Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 659 - Gebhard Village PLAN~I~C_r C;CJR'9~'II~tiIC-N 1~i'~('}l'.UT1C:}N {~. ~ A REStJLUTTC?N GRANTING TEN lA IIVL PLAN !1 ('I'I;~UVr~.L F`C~?12.. A PLAI`w~NED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS C~1~;1311:'~,IZD VILLAGE Applicant: Eric <~r-tz~~r Cc?n t17t,i ioi;) (~7 2W 02AA 1 ~x Lut 2~t}U) Recitals 1. Applicant(s) haslave subznittcd applacatiotl far tentative 63 lot Land division on a '7.13 acre parcel located on property id~nti iiccl by Jackson County as Map 3~2W1ODC-100 in the City of Central Point, Oregon... 2. On July 5, 2005, the Central Point Planning Con>>nisios~ conducted adult'-noticed. public hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the City ~tGli1: rcpo~-ts a~xd heard testimony and comments on the application. Now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIT`E' OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS:. Section 1 Criteria A~rplicable to D~Cisic~n. The following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code apply to this application: A. Chapter 1"1.20, R-1, Residential Single Family District S, Cl~ap~er 17.68, PI<~nned Unit Development C. Chapter 16,1.0, Tentative Plans Section 2. Finding and Cortl~~~i~ns. The Planning Commission. hereby adopts by reference all findings of fact set fo4ii~ i~~ tl~e City staff rcp~rts, and concludes that, except where adclresaed in the conditions ofapproval, tlic applications a~~d proposal comply with the req~ii~eznents of the following chapters ofthe Central Point Municipal Code: A. Chai~tcr 1'7.20, relating to uses, lot size, lot coverage, setback and building height. B. Chai~tc;r 17.68, relating to approval process, common ownership and maintenance. C. Chapter 16.10, relating to required infonnat%on on plat, processes and the assignment of conditions by the City pcrtinciLt to the application. Planning Commission Resolution No. ' , _07105/2005) Section 3. C`<,.~~liti~~r,il A ro~~ :1 Tl+~ a}~r~lir~itiot~s ~~~or te~~ttc(iv~~ ~~,;ui g~,i~~litiotl ~ICrcii: i~ _~.. hereby approved, subject icy thv conditica~ ~~ yet foril7 an Exhibit "~" I)c;n~~, the nl ticral staff ~~~i>ort attached hereto by rel~cc~~ncc i~~corporatc~l herein, i~~iposed under atzthc>ritti~~ c~(~C'1'MG Chapte~° 1,36. Passed by tl~e Plannizi~; Cotnrriission and signed by ~~e in autheiLtie<.iir;i~ o~`ifis passage this 5th day of July, 2005. ATTEST: ~.,. ~ g'`~ ! ~_ city : ~ ~~ ~ ~: '~"i .~ 1 ~e ~ ~.~.._ approved by nae this 5th day of July3 2005. r Plat~n~ii~, C.~u' ~ t~~~,~~~ ~, ~~ ~'l~:~i r P1~:_u~inb Commission 12esolution No. ~ ~ X07/0512005) EXHIBIT " A " PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 5, 2405 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Ken Gerschler, Comzxzunity Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing - To consider a Prelizxzinazy Development Plan and tentative subdivision for the Gebhard Village PUD. The subject property is located east of Gebhard Road in area with a pending R-2 zone district designation (372W02AA Tax Lot 2800}. Applicant: Eric Artner Construction INC 2740 Jacksonville Highway Medford, OR 97501 Owner: Miller Family Trust P.O. Box 196 Eagle Point, OR 97524 Agent: Herb Farber_Farber Surveying P.Q. Box 5286 Central Paint, OR 97502 Summary: The applicant has submitted a preliminary development plan to create a PUD and subdivide an existing tax lot into 63 residential lots for detached single_family and duplex, four-plea and six-plex owner occupied residential units. Based on Section 17.68.100 the maximum lot yield would be 94 dwelling units. Two common areas are provided as open space for residents of the project. Evaluation of this PUD is based an the Beebe/Gebhard Road Master Plan. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authoz-ity to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060 (Attachzxzent A}. AppIieable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et seq, -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.24.010 et seq. - R-2, Residential Single-Family District CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. -Planned Unit Development (PUD} Discussiozz• Background: Recently, the City Council annexed the property and is considering applicant Planned Unit DevelopmentslZoning: Planned Unit Developments are designed to offer flexibility in lot dimensions, minimum sizes, setbacks and public works standards when there is some unique or unusual quality present on the land. In this situation the P.U.D. is being requested on the basis that it is necessary to implement the BeebelGebhard Master PIan., which clearly illustrates the use of multi-plex units on the project site. Multi-plea units are anly possible within the R_2 zone through a PUD application. While there are no particularly unique conditions present on the subject property, the applicant would use the flexibility of a PUD rather than a conventional subdivision since the P.U.D. would allow the area to become a TOD style development. Implementing the TOD components could be camplexnentary to the intent of the City's development goals since CPMC 17.68.010 states that the purpose of the planned unit development is to "gain more effective use of open space, realize advantages of large-scale site planning, mixing of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation by allowing a variety of buildings, structures, open spaces, allowable heights ands setbacks of buildings and structures". In the following table, the standard development requirements for the R-2 zoning district are shown relative to the applicants proposed requirements. Standard Requirements X7.24.050 Gebhard Estates PUD R-2 Minimums Pro osed Minimum lot area-interior 6,000 square feet 1,730 square feet Minimum lot area-corner 7,000 square feet 2,050 square feet Minimum lot width-interior 50 feet 24 feet Minimum lot width-corner 70 feet 29 feet Minimum lot depth Presumed 100 feet (for 6K ruin.} 72 feet Minimum front yard setback 20 feet i 0 foot min., 15 foot max. 20 foot for ara e. Minimum side yard setback-interior 5 feet per story Not given Minimum side yard setback-street 10 feet, 20 for garage access Not given Minimum rear yard setback 10 feet Not given While most of the setbacks proposed by the applicant are similar to TOD style development, the alley-loaded garages could be problematic since the applicant has proposed a three foot setback, which in conjunction with the 20 foot wide alley will provide a 23 foot back-up area. The typical minimum back-up area for ninety degree parking is 24 feet Within the TOD district the minimum front yard requirement is 10-15 feet. For the side and rear yard setbacks, the applicant's findings (Attachment "B"} do not specify a reduction in the side or rear yard setbacks for the detached single-family lots (Lots 47 through 63}, and therefore it can be assumed that the standard setbacks far the R- 2 zone district will apply. For all other lots the internal setbacks will be zero, while the ....,. _. Agency Comments: The Public Works and Building Departments leave provided their comments, recoznmendatiozas and requirements for this application (Attachments "F" and "G"). Rogue Valley Sewer Services was notified of this application and has submitted correspondence. Jackson County Fire District Number Three met with the City and the applicant and the applicant will need to provide the District with a complete set of plans and meet any requirements that maybe assigned. Findings_of Facf and Conclusions of Law: In reviewing these findings of fact and conclusions of law as submitted by the applicant, the planning commission should refer to the following criteria to grant or deny a PUD whereas; CPMC 17.5$.040, states "A PUD shall be permitted, altered or• denied in accordance with the standards and procedures of this chapter....and to approve or deny a PUD, the planning comrn.ission shall frnd whether or not the standards of this chapter, including the following criteria are either met, can be met by observance of conditions, or are not applicable. Criterion 1 That the development of a Iarmonious, integrated plan justifies the exceptions to the normal requirements of this title; Finding: Gebhard Village is consistent with the Beebe/Gebhard Road Master Plan, which the City has prepared as a general framework for land use integration and the provision of an adequate neighborhood circulation system to facilitate development of the study area as harmonious and integrated neighborhood. The PUD proposal is the only means of accomplishing the intent of the Master Plan as defined for the project site. Criterion 2 The proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the city; Finding: The pending Comprehensive Plan designation far the property is Medium Density Residential. The pending R-2 zoning is consistent with the Medium Density Residential designation. Planned Unit Developments are allowed within the R-2 district subject to compliance with Section 17.68.010. The Comprehensive Plan encourages innovative reside~~tial planning and development techniques in the fol of planned unit development, clustered development, zero lot-line development, and others as appropriate that would help to increase land use efficiency and reduce the cost of utilities and services (Comprehensive Plan, Page XII-12). Criterion 3 The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have nsinirrzal adverse impact on the livability, valase or appropriate development of the surrounding area; Finding: The intent of the Beebe/Gebhard Road Master Plan was to coordinate laud use compatibility and the need for a neighborhood circulation plan, both of which are important considerations in maintaining neighborhood livability. The proposed PUD's location, size, land use, and circulation are consistent with the Master Plan's R-2 designation for the project site. The project's design incorporates the use of detached single-family homes as a transition between lower residential densities to the east and south, and orients the common areas to the low density residential lands in the county, west of Gebhard Road. Internal and external circulation is consistent with the Master Pian. Primary access to Gebhard Village will be from Gebhard Road. Johnson Lake Drive will provide future access to developable lands to the east, Criterion 4 That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated 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 within a reasonable time as determined by the commission; Finding: _Eric Artner Construction has developed projects within the City of Central Point during the past and has been responsible for the construction of several multiple-family buildings and most recently, the Daisy Creek Estates townhouse development which is also a P.U.D. The Daisy Creek P.U.D. did have problems with meeting some of the development timelines and requirements of the Planning Commission approval Criterion 5 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; Finding: The project will generate approximately 60 PM peak trips, or l4% of the PM peak hour trips estimated for the Master Plan area {East Pine Street Study). Gebhard Road, although substandard, is a designated collector. At this time there is insufficient data to determine whether, or not, this project will adversely affect the level of service on Gebhard Road, ar any of its intersections. The internal circulation plan is capable of accommodating the project's internal traffic needs. Parking will comply with City standards for on-site residential parking. ~~ In anticipation of the need to zxzitigatc increased traffic as a result of developmez~t within the BeebelGebhard Master 1'lazz Area, the City will require developers to sign a development agreement with triggers that obligate roadway improvements to specific dcvelopznent activities. The developer of this project has been working with City Staff and City-handed consulting firms to address the future traffic concerns that will be associated with the higher density use that is proposed. While this development shows two full width streets and an alley conncctiz~g into Gebhard Raad, there is a larger plan (East fine Street Study} for the area that will eventually link this neighborhood to the east and to the south through a new road network that may include another bridge crossing at Bear Creek and anorth-south arterial linking Gebhard Road to East Fine Street. Criterion 6 That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed; Finding: This proposal pertains to a residential development and the commercial criterion does not apply. Criterion 7 That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; Finding: This proposal pertains to a residential development and the industrial criterion does not apply. Criterion $ The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; Finding: There are no natural features such as streams, shorelines, wooded cover or rough terrain on this property that was formerly a poultry farm. The poultry farm will be replaced by residential development that will include open space/park area with a total combined area of approximately 20,000 square feet with a pedestrian connection that could eventually tie the development into the surrounding developments and the Bear Creek Greenway which is located to the south and west across Gebhard Road. Crite~-io~i 9 The PUD will be compatible with the surr•unding area; Finding: Gebhard Village is proposed for an area pending rezoning to R-2, Residential two- family. The project adjoins the Green Valley subdivision {Zoned R-3, Residential Multiplc- Family} to the north and the proposed White Hawk P.U.D. (Zoned R-1-5} to the south. To the west is Gebhard Road with County-zoned residential parcels on the distant side. The area east of the project is zoned R-1-6, Residential Single-Family and is presently underdeveloped with rural homes and the Shepard of the Valley Catholic Church. A11 the above referenced properties are within the Master Plan area. The proposed zoning, land use, and design of Gebhard Village are consistent with the Master Plan. In comparing the existing uses with the anticipated future uses of the area, the Gebhard Village P.U.D's use of detached single-family units along the east and south borders provides a transition between its high density parcels and the lower density parcels to the south and east. The only area where the proposed P.U.D. could be incompatible is along Gebhard Road and its County-zoned neighbors to the west. _Gebhard Raad is a 60 foot wide County Road that will be upgraded to accommodate the additional trafhc associated with the development, but for the residents across the road to the west, the P.U.D. will likely have an adverse impact. In the long term, there is the possibility that the County_zoned properties may become part of the City through the Regional Problem Solving process and if this were to occur, the land could be rezoned to a designation more consistent with Gebhard Village. Criterion 10 The PUD will reduce the need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land. Finding: The area surrounding the project site is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and was identit`zed for urban uses as early as 1973. The City Council annexed the property and more recently, rezoned the property from R-1-$ to R-2 in anticipation of this project. As density increases, one of the fundamental benefits is the reduction of the need for public services relative to the extension of the services. Eventually, a reduced cost of maintenance is realized since there is less lineal distance in infrastructure to be repaired or replaced, What this means is that while the entry level cost of putting water, sewer and electricity to the site maybe slightly higher at first due to the increased load, in the longer term of 20 to 30 years, these wires and pipes wear out and need to be replaced. If the distance of these items is reduced, then the cost to replace them is reduced since there is less material and labor required. ~~ Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the followi~~g action: l .Adopt Resolution No.~, approving the tentative PUD plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval {Attachments }; or 2. Deny the tentative PUD plan; or 3. Continue the review of the tentative PUD plan at the discretion of the Con-~mission. Attachments A: Notice of Public Hearing B: Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions C: Tentative Plan and Building Elevations D: Development Schedule E: Planning Department Conditions of Approval F: Public Works Staff Report G: Building Department Staff Report H: Correspondence from other agencies CENTRAL POINT City of Gent,~al Point !, ~ !l3il ~~r--~-c}~r'~it=~1T .ff PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Dave Alvord Gommuniry Planner Lisa Morgan Planning Technician Notice of Public Hearing Date of Notice: June '15, Z©05 Meeting Date: July 5, 2005 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 S. Second Street Centra! Point, Oregon NATURE OP MEETING Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review Tentative Plan and Planned Unit Development applications. The purpose of this application is to create a Planned Community comprised of 91 dwelling units. The property is located within a proposed R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district. The property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 02, Tax Lot 2800. The property is located north of Beebe Road, east of Gebhard Road, and west of Hamrick Road. Pursuant to ORS 197.7fi3 {3) (e), failure to raise an issue during this hearing, in person or in writing, 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, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. This notice is being mailed to property owners within a 200 foot radius of subject property. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The review requirements for Tentative Plan and Planned Unit Development applications are set forth in Chapters 16.10 & 17.68 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Information and conditions of the project approval. ., immediately east of the Don Jones 1Vlemorial Park. Staff is uncertain as to how these situations came to be. 4) Gro`vth Characteristics: Such anomalies do represent evidence, however, of an appar- ent trend toward higher densities than originally envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan for this area of Central Paint. The Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide far future de- velopment, but as changing cireurnstances arise, it frequently noels to be "tweaked" as individual owners begin developing their properties. The need for creative modifications is also evident in the development projects that have already been approved and constructed on the neighboring properties such as the recently-- approved Beebe Wood Planned Unit Developmont off from Hamrick Road. S} The Proposal: The development of a 64-lot subdivision (63 of which will be privately- owned and l of which will be common areas and open space), along with the dedication of all street sections and various alleyway connections in a Planned Unit Development format comprised of a mix of single-family and attached housing, To design the Gebhard Village Development, Eric Artner Construction, Inc. contracted with Daniel R. Horton. Mr. Horton is a well-known and highly-regarded local Structural Architect, Urban Designer and Landscape Architect from Eagle Point, Qregan. The task given to Mr. Horton was threefold: 1) Analysis: Identify opportunities, constraints & development issues posed by the sub- ject property. 2} Concepts: Design a buildable plan respecting existing adjacent developments and give special consideration to connectivity with surrounding urbanizabie properties. In the Comprehensive Plan there is no east-west connection proposed betwoen Gebhard Road and the large undeveloped portions of the UGB to the east, ultimately tying back to Hamrick Road. 3} Community: Create a neighborhood that ties into surrounding development but also creates a truly cohesive mixed-use development with neo-traditional design. aspects and suitable open space. After reviewing the property, Mr. 1-Iorton developed a Site Analysis Drawing which re- sulted in the proposed attached PUD Plan. Mr. Horton identified several ways where the connectivity could be achieved. A public street and alley system will be constructed to provide access to individual Lots, and Johnson Lake Drive across the south of the subject property provides a strong east-west vehicular linkage, while preserving the cohesive community feel of the majority of the development. The street names stated on Sheet 1 of the application maps are those being proposed for this project. Additionally, the pro- posal allows for multiple options for separated pedestrian access between future schools and the open space to the north and within the development. A public access easement will be recorded over the pedestrian access ways and Hated on the Final survey plat, al- lowing for general use by the public. Additionally, while an outline of the restrictive covenants is included with this packet, a draft copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association (which will describe re- sponsibility far the maintenance of all common open space and mutual accessways) will be provided at the time of Final Plat. Gebhard Village Planned Unit Development Findings Page 2 front of garages with 10 to 15 feet standard for the living areas, similar to the Transit Oriented Development. Building plans have not been identified far the single family lots. The plexes are shown on Sheet 3 of the maps with elevations on reduced copies submitted with this application. Conclusion {A): Based upon the above Findings of Fact (A) acid the follofvirr~ stipulatio~ts for the deviations requested, Perfarntance Standard Options Criterion: (A) car be found to have heerc satisfced. CRITERION fB?: The proposal will be consistent with the comprel~ensivc plan, the objec- tives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the city. Fin.din~ of Fact (B): There are a number of recent medium density developments in the general vicinity of the subject property, such as Beebe Woods, New Haven Estates, and Hidden Grove manufactured dwelling park. These developments, which have been, or are in the process of being, built-out in short or- der, are all located within Neighborhood Subarea G as indicated on Comprehensive Plan page III-14. As stated on page XII-5, "the most logical direction for non-industrial urban growth" is into this sub-area. The Comprehensive Plan went on to indicate on page XII-8, "whenever possible, residential ar- eas are to be arranged in harmony with other land uses to form awell-balanced and identifiable neighborhood. This "neighborhood concept" attempts to establish individual and unique neighborhood areas which have easy access to neighborhood "convenience" shopping facilities, parks and recreational facilities, public schools, and major transportation corridors." These cur- rent medium density developments in Subarea G meet the page Ill-11 description of medium density areas by being located close to activity centers (such as the Fairgrounds & the Beebe Dawns, various produce and greenhouse outlets, restaurants like Mon Desire, and the shopping concentrations on Crater Lake Highway ~2}, two Comprehensively Planned Public Schools, and near major transportation corridors (such as Hamrick Road and Table Rock Road). The content proposal would continue that compliance with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan both due to its conformity with the surrounding urban neighborhoods and the fact that the pro- posed use of medium density designation allows the City to maximize urban growth, since High Density designations are precluded "adjacent to or near agricultural areas" (page IIl-11). These Comprehensive Plan strategies are reflected in Residential Development Policy # 1 (page XII-11), which strives to "encourage a greater distribution of housing opportunities by providing for variety of housing densities and types throughout the City in order to avoid undesirable and inefficient concentrations of housing types and segments of the population in any one location" and in Residential Development Policy #5 (page XII-12), which strives to "continue to ensure that long-range planning and zoning reflects the need to locate the highest densities and greatest numbers of residents in closest possible proximity to shopping, employment, major public facili- ties, and public transportation corridors". The current PUD proposal also conforms with Residential Development Policy #4 (page XII-12}, which strives to "encourage and make possible innovative residential planning and development Gebhard Village Planned Unit Developrent Findings Page 4 techniques that would help to increase land use efficiency, reduce costs of utilities and services, and ultimately reduce housing costs". This policy specifically references PUDs as a meaE~s to acl~reve its purposes. The purpose statenxeazt contained in 17.b8.QI0. _Conclusion (l3}; Based upon the Findings of Tact, Criteriarr {,13} cart be found to have been satisfied. CRITERION (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. Findinz= of pact (C): 'The livability, value, and appropriate development of the surrounding area are immensely en- hanced by this proposal, not adversely impacted. Parks are expanded, street and pedestrian con- nectionsmade, and utilities extended. Given the growth tendencies of Subarea G, both existing and potential, the surrounding area is very likely to imitate this proposal. Conclusion (C): Based upon the above Findings of Fact, in conjunction with the deviations requested, Criterion (C) can be found to leave been satisfied. CRITERION CD): That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they are finan- cially 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 accessary district changes, and izz- tend to complete said construction withizz a reasonable time as determined by the commis- sion. Findizz~ of Fact (D): Eric Artner Construction, Inc. is currently constructing a S$ unit Town home development in the City of Central Point (Daisy Creek Village}, this project is funded by US Bank. US Bank is egger to finance all of Eric Ariner Construction's upcoming projects including Gebhard Village. The Geblxard Village project will be of approximately the same scale as tYae Daisy Creek Village project, and will be phased according; to market demand. Our goal for time of completion will be between 18 and 24 months. Conclusion (D): Based upon the above Findings of Fact, Criterion (D) can be found to have been satisfied. CRITERION (E): That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed devel- opment or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan far proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking. Fizzdin~, of Fact (E): Tim A Horn, PE, in his opinion, the proposed development will not likely create traff c congestion. Ike based his opinion on the following: Gebhard Village Planned Unit Development Findings Page 5 1 }The two proposed entrances will be designed as public streets, with radiussed approaches to City Standards. 2) Traffic volumes are currently well under 1000 vehicle per day, per Jackson County Records. 3} Traffic SDC's on this collector road should mitigate the need for frontage improvements. Conclusion E) Based upojt the above Findings of Fact, Criterion: {E} can be found to have been satisfied CRITERION (F): That commercial development in a PUU is needed at the proposed loca- tion to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed. Finding of Fact There is no commercial development proposed in the 1'UD. Conclusion fF): Based upon the above Findings of Fact, Criterion (F} can be found to have been satisfied. CRITERION (G}: That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well- organized with adequate provisions far railroad and truck access and necessary storage. Finding of Fact (G?: There is no industrial development proposed in the PUD. Conclusion (G): Based upon the above Findings of Fact, Criterion {G} can be found to have been satisfied CRITERION (II): The PUA preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present. Findine of Fact {H)t There are no streams, shorelines, or rough terrain present on the property. There are 13 trees located on the property, the majority of which fall withirx proposed streets and will have to be removed. However, the twenty-foot canopy deciduous tree in the park will be preserved and the applicant has proposed an aggressive planting program. that will replace those trees that must be removed on two-to-one basis. Conclusion (H): Based upon the above Findings of Fact, Criterion (H) can be found to have been satisf ed. CRITERION (I): The PL3D will be compatible with the surrounding area. Finding of Fact (I); See Finding C above. Gebhard Village Planned Unit Development Findings Page ~ Conclusion (I): Based upon the above Findings of .b'act, Criterion (I) cart be fnrurd to ]rave been satisfred. CR,fTERIQ~T (J~ The PUD will redact need for laublic facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land. Finding of )~ act (~: The need for public facilities and services required by the proposal will be essentially same as single-family and two-family developments other than that there is an increased efficiency of the provision of services such vrater and sower due to the increased density. The proposal is dcf - nitelyless demanding of public facilities a~~d services than permitted uses such as public schools, public parks, or residential care facilities. Conclusion lJl: Based upon the above Findings of Fact, Criterion (J) can be found to have beers satisf ec~ Prepared by: Herbert ,A, Farber Farber & Sons, Inc. Farber Surveying 431 Oak Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 541-664-5599 Date: lVlay 3, 2005 ~ ' --~-~ Gebhard Village Planned Unit Development Findings ]'age 7 e =R ss pA ~~ :S ~~ °s¢ ~` T e's~ taoL`s i~R~[,: i~,~ I , I I 3 I I !~ ( I EI I °~~i. 1.... r s§~ . ~ ._f ~% r I~ I I I`xx. ^~`i I i I^ I U. pI N) III i I I I i I 1 I (: I ~ I8 I I 1 I 1 u°~r z ..a +`LTn ~ 1 f pj¢II 1 kl 4 ~I I ~~ I I I i II j{ I I I ~ I II €I I l ;3 $S I I [ =z ~ I i 2: i I ; x~ I I V fr; I i 'I I I ~>~ I + tiPi>bll -1 I-11- ~~ I I~ I~ I / f ~~ ,~a ~'b'- ~.S ~ ~ /"~ III I 1 I ! I#~ (_----3 I I------~ I I I f~! I III i I I I Ill eR I I rtRZJs+s Y_*^ oz' Dx• ~w~~ zaax=_~Y'~ a,ll I I o~ - S oR s 'R x o~ - wlil I ..._ ...... _.. _ si iP ene :a---- , s~p.. IN) I cF re„es,rr~ n~~ I f L+oTal ~ -- ~r`I~I I -- ._. -. o " I I S sao ~~ ~~ry~ (~I~ 5~1 Mrt _ - I ~ ~ ~.~...._ _.. lOT li ^ •1e I hb r4 3 I^ `r v.Ar.ip'~~ F ~~c r LOT in I IOS~rt ~ TY' I +L»I 1( s..x I ~~` I%~(~~~tS+MRI i I ~ _ _ ~,Ef 1~rthrt ~ x.eTh IR b Ga 'TdtM' 9xa E{ __ I R sw s.k I >/~ I r. ~nr ~~ I ~FP I ~ I I 1~ _.......~I- gg ~ ~ gF g: ~ 6~a> x I ---- zrP r,a ua f ~.n `aF~$ rwvosrnLa w[ I i.n w Ece _ - ~~zaa i•e~ txa y2 FF LOt 5t ~ay Y ~ 6r5+s.n Ili ffE blia 9F R` Y _ oA I I ssa ¢ %~E - - 4 LOS 58 I ~~ 6vx sFR s:w kti I sse I~ 7 6,d ~ ! Ot ,~L. ~ for x hs ~~ ~ ^ ~$ tj+i ~h .Sn ~~ lur n xi+l 1R L t w ^ I ID X ~~Y 36 tao rt I ~ ~ s.rl LOS 5] I SW+ SpR Ir 3 ( +a I oR ~>; ~ ~ ~A - a - oY ~ Lm az - trzs s. n - - ~ ~ I x x •>o F Isar mav:Fa sa rtE ~ % nxrm. wz. res % _ _ ~ rinlnav .> nL -- -, 'it -- sR -- 'R ~e.o RA ~.- r~ of `oe - `o ~. - ~e - o~ MeM uE Otrw hT' ub S.n w~ 41~ _ _ oo I° J sl LO1+'il r-s I. LOt B ex.i LOt t9 LOT 20 Lbrt _ 025 I Lar zz 1= .r.a .e. sl. +I 0 0° cb o Is nre dts _._...._...+`.v RLC rn n r• out n 19es aL ~ ~ ~y E6~ ox Py~ _-..---- -W. I f 1 lo,P ~a0 », _ Ito P Ro la o I~ uP .o s..a LOi~}5 ~,. d hM tgrt tot ~a LOlSi - LOtS 9 Lar 9a ,., I' - I. - _ Sheci 1 0! ~ Subdivison Plpn Sheet S of # PUO Plan At LA/RD 9V RVEYOR {'~ ~c..cl,k o,re Irv-m P1J+NNCp urrrr nrv~~oYr,lrNr SU©DfV1S1QN GCBHAaD vrc.~,ace el<a „ NpRTlffiLST pNC CVAHTER ()f $CCTION 2 TONNS1nF' S7. SOEJ71f, lWJCF a KkST w/LLPAlCTTL MCRIOlA11. JACKSON COIJNry, OREGON ro. E'R1C Ar?TNER CONSTf?UCTlON s, c Aaoncss .9Pt) EO.uHL REVD cf+ttn.i POnr, pREGON 9]:W7 +~.-~ HO bGLLL L++EFII VALLLY WAY ~ ~' c ROA9 4 Fro :.i.:aaoi n rooia~ +si` ~[S2RS: mT I~it +/14LD ].n .ots h[ ~ [, t'+St~tTAb [~[ ~ ~~><t tu.tuT i[<I[ tlpx pu+ $IkEr 1 APALKA170'! MM PREPAItEII B! £EE3EB acxr.y.r SRECT 2 BaSE ATE YA9 9REPARE-0 er ~tI1fAYCA 41R1£YNL l~'^ 44o LMFX OtM h Av .av~l.^. ttu~ SHCCS t APPLfEA r10N u/.p PBEPAREp ar CNi3_'9 SIRVEY.KL 6vEEr 2 BA$E y Sf s+An PREPIRFp 8Y pE5111Wra a+arErr+r. ~, St1EEt 1 EIILDP[G LAYOVT Ars} l Yl$CWE PLA+i BULDxb ELCYAt1c1+5 AA[ PY A AEDVCEp SEEt PREPARED aY. Ou~L A ItIXITLN RCMIFLT 9QEt r cG GiRIVt l!1¢]1Y EHpYEERNC PLAN PG{P+.A(6 BT~ rxe_~Inr ___ wurorrs Ile c5vneyea b FARB..R do 50N5. 1+dC. Qbc FARBFR SURVEYiNf~ (397) 66#-5599 .31 O.tN 6TR£EY Pp BOx 5206 CEHTRti alRr. OREGON 9]u02 .~ ~, MR' ury v 5 Xd +n. w..~: nr..ces~cn.:.u .amuvJ~t.,~P.woLw+cs..:.rna..e ulw. ~~ ~5Y YP- ~a~ri ~,~; ~~~c ~N7 _TY~. SNiN~~~ 5iC?1N~sW R yG"4=-~~ ~N~YP. ct~li`~C.~~~"r~- c~riNGi-~ .1 SGT==h1 `~f-~jy~ TY ~ g~.;1t~=? ~ Sini~ 9PJ° w~~ ~ ... ~y E~IG ~~~ia~ UEawA P^~ oR c~7~'~' v uf1Pf.T 7oD4 DP*- ~9 W t'J~W~~'~ g 4:1 EAG-~ ~ yA1-OX1.1P1~~e~~ p~ ~.rv"`w ~~~m. FARMER SURIJEYING F~.x ~54166~5G03 .dun 28 2005 ~G ~ 10 P. 02 ~ ~ ~~ ,~-7~ ~~- ~ ~/~3 ~~tt f ~ ..r ERRBER SURVEYING Eax~SQ7-6645603 Jun 28 2005 16:10 P. 03 .4 -~ .~,. ~~ ~. a~ ~: t ~~ al ~, ~r ~_ :~ ., a '~ 1~+ ~, L!f l .~ 4 li u i ., ~ BARBER S~REY~NG F~x:541664560~ Jury 28 2005 16:1 P. 04 ATTACHMENT E PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GEBHARD VILLAGE PUD. FILE 0506 t CIIIECK NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF CONDITION BOX 1 of 5 This approval is contingent upon the final decision by the Central Point City Couxxcil to amend the Comprehensive flan and zone designatiozxs for medium density development. 2 of 5 The applicant sha11 comply witlx all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the project area. It is the responsibility of the applica~xt to provide the City with written proof that all of the affected agencies and departments are satisfied with the conditions of approval. These agencies include Jacksoxx County Fire District No.3, Rogue Valley Sewer Services, Jackson County Roads, City Building and Public Works departments. 3 of 5 The applicant shall sign an agreement to participate in the traffic plan for the area prior to the City signing the f nal plat map. 4 of 5 A final plat application shall be filed within one year of the Planning Co~nmi~siondappraval or the tentative plan approval shall become nu an vox . 5 of 5 A landscape plan for the common opezx space and street planter strips shall be submitted prior to the City's review of the final development plan. 11CPCHS€1CITY wIDE1PLANNiNC12005 LAI`iD LJSE FII.E5145Q61 GItiBI-[ARD VILLAGE1a5061COA.©OC I A~ " rs a.~ Public Works Department I ~~_°` ___._ ___ __._ ___.___~___ ~ ___ _ _~ m _.__~C E N ThRAL P~~f ~ l t~l": ;'1 PUBLIC WORKS ST.~FF REPORT June 27, 2005 TO: Planning Department FROM: Public Works Department Boh Pierce, Direcfor Maft Samifare, Dev. Services Coord. /~r. SUBJECT: Tentative Subdivision and Planned Unit Development for 37 2W 02AA, Tax Lot 2500 Gebhard Village PUD Applicant P.O. Box 5348 Central Paint, OR 97502 Agent Farber & Sons, Inc. 43 I Oak Street P.O. Box 5286 Central Point, OR 97502 Property Description/ R-2 {Pending) Zoning Purppse Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant {hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding City Public Works Department {PWD) standards, requirements, at~d conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. A City of Central Point Public Works Department Staff Report is not intended to replace the City's Standards & Specifications. Staff Reports are written in coordination with the City's Standards & Speciliications to form a useful guide. The City's Standards & Specif cations should be consulted for any information not contained in a Public Works Staff Report. Existing Inft~asts~uctur•e 1. Streets: This section of Gcbhard Road is improved to a paved width of 21 feet. Gebhard is 155 South Second Sfreet v Cenfral Point, OR 97502 ~ 541.664.3329 ~- Fax 549.6fi4.6384 classified in the City's Transportation System Plan as a Collector Street. 2. Water: There is an existing twelve-inch water line at the intersection of Gebhard Road and Blue Grass Downs Drive, approximately 600 feet north of the subject site. 3. Storm Drain: There is an existing forty-eight inch storm drain line at the intersection of Gebhard Road and Green Valley Way (Private Road}. Gebhard Village PUD Ti~anspof~tation Currently Gebhard Road is a country road that is paved to twenty-one feet in width. In the City of Central Point's Transportation System Plan Gebhard Road is classified as a Collector Street. When improved, Collector Streets are designed to handle up to 5,000 vehicle trips a day or 500 P.M. Peak Hour Trips, per the Central Point Standard and Specifications. The most recent traffic counts for Gebhard Road were conducted by Jackson County in 2003. The total trips per day were '765. Since 2003, Blue Grass Downs Subdivision has been approved which has 97 residential units and Green Valley Estates and Hidden Grove PUD have been completed adding potential another 200 units that could use Gebhard Road for access. The proposed project entails the development of sixty three residential fats. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers {ITE} Trip Generation Manual base figure of 9.55 average trips per day per residence, the project would potentially create 601.65 average daily trips or roughly 60 P.M. peak hour trips. The Public Warks Department does not have standards that require Traffic Studies for new development. The City typically uses the Oregon Department of Transportation's {ODOT} Guide to Development Impact Analysis as a guideline for requiring traffic studies. Only developments of 150 or more single family homes require a traffic study, thus excluding the proposed development. The City of Central Point recently completed the East Pine Corridor Traff c Study which studied E. Pine Street, Hamrick Road and a portion of Beebe Road. The improvements entail Gebhard Road being extended to the South and a future bridge over Bear Creek that would extend Beebe Road to the West. Additionally a new traff c signal at the intersection of Beebe Road and Gebhard Road may be warranted in the future. The traffic analysis did recommend contemplate that both Gebhard and Beebe Road be widened to full collector status. The developer has also agreed to installation of a bicyclelpedestrian path along the North side of Beebe Road in collaboration with the developer of White Hawk Estates. This path will be installed when the development reaches build out of approximately 50% of the units. If the City and/ar the development community have reached an agreement for the full improvement of Beebe Road prior to the half-way build out, the developer will not be responsible for constructing the bicycle/pedestrian path. A draft Development Agreement is attached. 155 South Second Street ~~. Central Point, OR 97502 •541,6&4.3329 -~ Fax 549.fifi4.6384 Conditions of Approval Ri hg ~"o_f wa,.y Dedication: The Developer shall dedicate twenty feet of frontage of Gebhard Road for widening of the road to Collector standards. 2. Gebhard Road Improvements,: Developer will be responsible for constructing curb, gutter, and sidewalk and additional paving width to Gebhard Road far the subject property. A drawing submitted by CES NW far the White Hawk Estates PUD also applies to this development. The developer will be responsible for constructing the `interim' level. 3. Bass Lake Drive and Crescent Lake Drive ri~;ht-of-w~: The developer is proposing all public streets within the development. The proposed right-ofi~way Bass Lake and Crescent Lake Drive is only fifty- two feet. The Public Warks Director approved a street detail to the standards and specifications that accommodates Municipal Code Section 12.3G.100.D regarding street trees (See Attached Detail}. The Public Works Department is requesting that the right-off way be widened to fifty-five feet accommodate this standard. 4. open Space: The developer is proposing open space for the Planned Unit Development that is consistent with the City's Transit Oriented Development requirements for open space dedication. The open space areas will be approximately 95 feet by 155 feet or 14,'125 square feet per open space area. The Public Warks Department is requesting that a Home Owners Association be formed to maintain the areas. If the Developer wishes to dedicate these areas to the City of Central Point the parks must be fully constructed with an irrigation system and an approved and installed landscape plan. Additionally, the developer shall maintain the areas for two years prior to the City taking over maintenance responsibility. Bicycle/Pedestrian Path: A Bicycle/Pedestrian path shall be designed and installed with the developer of the White Hawk Estates PUD for Beebe Road from Hamrick Road to White Hawk Estates along the North side of the street. The bicyclelpedestrian path shall be designed and installed when the development of the two properties is at 50% build-out. If the City and/or the development community has reached an agreement to fund and construct Beebe Road to a standard Collector Street prior to the SO% build out this condition is void. 6. Gradin Permit: The City of Central Point Building Department xequires grading permits for all new subdivisions. Developer will need to provide a valid grading plan as part of construction documents and receive a permit from the building department prior to construction. 7. Street Tree Plan: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit far approval by the Public Works Director, a landscape plan for the areas designated for landscape rows. The plan shall include construction plans, irrigation plans, details and specifications far the trees to be planted within the landscape taws. Plantings shall comply with Municipal Code Section 12.36. Tree plantings shall have at least a 1 %" trunk diameter at the time of installation. All street trees shall be irrigated with an automatic underground irrigation system. The current site plan does not indicate trees planted at 20-40 feet on center. 155 South Second Street ~ Centro! Point, 4R 97502 •54~.fi6~.3321 ~- Fax 541.664.6384 Standard Speci~catians and Goats The Central Point Public Works Department is charged with ir~anagemcnt of the City's infrastructure, including streets, waterworks, and storm water drainage facilities. In general, the Department's "Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction" shall gover,~ haw public facilities are to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Works Department. Central Point Public Works is committed to working with the Planning Department and developers to assure that all developments are adequately served by public facilities. Public facilities not owned or maintained by the City of Central Point include: Power {PP&L}, Gas {Avista}, Communications (Qwest}, and Sanitary Sewer {RVSS}. In working together it is the Department's expectation that the developer will feel free to call on the Department whenever the standard specifications are not, in the developer's opinion, adequately meeting the needs of the development. The Department will listen to the developer's concerns and work with the developer to achieve the best outcome. However, the Department is not obligated to assure a profitable development and will not sacrifice quality for the sole purpose of reducing cost to the developer. It is always the developer's obligation to provide the public improvements necessary, as determined by the Public Works Department, to serve the development. The Department and the developer also have an obligation to assure that public facilities are constructed so that other properties are not adversely impacted by the development. Developrrrent Plans -Required Information Review of public improvement plans is initiated by the submittal of 3 sets of plans that are at least 95% complete. The plans shall include those of other agencies such as RVSS. Following plan review, the plans will be retunri.ed to the Developer's engineer including comments from Public Works Staff. In order to be entitled to further review, the Applicant's Engineer must respond to each comment of the prior review. All submittals and responses to comments must appear throughout the plans to be a realistic attempt to result in complete plan approval. Upon approval, the Applicants Engineer shall submit (4} copies of the plans to the Department of Public Works. In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and profile for streets, water, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, storm drainage calculations, storm drainage basin map, erosion control plan, utility and outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a traff c control plan. Public Works Perrfrit A Public Works Permit will only be issued after the Department Director approves the final construction drawings. After approval, the fees associated with the development will be calculated and attached to the public works permit. All fees are required to be paid in full at the time the Public Works Permit is issued, except Public Works Inspection fees. After project completion during the final plat application process, the 155 South Second Street A Central Point, OR 97502 ~ 641.664.3329 > Fax 549.fifi4.6384 Public Works Inspector will calculate the appropriate amount of inspection tizz~e to assess the developer. Before the final plat application is processed the developer Irlust pay the rclevant inspections fees and bond for any uncompleted improvements (as detcrzxzined by the Public Works Dircctaz'}. Gebl:aj~d Village PUD --Plans 1. Three sets of plans at 95% complete stage are to be submitted for review by the Public Works Department. 2. Once approval is achieved the Developer shall submit four sets of plans to the Public Works Department far construction records and inspection. 3. The Developer's Engineer shall document changes to the approved drawings made in the field. A rrzylar and digital copy of the final "as-built" drawings will be required before the final plat application is processed. Gebhard Village PUD -Protection of Existing Facilities The locations of existing facilities shall be shown on all applicable construction drawings for Public Works projects as follows: 1. The exact locations of underground facilities shall be verified in advance of any public works construction, in cooperation with the public or private utilities involved. 2. AlI existing underground and surface facilities shall be protected from damage during design and construction ofpublie works projects. 3. Any existing facilities not specifically designated for alteration or removals, which are damaged during construction, shall be restored or replaced to a "same as" or better than condition, at the expense of the Developer. 4. Suitable notice shall be given to all public and private utility companies in advance of construction for the purpose of protecting or relocating existing facilities. Gebltard Village PUD - Watej~ Connection 155 South Second Sfreef ~ Central Poinf, OR 9542 •541.664.3321 „Fax 541.664.6384 1. Water system designs shall consider the existing water system, master plans, neighborhood plans and approved tentative plans. The Developer, Engineer and Contractor shall provide the necessary testing, exploration, survey and research to adequately design water system facilities, which will connect to and be a part of, or an extension of the City water system. All requirements of the Oregon State Plumbing Specialty Code and the Oregon State Health Department, as they pertain to Public Water Systems, shall be strictly adhered to. 2. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific information regarding the design and construction of water system related components. Gebhard Village PUD -- Streets The Developer's street designs shall consider the needs of people with disabilities and the aged, such as visually impaired pedestrians and mobility-impaired pedestrians. Every effort should be made to Iocate street hardware away from pedestrian locations and provide a surface free of bumps and cracks, which create safety and mobility problems. Smooth access ramps shall be provided where required. All designs shall conform to the current American Disabilities Act (ADA) or as adopted by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT}, Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The determination of the pavement width and total right-of way shall be based an the operational needs for each street as determined by a technical analysis. The technical analysis shall use demand volumes that reflect the maximum number of pedestrians, bicyclists, parked vehicles and motorized vehicle traffic expected when the area using the street is fully developed. Technical analysis shall take into consideration, transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan, TOD, neighborhood plans, approved tentative plans as well as existing commercial and residential developments. All street designs shall be coordinated with the design of other new or existing infrastructure. Gebhard Village PUD -~ Storm Drain It shall be the responsibility of the Developer's Engineer to investigate the drainage area of the project, including the drainage areas of the channels or storm sewers entering and leaving the project area. if a contiguous drainage area of given size exists, the engineer may use information that has formerly been established if it includes criteria far the drainage area at complete development under current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. zf the City does not have such information, the engineer shall present satisfactory information to support his storm sewerage design. The engineer shall also be required to provide all hydrology and hydraulic can~putations to the Public Works Department that are necessary to substantiate the storm sewer design. The storm water sewer system design shall be in 755 South Second Street r_ Central Point, OR 97502 •547.664.3321 =- Fax 541.664.8384 . t l/ conformance with applicable provisions of Oregon DEQ, DSL and ODFW and United States COE and consistent with AFWA Stoz-zxz Water Phase 11 requirements. 2. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specifzc information regarding the design and construction of storm drain related components. Gebhard Village PUD _ Rer~rrired Submittals All design, construction plans and specifications, and "as-built" drawings shall be prepared to acceptable professional standards as applicable, the Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals and conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife {DFW}, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), Oregon Department of Transportation {ODOT} approval for storm drain connection anal easement, landscape berms, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE), affected irrigation districts, Bear Creak Valley Sanitary Authority {RVSS}, and Jackson County Road and Park Services Department (JC Roads), DSL and ALOE, as applicable (wetland mitigation). 2. Fire District No. 3 must approve all streets and water improvement plans in writing prior to final review by City PWD. 3. During construction, any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's Engineer to the City Public Works Department for approval prior to installation. ?55 South Second Streef £~~ Central Point, OR 97502 •541.664.3327 u Fax 547.664.6384 ~.~ P 5.4~ ~~ 4.0' ~.~~ ~_ ~~~ 3 ~~ ~~KUS ,--~ ~e ~~ ~FQ` ~~ ~, D 12.~~ 1~.D~ ~- ~LA~ ~ ~ .~~ .~-~ 5~J~~~,~ AAA ~. AND tt~D~3~A1,. fA'~~~G -~({-~~ ~ pith ~~• ~3.t~ ~~, s~~ ~ ~. ~:4" - ~p#~G ~ ~or~ C~rr~.) ~ t~ ~' ~~ ~ tea ~~ctH.~ FACTfB ~` ~ 4" ~~~ ~ ~~-GT~ Rte ~f~Jt3.~ '~' ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT June 21, 2005 Lois DeBenedetti, Building Official BUILDING DEPARTM'E'NT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Department Planning file no. 05061 - 05010 FROM: Building Department SUBJECT: Gebhard Village PUD- 63 LOTS Gebhard Road APPLICANT: Name: Address City: State: Eric Artner Construction Zip code: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Northeast One Quarter of Section 2 Townshi 37 South Ran e 2 West Willamette Meridian Jackson Count Ore on PURPOSE The staff report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Applicant regarding City Building Department requirements and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed project. This is not a plan review. This report is preliminary and compiled solely for use by the Central Point Planning Commission. ~1- 155 South Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 ~ 541.664.3321 ° Fax 541.664.6384 BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: 1. Applicant, agent and contractors must comply with all current State of Oregon adopted codes, and apply for all permits through the Central Point Building Department. 2. If a private storm drain system is proposed it must be reviewed and a permit issued by the Central Point Plumbing department. 3, Any private street lighting must be reviewed and permitted by the Central Point Electrical Department. 4. Provide the building department with a Geotechnical report as required by OSSC Appendix J and chapter ~ 8 and Chapter 4 of the ODSC. A written report of the investigation shall include, but need not be limited to, the following information: a. A plot plan showing the location of all test borings andlor excavations. b. Descriptions and classifications of the materials encountered. c. Elevations of the water table, if encountered. d. Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and soil strength, and the effects of adjacent loads. e. When expansive soils are present, special provisions shall be provided in the foundation design and construction to safeguard against damage due to expansiveness. Said design shall be based on geotechnical recommendations. 5. Grading/ excavation permits are required in accordance with OSSC Appendix J and chapter 18 and ODSC chapter 4 regarding any fill material placed on the site. Fills to be used #o support the foundation of any building or structure shall be placed in accordance with accepted engineering practices. -2- 155 South Second Street Central Point, OR 9502 r 541.664.3321 f Fax 541.664.6384 BUZLDfNG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT A soil investigation report and a report of satisfactory placement of fill (including special inspections of placement of fill and compaction) acceptable to the Building Qfficial shall be submitted prior to final of the grading/excavation permit, Building permits will not be issued until grading/excavation permit is finalled. Exception: 1. The upper 1. 5 foot of fill placed outside of public rights-of- way. 2. The upper 1.5 foot of fill that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas. 6. To move or demolish any existing structures located on the property call the Building Department for permit requirements. 7. Notify the City Building Department of any existing wells, or septic systems located on the property, 8. Any development (any man-made change) to improved or unimproved real estate located within the flood hazard area of the City of Central Point shall require a Development Permit as set forth in the Central Point Municipal Code 8.24.124. Any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Applicant, or Applicant's contractor to the Building Department for approval prior to start of work. -3- 155 South Second Street ~• Central Point, OR 97502 k 541.664.3321 ° Fa~c 541.664.6384 06,'26)?005 11:46 541666417171 F'r~GE 01102 ~11S ~`~~~~Y SEWE~,~~ ~~.:°. ~ ~urte ~0, 2005 ROGUE~VALLEY SEWER SERVICES T~cation: 133 West fit. R,e~, Gerschler City of Central Point.platatiing 155 South Second Street Central Poztlt, Oxegon 97502 Re, Gebl~€a>rd Vtlzage PUD, File # Dear Ken, Road, Ce~cra] Point - 1vlaili€ag Address; P.O. F3ox 31.30, Central Poiaat,OR 97502-0005 ;) 654-5300 Ox f$41) 779-41 MI F.A.X {541) 664-7171. www,RVSS.us SAX. 664-6384 X-Q5gl.p The subject propexty is within the RVS ervice axes a1n.d the Starmwater Quality ba~.vo;dazy managed by RVS. Sewer service far the proposed tl velopment will require a xnazr~ line extension from tl~e exist~g sewer main at the iraterseetion of Green alley Road aztd Gebhard Road. This e~teo,si4z7, must be designed and constructed in aeeardance with RV standards. Tl~e e~ist;utg sewer toaitt an the South y property li~ze does not meet RVS standards attd cannot he need to support additional develop~.et~t 'I'kt existing easement tray he abaz~dorted if the sewer main is intercepted to tb,e East of the graposed evetopxnettt. The ~.ew sewerr ~azzt will need to be ens developer should caoxdiz~ate ~ktae sewer war~_ Rogge Valley Sewer Services requests following conditions: 1. The satzitary sewer system standards acid must be acc~ 2. ~'he applicant roust demon to final plat approval. If you need additional izzfozxnatioz~, Sincerely, Caxl Tappert, P. , Distxict lrzAgiz~ee;r K:1l~ATA' to serve the proposed development to the South. '~'be .coon with the adjacezzt property owzaes to minimize duplicate approval of the proposed development be subject to the be designed and coz~strueted in accordance with RVS as a public systerr~ by RVS prior to i`ix~,al plat approval. cotnplianee witlt RVS stortziwater quality requirements prior call me at 664-6300. 061-PUD GI~B~ARD VILLAGE.DOC ..~ .~ ~ac~CSOn ~oun~y ire ~]is~ric~ ~o. 3 ;. ~`^6 - :~ 8 ~ 3 3 ~,ga~e ~oac~ ~~ - ~~ite ~i~y OK 97503-- ~ 075 (541 } &267100 (voice} (5~-1) 82.6-4566 (fax} June 20, 205 Fire District #3 Comments: Project # 050f'~ - 050'0 Gebhard Village Subdivision Planned development • Fire Hydrants shall be located approximately 3aD feet spacing and pre approved by the Fire District. Submit to scale plan with hydrant location. • What are the actual street widths? It appears with this plan these are easement widths. • Inside Radius must be R-28 to meet current Fire Code standards if the alleyways access garage components of the buildings. • Gebhard Road Heart Lane drive shall have an approved gate for emergency vehicle access. Lots 23 -~ 34 • The fre district shall approve no Parking, Fire Lane Signage and Curb Painting. Street width may need to be at least 28 - 32 feet if any three-story buildings are proposed. Exception would be to install NFPA approved residential sprinkler systems in the required buildings. This can be evaluated on an individual basis of building groups. Mark Moran DFM ... .