HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 671 - Beebe WoodsI~L;~~ILL,~"I't()!~J }~~. x'71
A ItESC1L IC1N conditionally ap~rrc~~~i~~~; t~ trial de~~cl~aprx~ci~[ }~lanfor the
remain phases for ~ Planned Unit l~c~vc~ic~}~rne1"tfi known ~s i3c;{~lu~ Woods located
on Ilamrick Road, north. o£ ~. fine St~~ee[. [3cet~e Woods, ~L,LC ~~}>plirant.
'GYHLREAS; the property is currca~tl~~ r,carred as R-2, Residential Twt~ F~a~~~ii~,, anal
the appliez~tion is consistent c~~itJt the }>c~,~t~~itied uses set forth in Title 17, ~t~ction
17.6~~ P'lannt~zf Unit Dove}r~hnu~i~is, ~~~-tc}
"GYHEREAS; The Planning Commission's consideration of the ~~pplre~~tic>n is
based on the standards, criteria and applicable to Planned Unit Uc~velopments
and Final Development Plans as set forth in ~ itle 17 and applicable requirement
for lands within a Planned Unit Developments; a~-td
EREAS; after duly con;~ic}c~,~it~~ the Applicant's request it is the P}i1ru~Jng
Commissions determination t}~a~ the Application conditionally complies with
the applicable standards, criteria and conditions of approval as set forth in the
Staff Report Exhibit "A~') dated ~7ctober 4j 2005; now therefore
f3E IT R;ES(~-LVEl3; that the Planning Corain7is~;ion of the City of Central Point,
by this Resolution No. 671 hereby approves thy: Application based on the finds
and conditions of approval as st~rtecl in the 5tal} Deport (Exhibit "A"} dated
(Jctober 4, 2005.
PASSFL~ by the Planning Commission in open session and signed by me in
authentication of its passage this 4th day of Octc~bcr 2005.
ATTEST:
_ City }~~-}~r~~sr~~h~tive
-, r
P1an~~at~g Cti ~~nmt5s7ofi ~.°.ha~rlacrson
~r,r~1~~ coie~zvrl~slor~ R~~z,uTro~r i~a. ~~~ ~~ oo~~oa~}
PLANNYNG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPOIt"1'
HEARING DATE September 7, 2004
TO: Central Point Planning Conamissiozi
FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Conditional Use, Tentative Plan, and Planned Unit Development for
Beebe Wood Village.
Applicant/
Owner: ~ Galpin, LLC
P.Q. Box 8271
Medford, OR 97501
Gordon & Erma Layton
44G0 Hamrick Road
Central Point, OR 97502
Agent: Craig A Stone & Associates, Ltd.
708 Cardley Avenue
Medford, OR 97504
Pro er
Description/ 37 2W01CB Tax Lot 200 - 0.87 Acres
Zoning: R-2, Residential Two--Family District
Summary:
The applicant has submitted various land use applications to azrzend a previously approved
prelirxzinary development plan for a residential planned community and subdivision known as
Beebe Woods. The amendment increases the overall acreage and proposes the addition of five
more lots to bring the total number of single family units in the development to 107 (up from
102).
Autlkority•
CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and
render a decision on any application for a preliminary development plan far PUD, a tentative
subdivision plan and a conditional use permit application. Notice of the public hearing was
given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Attachment A).
Applicable Isaw:
CPMC 16. i 0.010 et seq.- Tentative Plans
CPMC 17.24.010 et seq.- R-2, Residential Two-Family District
CPMC 17.G8.010 et seq.- Planned Unit Development
CPMC 17.7G.010 et seq.- Conditional Use Permit
Discussion•
The City approved a preliminary development plan far Beebe Woods in May 2003 and the first
of four final development plans (one per phase) has also been approved and is under
construction. This proposal is an ame~xdment to the original plan and adds Phase IV whielr
further subdivides the Layton property.
The agent for the applicants (Craig Stone & Associates) has prepared and submitted an extensive
report which staff has reviewed and endorses (see Attachment B). The Commission is
encouraged to read through tl~e applicant's report to arrive at their conclusions. This is a straight-
forward proposal and one that was actually contemplated during original discussions about Beebe
Woods. There is not a lot for plaru~ing staff to add without being redundant.
Conditional Use Permit
CPMC 17.28.030 lists Planned Unit Developments as a conditional use in the R-2, Residential
Two-Family Zoning District.
Re aired Findin s for a Conditional Use Permit
Conditional uses require special consideration so that they may be properly located with respect
to ... the zoning title and theif• effect on surrounding proper°ties. The Planning Commission in
granting a Conditional Use Ferxnit must find as follows:
A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use
and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and
all other provisions of this code.
^ The parcel for this proposed a~x~endment has an area of 0.87 acres. The proposal is
consistent with the Central Point R-2, Residential Two-Family zoning district
requirements. and the Comprehensive Plan housing density for this area.
^ The applicant is creating 5 tax lots, increasing the overall number of lots in Beebe
Woods to 107'. The residential density for the R-2 zoning district is a maximum of
12 units an acre. In this case the applicants could build up to 1~f units. The
proposal is targeting an owner occupied ~narlcet.
B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that il~e street or
highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accozxrrzodate the traffic that is
expected to be generated by the proposed use.
^ The lots will take their access from Live Qak Loop. New trips are expected to
disperse evenly between Brookdale Drive and 4akview Avenue.
C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof.
^ The proposed development if approved would provide a less or equally intense
development to adjoining properties on the north aaad south. Single story, attached
single family homes will border single family detached Domes along the northern
boundary.
D. That the conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect
the public health, safety, and general welfare.
^ Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority confirms that sewer service can be provided
to the site. The private street system is acceptable to Fire District #3.
Planned Unit Development
A preliminary development plan has been approved for this site and this is a simple amendment
to that plan. An application for final development plan must be submitted within six months of
this approval. CPMC 17.68.010 states that the purpose of planned unit development (PUD) is to
gain more effective use of open space, realize the advantages of large-scale site planning and the
mixing of building types or land uses, unproved aesthetics and environmental preservation. This
is achieved with this amendment.
The proposed PUD amendment is a single family residential development and consists of five
lots. Each lot will be constructed with either a single family `attached' or a `detached' residence
and each dwelling will provide adequate parking. There will be limited but sufficient an-street
parking on within the development. Strict Convents, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&R's) will be
written and enforced for the development by a Home Owner's Association who will maintain
common areas, private streets and the park.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary development plan for compliance
with the City's water, storm drain and transportation standards.
Findin s of Fact & Conclusions of I,aw
Size of PUD site
A PUD shall be pn a tract of land five acres ar larger, except that a PUD maybe an a tract of land
more than one acre but less than five acres if the planning commission finds, upon a showing by
the applicant, that a PUD is in the public interest because one or more of the following conditions
exist:
A. The property is adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of a planned unit development of
similar design as that proposed and the developments would complement each other with
significant adverse impact on surrounding areas.
^ The site is adjacent to the Parkwood Village PUD which is also zoned R-2 and
includes attached single family, owner occupied homes on smaller tax lots.
B. The property or its neighborhood lzas historical character or distinctive
features that are important to the cozxzmunity and that could be protected or enhanced
through use of a 1'UD;
^ The applicants are constructing residential homes witl~in an existing residential
neighborhood. The homes will be similar in design and architecture to the
surrounding homes. The PUD will allow for single farn~ily dwellings to be
constructed that would preserve the neighborhood character.
C. The property is adjacent to or in the izxzznediate vicinity of a planned unit
development of similar design as tl~zat proposed and developments would complement
each other without signii`zcazat adverse impact on surrounding areas;
^ The project is adjacent to the Packwood Village and Brvvkdale Gardens PUDs and
will have similar lot size, house size, and architecture.
D. The property is of irregular shape, with limited access, or has unusual
dizrzensions or characteristics whickz would make conventional development unreasonably
difficult and expensive
^ The lots are part of an unusual configuration and an in-fill redevelopment area.
The lots are surrounded by a secondary arterial, an existing collector street and a
private local street.
Criteria to Grantor Derry a PUD
Jn approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision
on the following standards from section 17.6$.040:
A. That the development of a lzarrrzonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to
the normal requirements of this title;
^ The applicant's preliminary development plan proposes 5 single family dwellings.
The housing types will be consistent with the zoning district and developments to the
north and south but will differ from the single family, large lot dwellings to the east.
B. The proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the objectives of the
zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the City;
^ This proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals to the degree it
ensures adequate housing will be provided; contributes to the variety of housing
offered and promotes higher density zoning. The project promotes alternative
housing designs that will potentially minimize the need to expand the urban growth
boundary by encouraging a higher density project near the downtown. Zoning code
objectives can be met if recommended planning and public works conditions are
satisfied. This type of development only a tentative plan review in newer T4D
sections of the Central Point Municipal Code.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have minimal
adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding
area;
^ The preliminary development plan is consistent with the zoning in tl~e surrounding
area. The proponents have stated that the development will provide a quality living
experience for Central Point residents that are presently underserved.
D. That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they are financially able to carry
out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months of the
final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete
said construction with a reasonable time as determined by the Commission;
^ The applicants have a successful history of building homes in the valley and intend
to start construction as soon as possible.
E. That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be
obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal
traffic circulation and parking;
^ All of the units will eventually access onto Brookdale Avenue and Hamrick Road, a
secondary arterial, or onto Oakview Avenue and Meadowbrook Drive which can
handle the existing and proposed vehicle trips.
F. The commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide
adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed;
^ There is no commercial development proposed within this development.
G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate
provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage;
^ There is no industrial development proposed within this development.
H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and
rough terrain, if these are present;
^ The preliminary development plan depicts private, 25 foot streets which allow for
larger green areas, street trees, and internal walk ways.
T. The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area;
^ Beebe Wood Village is compatible with the surrounding area to the degree it is
innovative, oriented toward an owner-occupied market and provides a quality living
experience. The development is similar in design, architecture, and lot size to
Packwood Village. Tliis proposal is a simple amendment to Beebe Woods Village.
J. The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted
uses for the land;
^ The development will result in a rr~ore efficient use of public services and will
eventually encourage the use of walking paths and other alternative forms of
transportation.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission may talcs one of the following actions in regard to the preliminary
development plan (amendment) for Beebe Woods Village.
1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving conditional use permit, preliminary development plan
and PUD boundary expansion for Beebe Wood Village, Phase N, based on the findings of fact
and conclusions of law contained in the record and subject to the recozxzzxzended conditions of
approval as sot fort in the staff reports; or
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit, preliminary developzxzent plan and PUD
boundary expansion for the Beebe Wood Village, Phase N based on findings of fact articulated
by the Commission; or
3. Continue the review of the conditional use pez-zxzit and preliminary development plan at the
discretion of the Commission.
Attachments:
A. Notice of Public Hearing
B. Applicant's staff Report
C. Planning Department's Recommended Conditions of Approval
11Cf'CHSIICITY ti~IDr1PI,A~rIi~G;04o34.DOC
_~~::
U _ z;
i Jk
yp ''[~
`~/
~< _ Cl t~ o~ Ce.rl tral Pol.rl t
PLANNING DE'PARTME'NT
'l'ain llt~mphrey, A[CP
Planning Director
~;~~
;- ~~ ~
!~~ ~.,F 0ro~/
Ken Gerschler
Cornrr~unity Planner
David lllvord
Community Planner
Dave Arkens
GIS T'ecl~niciar~
Lisa Morgan
Planning Secretary
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: August 17, 2004
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
NATURE OF MEETING
September 7, 2004
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a Planned
Unit Development, Tentative Plan and Conditional use applications that would amend the previously
approved Beebe Woods Planned Unit Development by including a 41}' phase near the northwest corner
of the project. This proposed 4'h phase would add five additional lots to an adjacent tax lot and would
not change any other elements of the original P.U.D. approval The subject parcel is in the R-2,
Residential Two Family District and is identif ed in the records of the .lackson County Assessor as Map
37 2W 01 CB, Tax Lot 200. The properties are located on the east side of Hamxnrick Road (460
Hammrick Road}, north of East Pine Street and south of Vilas Road.
The Central Point Planning Commission will review the applications to determine if all of the
requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. if the Commission determines that the
applications meet the City's standards, an approval for the 4th phase could be issued. This action is
discussing whether the City should allow a 4`'' phase to be added to the previously approved Beebe
Woods Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission will not be discussing issues relating to
the approval of the previous phases.
Pursuant to ORS 197.763 (3) {e), failure to raise an issue during this hearing, in person or in writing, or
failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the decision-makers and the parties an
opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal based on that issue.
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENIIOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER
215 REQUIRES THAT II+ YOU RECEIVE TITIS NO'T'ICE IT MUST BE PROMPTLY
FORWARDED TO THE PURCIIASER.
This notice is being mailed to property owners within a 200 foot radius of subject property.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for the review of Planned Unit Developments, Tentative Plans and Conditional Uses
are set forth in Chapters 1 G & 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General
Information and conditions on the application approval.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit
written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 2004.
2. Written comments pertaining to the proposed Phase IV of the Beebe Wood P.U.D. maybe
sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central
Point, OR 97502.
3. Issues which may provide the basis far an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the
expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the
decisions described above will need to be related to Phase IV of the Beebe Wood P.U.D. and
should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission.
4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall,
155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents
per page.
5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541} 664-3321
ext. 292.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE
At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications and technical staff reports. The
Commission, will hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the
application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the
conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the applications as submitted.
City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission
decisions.
155 Cniith ~c~r.nn~l Street ~ (-`.entrai Print (~R 975(32 ~ {.5411664-3321 ~ Fax: 15411 664-6384
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF A PRELIMINARY PUD
PLAN AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PLAT
APPROVAL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A REVISED PUD BOUNDARY FOR
THE APPROVED BEEBE WOOD PUD,
ON LAND OWNED BY ERMA AND
CORDON LAYTON, LOCATED EAST OF
HAMRICK ROAD AND NORTHWEST OF
LIVE OAK LOOP IN THE CITY OF
CENTRAL POINT, OREGON
Galpin, LLC :Applicant
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Applicants' Exhibit 1
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
Land use matters covered in this application package (entitlements for Beebe Wood Village a
Planned Community} involve approximately 0.87t acres. The land, presently owned by
Erma and Gordon Layton, is located east off Hamrick, northwest of Live Oak Loop, north of
Biddle Road and south of Beebe Road in the City of Central Point. Applicant Galpin, LLC
has the written authorization by the owners of the property to seek approval by the City of
Central Point for the following entitlements:
^ Planned Unit Development {PUD} Boundary Revisions
Conditional Use Permit
^ Tentative Plan for a Padlot Subdivision Development2
Specific authority exists in Oregon law to file consolidated land use applications. Pursuant to
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS} 197.763, this application package was deemed complete
under the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code {CPMC) at the time the
applications were farst submitted.
€ The entire Beebe Wood PUD is approximately 9.65 (8.78 acres for the original Becbe Wood PUD + 0.87 acres
for the subject property}.
z Padlot development is governed by Central Point Zoning Ordinance (ZQ) 17.60.210, which provides that
padlots are exempt from the Iot area, width, depth, yard, setback, and lot coverage requirements.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page 1 of 25
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit Development Amendment
City o€ Central Point, Dragon
Gaipin, LLC: Applicant
PROJECT INFORMATION
The following background information pertains to the this project
Project Vicinity and Hisfory
The property is located within the City of Central Point's acknowledged Urban Growth
Boundary on land located east off Hamrick Road, north of Biddle Road and south of Beebe
Road. In 2403, the City of Central Point approved the project then called, Beebe Wood a
Planned Community. Since approval, applicant has slightly changed the name of the project
and it is nova called, Beebe Wood Village a Plastned Co~rttnurrity (also called herein, Beelre
Wood Village Planned Unit Develapment or Beebe Woad PUD. Since approval, applicant
has submitted improvement plans and construction of the infrastructure has been completed in
some portions of the development. Applicant recently submitted a final subdivision plat far
Phases 1 and 2 of the project, which is the southerly portion of the approved PUD. Final Plat
approval was granted for Phase 1. Final Plat approval for Phase 2 is pending.
Project Overview
Beebe Waad PUD Amendment will add and is intended to be a fourth phase of Beebe Wood
PUD. Phase 4 will consist of 4 attached {in clusters of two units) Single Family Dwellings
and one detached single-family home on individual, all to be on individual lots that comprise
0.87 acres, a density of 5.74 units per acre.
Applicant seeks here to amend the boundaries of the Beebe Wood PUD to include the
subject property in the PUD and make it part of PUD Phase 4.
The subject property is to be developed with four attached single-family dwellings and
ane detached single-family dwelling and these are to be developed as part of the already
approved Beebe Wood PUD.
Applicant intends that the same design features that which were made conditions of the
approval of Beebe Wood PUD, be established as part. of this amendment. These include
provisions for two-story buildings with no windows for those buildings that abut the
Parkwood Village development located north of the subject property.
Housing
Housing: Proposed housing consists of site-built two story dwellings. Four of the dwellings
are attached in clusters of two. There is one single family dwelling which already exists and
it is intended to be preserved and placed on a separate lot. Lots vary in size from 2,Q52 to
19,689 square feet. The attached dwellings will be constructed using a zero-lot line
con#'iguration where a common wall of the units will be shared. The new attached dwellings
Craig A. Stone & Associates, t_td. Page 2
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit Development Amendment
Cityot Central Point, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
are intended to be entry-level affordable housing. The existing home will remain.
The new dwellings will be of two-story configuration. The existing home is single story.
The design of the dwellings will be contemporary architecture consistent with already
approved phases of Beebe Wood PUD. Each dwelling will have a garage designed far two
automobiles. The dwellings that border Parkwoad Village will be designed so that na
windows will be on the second story portion of the buildings. Dwellings typical of those
proposed, are shown in Exhibit 7. Typical dwelling lots are shown on the tentative plat map
in Exhibit 4.
Projecf Entry
Ingress and egress to Beebe Wood PUD, will not change as part of this application. Access
will be from Oakview Avenue located at the northeast corner and at Brookdale Avenue
located centrally on the south boundary of the PUD property. Access to the proposed new
parcels will be from Live Oak Loop. No direct access is proposed from Hamrick Raad
although the existing access serving the existing home is proposed to remain.
Hamrick Road Projecf Frontage
Hamrick Road is improved along the west boundary of the PUD properties with bike paths
curbs and gutters. The existing vinyl fence will remain. The fencing will serve as visual
screening and provide sound attenuation for the future residents of the subject PUD.
Vehicular Circulafion and access
The existing network of private streets will remain unchanged. The property will be served by
a fully gridded network of private streets that will be constructed to the city's Transit Oriented
Development ("TOD") standards for Courtyard Lanes. The streets will be 27 feet wide,
which will accommodate two eight foot travel lanes and an eight foot parking strip. The
remaining three feet will be dedicated to rolled curbs and gutters.
Pedestrian Access
The existing network of pedestrian paths will not change as part of the application. Pedestrian
access will be provided by concrete walkways that traverse the common open space areas and
that are intermixed throughout the development. See, Exhibit 3. There will also be concrete
paths that connect the driveways to the front entries of each dwelling. Sidewalks will be
provided along the frontage of the subject property along Hamrick Road.
RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA
The criteria governing the land use actions as described hereinabove for the R-2 Zoning
district are set forth below:
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Fags 3
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit Development Amendment
City of Central Point, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
R-2, Residential Two-Family District
The criteria governing the approval of Development in an R-2 Zoning District are set forth in
Chapter ].7.24 and provide:
1724.020 Permittod uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted in the R-2 district:
A. One single-family dwelling
17.24,030 Conditional uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permi€ted in the R-2 district when
authorized by the planning commission in accordance with Chapter 77,76:
G. Planned unit developments in accordance with Chapter 17.68
Planned Unit Development
The criteria governing the approval of Planned Unit Developments are set forth in Chapter
17.68.040 and provide:
17.68.040 Criteria to Grant or Deny a PUI7
A. That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of
this title:
B. The proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and
other app[icabie policies of the city;
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD w€II have minimal adverse impact on
the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area;
D. That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they intend to start construction within six
months of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes. And intend to complete
said construction within a reasonable time as determined by the commission;
E. That traffic congestion wilt not likely be created by the proposed development or will be otaviated by
demonstrable provisions in the plan far proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking;
F. That commercial development in a PUD "is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate
commercial facilities of the type proposed;
G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and Weil-organized with adequate provisions for
railroad and truck access and necessary storage;
H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if
theses are present:
I. The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area;
J. The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land,
17.68.080 Exceptions to zoning and subdivision titles. The planning commission may allow exceptions within a
PUD for dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, structure heights, distances between structures, street widths or
off-street parking and loading facilities differing from the specific standards for the zoning district in which the PUD
is located. Exceptions shall be based upon the applicant's demonstration that the objectives of the zoning and
subdivision titles of this code will be achieved.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page 4
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit E~eveEoptnent Amendment
City of Cent€al Point, Oregon
Galpin, LtC: Applicant
A. When the spacing between main buildings is less than the spacing which would be required
between buildings developed under this chapter on separate parcels outside a PUD, other design
features shall provide light, ventilation and other characteristics equivalent to that obtained from the
spacing standards.
8. Buildings, off-street parking and loading facilities, open spaces, landscaping and screening shall
conform to the specific standards of the zoning district within fifty feet of the boundary lines of the
development,
C. The planning commission may approve building heights greater than those authorized by the zoning
district. The applicant shall demonstrate that:
1. The subject building(s) will not be within one hundred feel of abutting residential property:
2. The increase in height wilt reduce the prices of dwelling units offered for safe or rent; and
3. That additional natural open space will be preserved or additional common recreational
areas will be provided.
D. The building coverage for any PUD shall not exceed that which is permitted for other construction in
the zone.
E. When a PUD design would require exceptions to the regulations of the subdivision title, the planning
commission may grant those conditions as part of the PUD. Tentative approval of the preliminary
development plan of a PUD shall also constitute tentative approval of a tentative plan under Chapter
1.10 if the makerials are presented in the manner prescribed by subdivision title.
17.68.090 Accessory uses in a planned unit development
B. Private Park
17.68.110 Common open space.
A. Open areas may be accepted as common open space within a planned unit development if these
requirements are met:
1. The location, shape, size and character of the common open space is suitable for the
planned development;
2. The common open space is appropriate to the scale and character of the planned unit
development, considering the PUD's size, density, expected population, topography and
the number and type of dwellings provided;
3. Common open space will be improved for its intended use, although common open space
containing natural buildings, structures and improvements in the common open space shalt
be appropriate to the uses proposed for the common open space;
4. The development schedule coordinates the improvement of the common open space and
the construction of buildings and other structures in the common open space with the
construction of residential dwellings in the planned unit development;
5. if buildings, structures or other improvements are to be made in tho common open space,
the developer provides a bond or other adequate assurance that the buitdings, structures
and other improvements have been completed according to the development plan.
B. Land shown on the final development plan as common open space shall be conveyed under one of
the following options at planning commission discretion:
1 , To a public agency which agrees to maintain the common open space and any buildings,
structures or other improvements which have been placed on it;
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page 5
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit De~eiopment Amendment
City of Central Point, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
To an association of owners or tenants, created as a nonprofit corporation under the laws
of the state, which shall adopt and impose articles of incorporation and bylaws and adopt
and impose a declaration of covenants and restrictions on the common open space that is
acceptable to the planning commission as providing for the continuing care of the space.
Such an association shall be formed and continued for the purpose of maintaining the
common open space. Common open space not conveyed to a public agency shall be in
addition to and not in lieu of the land dedication or fee required in Chapter 15.2Q.
C. Common open space may only be put to uses specified in the final development plan. No change of
use allowed by amendment may be considered as a waiver of any of the covenants limiting the use
of common open space areas. All rights to enforce these covenants against any use permitted are
expressly reserved.
D. If common open space is not conveyed to a public agency, the covenants governing the use,
improvement and maintenance of common open space shall authorize the city to enforce their
provisions.
Conditional Use Permits
The criteria governing the approval of Conditional Use Permits are set forth in Chapter
1'7.6.040 and provide:
17.76.040 Findings and conditions. The planning commission in granting a conditional use permit shall find as
follows:
A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to
meet al! other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other
provisions of this code;
B. Thai the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is
adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be
generated by the proposed use:
C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted
use thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of
improvements on the site,; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of
buildings and structures; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs;
D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with local, state
and federal health and safety regulations and therefore wilt not be detrimental to the health, safety
or general 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
wetfare of the community based on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of this section;
E. Thaf any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare and may include:
1. 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 far the subject zoning
district, unless a variance is also granted as provided for in Chapter 17.80,
2. Increasing street widths, modifications in street designs or addtion of street signs or traffic
signals to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use,
3. Adjustmonts to off-street parking requirements in accordance with any unique characteristics of
the proposed use,
4. Regulation of paint of vehicular ingress and egress,
Craig A. Stone ~ Associates, Ltd. Page 6
Juty 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit Qevelapment Amendment
City of Central Point, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
5. Requiring landscaping, irrigation systems, #ighting and a property maintenance program,
C. Regulation of signs and their locations,
7. Requiring fences, berms, walls. landscaping to include trees and shrubs, or other devices of
organic or artificial composition to eliminate or reduce the effects of noise, vibrations, odors,
visual incompatibility orother undesirable effects on surrounding properties.
S. Regulation of time of operations for certain types o€ uses if their operations may adversely affect
privacy of sleep of persons residing nearby or otherwise conflict with other community or
neighborhood functions,
4. Establish a time period within which the subject land use must be developed,
1 n. Requirement of a bond orother adequate assurance within a specified period of tune,
i I. Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare,
12. In consider€ng an appeal of an application for a conditional use permit for a home occupation, the
planning commission shall review the criteria listed in Section 17.60.190 (Ord. 1684 §72, 1993:
Ord. 1615 §55, 2989: Ord. 1533 §1 2984: Ord. 1436 §2(part}, 1981).
IV
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATIONS
Applicant has submitted the following evidence with these applications:
Exhibit 1. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (this document)
Exhibit 2. PUD Plan
Exhibit 3. Landscaping Plan
Exhibit 4. Tentative Plan
Exhibit 5. Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 6. Zoning Map
Exhibit 7. Typical Dwellings Renderings
Exhibit S. Approved Beebe Wood PUD Plan
Exhibit 9. Completed Application Forms and Power of Attorney
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page 7
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit De~efopmenf Amendment
City a€ Central Point, O€egon
Ga[pin, LLC: Applicant
V
STIPULATIONS OF APPLICANT
Applicant, Galpin, LLC, herewith offers the following agreed to stipulations that it anticipates
will be appended, as conditions, to approval of the applications:
1. Utility Lines: All utility lines will be placed underground, except utility vaults, which will
be placed above ground in the vicinity of the sidewalks as specified by Pacific
Corporation {the regional supplier of electrical service).
2. Street Trees: The type and general location of street trees will be consistent with the
Landscape Plan (Exhibit 3).
3. Lighting: Lighting will be installed to meet the requirements of City.
4. Signs: Applicant will apply separately for sign permits, pursuant to the Central Paint Sign
Code.
5. Dwelling Architecture: The architecture for the proposed dwellings is depicted in Exhibit
7. However, applicant herewith wishes to reserve the right to make architectural changes
and the city will ensure that the same will comply with the city's applicable requirements
when building permits far each dwelling or dwelling cluster are sought. The buildings
bordering Parkwoad Village will not have windows on the second story portions of the
building.
6. Zero-Lot-Line Development: Applicant herewith wishes to place the single-family
dwellings adjacent to one or both side property boundaries as zero-lot-line dwellings.
7. Timetable for Development: The construction of dwellings in Phase 4 will coincide with
development of the infrastructure to serve Phase 4 of Beebe Woad PUD. A Final Plat has
already been recorded for Phase 1 and construction of dwellings within that area will
occur in the upcoming months. A Final Plat application for phases two and three will be
forthcoming in the next few months. After infrastructure is completed for phase Four, a
final plat will be filed with the city.
$. Landscaping Trrigatian: All common area landscaping will be served by an automatic
underground irrigation system with sufficient backflow prevention devices.
9. Exterior Lighting: All exterior pole lighting shall be shrouded so as to prevent light from
directly shining upon adjacent lands.
10. Signs: Any project identification sign later proposed by applicant, will be sought under
separate permit and comply with all sign regulations of the city.
VI
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page 8
July 2Q04
Beebe Wood Planned Unit Development Amendment
City of Central Point, Oregon
Galpin, LI.C: Applicant
PROP05ED FINDfNGS Ol= FACT
The Planning Commission finds the following facts to be true with respect to this matter.
L Ownership and Authorization for Applications: The property is awned in fee simple
by Gordon and Erma Layton. Gordan and Erma Layton have duly executed powers of
attorney that enables Galpin, LLC, in its names, to seek and acquire the land use permits
sought herein. The power of attorney also authorizes Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. to
function as the authorized agent of Galpin, LLC. See, Exhibit 9.
2~. Description, Size and Value; Lot Boundary Adjustment: The property is identified by
the Jackson County Assessor as Tax Lot 200, on map 37-2W-01CB. The property has
approximately 0.87 acres. According to the records of the Jackson County Assessor, the
property has a land value of $92,246, and improvement value of $147,500. Tax Lot 200 is
partially developed with asingle-family dwelling.
3. Location: The subject property is located east off Hamrick Road, north of Live Oak Loop
and South of Beebe Road in the corporate limits of Central Paint.
4. Comprehensive Planining and Zoning: The subject PUD properties are designated
Medium Density Residential _ 12 Units/Acre on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The
subject property is zoned Residential Two-Family (R-2}. The R-2 zone permits single-
family dwellings.
5. Water Facilities and Services: There is an existing 12-inch water line within the Live Oak
Loop private road common area and a 16-inch line within the Hamrick Road right-of--way.
The existing lines are owned and maintained by the City of Central Point. Uses within the
development will be connected to the municipal water supply via these service mains that
will generally be within the private streets within the PUD.
The City of Central Point purchases water for its municipal system from the Medford
Water Commission. According to Medford Water Commission engineers, the Medford
system presently serves a population of +/-80,000, including customers outside the
corporate limits of the City. The present maximum daily use is 45 million gallons per day
(MGD}. The present source and distribution system has an existing capacity of 56.5 MGD.
There is an additional water source capability of 35 MGD available. The present facilities
are estimated by the Medford Water Utility to be adequate until Year 2050.
G. Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Services: Presently the subject property has direct access to
existing 8-inch sewer Iine is located within the Hamrick Road rights-of way and a 8 inch
sewer line is located within the Live Oak Loop private road common area. The sewer lines
are owned and operated by the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority {"BCVSA").
Sewerage wastes are treated at the Medford Regional Water Reclamation Plant, which is
owned and operated by the City of Medford. Uses within the development will be
connected to BCVSA sanitary sewer Imes.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. paw g
July 2004
Bt3+3E~e Woad Planned I1nit Development Amendrrtent
City of Central paint, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
According to Jim Hill of the Medford Engineering Department, sewage wastewater
collected and transported by the Bear Creek Interceptor is treated at the Medford Regional
Water Reclamation Plant. Mr. Hill serves as the principal staff person in charge of
operations at the regional plant which is located near Bybee Bridge where Table Rock
Road crosses the Rogue River. The plant serves the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority
(BCVSA} and the cities of Central Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix and Eagle Point.
A portion of the service charges levied on customers are allocated to treatment costs. The
Regional Rate Committee as established in the September 23, 1985 Regional Sewer
Agreement is authorized to set treatment charges and rates far the regional system. The
charges and rate structures are reviewed annually by the Regional Rate Committee, and
rate adjustments are made as necessary. Systems development charges are allocated to
plant expansion. Monthly service charges levied on customers are allocated to treatment
costs, equipment repair and replacement, and plant upgrades to meet changing regulations.
The regional treatment plant was constructed in 1969-19'70. The present average dry
weather plant capacity is 20.0 million gallons per day (MGD}. The peak hydraulic
capacity is 60 MGD, Plant capacity was doubled between years 1980-1990 through
several incremental expansions. A treatment plant facilities plan, developed in 1992,
established a capital improvement program to meet growth need to Year 2010.
Average dry weather flow into the treatment plant was 13.2 MGD in 1988, increasing to
14.1 MGD in 1994. Existing 1997 flows are anticipated to be approximately 1$.0 MGD.
The population receiving sewer service in 198$ was 77,475. Sewer connections since 1988
have increased the residential population served by sewers to approximately 94,000. The
regional plant has a capacity for a population equivalent of approximately 115,000,
including commercial and industrial flows. The population forecasts by consulting
engineers Brown and Caldwell, including analysis of rural as well as urban population
densities, estimate the ultimate population that the plant would serve at 190,800.
7. Storm Drainage: There is an existing 12 inch underground storm drainage pipe located in
the common area of the private road Live Oak Loop. The subject property gently slopes
and drains from east to west. Storm waters from the impervious surfaces within the
proposed PUD will be transported via underground pipes and diverted to the storm
drainage line in Live Oak Loop. From there, storm waters flow in a southerly direction
with ultimate discharge into Bear Creek.
S. Streets and Traffic: The following facts relate to nearby streets and traffic:
A. Access: The property has two points of access. The subject property will have access
out of the Beebe Wood PUD from Oakview Avenue to the East and Brookdale
Avenue to the South. Internally, Live Oak Loop will serve the subject property.
B. Street Ownership and Classification: Meadowbrook Drive, Oakview and Brookdale
Avenues are City owned and maintained streets. Meadowbrook Drive is classified by
the City of Central Point as a collector street. The City classifies Oakview and
Craig A. Stone 8 Associates, Ltd. paw ~ 0
Joly 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit De~efapment Amendment
City of Central Point, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
Brookdale Avenues as local streets. Live Oak Loop and all other streets within the
Beebe Wood PUD are privately owned and maintained.
C. New Traffic Loading: Based upon the source reference, Trip Generation, Institute of
Transportation Engineers (Sty' edition} single-family dwellings produce traffic at the
rate of 9.55 vehicle trips on an average weekday. With 4 additional housing units, this
project will produce 38 new vehicle trips an an average weekday. Approximately l0
percent of these, or 4 trips will occur during the p.m. peak hour. At its approval, the
Beebe Wood PUD was estimated to produce 974 vehicle trips an an average weekday.
The total combined vehicle trips, including those for Phase 4, is 1,012 trips.3
9. Electricity; Natural Gas; Telephone; CATV; Cellular Telephone: The subject property
is served in adequate capacity by Pacifc Corporation (electricity), Avista Utilities, Inc.
(natural gas}, U.S. West (telephone} and CATV.
10. Solid Waste Disposal; Recycling: Solid waste collection, storage and recycling is
provided by franchise through Rogue Disposal and Recycling, Inc.
11. Topography: The subject territory is nearly level with a slight grade that drains the
property from east to west.
12. Permitted and Proposed Land Uses: The proposed residential uses within the R-2 zone
includes five single family attached homes and one single family detached home. The
single-family homes will be constructed on individual lots, each having between, 2,052 to
19,6$9 square feet.
13. Dwelling Density: Maximum density under the present zoning designation of R-2 is 12
dwelling units per gross acre. At maximum permitted density, the 0.87 acre subject
property could be developed with 10 dwelling units. The proposed development has S total
housing units, for a total density of or 5.74 units per acre. One of the housing units, the
single family dwelling now exists.
14. Operating Characteristics of the PUD: The following individual uses within the Planned
Unit Development will have the operating characteristics noted below:
The single family dwellings are intended by applicant to be owner-occupied and will
operate as will any other housing unit, the characteristics of which is a matter of
common knowledge.
15. Value and Appropriate Development: It is herewith the testimony of applicant's agent,
Craig Stone, that the based upon the location, size and design of the PUD, that it will
produce no greater than minimal adverse impacts upon the value of land and improvements
3 i07 residential single family units x 9.55 = 1021 ADT and traffic from the existing single family dwelling is
included in this figure.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page 1'i
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit i]e~elopment Amendment
Ciry of Central Poirst, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
and appropriate development in the abutting and surrounding area. Stone's conclusions are
based upon the following considerations:
^ The PUD proposes appropriate screening in the form of fencing and/or fencing anal
landscaping around the west and north perimeter.
^ Dwellings along the north boundary, adjacent to an existing single-family residential
subdivision (Parkwood Village}, will all be of two-story homes designed so that no
windows are allowed on the second story of the dwellings.
^ The subject property has a circulation system that is safe, adequate and convenient.
^ There is nothing about the PUD and the uses proposed which produce any adverse
impacts other than those that are common and customary to urban development.
^ While this project will produce additional traffic loading, the same is an anticipated and
necessary product of planned urbanization.
16. Surrounding Laud Uses and Development: Based upon Exhibits 5 and 7, the fallowing
land uses are found to exist upon properties that are adjacent to the subject property:
A. North: There is a new, existing subdivision located north and adjacent to the subject
property. The subdivision lots average approximately 3,000 square feet. Dwellings
occupy the subdivision lots.
B. South: Land to the south consists of the approved Beebe Wood PUD. Construction of
the infrastructure has occurred and the City of Central Point has approved a Final Plat
application for Phase 1 of the subject property.
C. East: Land to the east consists of the approved Beebe Wood PUD. Construction of the
infrastructure has occurred and the City of Central Point has approved a Final Plat
application for Phase 1 of the subject property.
D. West: Land to the west (across Hamrick Raad) is vacant land planned and zoned for
commercial use. A recent Walmart application has been denied for the property. To the
west (but further north) there are large acreage parcels developed with single-family
dwellings.
VII
PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OP t..AW
The following conclusions of law are based upon the findings of fact in Section VI and the
evidence enumerated in Section lV, and has been prepared so that the same may be adopted
by the Planning Commission in support of the pending applications:
Craig A. Stone 8, Associates, Ltd. Page t2
July 20Q4
Beebe Wood Planned Unit Qevelapment Arnendmertt
City of Central Point, Dregon
Cyalpin, LLC: Applicant
Criterion 1
R-2, Residential Twa-Family District
The criteria governing the approval of Development in an R-2 Zoning District are set forth in Chapter 17.24 and
provide:
17.24.020 Permitted uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted in the R-2 district:
F. One single-family dwelling
17.68.090 Accessory uses in a planned unit development
B. Private Park
17.24.030 Conditional uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted in the R-2 district when
authorized by the planning commission in accordance with Chapter 17.76:
G. Planned unit developments in accordance with Chapter 17.68
Canclusrans of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed dwellings,
while attached to one another in clusters of two, are single family dwellings which are
permitted uses in the R-2 zoning district. The Planning Commission concludes that Planned
Unit Developments are conditional uses in an R-2 zone. The Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law herein support the approval of a conditional use permit for the purpose of
approving a Planned Unit Development. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with
the requirements of Criterion 1 because all of the contemplated uses in this project are
permitted or conditional uses that have been appropriately authorized pursuant to the relevant
substantive criteria contained in the Central Point Zoning Ordinance (ZO).
Planned Unit Development
17.68.020 Size of the Planned unit development site.
A PUD shall be on a tract of land five acres or larger, except that a PUD may be on a tract of land or more than
one acre but less than five acres if the planning commission finds, upon a showing by the applicant, that a PUD is
in the public interest because one or more of the following condit'sons exist:
C. The property is adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of a planned unit development of similar design as that
proposed and the developments would complement each other without significant adverse impact on surrounding
areas,
17.68.40 Criteria to Grani or Deny a PUD.
Criterion 2
A. That the development of a harmon'saus, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of
this title;
Craig A. Stone & Associaies, Lid. Page 13
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit Development Amendment
Cityo[ Central Point, Oregon
Gilpin, LLC: Applicant
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed PUD is an
integrated harmonious plan for which the only proposed exception is use of a private street to
provide access. Based upon the findings of fact in Section Vl, the evidence enumerated in
Section IV and applicant's stipulations in Section V, the Planning Commission further
concludes that the PUD plan has justified this exception to the normal requirements of the
zoning ordinance -Title I7 of the Central Point Municipal Code in compliance with
Criterion 2.
Criterion 3
B. The proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and
other applicable policies of the city:
Conclusions of Law: The fact that Criterion 3 requires consistency with the goals and
policies of the comprehensive plan does not make all goals and policies decisional criteria.
See, Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 Or LUBA 450, affd 96 Or App 645 (1989). ~n that and
subsequent cases, the courts have held that approval criteria requiring compliance with a
comprehensive plan does not automatically transform all plan goals and policies into
decisional criteria. A determination of whether particular plan goals and policies are approval
criteria must he based on the language used in the goals and policies and the context in which
they appear. Plan goals and policies that are permissive rather than mandatory, or that merely
encourage or suggest a course of action, are also not approval criteria. Based upon the
foregoing, the Planning Commission concludes that the following comprehensive plan goals
and policies are appropriately construed and apply in this instance as approval criteria under
Bennett v. City of Dallas and those which are not cited and addressed below, are not, in this
instance, approval criteria:
Noise Policy 3. The City shall require property owners to master plan land use and design of new developments
to control and minimize noise through such requirements as site orientation, buffering, distance separation,
insulation, or other design features.
Conclusions of Law: The proposed project has been master planned and approved by the
Planning Commission. The Phase 4 portion of the project has, as its only potential source of
noise, the dwellings themselves. Moreover, applicant has proposed substantial landscape
screening and fencing to separate and buffer the adjacent lands located outside the project
boundaries. See, Exhibit 3. The existing sax foot tall solid vinyl fence will produce sound
attenuation. The Planning Commission concludes that these mitigation features seek to
control and minimize noise through use of the measures enumerated in Noise Policy 3.
Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the land use applications are consistent
with Noise Policy 3.
Parks and Recreation Policy 2: To provide an equitable distribution of recreation facilities throughout the
Community to ensure the easiest possible access by al! local residents.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the approved Beebe Wood
PUD has already proposed a private park in the southwest portion of the development and
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page 14
July 2004
Beehe Woad Planned t}nlf Development Amendment
City of central Point, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
open space throughout, Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this project will
provide for an equitable distribution of recreation facilities in this portion of the community.
The Planning Commission also concludes, based upon the plans in Exhibit 2, that while the
planned private park facility will be maintained by the owners of the project, it will be
available for use and enjoyment by the general public. As such, its location at the southwest
corner of the property, will make the park more accessible to people who live outside the
project boundaries. Far these reasons, the Planning Coznrnission concludes that this project
provides for an equitable distribution of recreation facilities throughout the Community and
will ensure the easiest possible access by old local residents in conformance with Parks and
Recreation Policy 2.
Parks and Recreation Policy 3: To enhance neighborhood and Community quality by providing for development
of attractive, functional, and accessible parks and open space areas throughout the City.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the plans in Exhibit 2, the Planning Commission concludes
that the planned park facilities within the already approved project are attractive, functional
and accessible, and comply with the requirements of Parks and Recreation Policy 3.
Site Development Poticy 1; Ensure that all new development is in conformance with City codes, as well as
applicable state and federal requirements.
and
Site Development Poticy 4: Ensure through the plan review process that al( proposed developments are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are of the highest possible quality.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Site Development
Policies l and 4 because the proposed development is in conformance with City codes and
applicable state and federal requirements and are of the highest possible quality. In instances
where there are exceptions to the strict regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, the same have
been specifically authorized as part of this Planned Unit Development.
Site Development Policy 5: Ensure that proposed development plans will not create obstacles to the future
development of adjacent parcels.
Conclusions of Law: Property north, south and east of the subject property, are fully urban
developed as single family residential subdivisions. Land to the west is Hamrick Road. As
such, the proposed development plans will not create obstacles to the future development of
adjacent parcels, in compliance with Site Development Policy 5.
City Street Development Policy 7: Include considerations of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in all street
improvements and in the design of new streets.
Conclusions of Law: AlI planned private streets within the PUD, are improved to the city's
TOD standards for a courtyard lane. Common area greenways are planned with concrete
pathways for pedestrian use. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the
application is consistent with the requirements of City Street Development Policy 7.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page #5
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned llttit Development Amendment
Gity of Central Point, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
Summary Co~ielusions of Law: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the
requirements of Criterion 2 because the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan,
the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the city.
Criterion 4
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUt~ will have minimal adverse impact on
the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area;
Conclusions of Law: The location of the PUD is shown in Exhibit 2. The size of the PUD is
established in the Findings of Fact in Section VI as being 9.65 acres total including 0.87 acres
that is proposed to be added to the existing PUD as part of this application. The design of the
PUD is shown in the plans at Exhibit 2. The operating characteristics of the PUD are set Earth
in the Findings of Fact in Section VI. As to liveability, in McCoy v. Linn County, 16 Or
LUBA 295, 301-302 (1987), affd 90 Or App 271 {1988), it was held that a similar standard
required the fact finder to identify the qualities and characteristics which constitute
"livability" and determine whether the proposed use will cause mare than a minimal adverse
impact upon those. Based upon the evidence, the Planning Commission concludes that the
qualities and characteristics that constitute "livability," in this instance, include a relatively
quiet environment that is free from excessive traffic and unsafe conditions. The Planning
Commission concludes, based upon the evidence and the location, size, design and operating
characteristics of this PUD (as herein established), that it will produce no greater than
minimal adverse impacts upon the relatively quiet environment, which does not have
excessive traffic or unsafe conditions, for the fallowing reasons:
1. The subject property and surrounding area is planned and zoned to accommodate urban
residential development. By its nature, some noise is produced by urban residential uses
that, the Planning Connnission concludes, are neither excessive nor offensive. The
Planning Commission also concludes that levels of noise typical of an urban residential
area, are not adverse impacts which more than minimally affect the liveability of the
surrounding area.
2. As above described, the subject property is planned for urban residential development
pursuant to the Central Point Comprehensive Plan. No change or amendment to the plan
is required or proposed for this project. Moreover, traffic levels associated with the
various forms of planned urbanization have been taken into account as part of the
legislative enactments that adopted the plan and its implementing ordinances. As such,
the Planning Commission concludes that the levels of traffic that will result from this
project are neither unplanned nor excessive. And, the impacts upon the surrounding area
that will be produced by this development, will not result in impacts upon liveability that
are greater than minimal.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page 16
Judy 2t]04
Beebe Wood Planned Unit i]evefopment Amendment
City of Centra€ Point, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: App€icant
3. Based upon the design and layout of this project (as shown by the plans in Exhibit 2) the
Planning Commission concludes that it will not produce unsafe conditions that more than
minimally produce adverse impacts upon the liveability of the surrounding area,
As to appropriate development, based upon the Findings of Fact in Section Vl, the Planning
Commission concludes that all adjoining lands have been developed with urban uses. The
Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts these findings of fact and conclusions
of law made for plan Site Development Policy 5 and concludes, herewith, that the approval of
this project will not produce a greater than minimal adverse impact upon the appropriate
development of the surrounding area.
As to value, based upon the Findings of Fact in Section VI, the Planning Commission
concludes that the approval of this project will not produce a greater than minimal adverse
impact upon the value of property and improvements in the surrounding area.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4 because
(based upon the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD) it will
produce no greater than minimal adverse impacts upon the livability, value or appropriate
development of land and improvements in the surrounding area.
~:*~x*>k*~*~*>k~x*>k**~~*~:*~~x*~~x*x~*>k~x*~>k>!:*~**~**>x
Criterion 5
D. That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they intend to start construction within six
months of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes. And intend to complete
said construction within a reasonable time as determined by the commission;
Conclusions of Law: Based upon applicant's stipulation in Section V, the Planning
Commission concludes that applicant intends, and has already demonstrated, that construction
of Phase 1 of this project has begun and that final plat approval has been granted by the City
of Central Point. The subject property will be added to the Beebe Wood PUD, which has
already been approved by the City of Central Point. Therefore, the Planning Commission
concludes that the PUD is consistent with Criterion 5.
>K*>K*~x*>K*>k~x*~*~~x**~:*~~x*~~x*x~~*>k~x~~>k*>K~*>x*x~~~~
Criterion fi
1=. That traffic congestion wsll not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by
demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking;
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that while this project will
produce additional traffic upon nearby streets, the traffic levels are neither unplanned nor do
they constitute traffic congestion in the context of Central Point's urban environment. These
applications do not involve changes in comprehensive plan map designations or zones, nor do
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Paget 7
July 20Q4
Beebe Wood Planned Unlt Development Amendment
City of Central Point, oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
they contemplate unplanned housing densities. The Planning Commission also concludes,
based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, that the design of the project includes demonstrable
provisions for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking. Therefore, the
Planning Commission concludes that the PUD is consistent with Criterion 6.
Criterion 7
F. That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate
commercial facilities of the type proposed;
G. "t"hat proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for
railroad and truck access and necessary storage:
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes from the evidence that this
proposed development contains neither commercial nor industrial development. Therefore,
compliance with Criterion 7 is established by reason of inapplicability.
Cri#erion S
H. The PUD preserves natural features such as strean-ss and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if
theses are present;
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact and the evidence, the subject property
does not include any natural features (such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and
rough terrain}. There are, also not jurisdictional wetlands present on the property according to
the National Wetland Inventory. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the
PUD is consistent with Criterion $ by reason of inapplicability.
Criterion 9
I. The PUC1 will be compatible with the surrounding area;
Conclusions of Law: The surrounding area is depicted on the recent aerial photograph
attached as Exhibit 7. As shown on Exhibits S and 6, the surrounding area consists of
detached single-family dwellings on individual lots, located to the north of the subject
property. To the East and South is the existing Beebe Woad PUD. Phase 1 of Beebe Wood
PUD has been platted and housing on the parcels is expected in 2004 and 2005. Land to the
west (across Hamrick Road} is presently vacant and planned for future commercial use.
Existing residential development in the area is consistent with the residential housing
densities and housing types anticipated by the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page 18
July 2004
Beebe Wood Piannad Unit development Amendment
City of Central Point, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance produces and anticipates a planned mixture of
housing types and densities and the Planning Commission concludes them to be appropriate
and compatible with the development planned to occur on the subject property. Moreover,
based upon the Findings of Fact in Section VI:
^ The PUD proposes appropriate screening in the form of fencing and/or fencing and
landscaping around the west and earth project perimeter.
^ Dwellings along the north boundary, adjacent to an existing single-family residential
subdivision, will all be of two-story construction. There will be no windows along the
second story of the buildings, so as not to infringe upon the privacy of the existing adjacent
yard spaces.
• The subject property has a circulation system that is safe, adequate and convenient.
^ There is nothing about the PUD and the uses proposed which produce any adverse impacts
other than those that are common and customary to urban development.
^ While this project will produce additional traffic loading, the additional traffic is an
anticipated and necessary product of planned urbanization and is not incompatible with the
surrounding area.
Therefore and based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and
applicant's stipulations in Section V, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed
PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area in compliance with Criterion 9.
Criterion 70
J. The PLtp will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land.
Conclusions of Law: The findings of fact in Section VI, describes the levels of public
facilities and services that are available and necessary to serve the subject property. The
Planning Con~unission interprets Criterion 10 to require a showing that the need for one (or
more) public facilities and services is reduced by the PUD (in comparison to other permitted
uses}. The Planning Commission also concludes that public facilities and services consist of
sanitary sewers, public water, storm drainage, streets and transportation and utilities, their
installation, maintenance and upkeep. This PUD is to be served by private streets. As private
streets, there will be no requirement for future maintenance and upkeep at the public expense.
As such, this PUD will reduce need for fixture public street facilities maintenance and upkeep
services. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed PUD will reduce
need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land in
compliance with Criterion 10.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, t.td. Page 19
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit De~a[opment Amendment
City of Central Point, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
Criferion 71
17.68.Q8Q Exceptions to zoning and subdivision titles. The planning commission may a11ow exceptions within a
PUD for dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, structure heights, distances between structures, street widths or
off-street parking and loading facilities differing from the specific standards for the zoning district in which the PUI}
is located. Exceptions shall be based upon the applicant's demonstralion chat the objectives of the zoning and
subdivision titles of this code will be achieved.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that this project, in general, seeks
few exceptions to the normal requirements of the city's zoning and subdivision titles. For
areas where exceptions are sought, the Planning Commission concludes as follows:
The proposed dwellings are permissibly attached single-family dwellings. There is further
authority to attach the dwellings as part of a padlot development, which this is.
Specifically, padlot development ----- pursuant to zoning ordinace 17.60.210 - is
permitted in the R-2 zone and expressly requires the dwellings to be attached. Moreover,
as a padlot development, the development is exempt from the lot area, width, depth, yard,
setback, and lot coverage requirements that otherwise apply within the R-2 district.
2. The ordinary provisions of the zoning ordinance require each dwelling to have two off-
streetparking spaces in a garage or carport. In this project, each unit has atwo-car garage
with driveway apron space for two additional vehicles,. The Planning Commission
concludes that sufficient parking is provided to meet the objectives of the city's Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this
exception is permissible.
3. The proposed streets, which internally serve the lots within this project, are private streets
that permissibly deviate from the typical standards of the city. An additional exception is
by way of the location of sidewalks. fn this project, the sidewalks, rather than provided
adjacent to the streets, are provided between the housing units. The Planning Commission
concludes that the planned sidewalks provide for appropriate pedestrian circulation that is
consistent with the objectives of the city's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Therefore,
the Planning Commission concludes that this exception is permissible.
4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion
11 because, where not otherwise permitted by the padlot provisions of the zoning
ordinance, the exceptions to the Zoning and Subdivision titles of the Central Point
Municipal Code have been demonstrated to achieve the objectives of the said Code Titles.
Conditional Use Permit
Criterion 72
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page 20
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit Development Amendment
City of Central Point, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Appliaanf
17.76.040 Findings and conditions. The planning commission in granting a conditional use permit shall find as
follows:
A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to
meet a!I other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other
provisions of this code;
Coucl~lsions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that, other than exceptions from
the typical standards of the Central Point Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance that
are permissible and which have been approved as part of the Planned Unit Development, this
project meets all other development and lot requirements of the subject R-2 zoning district
and all other provisions of the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission also concludes,
based upon Exhibits 2 and 3, the Findings of Fact in Section VI and applicant's stipulations in
Section V, that the situ far the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accorrunodate the
use. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with
Criterion 12.
Criterion 13
B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is
adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be
generated by the proposed use:
Conclusions of Law: As set forth in the Findings of Fact in Section VI, Phase 1 of the subject
property development, has adequate, existing access to Oakview and Brookdale Avenues,
paved city street with curbs, gutters, concrete sidewalks and streetlights. Oakview connects to
Meadowbrook Drive and Brookdale will connect to Meadowbrook Drive and Hamrick Road,
both streets that are fully improved to urban standards with asphalt paving, curbs and gutters.
In the case of Hamrick Road, it also has designated bicycle lanes on both sides of the street.
Based upon the findings of fact in Section VI, the Planning Commission concludes that with
development of the planned streets in Beebe Woad FUD, this site (Phase 4) has adequate
access to a public street which is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate
the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed PUD revision, which includes five
dwellings, four of which will be new.. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that
this application is consistent with Criterion 13.
Criterion T4
G That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted
use thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of
improvements on the site, vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of
buildings and structures; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs;
a The original Beebe Wood PUD was estimated to generate 974 vehicle trips a day. The subject property is
estimated to generate 57 additional trips, for a total of 1031 average vehicle trips a day.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. page 21
July 2004
Beebe Waad Planned Unit i]eve[opment Amendment
City of Central Point, pregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
Conclusions of Law: Tn its consideration of the application, the Planning Commission has
examined the potential for adverse impacts upon abutting properties and reaches the following
conclusions of law:
1. Location of Improvements: The locations of the planned improvements are shown on the
plans in Exhibit 2. There is nothing in the location of the improvements that serves the
produce impacts (which rise to the level of significant} upon any abutting property or the
permitted use thereof.
2. Vehicular Ingress and Egress: The locations of planned points of ingress/egress {access)
are shown on the plans in Exhibit 2. The property has two points of access: 1}Prom Live
Oak Loop by way of Oakview Avenue (which was stubbed into this property to
accommodate its planned extension) by way of Meadowbrook Drive, and 2) by the
Brookdale Drive west to connect with Hamrick Road. There is nothing in the location of
ingress and egress far this project which will produce impacts (that rise to the level of
significant) upon any abutting property or the permitted use thereof.
3. Internal Circulation: The planned internal circulation system is shown on the plans in
Exhibit 2. The Planning Commission concludes from the evidence that the circulation
system is adequate and appropriate to transport vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. There
is nothing in the internal circulation for this project that will produce impacts (that rise to
the level of signif cant) upon any abutting property or the permitted use thereof
4. Setbacks: The locations of the planned improvements are shown on the plans in Exhibit 2.
While not required of padlot developments, the planned dwellings generally observe the
otherwise required setbacks of the R-2 zoning district and are appropriate. There is
nothing in the planned setback of buildings that serves the produce impacts {which rise to
the level of significant) upon any abutting property or the permitted use thereof.
5. Building Height: The design of the planned dwellings are shown in Exhibits 2, 3 and 7.
There is nothing in the planned setback of buildings that serves the produce impacts
(which rise to the level of significant} upon any abutting property or the permitted use
thereof.
6. Wails and Fences: There is an existing solid vinyl fencing along the west and north
property boundaries. The existing fencing separates the subject property from the existing
urbanization, which is contiguous to the subject property. There is nothing in the way of
fencing (or walls) which serves the produce impacts (which rise to the level of significant)
upon any abutting property or the permitted use thereof
7. Landscaping: Based upon the Exhibit 3 Landscaping Plan, all portions of the property not
occupied by dwellings, streets, driveways and pedestrian paths, is intended to be fully
landscaped. There is nothing in the planned landscaping which serves the produce
impacts (which rise to the level of significant) upon any abutting property or the permitted
use thereof
Craig A, Stone & Associates, Ltd. page 22
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit De~efopment Amendment
City of Central Paint, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
8. Outdoor Lighting: Applicant has agreed to stipulate that exterior pole lighting will be
shrouded sufficiently so that it does not east direct light upon adjoining properties. If the
exterior pole lighting is shrouded pursuant to applicant's stipulation, there is nothing in
the planned exterior lighting improvements that serves the produce impacts (which rise to
the level of significant} upon any abutting property or the permitted use thereof.
9. Signs: The Planning Commission concludes that no signs are proposed at this time.
Applicant has agreed to apply separately for sign permits and to comply with the
regulations of the city. If the city's sign regulations are observed, there is nothing in the
way of signs that will produce impacts (which rise to the level of significant} upon any
abutting property or the permitted use thereof.
10. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requircments of Criterion
I4 because the proposed project will have no significant adverse effect on abutting
property ar the permitted use thereof, based upon the Planning Commission's
consideration of proposed location of improvements on the site, vehicular ingress, egress
and internal circulation, setbacks, height of buildings and structures, walls and fences,
landscaping, outdoor lighting, and signs.
Criterion 75
D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with local, state
and federal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety
or general 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 lisked in subsection C of this section;
Conclusions of Law: Plans for the proposed project are shown in Exhibit 2. The "operational
characteristics" of this use - a planned padlot developmentlPlanned Unit Development -
are set forth in the Findings of Fact in Section VI. Based upon the evidence, the Planning
Commission concludes that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the planned
project will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations. Therefore this
project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general 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.
In reaching this conclusion, the Planning Commission has based its conclusion on the
proposed location of improvements on the site, vehicular ingress, egress and internal
circulation, setbacks, height of buildings and structures, walls and fences, landscaping,
outdoor lighting, and signs.
Criterion 16
Craig A. Stone & Associaies, Lid. Page 23
July 2004
Beebe Wood Planned Unit Development Amendment
City of Central Point, Oregon
Galpin, LLC: Applicant
E. Thai any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare and may include:
1. 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 d"imensions for the subject
zoning district, unless a variance is also granted as provided for in Chapter 17.80,
2. Increasing street widths, modifications in streel designs or addition of street signs or traffic
signals to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use,
3. Adjustments to off-street parking requirements in accordance with any unique characteristics of
the proposed use,
4. Regulat€on of point of vehicular ingress and egress,
5. Requiring landscaping, irrigation systems, lighting and a property maintenance program,
6. Regulation of signs and their locations,
7. Requiring fences, berms, walls, landscaping to include trees and shrubs, or other devices of
organic or artificial composition to eliminate or reduce the effects of noise, vibrations, odors,
visual incompatibility or other undesirable effects on surrounding proper#ies.
8. Regulation of time of operations for certain types of uses if their operatiens may adversely
affect privacy of sleep of persons residing nearby or otherwise conflict with other community or
neighborhood functions,
9. Establish a time period within which the subject land use must be developed,
'10. Requirement of a bond or other adequate assurance within a specified period of time,
'1 1 , Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect fhe public health, safety and
general welfare,
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 17.60.190 (Ord. 16$4 §72,
1993: Ord. 1615 §55, 2989: Ord. 1533 §1 2984: Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981).1
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that these provisions, listed
among the approval criteria, do not operate as tests prerequisite to approving an application.
Instead, the provisions simply enumerate the various topics for which the Planning
Commission is entitled to impose conditions. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes
that the application is consistent with Criterion 16 by reason of inapplicability.
VIII
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS
The Central Point City Planning Commission ultimately concludes that the proposed land use
applications which seek approval of: 1} a Planned Unit Development (PUD), 2) a Conditional
Use Permit, and 3} Tentative Plan for a Padlot Subdivision Development are compliant with all
of the relevant substantive standards and criteria contained in the Central Point Municipal
Code and other standards in state and federal law.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Page 24
Juty 2004
Beebe Waod Planned Unit Develaptnent Amendment
City of Central Point, Oregon
Galpin, Lt.C: Applicant
Respectfully submitted on behalf of applicant:
CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Craig A. Slone & Associates, Lid. Page 25
July 20D4
Dated: July 23, 2003
TRcc i.~GEN'a
t.aw ..er .rr<[~ moos Heu.,.,tr o<rxx r:.K•:~
/~~/~-~ rt_i. ~.N rv~+}vm[t[.._~M'.r`•Lr•[:u ~.Ci ireR=.xr.nr^:C•.:+•
/'~.~ •id[sats rst[_ G4r._.x<.irv_ret st_~: ttr..f`Rr-a Mlhvs.:.ac r4•.
[vfC'4YMr:f+(f4. IYt•t5~4~ew••,5'n.Tr. rtE rtr[ r.[
dy i.az:•mns.w.~..rc~u-.rss~~. rr,x::.r[.ton ..•r,rr
e rici.,vbvs.r.:xw~.. a..o a+.e:ex~mu-..;xrt.eeu.
aarcorw [. ~ rrvan:awaxme i:uc;t.
0 't.~4t'.wLC3L.vLE..4`•i[t.c.~.+.:': ocutta..TrtXS bu•.:irin
'•• ..nr5
a
P
iv,OTE: S°~ F'RE•/[OU6LY AF'FROVED
PI„~~.;5 FOR 3~85i 0= ?~L4hfTltvCsS
~c~~~c~c~ ~®®~.~ C~®~c~,~ ~r~
a~D ~~~c~~~ ~~ p ~~~~ ~
NA7UiZ,~11~. SYSt~MS .,~~~•
1~"E51G~5 6Y: NI'.'r.a~L STr.rZR ~~%-' --...._
pt6n•.rhnllrKrpllnnlq ktrnnl5btl}1J~.54rriM~ie1..l lSdilLfh. iAf1A]I ldY>f ~l Iry1011kV
--- -
rr~~ I Is^ rs: Eve
3>7n'r BC-JcCC ?50?' 7G0? 75CG 2<OJ ZJO.- 7i2 ? ji0 ?~0 1 X01 rgpC x707 If7!" IF„ ~ F-D :2P 30~
iGOD I':+G I1vC3 :FCC! +,F d+
P c
' ~ 1'.~ItKrro°v P'lLLACL•' 7..4NL•'
i " o _ ~ ~ n m
n
` 5 Fr n n n n ~ ~ n -. _ n rxwac~
.;77rrfE:--~n:J~ ~. `` ~ ~ ~ ~u '>~ c;.` 1` G ° ,• cc.~ en ? ~ :. Net in Sc.i. f~ ~ ~j
I€i y " ° v u
w
:v4 0 ,~ u $
to `j
! ~ ]EI
o ~ ~-...--.-.-~ ............. --_ "s ( -7r-- SY ']Y-l~- -fl- ice- .F --']i-- 7i -". - _ - ..-.16'~ - `-%
° _ ,_ 1 I q
n _._...__. _. : r; o. ~ tl
-__
'i I ~ --....-. _.. _ 106 ID7 1 ~ 3 q T ~ ~
i^~. _.... IDS .._._..-_. - ~. ~ ` ~ S ° 6 7 8 9 _ kD ~ f F . 12 i2 >9a1 »q.
"n, ro' E~ i .-... '--- '$ 9 ~_'-__ ~ i~.a-,1= f r .~ '.-. Vicinity Map
1 ' " ~ ' PHASE 3 c~ '' ~ _
J . J....,.-.f-_K' I . , ~ ~c~ - Legend
~ !` .. I ...., ~.
~, (1q •" ~ ~"~ LNRR£NT ZON NG: SR-2.5
~ ~ ~ I.. - ~--.. ..-. ~ ,' r ~ SEnObI DtSr~ 6 SC£NTRAL POINT}
f-~~~~~•-~~ 2q o 13 22 LI ° 20 18 ;B 77 S6 3G is rt IRRiO. DISr: ROOVE VMLEY IRR1W11pF1 DISS
is { ~ 'I, ..~ Fi D3 ;1-• ~~c4- ~ 25 = 2 9 /- {couru;coy
:, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~s ~a - zG UAI~I'JEJP ~RwEC-r nxea s.4) x +
4
:.:,.
~---.=r~-~ _~__ °Y _'7 • I ~ AVA':~-UE rL t4DO.15oD.5coa 9.~s „- ./- (usessaR's rslu}
ti 3
1 ., ..=.:r, ~ ,+ w x q2 ^../".`~_^^ _....a ~ Ex13rtNC wA ERDUN(r
< G3"
O ~. f` . -,1 I......~_ -i .... '-G ~ ~ y q3 .I ~ ~ 1~ -~ (xi$iDiNC 9++~rn kr 5EwEA .wE
~ - SF 3: ~ 33 3d 35 - 3G B7 36 39 41 ~ -m- 4PPROx. LOCADON OF
_; . f ... , -.. [x671HL SrORU ORI1N
et - ~['
~ ~ ~ : q ~ ;~ „ 2roxE: al n= a .do»a qm M ,qugr. re.:.
I ~ ."1 i YA.~_.,, k' °~, v oo eEt ar . qna fql erm.m;gn, o ggRmx'mqle.
C B6 '.. _ Q60e ly VERTKEC CONCAOL 8a5E0 ON
1 "= 60'
C 3 ;y, --'-' F, ~~AS~` ~ ~-`` BCNCHWSiN CICl'aTKN PER
I QY Gil'f Or GENiWµ 1'gNl 04TOM
C i -
¢G ~ ~ ~ BRISS CAP Df NCHN4RN i10NJAlENr
'~ S9 it q5 ^, fOG1ED r.T [Nf 9w CORHC9
1 .. _ _ - ~ ~ dN 137IivIG:-J-'iris Of BEEeE NOAD k NN,OCw.4Y a4E.
,ti ...~ •'_-~ .•.-p-_--T.._- - GO :177 ¢7 iG q 53 J3 ,ri2 ¢i '--"'"~ COMDVA !h-TERY+IL =FELT
[ __ _ i0 4B I Lot Areas
~ ~',-±. .- n "' fs 4G I .,'10] Sq Ft 1 ~ Ft 53.21dC 50 Fl 62-1912 Sq £t
:ti: ~, ~ ~ I 1F N,' '. y $q ft qz~0 f! 56.223D 5q FI B]•2294 Sq st
~-".:_ G¢ --"':. `; 1r- -: ;X 61 47 _--'_ a [___-__ ~nz~~9 Sq Fj ~~-~6[ ~o ft 58-2220 5q Fi 65-2899 Sp f
f Da4 So 3D4
Imo.: `:i '•:~';1 i ~ 5-53)9 Sp fl JJ 24pp $a rt 58.1942 59 Ft 86.27]5 Sq cl
~"~ 6.2131 59 rt 3 -2220 Sq Ft 60.1)08 8q rl 8)•2 tbt 6q R
~`: _-.. ....' `" ,° ,. ~ +i „ '%7vJICA-3<OG 1..x+38 $q n ]4.2160 SQ rt -2198 5q ry e6..x t6a $N rl
I 8.2664 Sq Ft 35.2160 Sq Ft 42-2220 Sq FI 89-1205 SG ft
~- 69 7z r, Ba I ~ 82095 Bq fl 38•IZ00 6q Fl 63•t440 Sq fl 90-2t1] 59 fl
~ -~ - - ~ 73 i4 i5 IO 77 7fl 79 IIO Bl 83 _I 10.2096 sq n S).2i 6o Sq £4 61..216(1 S9 r: 9t•223P $q rl
1i•2102 Sq Ft 382160 Sq Fl 63+2280 Sp Fe 92-2122 Sp f1
-~' ~7¢- 12.51]0 59 rt ±9.2220 Sq fl 861440 B9 ft 93.2249 sq f1
~~ ~~ _ '1 ii ii2ld 59 rl 0-ta96 5q it 6)2100 Sq rt g9a•t218 sq rl
~~ ~~L~~.-..._C-~_'., '-"- H'. p s5.2220 59 ! it 2168 Sq R 58•ZiiO $p ft 9 •~ G ~j rl
- BS 5g4-222 D 59 Fi gW$y]g53 ^$~p [)], ppp $$p yq~. I
q 6L£ ' J711Yi(;.I-~~J~`J 54~2~ G Y! i~~x955 5 f' )y.>Z'3 Sq `t 90~O~Z~56 ~q F~1
.~..n v*c`~ PijASE- i Dc^~ f t¢. ~ 290.2,2 q n ;Gr-231038 ~q n 7].:7x1)a 55555sq ri t901.21fi8% S9 n
II 2 X71 rt +8.11]8 5q rl 5.2291 Sq s[ 02.2246 sa 1
api` ~ 27.3560 8Q F1 48.5805 Sq £1 )8-2132 $q Fl ]03.2220 sq rl
i-~~ n 23-1110 S9 Fe 50.2220 sq rl )).ZZ3Z Sq rl ]04.2460 Bq FI
24x2588 59 r5 51.1208 Sq FI )81240 Sq rl 105-19 680 Sp Ft
25-25]5 Sq Ft G2.1t5p $q rl 79-25)0 50 R 1062102 sq rl
26.14x0 Sq Ft 33.2160 Sq rt q FI 10)•20x4 SC fl
:~'..-,, ~ lu2 ,j lot ]DD 97 sn 7 _ 4G •I 1 ~ W 2)-24ts sq fl s1-2vaD sa F< ~-~i>(~io ~Sq rl
,. ~ ° _ " ° 95 ~ 17a 03 D2 _ 9] I!€ 80 tl9 ~ 88 B7 BG i -`%zv1C4-37C(l .•`-
4- -'
REVISED TENTATIVE PLAN
` ~:
~-- -'r --~-- - --~- "~ BEEBE ~~TOOD VILLA
Jn,4rL-ssaa ~ i ~` . ~ , >°'• ' ~ - -~' - - 4--- r 1 - I- - I 69~ A PLANNED COMMUNITY
-_ 16 I 1Jr ~ 19 I l,j ' ° ~ r I i i 1 ~ -~~ ' V72vJ 7Gn-,7 )CC
~' ~ IZ I ; G ~ 5 ~ 4 ~. 1.OGATED m:
I I 1 1 ; 70 ' 9 ; 8 ; 7 ' , ~ J p Tax 1/a of rite sx 1/a of secrlox 4
' I '
~~ ~ BRtJpKGA~E GA DENS I I I ~ ,` I q rOxNSH]P 37 SOUTN, RANGE 2 xESr, xILLAME7"fE MERIDIAN
' 1 ~ 1 I (R~VI,~-L ~ I ~Nra r~v~e) i 1 ' ~ I tr Cir'Y OP CENTRAL POINT, .lACK5014 COSINrY, ORECO!:
` ~_ _ 5 ~ I I 1 ! t i
-" I I I ~ _~_____,.____..~~' '~ 37 2W 1C - TL 1400, 1500 & 1800
-_-_J.-____-F_-..-___1 ~_..-..~J ___-~-~'-'--... _..~--...--
YY~, YY~~ L~ nYY,, ~ RICHARD 1'EMPLIN L,fND SURVEYlA'c ~ ~- -
JJR~~I,IAD/~Lsw ZZ`y• (PRQl2ps~T% fXT£N$1~N) v,0, 80A' l9tG 849-TP3Z .+RL'ASONVILCC- OREGON RAOr£SSK 0
~.---~______„_____-_ qua ~ ~ ~ RCasi[R ~~R~
372H rC- f.00 ... ~ FAN U
~, _____~__ fi iPo
-_ DATE: 1[iNE 27, 200a 2's
~~ Y,Lt: tP t<ol Jgnazz,drF
u.KC +~n c SEUeuN
FDR: GLAPIN LLC r rv° tc av,xfs
P.O. DOX 9271 ~uN[ 34. 200.
M£DFORD. OR 075¢1
j PAGE 2 OF 2
p Subject Boundary
` Tax Lots
Source: Jackson County G1S Services
Exhibit 5 k
Aeriai Photo rah w~~
9 p 5
37 -2W-~1CB, Tax Lat 2~Q
Applicant: C,A. Galpin
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Medford, Oregon ~~ Q q;}p Feet
Qate :July 16, 2004
Zoning
uv E,mas
3.J s,a;ea d«masry
7AK FOSS
Central Poin! Zmirt9
Res S:nglaF'amsy 6.06P Si Ltts
~] R@5 $Irgl9 Kamfty 8.0605f Lacs
Rss:aertoeLMUlip:oFam•{y
~~_'~ Re5~0entiN'wa Fam2y
1 -..' 1 Thourougttlo+n Lan.-rerc~o: RSFq
Fc:rrt!1 L O~^A Pr@I R51nq
Exhibif 6
Zoning Map
37 -2W-01 CB, Tax Lot 200
Applicant: C.A. Galpin
Craig A, Sione & Associates, Ltd.
Medford, pregon
I'7ate : July 76, 2004
~r
~.~e
s
Source: Jac€cson Couniy GIS Services
40Q 0 4tf0 feet
At~ilC~ll7(llCTlt ccCss
RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT COND)rTIONS OF APPROVAL
A fznai development plan, containing in final form the information required in the
preliminary plan shall be submitted to the City within six months of approval or by March
7, 2005. A six month extension maybe granted by the City upon the applicant's request
and for goad cause.
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state, azld federal regulations
including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Fire Code and Structural Specialty
Code.
3. The applicant shall submit final parking, landscaping, lighting and sign plans to the City
for approval as part of the final development plan. A suitable landscape and irrigation
plan shall show the types of tree's, shrubs, and ground cover that will be planted and the
irrigation for the development and zrzaintenance of public greenways and the private park.
4. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions {CC&R's) or
any comparable agreement governing the use, maintenance and continued protection of
the PUD as part of the final development plan.
11CPCHSIICITI' GVI€)~1}'LANN1NC104034.DbC