Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 658 - Part 1 - White Hawk Estates PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~5 ~ A RESOLUTION GRANTING TENTATIVE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS WHITE HAWK (Applicant: Mike Duncan} (37 2W 03AC Tax Lot 100,9900) Recitals 1. Applicant{s} has/have submitted applications for tentative ten lot lazad division on a 20.14 acre parcel located on property identified by Jackson County as Map 372W02-2700, 2701 in the City of Central Point, Oregon. 2. On, July 5, 2005, the Central Point Planning Co~nz-nissioza conducted aduly-noticed public hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application. Now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Criteria Applicable to Decision. The fallowing chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code apply to this application: A. Chapter 17.20, R-1, Residential Single Family District B. Chapter 17,{8, Planned Unit Developzxzent C. Chapter 16.10, Tentative Plans Section 2. Finding and Conclusions. The Planning Commission hereby adopts by reference all Endings of fact set forth in the City staff reports, and concludes that, except where addressed in the conditions of approval, the applications and proposal comply with the requirements of the following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code: A. Chapter 17.20, relating to uses, lot size, lot coverage, setback and building height. B. Chapter 17.68, relating to approval process, common ownership and maintenance. C. Chapter 16.10, relating to required infozxnation on plat, processes and the assignment of conditions by the City pertinent to the application. Planning Commission Resolution No. ~5~ {0710512005) Section 3. Goz~dittonat ~~E~E~r~» ~al. Thy ~t~?t)l1C~ltlt>>1S [i>>'t~~lt~tf~bu land ~~~,rCttiotll7ereinis hereby approved, subject to the co»clitions sc( li~~rtl~ ~~~~ l~:ri~il~it "~s1", ht~ir~,~ tl~~ t~I~iieial ~t~~Ci~~eix.:~ attached hereto by reference incorporated l7erci~l, ii~i~c~~eci u~xlcr autltorrty o~ C1'~~9(.' Cl;<i~±iea 16.6. Passed by the Planrtiz~ Con7n~ission aa~cl signed by me in authentication of its laassale this Stla day of July, 2~~5. 'l~i~~r~.ix1`,,~C;ornn,~i~>i~~;, i li:.~a T ATTEST: x_ ~...-ff f ~i1:. i~epresentatxvU Approved by ~~e this 5th day of July, ~(?O5. ;,;~1 '~ ,~ Planning Coznxx-ission Resolution moo. ~~'~/OS/2U05) PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 5, 2005 TO: Central Point PIanning Comt~aission FROM: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing - To consider a Preliminary Development Plan and tentative subdivision for the White Hawk PUD. The subject property is located north and east of the intersection of Beebe Road and Gebliard Road in area with a pending R-1-6 zoning district designation (372W02 Tax Lots 2700 and 2701). A licant: Duncan Development 25 South Front Street Central Point, OR 97502 Owner: Albert and Susan McMurray 718 Beebe Road Central Point, OR 97502 A~er>ct: CESNW Tony Weller 15573 SW Bangy Road, Suite 300 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Summarv: The applicant has submitted a preliminary development plan to create a PUD and subdivide two existing tax lots into 91 detached single-family residential lots on 20.14 acres. An additional tract has been designated as open space. Based on Section 17.68.100 the maximum lot yield would be 121 dwelling units. The project's design includes a common area open space for residents of the project. Evaluation of this PUD is based on the Beebe/Gebhard Road Master Plan. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060 (Attachment A). _ pp_ica e _ _ , L_aw: CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-l, Residential Single-Family District CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. --Planned Unit Development (PUD} E:1Central PoirttlWhite Ha~i~k.doc Discussion• The applicant, Duncan Development is requesting that the Plaa~ning Commission approve a preliminary development plan and tentative subdivision plan for a Planned Unit Development named Wlaite Hawk. The basis of the PUD application is the Beebe/Gebhard Road Master Plan (Master Plan). The engineering hrraz CES/NW has been working with the City in preparing the Master Plan, the intent of wlziclz is to address issues of neighborhood circulation and land use preferences for the area covered by the Master Plan, which includes the White Hawk P.U.D. City Council has recently annexed the property and approved a zone change from R-L, Residential Low-Density to R-1-6, Residential Single Family designation based upon the Master Plan as it applies to the project site. Project Overview. The project site contains 20.14 acres and is bound on the east and south by existing, or planned, detached single-family homes (R-1-8 and R-L). To the north there is the proposed Gebhard Village PUD, and to the west is Gebhard Road and the urban growth boundary. White Hawk proposes 91 detached single-family, one and two story homes of various sizes. Lots 1 through 49 have been designed as traditional detached single-family subdivision late while lots 50 through 91 are proposed as "nea-traditional" detached single-family houses with alley loaded garages. No accessory dwelling units have been proposed. An additiona127,930 square foot tract has been set aside for park/open space with a pedestrian access to the neighborhood and eventually to other points like the Bear Creek Greenway and local commercial activities. The applicant has not submitted landscape plans for the open space. Access to the development will occur through the creation of five new public streets, two of which will intersect with Gebhard Road or Beebe Road. The proposed public streets will be 55-feet wide, with a 35-foot curb-to-curb section, and a rve-foot sidewalk and five-foot landscape strip. The sidewalk and landscape strip will be located on both sides of the streets. The remaining streets will serve the interior of the development along with three 24-foot wide alloys that are proposed to accommodate alley-loaded garages. The overall circulation plan is consistent with the Master Plan. The proposed project entails the development of 91 residential lots. 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 $69 average daily trips or roughly S'~ P.M. peak hour trips. The City of Central Point recently completed the East Pine Street Corridor Traffic Shrdy (Study}; which studied East Pine Street, Hamrick Road and a portion of Beebe Road. The Study proposed the extension of Gebhard Road south to East Pine Street and a future bridge over Bear Creek that would extend Beebe Road to the West. Additionally a new traffic signal at the intersection of Beebe Road and Gebhard Road nzay be warranted in the future. The traffic analysis was based on both Gebhard and Beebe Roads are widened to full collector status. B:1CentraI PointlWhife Hawk.doc n The applicant has provided typical building footpriazts an Attachment " E "that correspond with the building elevations ar~d statistics in Attachznerlt " F ". As shown irz the preceding table, this application proposes a reductiozi from ilie standard setback requirements dependent upon the type of single-family dwelling and its location. While most of the setbacks are similar to TOD style cievelopznent, tlae applicant proposes that the alley-loaded garages be setback three-foot setback Planned Unit Development/Zoning: Planned Unit Developrxzents are designed to offer flexibility in lot dimensions, minimum sizes, setbacks and public works standards when there is same unique or unusual quality present on the land. While there are no particularly unique conditions present an the subject property, the applicant would use the flexibility of a PUD rather than conventional subdivision standards. The applicant proposes that via the PUD TOD style development standards would be used. Implementing the TOD components could be considered complementary 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, irrxpraved aesthetics anal erzviranmental 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-1-6 zone district are shown relative to the applicant's proposed requirements. Standard Rec~uiretnents 17.20.050 Minimum lot area-interior Minimum Iot area-corner Minimum 1otwidtb-interior Minimum lot width-corner__ Miniu:zum_lot depth _ _ W Minimum front yard setback Minimum side yard setback-interior Minimum side yard setback-street ~__.-...... ~.~_ __ __ _ v_ Minimum rear yard setback _ White Hawk PUD 6,000 square feet -~-....___ _ _ ~ 3,450 to 11,300 square feet~~- 'I,000 square feet ! 4,588 to 8,280 square feet 60 feet - 40 feet 70 feet _ ~ _m .. ~~ ~ 41 feet ~..._~ Presumed 100 feet (for 6K min.} _--i--- -- - _.._.__---.._.._. ~ 87 feet 20 feet W_ __ __ __ -^ 15 feet-house, 20 to~arage _. _ _ ____, S feet per story _ ~~~ ~ 5 feet re ardless of stories g _ __~ l O feet, 20 for garage access _~....__ _..___ ' 9 feet no garage access 15 feet _ _ _.. 15 feet interior lot, Alley-load j garage is 3 feet Agency Comments: The Public Works and Brzilding Departments have provided their comments, recommendations and requirements for this application {Attachments H and I}. Rogue Valley Sewer Services was notified of this application and has not submitted correspondence. Jackson County Fire District Number Three has submitted a detailed list of requirements that the applicant will need to satisfy (Attachment J}. i/:1Central PointlWhite E~atvk.doc Fi~idings of Fact and Conclusions of Lary: In reviewing these findings of fact and conclusions of law as submitted by the applicant, the planning commission should refer to the followi~ag criteria to grant or deny a PUD whereas; CPMC 17.68.044, states `~ PUD shall be permitted, altered ar denied in accordance with the standards artd procedures of this chapter....{and to approve or rlerzy a PUD, the planrzirzg cornnzission shall find whether ar not the standards of this chapter, including the following criteria are either met, can lie rnet by observance of conditions, or are not applicable. Criterion 1 That the develaprrzent of a harmonious, integrated plan justifres the exceptions to the rzorntal requirements of this title; Finding: White Hawk is consistent with the Beebe/Gebhard Road Master Plan. The intent of the Master Plan was to provide a general framework for land use and neighborhood circulation for the study area, in an effort to facilitate development of the area as a harmonious and integrated neighborhood. The PUD proposal facilitates the provision for the open space designation per the Master Plan, while maintaining an acceptable lot yield. The applicants have proposed using development standards that have been successfully implemented within the Twin Creeks Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and with these standards intend to create a unique, comfortable and well-planned neighborhood. The TOD type standards are afore flexible in allowing a range of housing types, setbacks ofoff-street parking requirements when compared to standard residential zoning. For other TOD standards such as landscaping, the requirements are more restrictive than standard development. The implementation of White Hawk and the adjoining Gebhard Village developments will occur in a more harmonious fashion since these projects are set to occur in an area that is largely underdeveloped at this time. 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 proposed tentative plan for a Planned Unit Development is a permitted use in the R-1-6 zoning districts. The R-1-6 zoning is consistent with the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan map designation. The Comprehensive Plan encourages innovative residential planning and development techniques that would help to increase land use efficiency and reduce the cost of utilities and services (Comprehensive Plan, Page XII-l2). Criterion 3 E:1Centa-al PointlWhite Hawk.doc The location, size, clesign and operating characteristics ortlze PUI~ will have rrzirzimal adverse impact on the livability, value or appr-opr•iate developrrzerrt of the st~rrounclirtg area; Finding: The intent of the Beebe/Gebhard Road Master Plan was to coordinate land use compatibility and the need for a neighborhood circulation plan, both of wlaicli 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-1-6 designation for the project site, The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is Law Density Residential. The R-1-6 zoning is consistent with the Low Density Residential designation. Planned Unit Developme~~ts are allowed within the R-1-6 district subject to compliance with Section 17.68.010. The Comprehensive Plan encourages innovative residential planning and development techniques i~ the farm 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 cast of utilities and services (Comprehensive Plan, Page Xli-12). 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 constructioft within a reasonable time as determined by the commission; Finding: Duncan Development has been an active firm within the City of Central Point during the past and has been responsible for projects like the Green Valley Subdivision, Pheasant Creep Estates Subdivision and most recently a new commercial building near the gateway sign near Interstate Five. Based upon this development history, financial vested interest in the Community and a reasonable development schedule, there is no reason to doubt the ability of the developer to follow through with this project. Criterion 5 That traffic congestion will not likely fie created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation artd parking; Finding: The project will generate approximately 87 PM peak trips, ar l5% of the PM peak hour trips estimated for the Master Plan area {East Pine Street Corridor 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 current level of service on Gebhard Raad, or any of its intersections. The internal circulation plan is capable of accommodating the project's internal traffe needs. Parking will comply with City standards for on-site residential parking. E:1Central Pointlwhite Ha~vk.doc G fil anticipation of the need to mitigate increased traffic as a result of devclopnlent within the Beebe/Gebhard Master Plan Axea, the City will regtziz•e developers to sign a development agreement with triggers that obligate roadway improvcznents to specific developn~ez~t activities. The developer has been working with City Staff and City-funded consulting firms to address the future traffic concerns tlaat will be associated with the development of the Master Plan area. While this development shows two full width streets and an alley connecting into Gcbhard Road, there is a larger plan 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 a north-south arterial linking Gebhard Road to East Pine Street. This az~d other developers in the area will sign a development agreement to obligate their project to the traffic mitigation plan. Criterion 5 That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate carnrnercial 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 arzd necessary storage; Finding: This proposal pertains to a residential development and the industrial criterion does not apply. Criterion S The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are pr•eserxt; Finding: There are no natural features such as streams, shorelines, wooded cover or rough terrain on this property that was formerly a pear orchard. The orchard will be replaced by residential development that will include a 27,930 square foot open space/park area with a pedestzian connection that could eventually tie the development into the Bear Creek Greenway which is located to the west across Gebhard Road. Criterion 9 The PUD will be cor~zpatible with the surrounding area; E:1Centrat Pointlwhite Ha~vk.doc ~_ Finding: White Hawk is proposed for an area recently zoned R-1-6, Reside~~tial single-family and the project adjoins the proposed Gebard Village PUD (Zoned R-2, Residential Two-1{an-tily} to the north and Beebe Road with R-L, Residential Low-Density properties 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-Pamily and is presea~tly underdeveloped with rural homes and the Shepard of the Valley Catholic Church. rn comparing the existing uses with the anticipated future uses of the area, the White Hawk PUD provides a transition between the high density parcels to the north 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 Road is a GO foot wide County Road that will be upgraded to accommodate the additional traffic associated with the development, but for the residents across the road to the west, the PUD will likely be an adverse impact. In the long term, there is the possibility that the County-zoned properties nay became 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 White Hawk. Criterion 10 The PUD will reduce the deed for public facilities a~ad services relative to outer permitted uses for the land. Finding: The area surrounding the project site is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and was identified for urban uses as early as 1973. Earlier this year, the City Council annexed the property and more recently, rezoned the property from R-L to R-1-6 in anticipation of this project that will increase density and land efficiency. As density increases, one of the fundamental benefits is the reduetian of the need for public services, relative to the extension of the services and eventually, a reduced cost of maintenance since there is less lineal distance in infrastructure. What this means is that while the entry level cost of putting water, sewer and electricity to the site n~.ay be 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. Tf 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 one of the following options: 1. Adapt Resolution No._, approving the tentative PUD plan subject to the reconnmended conditions of approval (Attachments G, H & I}; or 2. Deny the tentative PUD plan; or E:1CentraE PointlWhite ~a~vk.dac 3. Continue the review of the tentative PUD plan at the discretion of the Con3n~ission. Attachments: A: Notice of Public Hearing B: Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions C: Tentative Plan D: Development Schedule E: Building Footprint F: Elevations and Statistics G: Planning Department Conditions of Approval H: Public Works Staff Report I: Building Department Staff Report 3: Correspondence from other agencies K: Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions E:1Central PointlWhite ~lawk.doc ~,, City of Central Point CENTRAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT PO' NT Tam Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director Ken Gerschler Community Pianrler Dave Aivord Community Planner Lisa Morgan Planning Technician Notice of Public Hearing Date of Notice: Jane '15, 2EI05 Meeting Date: July 5, 2005 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Gentra! Point City Hall ~ 55 S. Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF 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-1-6, Residential Single Family zoning district. The property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 21fV 02, Tax Lot(s) 2700 & 2701. The property is located north of Beebe Road, east of Gebhard Road, and west of Hamrick Road. Pursuant to ORS 197.763 (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, LlENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 27 5 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED T4 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 &'47.58 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating #o General information and conditions of the project approval. .. PUBLlC CC?MMEI~TS 1. Any person interest in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 5, 2005. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to f~entral Point City Hail, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Or. 9502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. The City Fife Number is 05011. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 6fi4-3321 ext 292. SUMMARY aF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the application(s) and technical staff reports. The Commission, will hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application(s). 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. Gity regulations provide that the Cen#ral Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. .~ White Hawk Pla~uaed Development City of Central Paint, Oregon Duncan Development, lnc CESNW, Tnc. 1>~ ~ a~~ V ~ ~.u -,. ~,,~:..~~A. ,c` k s r~:"~, i'~; ' Land Use Approval Findings A - 3 ~,~ ~~~1~ ~~~ ~r Page 6 of 22 // White Hawk Planned Development City of Centre! Point, Oregon Duncan Development, Tnc Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Subdivision A -- 3 chapter 1?.68 PLANNED UNIT DEVEI.OPMEN'i` (Pi7Dj 1?.68.010 -Purpose, The purpose of planned unit development [PUD) 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 and setbacks of buildings and structures. A PUD should have a harmonious variety of uses, utilize the economy of shared services and facilities, and reduce municipal costs of operating and maintaining services while insuring substantial compliance with the district regulations and other provisions of this code 17.6$.020 -Size of the planned unit developuent site. A PUD shat] be on a tract of Iand five acres or larger, except that a PUD may be on a tz•act of land of more than one acre but less than five acres .......... Finding: The proposed PUD is requested for a parcel of land totaling approximately 18.75 acres. The primary requirement requiring a parcel of five or more acres is met. 17.58,030 -Application and review. A. Applications and review of PUDs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 1.24 of this code and all applicable Iaws of the state. The application shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set by city council. In the event the city incurs expenses in processing the proposal which exceed the amount of the filing fee, payment to the city of expenses in excess of the filizag fee shall be a condition of final acceptance of the PUD by the city, Finding: This application far a 91 lot residential PUD is accompanied by the current filing fee. ' B. For any use which is permitted or conditional in another zoning district, the PUD application may include an application for a zoning amendment, as provided in Chapter 17.88 of this code, or the PUD approval xnay include a condition to allow the use. Finding: A zoning amendment to R-1.6 has been submitted to the City. C. Where use is made of the PUD process, no building permits shat[ be issued until the planning commission has approved the PUD as provided in this chapter. Finding: The developer understands that no building permits will be issued for development on land associated with this PUD request until the Planning Commission has approved the application. D. An applicant may confer prior to application for a PUD with city staff in apre-application conference. Finding: Apre-application conference was held. ~. The commission shall act upon the application within ninety days from the date of accepting the completed application, excluding such time as may be necessary to complete any ' amendments initiated by the applicant. In taking action, the commission may deny a PUD, may grant a PUD as submitted, or may grant a PUD subject to conditions as provided in this chapter. Any PUD authorized shall be subject to all conditions unposed and shall be excepted frozx~ other provisions of this title only to the extent specified in the PUD approval. Finding: The developer understands that the PUD will be subject to any and all conditions of approval imposed on the proposed project by the Planning Commission. CESNW, inc. Page 7 of 22 1 /3 White Hawk Planned Development City of Central Point, Oregon Duncan Development, Inc - - - .iF `j~ ~~. 17.b8.(340 _ Criteria to grant or dewy a PUD. A FUD shall be permitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards and procedures of this chapter. In the case of a use existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and classified in this chapter as a PUD, a change in the use ar in fat area, or an alteration of structure shall conform with the requirements for PUD use. To approve ar deny a PUD, the planning commission shall find whether or not the standards of this chapter, including the following criteria are either met, can be rnet by observance of conditions, ar are not applicable. A. That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of this title; Finding: The proposed residential PUD development is designed to provide two sizes of single family detached dwelling unit parcels. The street pattern incorporates alleys in the center three "double blocks" to provide a harmonious streetscape -- eliminating garages -and providing a more pedestrian-friendly design on several interior streets. A central park space totaling over ~/~ acre is located within the project, and pedestrian connections are provided in addition to sidewalks throughout the design. Street connections to Beebe and Gebhard Road, and street stubs to adjacent parcels, further the vehicular and pedestrian linkages between this development and future projects. F3. The proposal wi11 be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the city; Finding: The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, because this is a residential project designed for land that is planned for residential development. The project complies with the zoning ordinance because the objectives and density envisioned by the requested R-1.6 zoning district are achieved with this PUD. All other applicable ordinance provisions are met as addressed in other sections of this application. 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; Finding: The size, design and functional characteristics of this PUD will be compatible with the nearby properties, because this parcel is part of a Master- Plan that envisioned residential development at the proposed density. Vehicular linkage with the surrounding streets and ad}acent parcels has been well located to facilitate safe, convenient traffic flows. 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 within a reasonable time as determined by the coxnmissian; Finding: The developer, Duncan Development, Inc., has been operating in the Medford/Central Point area for several years and has three completed or "in- progress" residential projects of similar size and complexity. CESIVW, Inc. Page S of 22 . -~ Wn1tC tiawx Ylanneci lleveiopment City o£ Central Point, Oregon Duncan Development, Inc E. That traffac congestion will not likely be created by the propnsed development ar will be obviated by demonstralaie provisions in the plan. for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking; Finding: Beebe Road and Gebhard Road are both classified as collector streets in the recent version of the Transportation plan for the City. They are planned as collectors in order to carry the anticipated traffic from the recently annexed areas of the city, as developed for residential use. By selecting safe paints of access onto the existing collector street system, the project minimizes congestion and traffic impacts. Additionally the project is designed with two additional connections to adjacent properties that will eventually be developed with public streets, providing numerous local street options for vehicular traffic entering and exiting the site. F. That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed; Finding: No commercial development is proposed as an element in this PUD request. G. That proposed industrial development will lie efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; Finding: No industrial development is proposed as an element in this PUD ' request. H. The PUD preserves natural features suckz as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; Finding: No significant natural features are found on the subject property, therefore, this criterion does not apply to this application. 1. The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area; Finding: fihe PUD will be compatible with the nearby properties, because this parcel is part of a Master-Plan that envisioned residential development at the proposed density. J. The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses far the land. Finding: The proposed PUD project will place no greater or more intense need on public facilities or infrastructure than any other similar residential development. The development will be fully constructed with ail necessary public facilities, and the park will provide additional benefit to the area. 17.68.050 -Preliminary devetopxnent plan. A preliminary development plan shall contain a written statement and snaps and other information on the area surrounding the proposed development to show the relationship of the planned unit development to adjacent uses, both existing and proposed. The plan shall include the following: A. A map to scale showing street systems, lot or partition lines and other allocations of land for management or use; Finding: The drawing package included with the application contains a site plan showing the proposed layout of streets, lots, and other allocations of land, including the open space tract. CESNW, Inc. Page 9 of 22 i~ White Hawk Planned Development City of Central Point, Oregon Duncan Development, Inc ~,~ ; f - .~L~. .:;~~„ '.- r'?:~i ~~ ~:~ ,. B. Measurements of areas proposed to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved for public streets, parks, parkways, parking, pedestrian ways, playgrounds, school sites, public buildings and similar public and semipublic uses; Finding: The site plan indicates those lands proposed for dedication or reservation for public use. C. A plot plan to scale for each building site and common open space area, showing the approximate location of buildings, strcuctures, landscaping and other improvements and indicating the open spaces around buildings and structures; Finding: The drawings associated with this application show the proposed open space, public infrastructure and preliminary landscaping. D. Elevation and perspective drawings of proposed structures; Finding: No buildings or structures are proposed in conjunction with this residential PUD development. E. A development schedule indicating: ~. The approximate start date of construction, Finding: The developer anticipates initiating the infrastructure construction for Phase I during the Summer 2005. 2, The stages in which the project will be built and the approximate start date of each stage, Finding: The PUD project is proposed to construct in two phases, with Phase I starting in Summer of 2045 and Phase Il starting no later than Summer 200?. 3. The anticipated rate of development, Finding: The project will progress at a rate of development of 30-45 home starts per year. 4. The approximate completion dates for each. stage, Finding: The developer anticipates completion of all of the infrastructure in the late Fall of 200?, with construction of the final dwelling units in 2009. 5. The area, location and degree of development of common. open space that will be provided at each stage; Finding: The public open space will be graded and landscaped with installation of all amenities prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit. F. Agreements, provisions or covenants which govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the planned unit development and any of its common open space areas; Finding: A copy of "draft" CC 8s R documents governing the PUD development and the open space are included with this application package. The final CC 8s R documents will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to recording the final plat. G. The following plans and diagrams either separately or contained on the figures contained in subsections A through D of this section: 1. An off-street parking and loading plan, Finding: An off-street parking and loading plan is not applicable to a residential development. The design of the public streets accommodates on street parking 2. A circulation diagram indicating proposed anavement of vehicles, goods and pedestrians within the planned unit development and to and froze thoroughfares. Any special engineering features and traffic regulation devices needed to facilitate or insure the safety of this circulation pattern shall be shown, Finding: The proposed pedestrian and vehicle circulation plan is included with the drawing package. The vehicles will travel on all public streets and alleys, and sidewalks and pedestrian paths are provided for non--vehicular travel. CESNW, Inc. Page 10 of 22 . ~• White Hawk Planned Development '' ~z ~,. City of Central Paint, Oregon yrr , Duncan Development, Ia-c ~ ~' S ie) 3. A landscaping and tree plan, Finding: Preliminary landscaping for the open space is shown on the plans, street trees will be installed per the City's planting and spacing requirements. 4. An economic feasibility report or market analysis, Finding: An economic feasibility/ market analysis of the Medford/Central Point residential real estate market is included in Section A-4 of this application package. 5. A solar orientation plan showing the general orientation of buildings and roof slopes to each other, to streets, and to the landscaping and tree plan; Finding: A solar orientation plan is not applicable to this request for a residential development. Lots X through 7 meet a standard solar orientation requirement, as do 23 through 28, 31, 41, and 50 through 91. 63% of the proposed lots in the PUD meet the standard orientation for solar access. The majority of the remaining lots will have some solar access potential because they either face west (lots 32 through 49) or have a public ROW on their west side (lots S through 22). This allows western exposure for some measure of passive solar opportunity. H. Other pertinent information shall be included as the planning commission finds necessary to determine any appropriate and desirable requirements that may differ from those ordinarily applicable under this title. Finding: Representative home footprints and elevations are included for the rear-lot garage entry units to demonstrate the flexibility this PUD plan provides for home-builders catering to a diverse section of the regional market. 17.68.060 - ~i,na:l dc~reiopment glen,. A. Within six months following the approval of the preliminary development plan, the applicant shall file a final development plan with the city, containing in final farm the information required in the preliminary plan. The same shall be reviewed by the planning commission anal decided by the city council as set forth in Section 3..24.020 of this code. The council may, in its discretion and for a good cause, extend for six months the period for the filing of the final development plan. Finding: The developer will submit the necessary Final Plan documents for review by the Planning Commission and the City Council within the stipulated timeframes. B. The permit for a PUD shall expire and became void one year from the date on which it was issued unless an application for extension is filed and approved by the planning commission, The one year shall commence with approval of the final development plan. Finding: Phase I of the proposed development will commence within the stipulated one year timeframe, or an application far an extension will be filed. C. Within thirty days after the granting of a permit from a PUD the perzx~it application file nuzxzber shall be indicated on the zone map on the lot or lots affected by such permit. Finding: The zoning maps will be amended as necessary by jurisdiction staff. D. The fix~.al development plan shall continue to control the planned unit development after it is finished. Finding: The development of the PUD will be consistent with the final development plan throughout the construction of both phases. CESNW, Inc. Page 11 of 22 ,. White Hawk Planned Development City of Central Point, Oregon Duncan Development, Inc ={~: 17.5$.070 -Control of the PUD during and ai'ter completion. If the city council finds evidence of a major deviation from the preliminary or fine[ development plan, it shall advise the applicant to submit an application to the planning commission for amendment to the planned unit development. An amendment shall be considered in the same manner as an original application. A. The building official, in issuing a certificate of completion of the planned unit developzx~ent, shall note the issuance on the recorded final development plan. B. After the certificate of completion has been issued, the use of the land and the construction, modification or alteration of a building or structure within the planned unit development shall be governed by the approved final development plan. C. After the certificate of completion has been issued, no change of the approved final development plan shall be made without an amendment to the plan except as follows: 1. Minor modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the planning staff if they are consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan and do not increase the cubic footage of a building or structure; 2. A building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed may be reconstructed without approval of an amended planned unit development if the reconstruction complies with the purpose and intent of the final development plan. D. Amendments to a completed planned unit development may be approved, if appropriate due to cYianges in conditions since the final development plan was approved or because there have been changes in the development policy of the community as reflected by the comprehensive plan or related land use regulations. E. No modification or amendment to a completed PUD shall be considered as a waiver of the covenants limiting the use of the land, buildings, structures and improvements within the area of the PUD. All rights to enforce these covenants against any change permitted by this section are t expressly reserved. Finding: The development of the PUD will be consistent with the final development plan throughaut the construction of both phases. No amendments are contemplated at this time. Any amendments will be governed by the preceding section of the Central Point Municipal Code. 17.68.080 - Exceptiams to zoning and subdivision titles. The planning commission rriay allow exceptions within a PUD for dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, structure heights, distances between structures, street widths or off street parldng and loading facilities differing from the specific standards for the caning dzstrict 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. A. When the spacing between main buildings is Iess 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. Finding: The proposed building setbacks for the homes constructed throughout this project are as follows: Front yard setback to house or front porch 15 feet min. ^ Front yard setback to garage dour 20 feet min. ^ Interior side yard setback (regardless of stories) 5 feet min. ^ Street side yard setback 9 feet min. Rear yard setback to house l.5 feet min. 1 Rear yard setback to garage door 3 feet min. The objectives of the setback standards of the underlying zone are met with the proposed setback variations, while providing flexibility and opportunity for development of a wide range of home styles. Allowing homes and/or porches to extend closer to the street provides a varied streetscape and allows residents better opportunity to observe the street from front windows and/or porches. CESNW, Inc. Page I2 of22 white Hawk Planned Development ' ° _ ~r:'` City of Central Point, Oregon ~': Duncan Development, Inc - ;, ,; 5 u » Smaller interior side yard setbacks facilitates development of the alley-loaded lots with detached, rear-loading garages. Lot coverage for the individual lots shall be a maximum of 55% for the "alley- loaded" lots and 45% for the perimeter traditional lots. The increased lot coverage allowances are balanced by the provision of a park for active play and community use, and the addition of alleys tv remove zxxuch of the residential "garage-associated" vehicle movement from the interior streets. B. Buildings, off-street parking azxd loading facilities, open space, landscaping and screening shall conform to the specific standards of the zoning district within fifty feet of the boundary lines of the development. Finding: The development of the PUD will be consistent throughout the project, and will be compatible with the adjacent development and zoning districts. No off-street parking or loading facilities are proposed for Phis residential development. C. The planning commission may approve building heights greater Char, those autlaarized by the zoning district. The applicant shall demonstrate that: Finding: The homes proposed for this project will be 2 ~/~ stories yr 35 feet tall maximum, as allowed in the underlying zoning district. D. The building coverage for any PUD shall not exceed that which is permitted for other construction in the zone. Finding: Please refer to subsection (A} above addressing the adjustments to various specific zoning district standards, and the proposed deviations from those standards. );. When a PUD design would require exceptions to the regulations of the subdivision title, the planning commission. zxi.ay grant those conditions as part of the PUD. Tentative approval of the prelirrrinary development plan of a PUD shall also constitute tentative approval of a tentative plan under Chapter 16.10 if the materials are presented ira the manner prescribed by subdivision title. Finding: No exceptions to the regulations of the subdivision ordinance are necessary to facilitate the approval of this PUD application. 't'entative approval. of this PUD will also constitute tentative approval of the preliminary subdivision plan. The necessary materials as required in Title 16 - 16.10 have been provided in the preliminary drawing package. 17.58.090 -Accessory uses in a planned unit develogment. In addition to the accessory uses typical of the primary uses authorized, accessory uses approved as a part of a planned unit development may include the followir~.g uses: Finding: No accessory uses are proposed in conjunction with this residential PUD development. i i i CESNW, Inc. Page i3 of 22 .r Wfzite Hawk Planned Development ~ ~ c~~ ~~ ~ - City of Central Point, Oregon ~;:=. Duncan Development, Ine ~~ :~: '-- ,~:: }; ~~; I7.6$.100 -Density bonus. A. Within a PUD, the planning commission may authorize an increase in total number of dwelling units of up to five percent above the number of units (rounded up to the next full dwelling unit) otherwise authorized by the density requirements of the zoning district. For an increase of dwelling units to be permitted the planning commission shall find that the development will contain distinctive qualities or overall excellence in the areas of the site planning, architectural design, landscaping, solar orientation and recreational opportunities, which will provide a superior living environment and enhance the general area or neighborhood. B. For purposes of this section, residential base densities to which the allowable percentage adjustments may be applied are: Zoning District Maximum Density of PUD Gross Acre R-1. Residential low density 2.0 dwelling units per acre R-1-6 Residential single-family b.0 dwelling units per acre R-1-8 Residential single-family 5.0 dwelling units per acre R-1-10 Residential single-family 4.0 dwelling units per acre R-2 Residential two-family 12.0 dwelling units per acre * Before five percent density bonuses, i€ applicable. Finding: The development of the PUD will be consistent With the density of the R 1,6 single family district, and will be compatible with the adjacent development and zoning districts. i7.68. i LO -Common open space. A. Open areas may be accepted as common open space within a planned unit developtxxent 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 features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. The buildings, structures and improvements in the common open space shall 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; S. if buildings, structures or other improvements are to be made in the common open space, the developer provides a bond or other adequate assurance that the buildings, structures and other improvements have been completed according to the development plan. 8. Land shown on the final developzx~.ent 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 arty buildings, structures or other improvements which have been placed on it; 2. 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 an the common open space that is acceptable to the planning commission as providing far the continuing care of the space. Such an association shall be formed and continued for the purpose of maintaining CESNW, Inc. Page 14 of22 ~~ w a e 4 4 r q A e a r i r White Hawk Planned Development City of Central Point, Oregon Duncan. Develapmezrt, Inc t~ - ~~' ~~' "- ~' . '3:y the corrrrxzon 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 15.2(3. 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. Finding: The Open Space will be conveyed to the City - if so required _ or will be retained and managed by the Homeowners Association. 17.6$,120 -General conditions. In permitting a new PUD, the planning commission may impose, in addition to those standards and requirerxaents expressly specified by this chapter, conditions which it fords necessary to avoid a detrimental environmental impact and to otlxerwise protect the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. Those conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: Finding: Conditions A through K of this section of the ordinance apply to commercial and/or industrial PUD developments and therefore, are not applicable to this request for a residential PUD subdivision. 17.68.130 - Residential conditions. Planned residential developments map have the following conditions attached: A. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, recreational facilities shall be installed as may be required by the planning commission; B. Pedestrian movement upon the site shall be encouraged and separated from vehicular traffic through a comprehensive system of paved pathways; C. Development for residential and accessory uses shall be at a specified maximurr~ density; D. Off-street parking shall be provided at the ratio specified in Section 17.64.©40 and for visitor parking, one space per four units; and for recreational vehicle storage, one space per seven units. Vehicles shall park only in designated areas or stalls. There shall be no parking within turnaround areas or main driveways. Visitors' parking shall be clearly identified and maintained; E. Boats, trailers, campers and similar recreational vehicles may be stored irr designated areas only. The permanency, security and visual screening of a recreational vehicle storage area shall be assured by the construction of permanent walls not less than seven feet in height; F. "Tot Iots" shall be provided in addition to adult recreational facilities for tyre year-round use of children residing on the site. The planning cozxrmission shall specify the number of tot lots required and the type of construction for play equipment; G. If units ixr the project are rented, the owner of the sutaject property shall provide for the regular and continuing axraintenance of all structures, open space and landscaped areas and alk off-street parking and maneuvering areas. An agreement guaranteeing such continuing maintenance and giving lien rights to the city in the event of lack of said maintenance shall be submitted to the city attorney for his review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits; H. If units are sold individually {condominiums), ahomeowners' association shall be established for the purpose of permanently maintaining aII of the subject property, including common areas and individual units, buildings and structures, and a homeowners' association agreement guaranteeing such a maintenance by individual owners and providing for lien rights and reimbursement to the city for any costs incurred thereby shall be submitted to the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits; I. A bicycle path system shall be provided that is either integrated into the pedestrian sidewalk system or designed as a separate system and appropriately marked and signed. The system should include bicycle access to all dwelling units, and such facilities should connect to the city's bicycle system plan. Bicycle racks shall be provided for residents and visitors and other features that may be required. Finding: Any necessary conditions of approval will be placed on this project CESNW, Inc. Page 15 af22 ~y A~~ .. white Hawk Planned Development {- City of Central Paint, Oregon ,.. ~ v DuncanDevelapment, Inc ;,~: ' w Chagter 16.10 TENTATIVE PLANS 16.1Q,010 -Submission of agglicativn--Filing fee. The applicant shall submit an application and tentative plan together with improverr~ent plans and other supplementary material as znay be required to indicate the development plan and snail submit ten copies to the city together with a filing fee defined in the city's adopted planning application fee schedule. The diagrams submitted shall consist of ten copies at the scale specified in Section 16.1QA20 and one copy in. an eight-and-one-half-inch by eleven-inch format Finding: This application fora 91. lot residential. PUD and tentative subdivision is accompanied by the current filing fees and the required copies of the tentative plan. 16.1o.[i15 - Agplication and review--Fees. Applications and review thereof shall conform to the provisions of Chapter i.24 and all applicable city ordinances and laws of the states. All costs of administrative and legal staff tune costs, plans checks, construction inspection, preparation of agreements, in excess of the filing fee, shall be bortxe by the applicant and paid upon billing by city. liailure to pay such casts as billed shall constitute grounds for denial of final plat approval or building permits. Finding: Any necessary additional fees required fvr processing and approval of this project will be borne by the applicant, Duncan Development, Inc. and paid upon demand. N r N i r e 16.10.(32U - Scale. The tentative plan shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen by twenty-four inches in size or a multiple thereof at a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet or, for areas over one hundred acres, one inch equals two hundred feet, and shall be clearly and legibly reproduced. Finding: The tentative plans and preliminary utility drawings are drafted at the requested scale and reproduced on 24 x 36 inch sheets, which are a multiple of 18" by 24". 16.10.030 -General ieformation. The following general information shall be shown on or included with the tentative plan: A. Proposed name of the subdivision. This name must not duplicate or resemble the name of another subdivision in the county; Finding: The project name - WhiteHawk - is not a duplicate of any other subdivision in the county. B. Date, northpoint, and scale of drawing; C. Location of the subdivision by section, township, and range, and a legal description sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the proposed tract or the tract designation or other description according to the records of the county assessor; D. Nazn.es and addresses of the owner or owners, applicant and engineer or surveyor; Finding: The data requested in the three preceding items is included on the tentative plat drawings. E. A title report indicating all interests of record in the property which is the subject of the application. Finding: A title report for the subject property is included with the application package materials. CESN W, Inc. Yage 16 of 22 White Hawk I'iaztned Development ~ '~ ,~ City of Central POitltt, Oregon ~;~;~„ Duncan Development, Inc ~~ •~ Z6.~0.040 - 1~ristiug conditions. The following existing conditions shall be shown on the tentative plan: A. The location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the tract, easements, railroad rights-of--way and such other important features within or adjacent to the tract as may be required by the city; Finding: fihe preliminary design drawings illustrate all the pertinent exisitng conditions on and adjacent to the property. B. Contour lines related to some established bench mark or other datum as approved by th.e city when the city determizxes that the nature of the topography or size of the subdivision requires such data. Contour lines shall have the following minimum intervals: 1. Two foot contour intervals for ground slopes less than five percent; 2. Five foot contour intervals for ground slopes exceeding five percent; Finding: Topographic contour lines are shown on the preliminary utility plan. C. The location of at least one temporary bench mark within the plat boundaries; Finding: A temporary benchmark is identified on the preliminary utility plan. D. Location and direction of all watercourses and drainage systems; Finding: Preliminary storm drainage design is shown on the utility plan. E. Natural features, such as rock outcroppings, marshes and wooded areas; Finding: There are no natural features of signif cancc on the subject property. F. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures which the subdivider proposes to leave on the property after platting; Finding: The developer does not intend to keep any of the existing structures as part of the new development. G. 'rhe location within the subdivision and in the adjoining streets and property of existing sewers and water mains, culverts and drain pipes, and all other existing or proposed utilities to be used on the property to be subdivided and invert elevations of sewers at paints of probable connections; Finding: Existing and proposed utility lines are shown on the preliminary utility plan. H. Toning on and adjacent to the tract. Finding: Zoning of adjacent parcels is shown on an excerpt of the zoning map of the city -included with the application package. e i e i a 7.fs.lO.O5a -Additional information. The following additional information shall also be included on the tentative plan: A. Streets, showing location, width, proposed names, approximate grades and approximate radii of curves and the relationship of all streets to any projected streets as shown of any development plan adopted by the city; Finding: Preliminary street design and street sections are shown on the preliminary utility plans. B. Easements, showing the width and purpose; Finding: Necessary utility easements will be shown on the final plat. C. Lots, showing approximate dimensions, area of smallest lot or lots and utility easements and building setback lines to be proposed, if any; CESNW, Inc. Page 17 of 22 white Hawk planned Development City of Central Point, fhegon Duncan Development, Inc arm` D. Sites, if any, proposed for puzposes other than dwellings; E. Area in square footage of each lot and the average lot area. Finding: Approximate dimensions of each lot, area of each lot, and proposed setbacks are shown on the preliminary plat and defined in an earlier section of the findings. The area proposed for the Open Space is shown on the preliminary plat. 16.10.Ob0 -Partial de~relopment. When the property to be subdivided contains only part of the tract awned or controlled by the applicant, the city may require a development plan of a layout for streets, numbered lots, blocks, phases of development, and other improvements in the undivided portion, indicating inter-relationship with the portion sought to be divided. The city shall have authoz-ity to require that any adjacent parcel or parcels owned or controlled by the applicant but not included in the proposed subdivision boundaries be included in the development whenever inclusion of such parcel or parcels would be an appropriate extension of the development and in the best interests of the public, considering the development plan and the relationship between the surrounding area and the area of proposed development. Finding: The preliminary plat illustrates that the entire subject property is proposed far development, there are no portions available far future development. There is a mall remnant of the property left over after the realignment of Gebhard and Seebe Road, but that parcel is not suitable for any residential development. .16.10.070 - Explanatory information. Any of the following information may be required by the city and if it cannot be shown practicably on the tentative plan, it shall be submitted in separate statements accompanying the tentative plan: A, A vicinity map showing all existing subdivisions, streets anal unsubdivided land ownerships adjacent to the proposed subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be connected to existing streets; Finding: A copy of the approved Master Plan for the area is included with the application package. The Master Plan shows adjacent properties and a preliminary street plan providing major connections throughout the area. B. Proposed deed restrictions in outline form; Finding: No deed restrictions are proposed at this time. C. Appro7zimate centerline profiles showing the proposed finished grade of all streets, including the extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision; Finding: Centerline prof les will be provided during the construction document production phase of the project development. The area is reasonably flat and transitions between streets is not anticipated to cause design concerns.. D. The approximate location and size of all proposed and existing water and sewer lines and storm drainage systeans. Finding: The preliminary sanitary system and storm drainage system is shown on the preliminary utility drawing. i -- - - CESNW, Inc. Page i 8 of 22 White Hawk Planned Development ~s~i ~I City of Central Point, Oregon ~ ; ,,,; Duncan Development, Inc ,_~ f 16.10.Q8Q -Tentative plan approval. Approval of the tentative plan shall not constitute final acceptance of the final plat of the proposed subdivision or partition for recording; however, approval of the tentative plan shall be binding upon city for the purpose of the approval of the final plat if the final plat is in substantial compliance with the tentative plan and any conditions of approval thereof. The action of the council in approving the tentative plan shall be noted on two copies thereof, including reference to any attached documents describing any conditions. One copy of the tentative plan shall be returned to the applicant and the other refiained in the city files with a memorandum setting forth the action of the council. I5.10.Q9Q -Conditions ors tentative plan approval. The city may attach to any tentative plan approval given under this chapter specific conditions deemed necessary in the interests of the public health, safety or welfare,.......: Finding: Any necessary conditions of approval will be placed on this project. 9 i a i i CESNW, Inc. Page 19 of 22 m r 't 5!' 7C 107 1 ; ~ . '~ 1 `.1 I~ IJJ 11 © n 00 ~ ^Z ~ t4 3 ' (_ 1 1 1 I q ~y 1 $. + FLSIIQOI`I ~~~ I.~, 106 4 _ F [ - gear I iYiCt~ ~`~g'. ~Iq .-I ~l=~lii`ge riigo ~i ~O Ki ~ ~ Bp F1C ^' -- ~ ~ a. .r ~ .,s. o- I ~._- =' --~ t ~ € :~ ~x 1 ~ J~ ~ ~ ~ Y . _ _ __ . ~i 1 - ss Rmo' ' ~.. u a a w •e• .6 r b- a ' ~ qw ~ ~._•..~---- 1 a~ ° l q~tiCQON~iv.°o..$'.a~tagw>~i Caere ~K~~t , & N ~ ~ o -=-- _ r+ ~ e - ~ ~~~ v -f ~ ~ T ~TT~-~ ~~ ~ j~-~~,~ .. tp ~, iCNYeCw C R q 1q~ q 7i{ ,fI [[r .,, I{ aJj} ~_ _S tact 1 ~~ ~ P ~~ 1 \~' sY w4~. L7" 1 ~9' ~ ~ ~ b' ~ Je' '" I 8 b ] l C [ 1.n ~W ~4+ 1~4+~j ~w~t~~w ~.Ne`[i ~o r'-` ~ 1 y~ ~ ~~ I[F N ~ a YI `L+ r1~1 N `4 YI , ~ ~ I ~f~ 3ihWKDRTVE ~ r Y y y Y{ t ~ ~J W~ ' 4 " `M~ A ~ ' yN 1Q .-~ 11 00 4qb P ~~ IX a Rt ~ 1k©Y]I1 k~~. .. ~~.J{F 11---q W~ -_~ qa .1 -l E ~ IYF~~~Y~-{ }R~ ~o- 1 q lu id n1 Mqm yi~v ~l~~iiCM `ti~3: Yi~L~s `liC N tii 4~• ~N `-~ _ { ~ ~ - ' I ~ f ,~~ nriri¢¢¢ C a ~ --„ t 6 ~~ 1 111 y , GOSEI t~C'K DRIVE ~` ~ 1.. . c~ +, s _ ._ .. _ .,_ 1 ,~ _~ x ~~_, ~-------,~ __.-~- ~,-- z,. ~ - -- ,~' 1 ~~ ~~ >; ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ a ~.~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~~~, tar ~..~-- .a t, y - ~, , ~ ~ ~--tom,. __-~ ~ ~ ~ M ~~- ~~ ` • i ..~ \~/ w a les ~ f ` `,* `` -~ 1 ~\ 8/~~ , di ~ ~~ `~\ C~ ~ C I~ ~ G 1 ~~ ~t ~ 'L' 8~ -- ~ `~~~ 1 r~ ~ 1 s ~ ~ 8 r.. 8~,13L+ROAD k 4 +- p M ""}~~~ "~'""~ C E S ~ NW ar rw oz r.nols zrco t sml ~, .,A PRELIMINARY , 517' ; PLAN tansrwtet.a+am;sx ouxc v mamwo~s. U.t ! ~~~~~,,,~ SmM~Mss +was~..ee~ r,a ecc xs5 [{Ni1C1S. 1R'rt, C~1[ >17b2 PM 511-~bfY-520.1 FAK 541-16'r20T0 ATTACJ-IMENT "D" DEVELOPMENT' SCi-iEDULE The applicant has not submitted a Development Schcdule far White Hawk PUD. Development details will be pz'ovided by the applicant at the J~zly 5, 205 Planning Commission meeting 11Cpchslleity widelPlanning12045 Land Use liiles105411105011TPreport.doc ,~ ~ ".~~..~~`'`-..: t ~' .<., .~~rl',. ~~~k~2',y;:~'.`'.-.-:`.'ur . ~ rl,. m,~ e~ x~,. .. _ 7.-r. kr.. 3 ,... k. - . •..a ^- First Floor Plan Plan lD: CHP-24378 Order Code: ci33 .~~ ~. ....~ ~u t . ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~,~~~~ ~ 1 `ka ..~ ~5.. ~ , . ~~~ ~~ ~_,rt.`. ~; N - . ~ ~::. d ._ Copyright Qc 2g05 ,The COOL house pfans company p~{fie 2 of 4 ~. F{ ~~ 1 ~ t ~ .. ~ ,.~~~~.' -: #z2 „~$?... _~ .r , `~ . ~ ~ . ~~ rA: ~~ . : f ns } `' ` ' ~ ' '~ " 5 4 . . . .., .. e .. :.~. , . - . f , f r ~ ; ~e, ..,_ _ . . Second Flo©r Plan I P an ID. CHP~20378 ~,. O~•dez Code; c133 ~~., ~~~_~ ~.. ~ ~.. r- ~~f~ Copyright QC 2005 ,The CODL house plans company Page ~ Uf ~ d s ~a t 'c~i?S*~r.mi z is 3 ` ' (J r -„ h a ^x- ~ ~" xv .., _ n ~V ~ ~ ~ ,..~+, r 4 9 a _ ._ . _,. x,74,. .t ~ t ~'. ` ~ t`..s J y 'y~y~ F Z"' ~ti5 ~' L ~~k "s _ yy~; , K~ _ r~r ~4s~.' ° ~.. X .. ,: e..~ ,i «+4, '?:,:. ~ - , s. ~.f'.n .sr. , w. r i.i ;, x , ~+hti tt.°~~ r. ;:a~,.,z ., .. Firsfi Floor Plan Pian iD: CHP- 17642 Order Code: c133 ~_~~ family ~. ~[ 2'10 x 13'2 .~ :, T d Ti £7 `ter dry[ an/~~ r~ g 2' l ll X ~ ~' opt.-porch pQf 0.___________,~_.... _~._ _ _ frrs~ hoar ~/ ~ine~~ ...__. s'2 x s' U ~[ I ~Y.».h~ vNa. ; _ island., C i~ 11'4x8' ~~~t - : i '. i, .% ~ ~a :; ~. J ~.!~ m~sfier she 11'2 x 14'2 apt. bay ~~~ 2`Jf s ~~~,. . , ~~;.t ~7'3- y ~=;. €1t~ ~_. Capyr'sghf ©2005 ,The COOL house plans company Page ~ of ~ S~~x~~~ ~ ~ ~.}~ ir~C'4 ~~'`~2~`sr~ a ~Aa ~3 ,f~'s~.~ `? ~:, ~ t 7 t , +i .. "' ~`r ( ~h ~~ ~~ ~. ez Codc: cz33 Fi~s~ Floor Plan Plan lD: CHP-1145 ~ Copyrighi ©2405 ,The C04L house plans company Paoe 2 of ~ ~~~ ~ a ` ~~ ~ LL ~x '} ~~- /{~. ~ L _ v . ~ . ~',- .,.+~°^'~.-... """' if; r ' } ~ ~~~ s `'C5~ % ' i ~ ,, T s• ~.. ~ '~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~'~ ' r. ~.a - ~ c s !c..-~. .:. ~u. .~.... : ,.5 w'i :~- 3 . S. +~. t . ~ x ~.L ;y Second Floor Pian ~ Pian ID: CHP-1144 ~...~:_ Qrc3e~• Cvci.c: ~c13:~ " ~ „~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ , , x ~ n r ~~ r ~.. . ~~~, ~ ;.: ~~L Copyright Qc 2005 ,The COOL house plans eornpany Page ~ ~f ~ ~ +- y ~ ~~ ~ j~ ~ ~ ,.ti > Second Floor Plan Plan 1D: CHP-17642 4~•clcr Codc: c133 second float £~~ ~. ~.. >~. Copyright ©2005 ,The COOL house plans tympany Page ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~" BR. 3 I BR. 2 9/10 X 13/6 4/10 x 33/6 e u rr. ~. S V l L A i ~AC~ ~ ~~.T ~~ ~ ~~~rti; GARAGE 20/o x 1s/6 . l 1 v '=-' ~ l~ilfti~lit~_ II ~ ! ©]997 Alan Mascord _ , ~ ~~ I ~ I Design Assoc€ates, €nc, ._ T _ ~ ~.~~~~~~~~~~€~ All rights reserved. f~) ~w - 3 %' , i ~ ~j' l _' W ~. . ~ '; 1 flr1. l ~ ~,1 _ uuns `~ ~ MASTi=R 1` ~ NOOK ! - r'~>:Ez 12/6 X 10/8 ~ i9' CLGI ! ~ 11/0 X 11/4 _ ! ~ i~ ~.~ PLAHi SMELF \. ~_i ~ Y.. ~ ~ ... ... lAN7 S~tF L_~„p~y~ TWO 5T6AY GiSEAT pM. TWO STpSiY GK>=A7~ ~RM °~`"~ ~" BF`oW ~ ©IN1NG BELOW 16/0 X 56/6 10/0 x ti/0 ....._.._~_..._. __- 64' '' PORCH ~~ _ 1 27' ` ~~ ALAN ~ ~ r~ veer F~opl• -- 845 Sq. Ft. mascord. colll Main Floor 860 Sq. Ft. 1305 N.lu, 18th Ave. 503 / 225-91G1 . n r= s r c ~ A s s o c r A r ~. s, i N c . Total Area 1705 Sq, Ft. Portland, OR 97209 800 / 411-4231 ®~ ALAN ~ Upper Floor ~ 845 5q. Ft. ~~ Main Floor 847 Sq. Ft. DESIGN ASSOC I ATES, INC. Total Area 1692 Sq. Ft. ~ 2/" >'- mascord.com 1305 N.W. 18th Ave. 503 / 225-9161 Portland, OR 97209 800 / 41 i-0231 u A ++va +wvaaa.. +•+.ab...uaaty w., ~. a.~.~.~avxa iw}a.,a au~.wV 4V} Lvat}a+aaa~, •s w •v •i xxV ally ~Ri _i- ,_~ .s ~F3vilft:_5 ~' fiS.i~~~: ~~~SC~tl~l[t!f~ SITS. TE;AP ~,:~f~Tf~CT J5 ~ 1~ii',E ~ C~rrerlt E-aitaAl ubv r vi c. E ~ ~ ~ S ens©~-~~H~r~-o~, the KII`ECAID f~~~~EsP~i~S :. . U ~~ii?L~~ ~Ir~iti~ ~ I3EjC~~L~ TOLf~ ~'~=~='kl TOL=? ~~~~~i ~3~ ~` ~`~f3f ~~ii~(~fl~" ~~1l~ Cantaet Rr_eb~n :: ' Satin Cvr mate ". ITi'F8F5'Ii3t3Dri: .: 2.&t~0.9~#7:~52~r -mail Ftsb~rr~s:~rr Upper i_evel e'~aEl? fvt~!'E ~~: II=~~~° . i~~tr:F~ f~~l.~~V4~T~ =rII~T-~.~FT PLAN IN~ORN{ATION CALL 800.947.7526 MONDAY -FRIDAY 7pm - 6pm Cr OR ~R~rP h141~>' Plan Price: ~7~.5.Qa Levels: 2 5"{"ORY Style: FARMHOUSE Bedrooms: ~ 3 Main Level SgFt.: 603' 2nd Level SgFt.: 594' Total SgFt.: 1297' Width: 21`-4" Depth: 43' - fl° Max Ridge Height: 25'-8" Garage Stalls: 0 r~~~=~-l~l<,~i ~`~ I f~T~ Design Library provided by http://wvvw.herhome.com/~omeplans-~4.asp?PlanNo=G71 ON&~'lanslD=2002&Exposure=3... 3I412p05 Front Elevation t~lain l.eve! u ~f 3~~tC~ r E k. F:f,ti .. uF;.s~siiE'~~S G !r`; E1~ t€!~} Si Liil• ~~!;E,~~~~IFII~W ~~r}}Tk~:T }J~ I~Clisc,G 1{C~ii•~~EllfatA~5 ' ter' l• ti pt~ h ~Y~f1~lJC ..rx' 1 E L rS ~ , Oan~act itvhen ::y Solrr fur mare infotTnafiurs: ` '~'s 1.~IIfI:94Z;7.~26- ~,~. yon~E P~nris fi7~~~!°33HliM-Q1., the 1(1dILLOWD~k.~. PLant zr~i=attMA~'zor~ Front elevation _ 1• i,......~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,B~'st. ~ Rr.3 ;A) ~Lr z1J ~ ~ p ' II 5 - tQ k ~7 er ! ~ x 4 ~ s ~IV.~Ii'1,1 - - ;: _ :' ~ ~ { t"ti ~ i i ~RCrs dpi Niaia Level ` ~t~.2~ 4'' a SG ~` 1? ~~?~'. ( (7 tai R jig G ff m ~f3.tk; !r~ t iJp~er Leve! CALL E300.447.7526 MOtVDAY -FRIDAY 7pm - 6pm CT oR C~R~ER ~d~l'~ Plan Price: ~725Ap Levels: 2 STORY Style: TRAbTTt>?NAL Bedrooms: 3 Main Level sgFt.: 725' 2nd Level SgFt.: 664' Totat 5gFt.: 1384' Depth: 32' - 0" Max Ridge Height: 2T-D" Garage Stalls: 0 ~P3ER ~1~P~fi 4i~ifY~~uNT I (; : t, ~ E§a;C~' FI.r4'~ f~'P~~I~~gg~S ~Ea.i ~ tl Ei)=: ~~LA~~~~ P~~}a .~LTE~~;T~i~PlS Tz:~-~-SF~E}~Li ~F~I~~T ._.._~ Design Library provided ay Have a questinn? Irrnail ~s at we8rrraster@herhomemagaxir~e.carx, Car Call us at 1.800.9~F7.752~ M-~, 7am - 6pm CT ,~ ~. ) ~~"Li; ~J ~~~ il.~t~ http:llwww.herhome.corn/homeplans-04.asp?Pla11No=6790N&Plans1D=2010&Expostzre=3... 314/2005 J V f F ~~" '~f ~"; ,:.cc,.r r '-z<,~. ~~e~~~ ~~r,!,k~r.,a.. F.. _,~ z s., . ..a ~:xt:x^~...~ i r .;,i£`:~~'r.~ ~c~ i, ~:k.~ ~r ~. 1'k>..r_,z'r _~. Front Rendering Plan 1D: CHP-20378 u Qraez• C©de: c133 Copyright QC 2045 , i"he COOL house plans company page I Uf ~ ''~~~.""5cww~~7~7z~E;,~~R-~sx~ ~ i. ~; J ~"-`y~ a ¢ '~'~,'s ~ - ?"~ `~~ ,...,~ ~~~ a '"~~f4 ~'4' ~,p~ ;`~t~i~~,. Tom` ~~'fJ .asv ay"~ F <.~.A r~. ~~~j r ~~ z ....~..~..w_ .r t.. ._. Phan ID: CHP-17642 Front RenderEng order Cede: c133 Copyright ©2005 ,The COOL house plans company ~xnc 1 of ~ `~. ~x- ~ ~ ~ S'i'r t *~-s~~~ r r<~J ~ y4~ x ~ ~~: r ~+., ~.. ;~. r .-- > X t ~ P 77,,a~,'tcrf a't z 4 x s ~. , .~ a f~ z x >: _. .~~f ~... - :~S%:?'ii41.Lh.>3: ~. ,.r.. /+ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ }Y ~. ~. .. ~~n +1 ,? ~ ~4~ { ~, .. ~ .._ b Y-J.f. S.x,.,._t.A`~,.,v_ 4.,s,..~q<~,.,. v ~.,'~ e. .. ..,> r..f.,.r r.a. a~ t :i~ rES~.r::n-.>a Front Rendering Plan1D: CHP~1 X445 O~•c~et Cock: c1~33 .~_ `~" #~ _.~ Copyright Qc 2005 ,The COOL house plans company Page l of 4 .. u~w axarrn i iaiuccu ucvctu~n~tcia~ City of Central Point, Oregon Duncan Development, Inc w r Economic Analysis A - 4 CI;SNW, Inc. - Page 20 of 22 White Hawk Planned Development City of Central Point, Oregon Duncan Development, Inc Economic Analysis The population growth of Jackson County aver the last several years shows a continuing upward trend, which has indicated the need far an increase in housing opportunities. The 2001 population of Central Point was 13,460 residents. Central Point experienced significant growth in the 1990's. In 1990, the population was 7,510. The indicated growth from 1990 to 2000 is 68.6%, or 6.8% per year. Based on multiple listing data, market, economic and real estate consultants, the demand for housing of the type planned for WhiteHawk continues to increase. Given the historical data provided in this analysis, the need far homes in the $250,000 to $350,000 price range is evident. 200,000 i~o,aao 1 E0,900 470,000 ~ 4so,ooo v W 3 4so,aoo ~ ~ O a 440,900 130,000 120.000 } { 440,000 400.000 (Statistics provided by Oregon Employment Department, Oregon Labor Market Information 5ysterri~ for Jackson County, Oregon. -, r-~ CI;SNW, Inc. -` Page 21 of 22 J I 1090 4941 19fiZ 1093 1995 1995 1905 1997 1119E 1909 2004 2001 2002 Wtnte Hawfc i'lazuted Development ~;,' "" f ~ , ~~ City of Central Point, Oregon Duncan De~eiopment, inc ''> ~ ~:' The inforxriation listed below has been provided through tho Multiple Listing Service of Jackson County. Data provided pertains to units active, pending or sold since 7/31/04. Area Market Survey Active Avera~e_ Days Lis ~ Price .Range uantit On Market $250,000 - $299,999 21 72 $300,000 - $349,999 16 48 $350,000 - $399,999 10 94 $400,000 - $449,999 4 83 $450,000 - $499,999 4 167 $50D,000 - $549,999 3 115 ~~ $550,000 - $599,999 1 12 Pendiri~ Listing Price, Range $250,000 - $299,999 $300,000 - $349,999 $450,000 - $499,999 i Sold Selling Price Range $25x,000 - $299,999 $300,000 - $349,999 $350,000 - $399,999 $400,000 - $449,999 $450,000 - $499,999 $500,000 - $549,999 $550,000 - $599,999 uanti 7 2 uanti 43 26 9 3 1 2 Average Dam On Market 54 229 49 Average Davs On Market 46 53 54 102 95 52 95 In addition, the fallowing report indicates strongly that the anticipated price range of homes of $250,000 - $350,000 is in the highest demand. The following statistical data was obtained from the Multiple Listing Service for units sold after 7/31/04. Market Statistscs Report (BR =bedrooms) Sold # Units Dollar Value Average List Price Ave. Sale Price Ave. Market Tiixie of List Price 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR SBR All 0 6$ 17 0 85 0 $20,775,148 $6,265,550 0 $27,040,698 0 $329,115 $412,177 0 $347,417 0 $305,517 $388,562 0 $318,126 0 55 days 45 days 0 53 days 0 99.10% 9$.05% 0 9$.66% CESNW, inc. Page 22 of 22 ~? .~ •a ATTACHMENT "G" PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OIi APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements imposed by affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the development of the White Hawk PUD. Evidence of such compliance ,shall be submitted to the City prior to final plat approval. 2. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the development and construction of the White Hawk PUD. 11Cpchsllcity ~videlPlanning12005 land Use Fiies105011105011T1?report.cioc s 1~ iii .~C~C~ M ~ 1 '~ ~ ~ r Public Works Department PUBLIC W4 June 27, 2005 TQ: Planning Department FROM: Public Works Department 'ORT ~~~~~L ~~ ~ ~T Bob Pierce, Director Matf Samitore; Dev. Services Coord. SUBJECT: Tentative Subdivision and Planned Unit Development for 37 2W 02, Tax Lots 2700 and 2701 White 1Jawk Estates PUD Applicant P.O. Box 5348 Central Point, OR 97502 Aunt Farber & Sons, Inc. 431 Oak Street P.O. Box 5286 Central Point, OR 97502 Pro e Description/ R-2 Fending) Zoning Ptrr~ose Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer"} regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed. 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 & Specifications to form ~ useful guide. The City's Standards & Specifications should be consulted for any information not contained in a Public Works Staff Report. Existing Infrastructure 955 South Second Street ~ Central Point, 4R 97502 •549.664.3329 ~ Fax 549.664.6384 Y Ir 1. Streets: This section of Gebhard and Beebe Roads are improved to a paved width of 21 feet. Gebhard and Beebe Road are classified in the City's Transportation System Plan as a Collectox Streets. 2. Water: There is an existing twelve-inch water line at the intersection of Gebhard Road and Blue Grass Downs Drive, and at the intersection of Hamrick and Beebe Roads. 3. Storm Drain. There is an existing forty~eiglit inch storms drain line at the intersection of Gebhard Road and Green Valley Way (Private Road) and in Beebe Road. White Hawk Estates PUD Transportation Currently Gebhard and Beebe Roads are country roads that are paved to twenty-one feet in width. In the City of Central Point's Transportation System Plan Gebhard and Beebe Roads are classified as a Collector Street. When improved, Collector Streets are designed to handle up to 5,000 vehicle trips a day or S00 P.M. Peak Hour Trips, per the Central Point Standard and Specifications. The most recent traffic counts far 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 204 units that could use Gebhard Road for access. The proposed project entails the development of ninety on residential lots. 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 859.455 average daily trips or roughly 8'~ P.M. peak hour trips. The Public Works 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. The City of Central Point recently completed the East Pine Corridor Traffic 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 Beaz Creek that would extend Beebe Road to the West. Additionally a new traff`ie signal at the intersection of Beebe Road and Gebhard Road may be warranted in the future. The traffic analysis was based on the fact that both Gebhard and Beebe Roads are widened to full collector status. The developer has agreed to widen Gebhard and Beebe lZoads to full half street improvements with two travel lanes, a bike lane, landscape strip and sidewalks in front of the subject properties. Developer has also agreed to installation of a bicycle/pedestrian path along the North side of Beebe Road in collaboration with the developer of Gebhard Village PUD. This path will be installed when 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97542 •549.6fi4.332~ $ Fax 541.6fi4.6384 . ~.