Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - March 21, 1995• CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes _ ~• March 7, 1995 -Page One I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Those present were: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Herb Farber, Candy Fish, Karolyne Johnson and Valerie Rapp. Randy Graves had called to say he would not be attending. III. CORRESPONDENCE: -NONE IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved that they approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 7995 Planning Commission Minutes, Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE:.Dunlap, yes; Farber, yes; Fish, " yes; Johnson, yes, and Rapp, yes, and the Minutes were approved. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - None VI. BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND DETERMINATION REGARDING A FENCE VARIANCE APPLICATION ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ASH AND 7TH STREETS (APPLICANT: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY). George Rubaloff, Planning Administrator, reviewed his Memorandum of February 28, 1995 including the General Policy, Decision Criteria, Staff Review and Recommendation (recommended approval) and incorporated the attachments of a Site Map, Application and CMPC 15.20.080, and a Telephone Memo handout of a call received from Lloyd Mann dated March 7, 1995 into the record by reference. .,„~ 1 ,. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1995 -Page Two William Mansfield, Attorney, 313 S. Ivy Street, Medford, Oregon, agent for the Applicant came forward in support of the variance application. He introduced Marilyn Patterson, teacher of the Manning child, Anita Manning, child's mother, and Jess Heller, Chairperson for the Habitat for Humanity Building Committee. Mr. Mansfield stated that the need for the variance was based on the child's autistic condition. Mrs. Manning came forward and stated that the child could manage to go over a 42" fence easily, and that a 60" high fence would b$ more difficult for the child to go over quickly. Mrs. Manning also stated that she would be planting some kind of thorny shrubs along the fence line to further discourage the child trying to climb over the fence. Mr. Heller stated that the fence would be a solid construction with no supports on the yard side for the child to climb upon. Mrs. Patterson, teacher, explained that Mrs. Manning's daughter is almost four years old and has Autism, which is a communication disorder, and also that the child does not comprehend the concept of danger. Mrs. Patterson stated a. 5' fence would be necessary to protect the child from dangerous situations. Attorney Mansfield stated that it would not be safe for the child to be out in the street, and that the hardship was one of safety. No one else came forward in support of, or in opposition to the variance. Commissioner Fish stated that some type of notification should go with the sale of the home, that the 5' fence variance would no longer apply, and the fence would have to be changed to meet CPMC 15.20.080. The general consensus of the Commission that this condition could be placed on the deed to the property. Commissioner Fish moved for approval of the Fence Variance application on the northwest corner of Ash and 7th Streets (Applicant-Habitat for Humanitvl fence into compliance with City Code in effect at that time Commissioner Dunlap seconded the Motion Roll Call Vote• Dunlap ves• Farber ves• Fish ves• Johnson. yes and Rapp. yes and the Motion carried unanimously. 2 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commissions Minutes March 7, 1995 -Page Three B. REVIEW AND DETERMINATION REGARDING FENCE VARIANCE APPLICATION ATCRATER HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL FIELD ALONG 3RD STREET (APPLICANT: SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6. George Rubaloff reviewed his Memorandum of March 1, 1995, including the General Policy, Background, Decision Criteria, Staff Review and Recommendation, and incorporated the attachments of a Map, the Application, Decision Criteria CPMC 15.20.080 and Excerpt of Public Works Standards (Sight Distance and Sight Triangle) and a handout dated 3/6/95 "Supplemental Report" on the site( including portable bleachers and Head Start sign) into the record by reference. Commissioner Fish stated that she felt the vehicles parking on the street up to the driveway was a traffic clear vision problem. Mike Meunier,(softball coach) 611 Malabar, Central Point, Oregon, agent for School District 6, came forward in support of the fence variance. Mr. Meunier gave some background, and stated that when) the softballs are hit into the street, kids run into the street, and that there had been some near misses. He stated that this was definitely a safety issue, and would need the taller fence to secure the field. George Rubaloff, Planning Administrator, stated that on his visit to the site, that he had observed how the "Head Start Sign" was in the vision triangle, and recommended that this sign be removed. No one else came forward in support of or in opposition to the fence variance. Staff was requested to find out the Public Works process for the "yellow curb- no parking" on the street next to the driveway. .Commissi oner Johnson moved thatthey aoorovethe fence Variance Application for the Cra ter Hioh Scho ol Baseball field along Third Stree t 1 Applicant• School District N o 61 remov ino the Head Start sion from the vision triangle Oommissi oner Rabb sec onded the Moti on Roll Call Vote• Dunlap ves• Farber ves; Fish, ves; Johns on, ves. and Rapp. ves, and the Motion passed nammou 3 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1995 -Page Four C. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A REQUESTFOR ANNEXATION OF 17.27 ACRE TERRITORY LOCATED ON BEALL LANE 400 t FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BEALL LANE AND HANLEY ROAD (APPLICANT: TOM MALOT CONSTRUCTION, INC.). George Rubaloff reviewed the Preliminary Staff Report, dated February 24, 1995, including the description of Annexation, Action Requested, Description of Annexation Proposal, Review Discussion, Related .Issue concerning withdrawal from special districts, Conclusion, Followup and incorporated the attachments of Maps, Annexation Application, Letter from Tam Maloi dated August 3, 1994, Response from Division of State Lands regarding Wetlands, Proposed Subdivision Plan, Report from Public Works Department, ORS 450.987 and handout of a letter of March 7, 1995 from Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, re: Trunk Agreement dated February 23, 1995, and ORS 450.987. There were no conflicts of interest. Applicant Tommy Malot, Malot Construction, Central Point, Oregon, came forward in support. of the request for annexation. The Commission did not have any questions or concerns of Mr. Malot. Commissioner Dunlap asked if the mediator for City of Central Point and BCVSA was just for this particular annexation. George Rubaloff stated that it was his understanding that the mediator would assist the City and BCVSA with resolving the policy issues relating to withdrawal from districts and the provision of sewer service. No one else came forward in support of or in opposition to the request Mayor McGrath spoke from the audience and stated that the Mediator would be a 3rd Party to help discussion move along. Mayor McGrath also stated that a meeting should be scheduled within the next two or three weeks. c'r,r„r.+t~~loner Farber moved to recommend the Request for Annexation of 17 27 acre territory located on Beall Lane 4001 feet east of the intersection of Beall Lane and Hanley Road (AoDlicant Tom Malot Construction Inc 1 commissioner Fish seconded the Motion Roll Call Vote• Dunlap ves• Farber ves: Fish. ves: Johnson,_ves, and RBDD. ves, and the Motion passed unanimous) _~~ City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1995 -Page Five D. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT TO CPMC 17.44.O20B(3) RELATING TO PERMITTED USES IN THE C-4 ZONE ALLOWING VEHICLE AND RV PARTS SALES AND SERVICES. George Rubaloff, Planning Administrator reviewed his Memorandum of February 28,' 1995 including General City Policy, Background, and incorporated the attachments of Planning Memorandum dated February 10, 1995, Maps, CPMC Chapter 17.44, and Resolution No. 715 into the record by reference. Rubaloff explained that the proposed legislative change would amend the C-4 zoning district globally. Rubaloff also stated that review of text amendments should include consideration of how the amendment would conform to the general purpose statement for the C-4 zone, .and if the use would exist compatibly with other permitted uses within the C-4 lone. Mike Blaschka, (partner to John Collinsworth) came forward in support of the zone text amendment and to describe the use his particular site as RV parts and auto repair. He also assured the Commission that the RV parts would be inside the building and the vehicles to be repaired would be parked out behind the building. Mr. Blaschka also stated that the fuel tanks have been removed, and that they have no intentions of re-establishing the sale of fuel. Commissioner Dunlap asked if the business was buying the property or if they were leasing. Mr. Blaschka answered that they would be leasing the property. Mayor Rusty McGrath spoke from the audience and stated that Central Point needed to attract businesses, and that he would recommend a business such as this. Commissioner Rapp asked if these were the same owners as First Street Automotive. Mr. Blaschka stated that it was. Commissioner Farber stated that this type of business fits within the purpose of C-4. Commissioner Fish moved to approve a Zone Text Amendment to CPMC 17 44 020613) relatino to permitted uses in the C-4 Zone allowing vehicle and RV Parts Sales and Services including truck rental Commissioner Raoo ac,rnnded the motion Roll Call Vote• Dunlap ves• Farber yes• Fish, yes: Johnson ,yes, and RaDD, ves. MISCELLANEOUS -None VII. ADJOURNMENT -Commissioner Dunlap moved that the Meeting Adjourn, Commissioner Fish seconded the Motion, all agreed by voice vote and the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. „_., TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: George Rubaloff, Planning Administrator TOPIC: Review and Determination regarding fence variance on the southwest corner of Fourth Street and Hopkins Road (Tax Lot 3600 of Jackson County Tax Assessor Map 37 2W 11) DATE: 3.15A5 John Bullion of 700 South Fourth Street has applied for a fence variance. The location of the proposed fence is along the west property line and a portion of the north property line of Tax Lot 3600. The regulation from which the applicant is requesting relief is Section 15.20.050 of the Central Point Municipal Code which states that fences constructed on comer lots shall be no higher than six feet provided, however, that no fence shall be higher than three and one-half feet where such fence is within twenty feet of the nearest street right-of- way line: If approved, the variance would permit constriction of 80 linear feet of eight foot high fence along the west property line and an additional 32 feet of eight foot high fence along the north property line. Decision Criteria A fence variance may be granted by the Central Point Planning Commission if strict application of the provisions of CPMC 15.20 (Fences) would result in an unnecessary hardship; g~ if wnsiderations relating to neighborhood beautification, safety, protection, caning, etc. will either result from, granting of a variance or aze not applicable to the proposal. This variance request was reviewed from a safety perspective. Staff fast examined the intersections formed by: 1. The commercial access which connects to Hopkins Road-South Fourth Street at the curve west of the property, and, 2. The intersection of Fourth Street and Hopkins Road. ~~~ s The clear vision standard for intersections formed by commercial driveway-secondary, arterial and local street-secondary arterial calls fora 55 foot clear vision triangle. The proposed fence structure is not within either of the required clear vision areas. Staff reviewed sight distance at this intersection. Minimum sight distance of 300 feet would be maintained at both intersections (commercial access and local street) on Hopkins Road under the proposal to build the 8 foot fence. Recommendation The fence variance request does not impede safe use of the street. Staff recommends ' ` ' " approval of the request to relieve property owner hardship. attachments Item 1 - Application and Map Item 2 - Decision Criteria (CPMC 15.20.080) APPLICATION FOR FENCE VARIANCE rrc~e~v~~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEPARTMENT [~9AR 1 ~ 1995 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: OHrJ Address: '-1Ct% 2. City: ~'-ri-I-rc~.~ I~,in 1- , ~n . Gl'1~~Q~ Telephone: Business: ?lCr'?L~i 2- Residence: 4La~-•~~i4o AGENT INFORMATION Name: Address: Citv: Telephone: Business: Residence: 3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet if More Than One) Name: .._,~.~-tr.: f'~J~ir t~~f., Address: c~~. Qs~ C~hc~~~- Clty: ~ 4. Telephone: Business: ~' Residence: ~~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION ITEM .__ ~___~._ Township:. '?;i Range: ~_ Section: ~_ Tax Lot(s): a~ Zoning Distdct: Tatai Acreage: General Description of Variance:-rti ~~r.,-u:~4 Ccn~,4.<.~ ,F~,a,-~ Yo><+- S'k~ lu~~ C~[cla!~wci..Th~. k~r 't.,~, 4 -F4~-~~~-t.nu.. wo~itcl h~.io F~loc.lc_ 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS [ ] Thls Applicatbn Form [ ] Appltcakon Fee ($200.00) [ ] Pbt Plan & Elevations Drawn to Sple (10 Sets) [ ] One Copy of a Reduced Plot Plan & Elevations (81/2" x 11") [ ] Written Authority from Property Owner k Agent in Applbatbn Process [ ] Findings (Addressing Criteria In Beckon 15.20.050 of the Central Point Munldpal Code) [ ] Legal Description of the Property 6. I HEREBY STATE THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 1 certify that I am the :~Q Property Owner or [ J .Authorized Agent of the Owner of the proposed / proJectske Signature: ~,1~, l.4-~c~~`-~ Date: ~-/y-y:5~ CITY OF CENTRAL TIME 4.%~;Q.bf. .~ v y ~~. 8 txw nrklti,~ccr 3Z~=t- c~.t(-F4t lvn.1-(rnc~. eases~cviv t~k{ie.~n.~ P.nl. March 13,1995 7ohnKBullion ?00 3.4th Street Central Point, OR 97502 City of Central Point Planning Department Tel. (503) 664.8540 Mr. George Rubalo~ Planning Administrator 155 South Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 Re: Application for Fence Variance Dear Mr. Rubaloff'. We are submitting the application for fence variance due to the elevation of our lot in respect to the lot directly behind us and the north side adjacent to the comer of South Fourth Street and Hopkins Rd Our lot is at an elevation of approximately 1278.9 ft. and the lot behind us and the corner where S. 4th turns into Hopkins is approximately 1282.9 ft., which is approximately a4ft. difference (according to topographical maps). We would like to conshuct 80 feet of 8ft. high fence along the back of our lot and 32 feet of 8ft. high fence along the Hopkins Rd side that would then drop down to the allowed Eft. height for the remaining 16 feet. Due to our lot being approx 4 feet lower, the standard Eft. high fence would not be sufficient to block out the disturbances created by the Doctor's office parking lot and the busy street that runs along the side. The standard Eft: fence would only be 2ft. above their ground level. The biggest disturbance created at this time is the headlights from the cars in the parking lot (which park facing our house) and the cars coming around the corner from South 4th Streak If we are able to build the 8ft. high fence it will still only be Oft. above the ground level of the lot and the corner but would be high enough to block out headlights and create a little privacy from the pedestrians walking along the street and the people going to and from their cars in the parking lok Thank you for your consideration of our application Sincerely, John K Bullion Enclosures ~~~ 9 i ~ - -- GRAND ~~ ~L •'430 4Ha tf5~ 24001- ~ 2300 220 I 1 :. 2504 ,. ~ ~. 1 ~ I ' y59 ~ _ :I.yb~ . y'74 11 I t I I 12 1430 ID 1 9 i 8 j 1 .'~- . "a I ~11 26001 .9 28002900 30001. _ 1 ~ f-- 127o I yss "I k53 K6? 3~2~-a- C 15 ~1^+' N-l. ~ ~'lC.t. 16 I y 17 ~ 18+ I9 ~- I ~ i 4 I 15 . ~ f ~ f' S L _.~ __ f. Si ~ ~ M I ~ 4900 500( 3600 70 ~. ~O~k ~ ~ ~k ~lAatn ~cnu~ " 70S 1 s ~~~ W LLI 4800 5100 3700 ~ ~ 7!5 2 7 /i '71d 2 N ..< ,- ,~. 4700 52C Y 3800 ~ 7&5 7a Q dab 3~ ,e. 3 ~<, ~~. Q. ;900730 a600 8 53 N o Z at_K i = BLK 4 Q 4 ~.. ' .. ~,. 5 W ~ 4000 4500 (~ Z 7Y5 5 ~yo We ~ 5~ _ ~.. C „• ~ 4400 gcalc ~ Q 410C ~ ~ ~~ a ioo = 7Sb ~ ` 7Sr 6 4300 4200 aI: 7Lt0 ~ '7GS 7 1 7 \\~-~/i V 5~' I V \\. OM, H, X097 O O ~o itroArTfl ~ ©~ '( pets W'1 ~ -' M.tl ~ OO `r I xiz»6 BUSH Q ~' s C op 1 O ~. (~ (`~~ G o ~ I x C ~L,/ ~ C x, C ~ ~ C \ x 0 x ^ x x x G- x a x x x x x ~x~ QM.H.~ GRAND -.._ ('1 -~ OM.H. l,.J A~/E. ~ ~~ ~ ~ x a P ~ `~ ^ -'- .J Q'x - "~ ~- ~ ~ '~ c. YI - - J ` _ -Ll ~ r x X ~. C. ;o^ ~ ~ ~~ 0 DN ~ / ~ ~ x I ,~ x o ~ ~ oo II _ ~o _3Z~- M.H, zies'~ HopK~ x x ., -w 5 .~ NS-1 x M.H. d{ ' ~./ Q x~~~1276.9~~~~ M~ O ..v .. 1= ~~ F' d' C. O A.H. :. x .ti ~ ., H T :. ?( Ci . V n ~ v + 'a .~` . ~ ~1 ~~ ~I ti ~x :~ ~ . X ~, u i J , ,I ~. _ ~~;, „~ - ~ ~- ~ ~~--r:~ - i / '~ _ ' ~ ~l r ~~ U -_ i I ~ ~~ 1 I 1 .. ~ . ~ I ;~ ~ ~ ~.~ , I ~' ~ .~ r ~ ~ t -~~ ~3 x i `. I cJ ~ ~ ~ ~) 1 __ ..+ ( . ~ r I ~ a ,; ~ ~; ~ < -~, ~I .y.j .x• -+ -~ C S~ -1 P ~~ i ~ I i ~; ~ o . ~-- c~ i --- - -,- ~` 5J i 1 I -1 - I ~ J , i - - ~ ~ ~ n V~ «._~._ ._ i ~l ._.. __ . _ ____._ - - i f J ~ _ . I I I ~ t l I I -~ _ 1 ~ ----J L ~ /~ -. ~~) Y) ITEM creates an unreasonable or unnecessary risk of injury, or to use materials which are unsuitable for fencing or which are not designed for exterior use or exposure to-the ele- ments and by deterioration may create a hazard or become so unsightly as to tend to impair the good order of the neigh- borhood and the property values there~.n. All fences shall be designed and constructed in a good and workmanlike man- ner. If any fence hereafter constructed is of such materi- al or design that the city building official in his judg- ment determines that it is in violation of this section, he shall give written notice to the person occupying the prop- erty on which the fence is situated, designating the defect and requiring the correction thereof within ten days. It shall then be the duty of the person so notifigd to remedy the defect within said period or appeal to the. city coun- cil. In the event of an appeal to the city council, the matter shall be set for hearing at the next regular meeting of the council and the city administrator shall give notice thereof to the person in control of :the property. At such hearing, all persons interested shall be given an opportu- nity.to be heard, and the council shall finally determine the matter. Any person who fails to remedy any condition prohibited by this section within ten days after receiving notice or after the final determination of the matter shall, upon conviction thereof, be subject to the general penalty. After the expiration of said ten days, the person responsible for the fence shall be 'deemed to be guilty of a separate offense for each day during which the fence shall thereafter be permitted to exist in violation of this sec- tion. (Ord. 1674 (part), 1992). ~ 15.20.080 Variance. A. Applications and Review. Requests for fence variances shall be made by application on such form as designated by the city administrator and shall be reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1.24. B. Information Required. Variance applications shall be accompanied by a legal• description of the property, plans and .elevations necessary to show the proposed devel- opment, and an application fee of two hundred dollars. C. Consideration for Granting Variances. A variance may be granted if findings are made as follows: 1. The strict application of the provisions of this chapter would result in unnecessary hardship; or 2. The following considerations will either result from a granting of a variance or the following consider- ations do not apply to the requested application: a. The variance will provide. advantages to the neighborhood or the city, b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city, 166 (Central Point 11/92) 13 ~• . > ~. ) c. The variance will provide safety to the , neighborhood or the city, d. The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city, e. The variance will not have any adverse im- pacts upon the neighborhood, f. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. D. Conditions of Approval. In granting.a variance, the city may attach conditions deemed appropriate in the particular case in the interest of the public's health, safety and general welfare. (Ord. 1674 (part), 1992). 15.20.090 Violation--Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall, upon conviction; there- of, be subject to the general penalty.- Upon discovering _. any: violation ,of the restrictions imposed by this chapter, except a violation of Section 15.20.070, it shall be the duty of the city administrator, or his designee, to give written notice of the violation to the person in possession and control of the premises on which the offending fence exists or is being .constructed, with a demand that the same be forthwith made to conform to this chapter. Upon receipt of such notice, the person responsible for the structure shall be deemed to be guilty of a separate offense for each day during which the fence is thereafter permitted to exist in violation of the restrictions of this chapter. (Ord. 1674 (part), 1992). Sections• 15.22.010 Coin fiance with 'regulations required. 15.22.020 S coming pool defined. 15.22.030 etback requirements. 15.22.04 Fence requirements. 15.22. 0 Overhead utility lines. 15.2 .060 Fees. 15 2.070 General requirements. 167 (Central Point 11/92) 1~ STAFF REPORT To: Central Point Planning Commission Date: 3-15-95 From: ~eorge Rubaloff -Planning Administrator Topic: Review and Recommendation of Request for Annexation of .23 Acre Territory located at 3124 Merriman Road (Applicant: Martin Harrison - 37 2W 12 TL 700) Annexation Annexation is the act of extending the boundaries of a city so that the property owners of a new territory can benefit from municipal services and/or facilitate urban development. Action Requested CPMC 1.24 requires the Planning Commission to review requests for annexation and make recommendations to the City Council. The Commission's recommendation can be in the form of aminute-motion. The City Council decides upon. all annexation requests after conducting a public hearing. Description of Annexation Proposal The proposed annexation is.located on the easterly side of Merriman Road, generally south of where Green Park Drive intersects with Merriman Road. If approved, the annexation would add .23 acre of new territory to the City, .17 acres of which would be the private property, .06 acre of which would be to the centerline of the right-of-way upon which Merriman Road is located. There are no natural features on the property. A single family residential structure and an accessory structure exist on the proposed annexation site. The residential structure is occupied by property owner Martin T. Harrison. The property is located on Merriman Road which is a classified by City of Medford as a collector street. Access to the property is via Merriman Road. The property is served by Medford Water Commission. A 4-inch lateral sewer line stubs to .the front of the properly along Merriman Road-from an 8-inch Medford sewer main which is located on the west side of Merriman Road. Engineering staff from Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA) informed the Planning Department that the closest BCVSA lines to this property are the 18 inch page 1 ~~ interceptor line which lies along the west side of I-5 Freeway and the 42 inch interceptor line which is located on Beall Lane and then toms north onto Bursell Road. The closest City of Cenri'al Point sewer line is a 15-inch pipe which lies across Lot 1 in Unit No. 1 of Green Park Village Subdivision, crosses Green Park Drive, crosses several more lots in Green Pazk Village Subdivision and eventually connects to a Medford sewer line near Arnwood Street. The area proposed for annexation is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map for Low Density Residential Use. In keeping with the Comprehensive Plan designation, the City Zoning Map classifies the area as R-1-6, Residential Single-Family with a 6000 squaze foot minimum lot size. The surrounding land- use patterns of development and zoning designations are as' follows: North Land Use: Existing Single Family Subdivision Zoning: R-1-6 Single Family Residential' 1 Land Use: Existing Single Family Subdivision Zoning: R-1-6 Single Family Residential South Land Use: Existing Single Family Residential Property Zoning: Unknown (Jackson County Zoning) West Land Use: Rogue Valley Irrigation District Office and Single Family Residence Zoning: SFR-6 Medium High Density Single- Family (Medford Zoning) Health Hazard The Environmental Health Section of the Jackson County Department of Planning and Development has concluded that a :health hazard now exists as it .pertains to the subsurface sewage disposal system located on the property proposed for annexation. Connection of this property to a municipal sewer facility will remedy this health hazazd. The City of Medford will connect the properly to city sewer if the property owner can demonstrate to the City of Medford that: page 2 ~. s Annexation to the City of Central Point is probable 2. There is a health hazard (sewerage) on the properly 3. Proper plumbing permits have been issued for the connection 4. Applicable System Development Charges have been paid to the City of Medford Review Discussion Written Consents: In accordance with ORS 222, all owners of the land and :not less than 50 percent of the electors residing in the territory must consent, in writing, to the proposed annexation. The application for annexation includes a written consent from property owner Martin T. Harrison. Ctiurently the residential structure which is located on the property is occupied by the owner-applicant. Therefore 100 percent of the electors residing on the property consent in writing to the proposed annexation. 2. Within UGB: Pursuant to Policy No. 3 (City-County Urban Growth Boundary and Policy Agreement, September 1984), territory annexed into the city is required to be within the Central Point Urban Growth Area. The land of the proposed annexation is within the Central Point UGB and identified as Subarea D in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. C°nrianity: ORS 222 requires that annexed territory be contiguous to the city or separated from the city only by a public right of way, or a stream, lake or other body of water. As shown on the proposed annexation plat, the territory is contiguous to the existing city limits on its proposed northerly and easterly boundaries. 4. Order Provision of Public Facilities: OAR 660-01-310 states that annexation of lands is subject to the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. The staff report provides an inventory of existing public facilities such as streets, water, sewer and storm drain. The report concludes that those critical facilities are available to the properly proposed for annexation. page 3 17 It is therefore concluded that an orderly provision of public facilities is in place and will be facilitated by the annexation. Conclusion Staff concludes that this particulaz request meets the fundamental requirements for annexing territory into the city. The City Council is currently working with BCVSA Board to resolve the policy issue regazding sanitary sewer service and withdrawal of a new territory from special districts or authorities. The City Council has decided to postpone any final decisions on annexation proposals until this issue is resolved. However,.due to the--sewage health hazard affecting this property, ,the -City is likely to view this annexation request differently than other requests which aze currently pending approval. The Planning Commission's recommendation regazding the proposed annexation will be included in the public record at the time City Council conducts a review and hearing on this proposal. Prior to any public hearings, the city will send notifications to agencies which could be affected by the proposed annexation. The agencies on the. mailing list include City of Medford, Jackson County, Beaz Creek Valley Sanitary: Authority, utility companies, School District No. 6, Central Point Police Depardnent and Central Point Fire Department. Agencies receiving notification will have an opportunity to submit comments about the annexation prior to any public hearings. Attachments Item A -Illustrations: -Zoning Map -Discussion Map re: Annexation to Centerline -As-Built Plan for Unit No. 1 Green Park Village -1982 Topographical Map -Excerpt of Final Plat for Unit No. i Green Park Village Item B -Annexation Application Item C -Letter From Jackson County dated February 15, 1995 Item D -Report from Public Works Department dated Mazch 15, 1995 page 4 18 s R- R- N SCC+~c: ~"42ao~ i / 3~ ~~ 3 ~Z _:.,, •.....,.. Present City Limifs of •Central Pont ~c\ of Centrni Pont ~yo Proposed Annexation' to the ,C~ty _.:.~-.••- Present. City Limt'ts of Medford DISCUSSION MAP For The CITY of CENTRAL POINT, OR. Prepared by • BOYDEN SURVEYORS October 20 ,1993 20 V iS ;. _ .I~~ CZ1~ ~, I, Ja~ ~ i U~' I ~ S a 2; : - ~z e: ~ ~ • Si;OOL ~' MPN' S/Gn1 ,I. ~ ~~ Cxd v v HPS V:, ~ 5 ~~SD--- STRF-F_T nlAUti_ Sl6al I. `~ _°` ~" ' iVD-~pA~K1NG rrC~Ai a..~: ~ ~ ryl ' F~ a~. = C=3 ~?-.^ I ti y a `~ . `o? : ab 1 <i / ° ~ ~4~ a~ i~ir h 7 8 as a. a ,~, ~ Sa NPS ~• it wean ~nc~F R_. "S ~ ~ n, w I` ~ v ` M '. scale: 1\ ~~ ~`' i ~~oo' .It ~ y 2 < ~ ~,~ S~ Y ; ~'~ q, QN SSOo L ' ~.f w''" ~i ~ ~il ~\' ~ ~Ei~i'~~ O' MPS ~ 1 ~ i .~la ~ ~ SIt^ pL G~i® w `~ - ~\ ,~xis~w~~rw ' `. ,~.~A ~f_ l.f~NE ~~'.. 3 ~ zNiS iii ~ __~ c.~;I a ~ ~ tir. iS~ . `~~_ v. J „¢ N ~ h ~ ~qa N3 54~QS Y - ~ ~. ~~ ~ . ~1 ~ ~~ o~\\ X 1293.6 -~_N M. H. p L N. '~ x 1294.$ 0 O ~ • n c. ~x~ r^ I r IIII p x c Oc.9 ~ x ~. ~ x x~ / 1290.5 x ,(J N x I- 29- 2~ 'l~ X O \ 1295. .. r~ 0 C. ~ O: \\l\ % SCGIC: ~r^ ~oo• ~H. /^~ /x e v X C X \w ~K/ 7~~ I• C. ,S1 ~ ~ y' F A .;^ 1v * / 1296.9 1291.5 % \ x GRAVEL ~ ~ ~pO O / ~~ M.H. 1 / / I Q `F // ~~ + x ~,6 ~C) c. x +' c. / c. x ` MH. X '•,F X,.• C ,~ x p ~ ,DM.H.. x ~ OO \~ 0 • 129 /) ~. 4.2 S. M .. ~xx c.e. UN WOOD 6: DR. .H.Q x ~ ' X 1297.2 °~ a x x x 1299.6 1288.6 x c. x c. . O 3 ,+/ ~1 95 / x\ x ~, ~ j ~~ ~ // / i o,\ ~ ,,.~ i~ . ~ -x \ ~~\ 2~ - -- tea.<u<o c ~ -- i ~V.OXW 9 .58 80.00 I I r- I J 120.00 y i n ~ 33~ 6 / ~ ri /: 6Z '.'~ p o o w 0 ' M o 8 ~° IN ~ S88'28.28'E ~ ~ 4. Z ~ ~° .M Y ~ t2o.oo ~ ~ 25 ry~ry , ~, ' >0' f0' PUE ! LC q 5'PUE~ ~ „.(~,ry"~ ~~N 23 "'I a ~`oy~ 32 ~ ~ 24 ~ W 6000 i Q. I,I.OO~witmonument l° 4 a /,!~S• ~~' 11 AGE DRIVE N 11 sas2s'za^E ~ . !1 zr '^ < t2o.oo -- 1 `r~!so sa !2 0 ~ I 5 W 240.00 N 1 ~ r' ~ 86,59 f` ~ W ~M .4Q. _4~2 , (~ 33 N ^N 35 ~b~' 10' PUE--~ o ~ .E t ~ zv '~ 6~ ~ 3 + 25' 25' I '11 Z°" p2 ~ °z bry `t' °: NN t N ,z~• ~ - ~~ ,~ 3s ~ j ~ O1 /I ~ m b Y 4 ~ 34 Io PuE _a ~ °z^ ~ 15 ~ ~OQ ~~t7812t.70,E ~ `$g ~09 6 .. ~ \~ 110 a~ '~ Ses, o' ~ ~63•y3 3 ~ ~~~ ~ 7g~4g+F. \ '~ S' PUE `>`i~ ~ Q>` ya ?S ~ ~~ J ' ~ 6,~.~'00~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 39 °o ',r~~, 38 ~ \ ~ iti ' ~P ow .off ~ ;~j ® \ 6 ~ air ~ ~ ~65i00° ~ cold ~ ~56~~98i° 24.45' a ~ih A\O,Sp~f' \ ice' ` ~ .-14.61A0 ~ t/~ 86 5~PUE /1 ~~63 j y pF. ~~ i15 S56'49 31"W~- 3y. N 4~ .^o ,,,. ~... \ o \'~ 1 _ 1. I 56-~ ov,~ r,~ 4Z f~va ~ °oc tu4r~ ~ s ~~ ~.n~ ~~ ~ ~ ss•os'olr\ ~~ 1\3~2 d`p~ ~ .jc s I~ ' / 1044'33PUE 40.6dd~3 ; ,o5o~~uolloel .~`~ a~p~ "oi ~Z ~ e450o~ ~ i/ \ ! yss~ ~tn \ ~°a. .~. ~ 'e~~o °~ a~~k j1~ ?poo 'A,p iy "o ~ q26 r~~° Sy6; kb „w~, ' ~ 1 b donedEasement ~96` ~~~~ ~~~~ i / N$ 20.1a \ y ~ ~ r per 889 i S/N 57s2~~~ o~' 441 oy ~E stablishment~ ,~0~~ ey35 .._^ . ~4 ~~ 6F~v~ .ri ,. -'i~.a . a~' 22 ~0' . P.RU;-c -- .. i ~a'~" _. N~ G, ., R ! r I{IL. N. M OOUOIAN^ 9~S `,H'BO' soa ~~s=--[r ,., . -~: ~~ 58700 ` ~~--~~ ~NS7f - r (16) z ARNWOOD ~ ^_ STREET Z // ' O X3.9 ~ [ ~ 3] ~ y~ 5~7~4.40'E 0 ,T 59.85 ~ ` (15) ~' 9.84 W G 558'08'00" N tz5.oo ~ Z z or MenriMgn Tzd. ~ °' ' " '- ,- ioo- ~-3~- O vrln Har•r!son's `~~\~ 2 s /0aic~~ S/N 2940 ~ ~ c. c^ , Pipe i "i. o,0 2'~ °., O per 5~1~T 5782 ~ ~~~`a ~ ~ 1 ji 2~" Chainlink fence •• OICI(' t0~ hP:G?0 ~ i~ ~, \~Found5/8°iran pin pars/n 2940(bent) . ~tfi~otigl~ .y°` Found. copper luq in concrete ~~ er 5~N 11342 IVEYOR \ q (StacCi,~+. 83+38.6 Pt \ ~ h 1. APPLICANT Name: _ Address: Cky; m ee-tn ftrl. State: n'~ Zip Code: '+ fJ u i Telephone: easiness: 7 ~y' ys/7 Resklence: 77 3'~ ~/ y 2. AGENT INFORMATION Address: City: mate: ~ Zlp Code: Telephone: Business: Resklence: 9. OWNER OF RECORD (A~ach Separate Sheet h Mare Than One) Natne: M/,a «~ T'. 1-~-..2 0~ sr5y~ Address: ~~ 1 cl Ylt P r'l` i l~Aa~-A 62fY n.~c-`~~ Cky; VoIP~Yn2~ -Stela: ~2 ZlpCoda: 47SU( Telephone: easiness: 77Q'S/5"77 Reskence: 773-G7/~/ 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION TypeolPlannedDevelapmeM: Setupat fnntlFf~iee,n na~J Township: ~~Range:~!lZSedbn :.J~_ Tax Lot(s): 7~0 Address: Township: Range• SeIXbn : _ Taz lot(s): Address: Township: Range• Sectbn:_Tazlot(s): Address: Planned Zoning DislrkY: Total Acreage: Total Number otEkisting 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS f'~ ThlsApplbatbnForm L°l' ApplkallonFee fSZOO) ~ WrlttenAuthoAtylromPropenyOwnerkAgeM M Applbalbn Process ~Annexatbn Pelkbn L7 Prekminary Piat [Legal Desalptlon a1 extension boundary of proposed annexed territory 6. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND 'DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HER(:WITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT AND ACCURATE TO THE eESTOF MY KNOWLEDGE. t certky that I am the: ~Properry Owner or ^ Authorized Agent of the Owner of the proposed pro) ske. Signature 4~11r°^ ` _ ^~~ ~~~-- Date ~ ;~~.`9`~ r---------------------------------=--------------T ( If any wetlands exist on the site, it Is the applicant s responsibility to apply for a permit to ~ Divis on of State Lands before any site work begins. _ ___ ___- _--_J 24' APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATIOI~EB 291895' CRY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEPARTMENT C17Y OF CENTRAL pOINT INFrtaMannru TIME .?•'/Fn,.,~~ ~3 ANNEXATION PETITION t THE UNDERSIGNED hereby request and consent to the annexation to the City of Central Point, Oregon, of the real property contiguous thereto described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made apart of the within petition. By their signature hereto,: the undersigned certify that they are either "owners" of land in the territory proposed to;be• annexed as described in Exhibit "A", or are "electors" registered in the territory proposed to be annexed as described ia-Exhibit nAu~ This petition, containing the request and consent to said annexation, must be filed with the Central Point City Council on or before the date of the public hearing to be held upon the proposed annexation pursuant to ORS 222.120. "Owner" is defined.by ORS 222.120 as meaning the legal owner of record or, where there is.a recorded land contract which is in force, the purchaser thereunder. If there is multiple ownership in a parcel of land, each consenting owner shall be counted as a fraction to the same extent as the interest of the owner in the land bears in relation to-the interest of the other owners, .and the same 'fraction shall be applied to the parcel's land mass for purposes of the consent petition. If a corporation owns land in a territory proposed to be annexed, the corporation shall be considered to be the individual owner of that land. "Elector" is defined in said statute as an individual qualified to vote under Article II, Section 2 of the Oregon Constitution, which in turn requires that the individual be 18 years of age or older, a resident of the area in question, and registered to vote as required by applicable state law. Furthermore, ORS 222.170(2) requires that electors petitioning for annexation be registered in the territory proposed to be annexed. Elector or Property Owner: (If Property Owner, insert Name: property description) Signature: Date: ANNEXATION PETITION (12oas7) 25 e H w w ~-1 N N a3 .AS 'L7 6AN O .n v c O O ttl ~ 0~t O o~ Ia ~ tt> f~ ?., ~ r-1 ffffww~~~~ O C sr •w tit O ~G •,it~~ O f: tsfl ~! vCJ O.~Wt.OG"H tit ~ b ~ ~~~A..04~~-1 rd1 ~w~ ~ ~ f~+ O b4.4~ O ~ O ~ rat ~ •~I tl! C3 'Ci Sri +'~ tt r-i O f'1 ~ C3 .H1<70f.' W a~+a~rom~~ ~ s~o~\oo o ~ a v ~ ,rt ~ .~ +•e . a N .c2 ~ ~ M A d N ~~-+OO~+N OU1~ Oo0 Q A ~ obi a~~ ~i--~~4a~~~d ~ ~ ~ w~a,w a~ ca .«~ k •w.u~w o.a, o ~+ a x ~.•• u~ ~o r~ m .a, .,~ a +~ •• • .t-+ p,oo q o to m ~+~ ma, ro ~o,~ •.a~ ~M.W.o w trl 0 0 M 4t O Wy~ wt.{ tt1 d V OWN Lt',+~'.~ tr•!dro wrl d wr .N x d w Fps ~ 4,t O tl1,OC, O ,O r-1 ri i~ N mN:~ m~ ~ OriML~+ ~ O ~ v~a~?4-I ,1t O O.Q1 U~ 6~• Ott :~ fn'' .Ct' M,Ct 3~ O •r ~S J•i w "„T. v fa d to w ff1 as q +> ~N I~ is S'~ 4~t ~ d .W M O O ~ ro OS'Cl+~rl Q~©~ O R", d00r. cd ~ O to wi O O .w« ~ ~ wOMf%0.0'i pb~~ aTQt t~~ ~„ ,q~+~+ cow v ti ~r N ~~i W a.w ~p pR0''. .tO~~~O~i> fi.~Q ~ ~~ s~4~. .N Ot`»~~ 61~tOt~N~ O O .W 6s ~ l11 N .tf Ft rl.~~1 U1r OpM,C,t O N 1"'., O ~ w~ ~ ~ tt 0 O zt d ~+ Rf m oo O ri .w~~ k,1 O td M O ~ Rt \',~i M« ~ o~~0a ~`.:x~~ ~~rn ~.LiO m wr1~~ 7 FtF~t~ ~t1~S07~0 C1.0 ' t71 ~C? a-{ O O O b •rt O .O ri O oG> V E~+ ~ tf1W i-i t0 W 'di G Q >~~ ~ rl fA tl1 ~~ 4 a s -~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ Q < ~ Q ~ A- 4 0 -~- _ e c p Q N ~ P c 26 I . I / ~ I ..~._~.~__ ~• I t''('~ ~ l j ..~.., .._..._ , + p j ~ -u .. .. // .. Y~ O G U E] ~ ,~ I ~<< S 5~`~`~• J ~ ~ G' n ' -_ // ._ _. r ~ ~ ^,~ l / ' ~ Z N I ~ ~ ,~-~ ~' i ~ ~ ~ _. ... ~ j. 3 ,^^, vy 10 a < ~..~ __........'• a~ ~ P ~ ~ ~~ ~ ^' W '~~ V j ~ D g~ n x~ v ~• o y ~ ^ 2 ` •~ P- ~ i z £ ~3 ~ ~~` ~ a ~ 9 . • , • a , •. ~ i .~ -. _..._ Ss'S8 R ~~ , A, C•P, Uk1~o... rowiyl. 3no a v ' ~ fi ti I$ ,~ ~ E s ~ o ~ . c (~ = r ~ ~ ro ' I !. • Z ~ o A .~ i T ~- I E ~ c A x~ ro ~ u n ~ "+ n i ~ ~~ ~ o • ~ ~ i 0 4- JACKSON COUNTY OREGON nrEio"o ELOPMENT NNING 10 S. OAKDALE • MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 (503) 778-7554 FAX: (503) 776,7384 February 15, 1995 ITEM ~ - Martin Harrison 3124 Merriman Road, Medford, OR 97501 RE: 3124 Merriman Road, Medford, OR; MAP ID: 37S-2W-12CC-700 Dear Mr. Harrison: I am writing this letter to verify the results of my inspection of your sewage disposal system, located at your property identified by the above referenced address and legal description. I met with you at your property the afternoon of February 10, 1995. The general azea of the sewage disposal system, based upon a 1966 record on file with our office and your knowledge, places the sewage disposal field on neighboring property at the rear (northeast) of your property. The neighboring property is identified by map identification as 37S-2W-12CC- 5300. The septic tank and sewer line, which connects the septic tank and sewage disposal field, aze located on your property at the rear of your house. A portion of a concrete, irrigation the was also seen. during my inspection. This concrete irrigation file crosses the length of your rear yard, traversing southwest to northeast.. Even though I could not verify sewage discharge onto the ground's surface on your property, nor observe it on neighboring property, the following factors confirm my belief a health hazard exists: 1. -You have stated that sewage surfaces in your reaz yard during periods of rain fall or periods of extraordinary water usage within your residence. 2. The sewage disposal field is located on neighboring property (without benefit of easement) over which you have no control. 3. The existing septic tank and sewer pipe, which connects the sewage disposal field to the septic tank, aze either inadequate in size or no longer capable of transporting septic effluent for disposal. These factors preclude continued use o~ your sewage disposal field. Oregon Administrative Rules (O.A.R.) Chapter 340, Division 71-215 species remedial action necessary to repair a subsurface sewage disposal system. My inspection noted insufficient area within the boundaries of your property to repair your sewage disposal field. O.A.R. 340-71-215 (6) states," Failing systems which cannot be repaired shall be abandoned in accordance with Rule 71-185." ~i r'3 ' Martin Harrison February 15,.1995 Page -2- I have communicated with George Rubaloff, Planning Administrator for the City of Central Point. Mr. Rubaloff indicates the City of Central Point may consider annexing your property to the City of Central Point if a health hazard is confirmed. As previously stated in this letter, I am of the opinion a health hazard now exists as it pertains to your subsurface sewage disposal system. Connection of your property to a municipal sewer facility would provide a permanent, sanitary solution to your sewage disposal requirements. Please feel free to contact me if I can further assist you. My office hours are 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.; Monday-Friday. Sin-ce~re~ly~, ~ ~~ Charles S. Henke, R.S. Environmental Health Specialist R CC: George Rubaloff Planning Administrator City of Central Point 155 South Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 Bill King City of Medford Public Works Department Engineering Division Room 204 411 W. 8th Street Medford, OR 97501 (, cow ®~ ~~~~~a. ~®o~-~ ,, PUBL/C WORKS DEPARTMENT "' ~pG11rG~G~°oG3U' ITEM ,~ -. r DATE.• March 15, 1995 PROJECT.• Proposed Annexation Name of Project: Harrison Property/Sewer Connection Project # PW 95008 ZONE: P/armed Zone APPL/CANT.• Martin T. Harrison 3124 Merriman Road Medford. OR 97501 OWNER Martin T. Harrison 3124 Merriman Road Medford OR 97501 AGENT/ Not Specified SURVEYOR ENG/NEER: Not SpeciOed LOCAT/ON.• T37S R2W WM Section 12, TL 700 Merriman Road, Adjacent to Green Park Subdivision PLANNED ZON/NG: R-1-6 TYPE OF LAND USE ACT/ON: Annexation REV/EWED BY.• Pau/ W. Worth -Pub/ic Works Technfcian 30 rroposeaf+nnexauun Harrison Property -Merriman Road March 15, 1995 -Page Two /. STREET /MPROVEMENTS: ~~ Includes: Street Subgrade, Street Base, Street Paving, Street Light'irig, Traffic ~~ Control/Delineation Improvements, Curbs/Gutters, Safety Improvements, Ingress/Egress Improvement, On-Street Parking and Off-Street Parking, Delivery Truck Access, Other Transportation Requirements, Sidewalk, and Bikeways. A. Existing Conditions: 1. Street No. LS 134, Street Name-Green Park Drive,.. Street Classification -Local Street., Jurisdiction-City of Central Point. Descri tp ion' -Right of Way -Street Width -Moving Lane -Parking Lanes -Traffic Volume -Sidewalk -Curb/Gutter -Street Lights -Bike Way Existin Conditions 60' property to property 36' curb to curb 2 2 ? VT/D 5' wide Exists Exists None Future Requirements 50' property to property 36' curb to curb 2 Oto2 2,500 VT/D Required 5' wide Required 5800 Lumen - 200' spacing none 2. Street Name-Merriman Road, Collector Street, Jurisdiction-City of Medford. Descri to ion ~cisting Conditions -Right of Way -Street Width -Moving Lane -Parking Lanes -Traffic Volume -Sidewalk -Curb/Gutter -Street Lights -Bike Way 60' property to property 48' curb to curb 2 Unknown 7 VT/D Yes, (east side Yes, (east side Exists None B. Discussion Future Requirements 80' property to property 60'-64' curb to curb 2-3 Unknown 5000-10,000 VTD Required (staked for construction) Required (staked for construction) 5800 Lumen - 200'. spacing Required 1.(a) Annexation of this property will not require widening improvements to Green Park Drive. 1.(b) Future widening and street improvements may be required to Merriman Road which is under the City of Medford's jurisdiction: " 2. A street light exists approximately 105' from Applicant's North property line at the corner of Merriman Road and Greenpark Drive. ' e~ Proposed Annexation Harrison Property-Merriman. Road March 15, 1995 -Page Three ,F ' 1. WATER IMPROVEMENTS: -Includes:. Mainlines, Property Service, Fire Service, ~ and Backflow Protection. A. Existing Conditions: 1. An 4" ductile iron waterline is located in Green Park Drive at Station 1 +75, thence, within a Public Utility Easement located in Lot #43 of Green Park Subdivision. Jurisdiction-City of Central Point. 2. A 8" ductile iron waterline is located in the east side of Merriman Road along the Applicant's frontage. -Jurisdiction-Medford Water Commission. 3. A Fire Hydrant is located 184' south of Applicant's property on Merriman Road. B. Discussion -None Required ///. SAN/TARY SEWER /MPROVEMENTS Includes: Mainline, Property Service, Regional System Development Charge, Local SDC, Industrial Wastewater Permit. A. Existing Conditions 1. An 8" Sanitary Sewer is located in Merriman Road along the applicant's property frontage. Jurisdiction-City of Medford. 2. A 15" Sanitary Sewer is located in Green Park at approximately Station 1 +75, thence, within a Public Utility Easement located in Lot #43 of Greenpark Subdivision. Jurisdiction-City of Central Point. B. Discussion 1. Annexation of this property will require connection to the 8" Sanitary Sewer Main located in Merriman Road. /V. STORM ORA/NAGS /MPROVEMENTS: Includes: Discharge Basin, Wetlands Requirements, TMDL Requirements. A. Existing Conditions 1. A 48" storm drain lies in the east side of Merriman Road along the Applicant's property frontage. Jurisdiction-City of Medford. B. Discussion -None Required 3 2