ I ~ ~ c I~ ~ ~ s ~ x t' & 1 ~ I I I I ~ ~ ~ Km~_r E iYr~l Berl.. ;- ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ! ~ - z = - I 3 ` S' I l` _ I ' SITE PLAN Sh«t ~~-20'_0., _ _ A-~ ' .. . _w__,_w~.. ~,. _ M i Z W T~ w~is ', ~. FRpi~T E~.EVATI()~~ -1 ,7. ~ ..,.,. 1.-. x~~x E~.~v~T~o~+ 114`- 1'-U" sza~ EL~v~aTtars W 3 4 9~'~ H /l E ~r-v c~ __ ~ - II I I i 1 f ~ j `j _ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ i I I' ,~ I o, ~~ ~-..._~.. j f/ M1 ' .. ._..~~.~ oerc ~ _ fra%er'~ i : i ' '_ 'yZo~r ~ c I ii ~~~ E '~ ~ jnh { 3 ' -iV~tJG f~00u ~--- .. ~..... _, ~ I ~ ^. _ , _ :_~ -E... _...__ _.~ _. .1.... _ `~ C M.~~.C.,~. ` ...`~; ~ ~' ~ Cdr- o a ~ GOV=Q~~ O~UC ? c:oy-`~.~ .. A2L a, - .. - ;: .. ¢ °_ o - _ f ~.. -..., r r-, ?> >~ i ~ ~. ~, - _ _ .... ..- - ._-'-_~--.. ~ ~ i, I~ - _~_-.:~ _.. ._ -7---- - --_.r --~----._~_...-._____ _..__._...-._ .._....-__. ..____ ~. TI-TIRO FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOdK PLAN 1'ItZS'1' FLOOR PLAN 3ia..- 5._0° vas,. r-o^ Eta..., ~. ~.. ATTACHMENT " ~ " GRAY COURT PUD GENERAL INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE It is anticipated that four buildings containing two units each will be build in each phase for a total of three phases , Phase One : Units 1,2,3,4,11,12,13, i 4 Phase Two: Units 5,6,7,8,15,16,17,18 Phase Three: Units 9,14,19,20,21,22,23,24 Phase One would begin Apri134~20°~,and last for S months. Phase Two would begin October 1St,zoo~ ,and last for 5 months Phase Three would begin March 1 St, a°°~ ,and last for 5 months All roads and infrastructure will be completed with Phase One and it may be that the rock pads and foundations far the following phases will be completed ahead of the schedule for general construction of each phase. PUD OWNERSHIP /HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION All work on the PUD documents will be done by Davis, Wright, Tremaine (Gene Grant Esq.) Attorneys at Law, Portland, Oregon and all survey work will be done by Friar and Associates of Medford, Oregon. Site area is 579' x 152' = 93,798 square feet or 2.1533 acres Parking provided is as follows: Open parking 49 Garage parking 48+ Total 97 124 = x.04 per dwelling unit (does not include existing single family residence) Road width 26 feet Sidewalk width 4.S feet each side of street Fire Department turn around at end of street exceeds Fire Department handout standards as adopted by the City of Central Point, Oregon Total square footage of living area in development excluding existing dwelling unit is: 37,$00 square feet. 30 ATTACHMENT "_~ GRAY COURT PUD APPICATION The applicant is requesting the granting of a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for his property and according to a plan submitted with this request. The applicant is .lon Gray and the property is Township 37, Range 2 West, Section 11A, and tax lots 100 and 1500. The land consists of two parcels that extend 579 foot north from the intersection of Burrell Road and Hopkins Road. The parcels together are 162 feet wide creating a combined parcel that is 2.1 S acres in size and according to tho zoning on the proporty would allow 25 dwolling units to exist under normal circumstances. The parcels currently have one single family residential dwelling each on them and it is the intent of tho applicant to remove the western most residence and leave the southern most residence. The applicants proposes to build 24 tawnhomes each on its own lot with common area provided for roads, pedestrian walkways, landscaping and a fenced tot lot ~'or children. The remaining residence will sit on its own lot near the entrance to the property. The applicant hired a traffic planner to examine the conditions at the intersection of Burrell Road and Hopkins Road and that study has beon presented to the Planning Department for reviow and discussion. It was detormined that the entrance for the project should be moved as far to the west as is practical to allow ingress and egress to the site that is as safe as possible considering the general location of the property. The consultant, RDK Enginoering of Central Point, made long term recommendations that are not supportable by the contemplated project but the ingress and egress point is in a position to compliment the long term plan as well as the short term need far access to the applicants property. 17.65.40 Criteria to grantor deny a PUD A. Tlxat the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of the title; The applicant has property that is in a long but narrow configuration and in order to meet the density requirements and create an attractive property that meets the needs of the market existent in the area; it is necessary to build townhomes that are three story with their garages beneath the living quarters of each townhome. The buildings are built in pairs with zoro lot lines between them and according to all state building codes applicable to structures of their type and design. The design allows the applicant to provide a 2b foot wide access street with 4,5 foot wide sidewalks on each side and meet all of the setbacks required for side and rear yards and require the only exception to be that of the overhanging second story deck and bedroom above to be 10 foot setback from the edge of the private street. The vehicle parking for tho units consists of two spaces per unit immediately in front of the garages and an oversized two car garage far each unit that can actually hold three small vehicles or two conventional. It is the desire of the applicant to ~~ give generous sized units in the project. This results in a solution that provides ample off-street parking and three bedroom, two and one half bath units of i 575 square feet in size. The front setback for the ground level is standard at 20 feet and the upper levels overhang by ten feet creating a partially covered parking area for occupants of the units and their quests. The parking requirement is more than met and very family friendly sized units are created. Partially covered parking far vehicles is considered a plus by the real estate agents that we questioned on the topic. This configuration does not cause a maneuvering difficulty and it leaves a distance between the opposing units of 56 feet which is more than enough for privacy of the opposing units. Side yard distances combined are 20 feet as per the land development code. S. The proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the Zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the City. The proposal as outlined and contained in the drawings herewith submitted is consistent with the comprehensive plan of higher density development and the zoning designation of R-3 which allows the number of dwelling units {24 + one existing} that are proposed. The R-3 allows 12 dwelling units per acre and this parcel contains slightly more then 2. i 5 acres. The only non-standard issue that the applicant addresses in this application is the 20 foot front yard setback. C: Tfre location, size, design and operating characteristics of t/re PUD will have minimal adverse impact an the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area T'he applicant believes that there will be no adverse impact to the livability due to the exception of the front yard setbacks in that it is actually viewed as a positive to have additional vehicle coverage during the hat months of summer. The surrounding area which is already developed on all sides will not have a view of the street side of the units and it is felt that this will add attractiveness as well as a positive function to the design. Realtors consulted actually felt that the overhanging of the upper floors would increase the value and desirability of the units. We would therefore contend that there is no adverse impact. D. That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they are frnancially able to carry out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months of the~nal approval of the project and any necessary district changes , and intend to complete said construction within a reasonable time as determined by the commission; The applicant owns several rental properties in the Central Faint and Medford area and is currently ready to begin this project as soon as this FUD can be approved and weather pertnitting. Private funding is available for this project and comes from a project nearby that is just completing. Applicant is a mortgage broker and is familiar with funding of those types of projects as are his agent. Tt is contemplated that this project will be done in 3~ three phases starting at the southern end of the property and working north to complete. Each o€ these townhomes sits an its own land and is sold very similarly to a detached single family dwelling unit except far the homeowners association which cares for the common area and roads. Tftat trafftc congestion will not likely be created by the proposed develapmertt ar will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan far proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking. Earlier in the applicants statement it was expressed that a traffic study had been commissioned and completed. The traffic counts for both Hopkins Road and Bursell Road are not excessive and none of the counts put those roads into sub_standard conditions of operation. This project will not alter the trafftc count significantly anal will not create a degradation of the current service level. It should be Hated that modifications far the long term that are recommended by the consultant are not supportable by this project. The areas in all directions of the project are essentially built out and it is Hat anticipated that a lot of additional traff c will be created from new development in the future. The access to the site has been moved to the far western side of the site to move it as far away from the intersection as passible. It is possible to make some minor improvements to the intersection that would enhance the safety of the intersection but they are still not totally warranted based an the ingress and egress traffic from this project. The accident incident record of this intersection is very good considering its unconventional design. Mare can be said about this at public hearing that could lead to some additional improvements. F. That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of tJte type proposed. The are no commercial facilities contemplated or required by this project and proposal. G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient a~td well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; It should be noted that this project does not contain an industrial component of any kind. H, The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if those are present. The project only has a few #rees an the southern end of the project and unfortunately due to the need to trove the ingress and egress location as far to the west as passible it is necessary to remove some or most of the trees in the south-west corner of the site. The landscape plan calls for a number of trees to be replaced an the east side of the entrance to add privacy to tho existing residence on the property and to make the entrance mare attractive. There are na streams or other similar features an the site. I. The PUD wilt be compatible with the surrounding area 3~ The PUD is not a lot unlike the property to its east which contains multi-family dwelling units of a density similar to the project. The north and west of the project are bordered by a mobile /modular home subdivision and there will be attractive fencing and landscaping to soften the view that those neighbors have of the project. It should be noted that this property has been zoned R-3 and is being developed to the exact density allowed under that zoning designation. These buildings will be built with materials and colors that are compatible with the neighborhood and will essentially be single Family in nature. Having a 1'UD homeowners association and by-laws will ensure that the homes are kept up and that the rules are followed regarding personal care of the dwelling units. J. The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses. for the land (drd ISIS 67,1989} The only permitted use for the land under the R-3 zone is residential and that is what is being proposed. 3~ `r ct e\ i.` 1. J 1'` ~'~,i .j~'`' I , .~ r .- ~:. _ _ ,~:~ B~J~'iri~li'~' Zy 2Uafi t. . A.. .,,,.. ~, ~l`vr ~.. i. ~ ~.:nu ~i _.. ~ a .~~, _. ~. ~• 1 ~,~-~~~ ~ ~t Pl ~' ~~i 1,,-!li UCH, t 1c,~1i-~!wui (1'l'I )~ lut' 3~~--11A, ,t.tZ . l.rats L'lOiJ ~ ir. 1 ~U!U Ac,~i forAj~pli~t: L. C~,j~~ittl1.1a3~titi, 3~~U1. Ia~'icl~'~~~~irt L?t-i ~,I~~.{liz;-c , OIq c~/`~~t1~; Zoning: R-3 13~t,~,et1 an the Jt~~Iitufc of '1'z'~tt~ l7c~rtc4tic~» I~',t trtnc.er~:; {[ {'1~:) l iiO ~rcru~4~ttitut"~I~~~~u~~4tt1., <4t~ eight Irti i~cs4cletlti~tl Sultcli~'i<>ic~n ~~,%11 t,;tres~air~ t4t>}~roxi~~~t4t;lr' ? a.2~; }~~~~1~ itc~t~• tci}is (l'fI"l~). 1'l~e <;ity clicl t-c:~ckuia'c, ~:4 ~r~,i•'i`ic. <?~~aly'sis fc~r ilti~i clevelol~t~~er~t tit see ho~~` thi> clc;velol~,Yac;t>t wu>_tlif iryll~~cet iltc, c~itrrer~ it~tersec;tic~t4 t}1. 13urr;ell ar~d C-1opl~i~;~ .(~c~ac,s. 'l'}t~, study clete~Ii4iiir:cl tlta tii~.° clc,vi;I~ptti~;~~i. ~~ill c~rtl~' J4~I.vc, rrlirtix~t~41 ir4~j~ai;i ~lr llre it~ii^r~;ectiaxt and thz~t tl~~: ixaxc,i•seciion will ce~i4ti;lu~ ic> c~ll~~r<~t~; ~ti level ofservicc~ ilatt i5 ifa rc~4rti~1ii4xlc'.e ~~-iih City si~trlcl~t•cls. i~.~:s,>.~~ ~li~ ~:y~~'a~c.~~a,.~.:. ',i~ Fr r" . `, i 1I'~li ~11Ck l~ ~.`~~~~' lilCil ~'.:Ji_i_:(' ~li~~' ~~X1S1 ,Ill ~1(3k)~;IIIS l~r;;l~i. ~tct ~~~ i~;~ ~~°~~~~~: ~. k~7ctblic, end priv~,~~- .,~;~; ;~ drain f~cilil~~ c;~4ri•t ntly exists on or adjacent to the subject parcels. `~~~~° ~ `;~~~.we3~Hi1w l lopkita~ Rowel is a City collect~.>>, ,~.i ~~~a~t thin w~~:~ if7ti~t-t~ved in 199l20~~. ~,n; ~r~eexg arl~~ ~cwvelo~re>~4>l ~'lar~s aree li''t:~ . The Central I~c~int I°ubli~ `~or~s I~t;l~4t5~itizcnt i~ ci~~~xg~cl ~:~itl~ Xrt~.z~al;t:~t:~ent of the; C'i~'s it~ii<a.sit•uc,iLt~•c;, xnclud~ng St2i~: ii., waterworlCS, i~ 5[%)!'tl~ '~'v<:4i:c;t' f:ll<4tti~if?e lil(.:lll~les. llt ~r~tteT?l, the l,}e~~~il'tY]eflt'~i `.°rt~lt"!Ck%2"['~ ~l~~cificali~, ~ . , ~ ~ ~; I lJnif~ Standard. l:J;~tails zor l~tti7lic w%~~rl; s Consit'uciiOn" shall govern hi)v4~ ~ntt~l ie faei l itic;s sire to be f;vii ;i rirtr;iccl. "117c; lleveloper is encv<t4 tk,7r,cl i.r~ ~l>t~4i~4 il4d; 1«i.c;.r;i'~c;,-stc>it c~i'li+'s~' sect`~;~ticttlr 1!'(1xY1 the f'tIE?lic ~''ctrk:i I~ep~tt'Lletlt. 14~ en~t~al, i~he pla ~ ~ sl ~. ~ 1 shall itaeli4cle j~lat~ and profile for streets, water, sto d~ ~ ~ ~ I<;, ~. ~~nd sartil~try sewers, siorm d:~ i ~ ~ ~; ~ ~. ~ ~lc;ulations, sictt n4 c~4 airl<4.~>:e basin rrtap, erosion control plan, utility and outside: a_;ency notii.c~tti~7ns an<1 z`t.j~7l~to~a1;. The pl may ~tlsc include applicable traffic studies, Iegal descriptions and: a traffic control plan.. A Public 'V~orks Pe `t will o4tl~r lie issuc~cl r4i'iet` t14~ .T)ejr.~l'1tl~tt I3irector ;,;,~,~~.~~-, s the (~itlal const~:uc;tion drawings. ~lflef• approval, th=~ 1i;c ~ as.<;oc'r~tt<.°cl ti~l[11 i)~r, c1t;~e1r.71nt4ent ~v411 be caleu?aced an<l ~titacl~ed to the public ~%etrl~~ nz::t~r4~tit. ill fre<; 44x'e z~c~cluirecl tc, 1~~° paid ire (i411 ~,t t#tc tiizte the 1~~4blic ~~rQrl~i l~rt•II?it is issued, +e~cefi~t l'itl>lc, ~,'a%t~t'sks ln~t~~:,r,;ic3il fccs. ,~'~ftei• l~r'c~jct;i cc~x~~l,letir~~ clttrilt~; iltt= f"ittt4l flat al~l~lic;atictn prc~ce~;s, the Pul?1ic ~~'ttrl~s Cn<,l~~ec;tc~z~ ~;~ll calculate th,° G417j~ropriate at~ic~iznt a~~' .irtsl~~c;ic~~.l ti.c:i~e icy a~,~,es:s thc> de~'eloper. ,.. ,_ 13efure Tl~e xtrtr~l ~ltt~ ~~i;~~le~ttte~t~ s pror;<~s~><,ei 1.~i~e clevelopc~t~ tr4i~st h~t~~ ~[1x~ r~,lew~rr~ t~t~i~aectt.e~~~~ secs d band for any unc.U,t-Il'ilt;eci irrtl~ret~~ciIlr,tli~3 (a~4, cle~etr~iir~t:~cl by the l'rtblic ~J'vrlcs Director}. 9~?C1,~~ora~h Third ~re~t ~~ C'err~r~~I,`'oir~t, t~1 9~'S~2 ~~9.~~4.3~2~ fax 54~.66`4.+~38~ Conditions of Approval: 1. Residential Lane -Developer is requesting a Residential Lane. Na parking will be required the entire length of the development. 2. Storm Drain Infrastructure -Developer shall install a public storm drain infrastructure connecting the public storm drain system to the West anal East of the subject parcels. 3. Waterline looping _ Developer will be responsible for looping the waterline from Hopkins Road through the storm drain easement onto Briarwoad Drive or through the Meadows Retirement Community. 4. Water Meter Easement -the proposed street section does not fixlly comply with city standards because there is not enough right-of way to include the water meters. A separate two and a half feet wide water meter easement will be required. S. Publie Utili Easement - A ten feet wide public utility easement will be required immediately behind a designated water meter easement. 940 South Third Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ 541.664.332 ~ ~~ Fax 547. fi64.6384 A Q TAC~llll~l YT '~ ~ 94 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Lois Dege~edeet€, Building Official BUILDING DE~PARTIVIENT STAFF REPORT DATE: 3l22I06 `TO: Planning Department Planning file: 06060 FROM: Building Department SUBJECT: Gray Court P.U.D. (737 Hopkins Rd.) Name: Jon Gray Address: 901 Pittview Cir. City: Central Point State: Or. Zip code: 97504 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 37-2W-11A T.L. 1400! 1500 PURPOSE The staff report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Applicant regarding City Building Department requirements and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed project. This is not a plan review. This report is preliminary and compiled solely for use by the Central Point Planning Commission. 1 ~~ ~3U1LD~N~ DEPART~"~EI~T' Lois DeBenedetti, Building Qfficial BUiLDfNG DEPARTMENT COIVINlElVTS: 1. Applicant, agent and contractors must comply with ail current State of Oregon adopted codes, and apply for all permits through the Central Point Building Department. 2. If a private storm drain system is proposed it must be reviewed and a permit issued by the Central Point Plumbing department. 3. Any private street lighting must be reviewed and permitted by the Centro! Paint Electrical Department. 4. Provide the building department with a Geotechnical report as required by OSSC Appendix J and chapter 18 of the OSSC. A written report of the investigation shat! include, but need not be limited to, the following information: a. A plot plan showing the location of all test borings andlor excavations. b. Descriptions and classifications of the materials encountered. c. Elevations of the water #able, if encountered. d. Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and soil strength, and the effects of adjacent Toads. e. When expansive soils are present, special provisions shall be provided in the foundation design and construction to safeguard against damage due to expansiveness. Said design shall be based on geotechnical recommendations. 5. Grading! excavation permits are required in accordance with OSSC Appendix J and chapter 1$ and regarding any fill material placed on the site. Fills to be used to support the foundation of any building or structure shall be placed in accordance with accepted engineering practices. 2 ~~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT Lois DeBenedetti, $uilding offrcia[ A soil investigation reporf, and a report of satisfactory placement of fill (including special inspections of placement of fill and compaction} acceptable to the Building Official ,shall be submitted prior to final of the grading/excavation permit. Building permits will not be issued until gradinglexcavation permit is finalled. Exception: 1. The upper 1. 5 foot of fill placed outside of public rightsWof- way. 2. The upper 1.5 foot of fill that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas. 6. To move or demolish any existing structures located on the property call the Building Department for permit requirements. 7. Notify the City Building Department of any existing wells, or septic systems located an the property. 8. Any development (any man-made change} to improved or unimproved real estate located within the flood hazard area of the City of Central Point shalt require a Development Permit as set forth in the Central Paint Municipal Code 8.24.120. 9. Dust control, and track out elimination procedures must be implemented. 10. Application for building permits will require three sets of complete plans indicating compliance with Oregon Residential Specialty Code (2005}. 11. Fire District 3 will determine fire hydrant location, as well as access to buildings. The International Fire Code (2003} with Oregon Amendments (2004} will be implemented as part of the plan check code requirement for these proposed buildings. 3 ~~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT Loris DeBenedetti, Building Official Any changes proposed sha[I be submitted in writing by the Applicant, or Applicant's contractor to the Building Department for approval prior to start of work. ~~ _4_ i:t2/22/2@H6 12:52 541-6647171 RVS PACE @11@5 ~T~'A~HMEN`~ cc-.ss ~ ~k~~ ~ ~~, January S, 2006 ROGUE 1rAL.C~EY ~~VIIER SER1r(~CE~ Loc,~tion: 138 West Vilns Road Central Point, Ott • Mailing Address; PA. Box 3130, Crnfral Yoint, Oiz 75b2-0D~5 3'cl. (54 ! } 664-0300, Fax (541) 564.7171 w4vw.RVSS,~~ K.en Gerschler FAX 6C~4~•6384 City oi'Cesatral pvi.n.t :Fl.anrting Aepartrraea.3t 155 South Second Street Contr-al point, [).regox~ 9754 >Et.e: Grsty Court PUD, F%1~ #4G4G0 ?car. Rei.'l, 'T`be house on 74S l~opkins Road is currently 5ervad by a connection. to the $ inch sewer main in Hapkins Roars. The proposed development will not affect this service. The hotlsc at 737 Hopkins Road fs nest connected to tha public 4ewer. 5ervicE to the proposed development will require a mraizalirkc cxtcnsxon along the proposed access road. It maybe Qosszble to extend a rxaaiss line front Hopkins Road, however the terrain xnay prevent gravity sewer service. If this is the case, sewer will need. to be extended £rotxZ the cxisti,ng ~aita lute neax the itltersectialt of. F3ri.atwood ~d Columbir.?e. The proposed development must comply with the water qualiiyrequirerr~ents a£the phase 2 Npl-3ES pc~nnit zvhiah are currently bcix~g developed. We request that the fallowing conditions be mot prior to final plat approval: 1. Applicttnt must carkstruct a new public sevvex main in. accordance with RVS standards. 'T`his xi;iaita li.»e tz1ust be accepted by RVS prior to final plat. 2. 1'ypplicant must subtztit a stoztz~water plan to RVS to dam©nstrate ec~nzpliance with the stormwater quality requirements o£ the phase 2 Nli"DES permit. Feel #ree to call me i f you have any questians regarding sewer service for this pro}ect. Sincerely, ~~~~ Carl Tappert, I'.E. District Engineer ~:1D1-~TA1f~.GBNC~S1C~l`I'l.'X''']~'1~'t'J.~NNGISY3BDIVIS~ON1200610b054-IA~OBOST~Y.I~OC d~ ATTACHMENT l PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Gray Court, FILE OGOGO Check Box Number Description of Co~ulitiou 1 of 2 The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards a~~d requirements applicable to the project area. 2 of 2 Conditions, Covenants and Restriction will be submitted to the City prior to submission of the application for final plan. 11SERVERZILI.A1PL12006 LAND USE F[LES106060 GTtAY COUR'i' ~'UDl06060COA.DOC 41