Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - August 7, 2007 ~c'\ ~, ~31lIlf11i1S~ {.i)TT7ill sJ(~S1 (,;o3ariis~ ~,1cac y frc~aah~t, C~t~-cl~~ ish~ 1 ~~zman Icti~l~t, Chuck T's`1; ~ . ,', *".~t T~c;c~l:, '"~I livr, ICI. `~I~~~~~~l:~~a~~st;~.~. ;~ P. 11.. I~c~~°ic~~, artcl al~iiz-ia~;~al ~>i~Jral~ =~, ~t)ti%, I~lan~aiia~~ C`caraatattitii~>7~ T~.~ii~ac»kc Pis. 1 -26 .•`. ~+'~~~~ ~~, tl'7i ~~. h ~~ut~l%c 1~~<~a~i~a~?to cc~~a>iclc~ ~~ i~cgtacst inr'1 caa~:ti~c (~l~ata «i,}>rcavttl tta Ii~r-tlac~• ~>tfaclir°icli; I,cats 65, CiC7, 1~~, ~~:`~. ~:~o f~G ~~ta~i 8S a9"I ~~;in {'~•ccl~s C'rc?";Sir1`?, 1'hasc; lI. l lac ~~cil%jcct ~,~-ca~7c~~t~cs Marc 1~ac:atccl iza tlac "I'C)1)--:~9`vT1Z, ~~lcclit~~aa ~;li:~ ~~cidc~ati~3.~ zo~:ai~a~ ciis4rict aijcl arc locacc°cl uriliir~ 'tlae "l•~~;i~a C ~~cclt~ ~~lt~ylcr• Ilan ~~rc<t ricat•tla i)`t•"iltl}•l.i~r I~c?~3c1. «cst caf C li<~7h~,~~i~ ~)9., ~~~ac1 scautli c,' `~cciaic ;'~,~ cYauc. :~;a7alicazlt: T~~il~ Grccl~ l~c~'cJca~a~aac~~t, {'ca.~ ,-~~cnt: Tcrl~~crt I~arlacr, !'%~r[Jt;l~ ~tax'~,~.~i~a.t P~;s. 27 - 30 A. I:xtc~asicaY~ rccl~~~ ! ~;` Gray (~~x.~t~ta Tit-~I) Ci#y of Central Foint Planning Comrnissiou Minu#es July ~, 2007 L MEETING CALLED T4 GIRDER AT '7.00 P.M. II. R©LL CALL: Commissioners Connie Moczygemba, Check Piland, Damian Idiart, Mike Qliver, Candy Fish and Justin I-Turley were present. Pat Beck was absen#. Also in attendance were: Torn. Humphrey, Community Development Director; Don Burt, Planning Manager; Connie Clone, Community Planner; Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician; and Dzdi Thomas, Planning Secretary. III. CORRESP©NDENCE There was an item of correspondence from Jackson County Roads and a revised Public Works staff report pertinent to item B, White I-Iawk PUD, on the agenda. IV. MINUTES Candy Fish made a mo#ion #o approve the mina#es of the .June 5, 2007 Planning Comzx~ission mee#ing. Chuck Piland seconded the motion. RDLL CALL: Fish, yes; Idiart, abstained; {Jliver, abstained; Piland, yes; I-Turley, yes; Moczygemba, yes. Mo#ion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. File No. 0711'7. A public hearing to consider a request for approval of a Variance from the corner setback requirements in the T©D-GC zoning dis#ric# and Si#e Plan approval for the expansion of exis#ing office space. The subjec# property is located in the TC}D-GC, General Commercial zoning dis#rie# and is iden#ified on the Jackson Caun#y Assessor's map as 37S 2W 03DD, Tax Lo#'7000, 155 North Firs# S#ree#. Applican#: Rogue Valley Council of Governmen#s There were no conflicts or ex pane communications to disclose. Justin I-Turley advised that he had made a site visit. 1'Icrntaing Cotttttrissiotr A~irurtes .Tiny 3, 2C1C17 Pcr,~e 2 Plazazzing Technician Lisa Morgan presented the staff report for this variance application, pointing out that properties located in abutting zoning districts have existing zero setback requirezxzents. The Downtown Plan recozrzznends zero setbacks along Manzanita Street to enhance the pedestrian and transit charter of the downtown. The Rogue Valley Council of Goven~ments wishes to obtain a variance in order to expand their existing office building with the zero lot line setback. Dazniarz ldiart questioned the presence of a hardship in connection with this application. The public poz~tion of the hearing was opened. Michael Cavallaro, Executive Director of the RVCQG, came forward and explained that a lzardsl~ip existed based on the odd configuration ofthe existing stz-ucture which started out as a potato chip warehouse, subsequently enduring numerous additions to accozxzn~odate the growing need for additional office space. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Chuck Piland made a motion to adopt Resolution "728, granting a Class «C~~ variance to the Rogue Valley Council of Governments to vary from the current standard corner lot minimum. l5 foot setback requirement for expansion of their professional offices located at 1.55 North First Street {Jackson County Assessor's Hoop 37S 2W Q3DD, Tax Lat'7000), based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Candy Fish seconded the motion. Rt~LL CALL: Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; CC:}liver, Yes; Piland, yes; I-lurley, Yes. Motion passed. Lisa Morgan then presented the staff report to Commissioners, requesting approval of the Site Plaza application submitted by Rogue Valley Council of Govez~zments for the expansion of existing office facilities located at 1 S 5 North First Street. The proposed expansion would provide additional office and storage space as well as a conference room. The property is presently developed to the znaximuzxz allowed lot coverage of 1(l~}%. In order to comply with the minimum 1 S°lo landscaping requirement, existing loading areas would be replaced and on-site parking would be reduced to 9 spaces. The public portion of the hearing was opened and once again, Michael Cavallaro came forward. Mr. Cavailaro assured commissioners that the RVCQG was serious about being a good neighbor but requiring 15°l0 landscaping would be an excessive expense that would create a great deal of difficulty. RVC4G has voluntarily maintained landscaping within the right-o~E way along Manzanita and North First Streets and intends to continue in the future. Planning Manager Don Burt advised Commissioners that the situation relative to the 15°l0 landscape coverage is currently non-confoz~xzing, however, as the applicant does not intent to remove any landscaping there is no aggravation of the existing condition.. The issue of having to comply with the 1 S% landscape coverage is therefore discretionary. Plczrrrritag Conamissian Miraaztes Jzrl~~ 3, 207 Page 3 The public portion of the hearing was closed. Comtuissioners discussed and deliberated upon the landscaping opportunities currently available on the site and agreed that a credit for the right-of way cun-ently being ~-naiz~taiz~ed by the Applicant was appropriate to the intent of the ordinance. Damian Idiart made a matian to adopt Resolution 729 recommending approval of the Site Plan application for expansion of existing professional office facilities far the Rogue Valley Council of Governments located at 155 North First Street (Jackson County Assessor's map 37S 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7000}. Applicant shall submit landscape plans to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit and demonstrate that every effort has been made to comply with the 15°ln minimum landscape coverage requirement. Applicant may include improvements along Manzanita and First Streets in the calculation and will further be required to continue maintenance of said landscaping within the right-of--way on Manzanita and First Streets, based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report, Justin Hurley seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; ldiart, yes; Oliver, yes; 1'iland, yes; hurley, Yes. Motion passed. B. File No, 07119. A public hearing to consider a request far approval of a Major Modification application far White Hawk Planned Unit Development. The purpose of the application is to review amendments to the previously approved tentative plan an property located in the R-1-b Residential Single- Family zoning district (Jackson County Assessor's map 37S 2W 02, Tax Lots 2700 and 2701}. The proposed project area is located earth and east of the intersection of Beebe Road and Gebhard Road. Applicant: Duncan Development; Agent: Matt Scheidegger, CESNW, Inc. There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose except that Damian ldiart stated. he was a close friend of the applicant and would excuse himself from discussion and voting on this application. Mike Oliver stated that he was a friend of the applicant but felt that he would be able to make an unbiased decision in this matter. Candy l"ish and Justin burley each stated that they had made site visits. Connie Clone, Community Planner, presented the staff report, describing some of the background information and the proposed modifications to the approved preliminary development plan. Ms. Clone stated that the proposed modifications would `include a reduction in the number ofsingle-family residences from 9I to 61; the inclusion of a 4.3 acre common area to include RV garages and storage to be maintained for the use of residents; a relocation of access onto Gebhard Road; redistribution of open space; elimination of a street stub to the north and alley-Ioaded garages; and elimination of the pedestrian path at the intersection of Beebe Road and Gebhard Road. Plarzrzirzg Corrunissiorz r~irurtes July 3, 2Qt~7 ~'ccge 4 In addition to meeting the conditions ofapproval outlined in the staff report, Public Works has conditions of approval in their amended staff report dated July 3, 2447 that applicant will need to comply with as well. Tom Iumphrey, Coznznunity Development Director, indicated that the City wants to make sure that the road alignment of Beebe and Gebhard Roads will work out in the future as ultimately there will be a connection to E. fine Street as set out in the East Pine Corridor Traffic Study which incorporated the White I-lawk development in its analysis. Mr. Humphrey added that the request for final PUD approval would be brought back to the Planning Commission. Matt Scheidegger, a representative froze CESNW azzd agent for the applicant, came forward to discuss the proposed modifications to the White 1-lawk PL1D, Mr. Scheidegger reiterated some ofthe changes previously presented by Connie Clune azzd added that there would be perimeter landscaping around the RV garages and storage areas to be maintained by the homeowners' association. In addition, Mr. Scheidegger stated that it is their intent to eliminate the need for three-car garages with the presence of the RV garages and storage areas. Each lot in the PUD will receive an RV garage assignment. However, the homeowners' association will maintain ownership of the RV garages. Applicant Mike Duncan came forward and advised Commissioners that it was the design intent to develop creative ideas and open spaces for the purpose of bringing people together with similar interests and create a community feeling within the development. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. .Tustin Hurley made a motion to adopt Resolution 730 recommending approval of the Major Modifications application for White Hawk Planned Unit Development {Jackson County Assessor's map 37S 2W 02, Tax Lots 2700 and 2701) based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Chuck Pilazzd seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; ldiart, abstained; Oliver, yes; Piland, yes; 1-lurley, Yes. Motion passed. Planning Commissioners took a short break at 8:44 p.m. and reconvened. at 8:45 p.m. C. File No. 0'7121. A public hearing to consider a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit application to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility concealed within a flagpole on private property in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. The subject property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 02D, Tax Lot 2905, 250 Peninger Road. Applicant: SprintlNextel; Agent: Sharon Gretch Plrrtra7ing Comnaissiora ei~lin2rles .Iuty 3, ~t1C17 Page S There were na conflicts or cx paste coznznunicatiozzs to disclasc. Justin I-Iurley advised that he had made a site visit. Lisa Mangan, Planning Technician, presented the staff rcpart and recazrzznended approval ofa Conditional Use Permit far the proposed wireless telecazrzznunications facility disguised as a flagpole an property owned by Kentucky Fried Chicken. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Sharon Gsetclz, agent for applicant Sprint/Ncxtel, cazxze forward and responded to queries from Commissioners. Ms. Cretch informed that KFC would betaking care of the flags as paz-t of their lease arrangement, and that equipment would be screened. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Candy Fish made a motion to approve Resolution '731 recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit application for the construction and operation of a wireless telecommunications facility concealed within a flagpole on private property Iocated at 250 Peninger Road {Jackson County Assessor's map 3'7S 2W fl2D, Tax Lot 2905), based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Mike Oliver seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Oliver, yes; Piland, yes; Hurley, yes. Mahon passed. I7-. File No. fl7fl9fl. A public hearing to consider a request for Tentative Plan approval to create five {5) Io#s, one (1) with an existing home. The subject property is located in the R-I-6, Residential Single Family zoning district and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W lOUD, Tax Lot 2'700, 32£8 Snowy Sutte Lane. Applicant: Tanya S. Miller; Agent: Terra Survey, Inc. There were na conflicts ar ex paste eommunicatians to disclose. Chuck Piland indicated that he was related to the applicant by marriage. Planning Technician Lisa Mangan presented the staff repast, reviewing the conditions of approval and attachments. Ms. Mangan stated that she had been contacted by a neighboring property owner who is still in the exploratory stages of developing their property. Ms. Mangan assured Cammissianers that Tanya Miller's request for tentative plan on her property will not impact the hills' ability to develop theirs and the I-lilts' concerns regarding storm water drainage have been addressed in the Public Works staff z•eport, Addresses far the new parcels created will be on Jahn Bayne Drive. The public hearing was then opened. As na one cazxze forward to speak either for ar against the application, the public portion of the hearing was closed, Plcrnrzitag ~tJr77t721SSi(J1I 111irztztcrs .Jute 3, 2t1t77 J'age 6 Damian Idiart made a motion to approve Resolution 732 recommending approval of the Tentative Plan applicationz to create Svc {5} lots, one of which contains an existing home on property located at 3268 Snowy Suttc Lane {Jackson County Assessor's map 375 2W IODD, rI'ax Lot 2700}, based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Candy Fish seconded the motion. RC}LL CALL: fish, yes; Idiart, yes; C}liver, yes; Piland, yes; I-Iurley, yes. Motion passed. VII. MISCELLANEOUS T417 in +Gentr~xl Point East Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, reported that the City Council had authorized a resolution to explore the creation of an eastside Tt~D. The owners of the Mon Desir property have expressed a desire to introduce a mixed-use development in the vicinity of the restaurant. As more information is obtained, the Planning Commission will be apprised. LTt•lran Gt•owtli .Soundar•y .L~'x,~ansiQn Mr, Humphrey informed Commissioners that he had met with John Rent of the Department of Land Conservation and Development and presented him with the information necessary to take to Salem for an informal submission and direction. prior to a formal application, Planning Cartttnissionsr Training Mr. Humphrey invited commissioners to take advantage of an opportunity for planning commissioner training to be held in Eugene on Saturday, September 15, 2007. The training is being provided by the C}regon Planning Institute. Anyone interested in attending should contact Tom Humphrey. IX. ADJOURNMENT Damian Idiart made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mike Oliver seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 9;20 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the July 3, 20(}'7 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 7, 2007. Planning Commission Chair ~~~r Y ~ ~ ~Ira+ t~.. ~` i ~w ~~7 ~ ~ ~.7 ~ 1'11.1.7 ,~ ~~" ~ A:+7 C~ ~. ,_~ F, _. _ i ~i1~ ~. . ~~'dJ;l 1.. i ~ I)~a ~7..- ~4AJ 1; - ~ y ii;~i(J i... 1 t}l.` tr`:. .1{?.. (~ .. ( i 1 ~ i i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ', ~I ! ~ ~ ~ ~ i i~ 1. ? , j ... ~ ~.,'i ~ 5 1 ~ ~ ~2 ~ ' i '. , F; ! i, ~~... i '. ~~. ~~ brx ~r~~ ~,, ~.~1~' ~L!titE'i'.. ~~ ~ .. ~v ~ G ~~ j ;u ~~ f .~ I'e1 i~_li c. "t711~C; Iii: it i~')~7~IC;~ti ' i,' ~~Lll'~3~lii ~_' I. '. -. ,._ rsmm tws,. ~ ~ r4n :itt~i(.1~'i(f~ ~1~~, nl~>>.°t t: j~3~tJ.~;i ~ ~; i_r? c~n,:~i~ -. ~. ,~;'S ctl%i~37{ i.ir?_lt.-d~f]il~l 'ii ~'.~~ ~ ir~~- S ( ~ , - ~ 5'4'AC~~ lol(;~ .~~ ~ - ~=ajJ c` 1 ~ i~:1. - L~S ~... .. _ ... Y :~< rl~, ~ ~:,~~~ ~~'i~~~ sr.it,j ;, + mica ~ ; ~,.lir~ ~ ~ . ,,~ ... pP';. 541.. .. Within the Twin Creeks development there is a fatal of 2'7.6 acres designated for MMR development. {Refer to Attachment "B"} Approximately 53°la of properties {14.57 acres) have been final platted, with the remaining 47°l0, including this proposed Tentative Plan and two {2} other properties, currently vacant to be developed in the future under separate applications. In addition to the Project Site the remaining vacant MMR properties include: Lot 1 of Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase I {4.41 acres), and Parcel 3 {P- 116-2006} at 5.26 acres. Densify, Lot Area and Coverage: The guiding criteria for evaluation of this application are the approved Twin Creeks Master Plan and the lot density and area requirements far TC1D -Medium Mix Residential zoning district regulations. In reviewing the activity of the Medium Mix Residential zoning and the Twin Creeks Master Plan, the fallowing has been determined. • The minimum density requirement in the MMR district is 14 units per net acre. When applied to the 27.6 acres of MMR designated property within the Twin Creek development a minimum of 386 units are required, The maximum allowable density is 32 units per acre, far 883 units. + Appraxiartately 14.5"] acres have been previously approved yielding 170 units. This represents a density of 12 units per acre, which is below the average minimum density required by the master plan and the MMR district. Ta meet the minimum density'requirements it is necessary that future MMR development must exceed the required minimum density.. . • The proposed Tentative Plan invcilves 3.36 acres with a unit yield of 34, for a density of 10 units per acre, + Pending approval ofthis application the developed acreage {17.93 acres} with a lot yield of 204 units, results in an average density of 11.4 units per acre, which is below the minimum required 14 units per acre. ~ After this application there remains 9.67 net acres of MMR property. To remain camplz'ant with the Master Plan, and the minimum required density of l4 units per acre, it is necessary that the remaining MMR acreage be developed at a density of 18.8 units per acre { 182 units}, for a minimum fatal of 386 units. The applicant and agent are aware and have agreed to a condition that requires a minimum density of 18.8 units per acre for the remaining 9.67 acres. {Refer to Attachment "F"}. • The lots proposed are consistent with the Lot Area requirements. ~ ~ Lot caverage2 will be verified during individual building permit reviews. FINDINGS: Attachment "G" 'CPMC 17.65.135(}, Table 2 ~ CPMC 17.65.fl5fl, Table 2 Page 2 of 3 ISSUES: As Hated above the management of minimum density requirements needs to be acknowledged. Because of the master plan approach to development of Irvin Creeks all MMR properties were collectively calculated far purposes of complying with minimum density requirements of the MMR district. Individual parcels of MMR property could be developed at lesser densities, provided that upon completion of development of all MMR parcels a minimum density of l~ units per acre has been attained. This issue has been noted in this Staff Report, and the applicant has acknowledged that future phases of the MMR development must meet minimum density standards of 18.8 units per net acre. C~ONDITI©1'~S C?F APPRt~VAL: l . Applicant shall create a recorded deed restriction on Lot l of Twin Creeks Grassing, Phase I and Parcel 3 created under a partition (P-116-2006} that stating that each parcel shall achieve a minimum net density of 18.8 acres per net acre. Recorded copies of the deed restrictions shall accompany the Final Piat application. EXHIBITSIATTACHMEi~+TTS. Attachment "A" _ Tentative Plan Attachment "B" -Twin Creeks Master Plan Land Use Map Attachment ``G" -- Public Works Mema Attachment "I}" -Building Department Staff Report Attachment "E"- Jackson County Roads Comments Attachment "F"- ApplicantlAgent Correspondence Attachment "G" -- Findings Attachment "H" -Proposed Resolution ACTIflN; Consideration of a Tentative Plan application to create thirty four (34~ attached single family residential lots. ~:ECUMMENDATIC~N: Approve Resolution ,approving the Tentative Plan far Twin Greeks Grassing, Phase III, based an the Staff Report dated August 7, 20(}7 which includes attachments, attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. Page 3 of 3 r / hf \ ,,,. ` qs "" f : ,~' ~~~ l r r, q 1 \ ~ ,,~ p~ b3 ~ ;,~\ f ~o ` `,, os "~ r ` 7-~fV TA T1 V~ FLAN y,, ~ ,.' ,y ~ ~~ ,; '' r rrb" ~ ~``Y ~ ~`~ ,,, '' 7'W!N CREEKS C~.'OSSItV~, Pl-fASE !I1 f ,r r tip p ~,t ..r a repfat of \, {°\ ~ f r s ~ r qj, ~,,r ,,o~ r r '' r,~' `~' ~ \ yo ,.'~ "5 ~'" L0T5 6."+. ISB. 87, 82. 85. 8B. ANO $8 F ^ \ ° ~r 4p, ,r 'r \ ' ~ ~\ r ~,,,• / , ~ s ~°` ,,, '`~ ~ Ot' T1HN CREEKS CORSSlNG ,PHASE tt ~' h ("'14 ~ f of ~ r Q ~ "` tocetca to Enn fir, ~ +,, '` 6t "" ,~'' \ \, ~P / z7 r~,'x ~gp ~ r,, ''' o~ "" r„ ~'" SCNI7NHE57 ONE QU/iRTE!? OF 5EC7tt7li 3. \ `~~/ \l f ' ^ b ~~. ,, ''~ Q< °'a ~ ,//+ ~ ~,r ~b ~'' ~~~ 4 ~ NfLL.iMFTTE MER10tAN, ~ CKSON COUN T'Y, SOF2EGON // f,:'"`^t \ r OZar ~,./ \, ~? ~ t ~ ~ ~ J by: p~'t l"0` Sd'°ss,, f "''r o t`' T A+ {~Q~^ru~+ (''~ ~j~f47t i~~^~r-~^ ~ny~ t e }~ f^ f r 9 ,,r M ~S~A p~fa ~ \ l f t' 1 ~lY 4t'~4G.I1J V~Y4. L.~~MG.fY F 1/V.1 L[~iJ rr, r ~ r 40~ ~C~ ~ r' , ~ s~ } ~s \ \,.', a. a. eax ss~~ ~} l ,! e:. ` 3~ ~a ~ gy`,~o S`b /kp \ \ CE"+I7RAL FOt.Y T~ QREGON X78;}2 'C'~ 5 / /1 \ J XOlt g9 rl\ ``~ V'n ~ } 7t ~ ~ ~S. sr `,.~Za ~'a~`T ` ~ t \ \\ ~,, t \ Cl r r 4,~e ~ ,. S ~OZgwSa~~~ ~.yso ~` '~~ t~,'S~, ~ ~@ ~` ~ tJOTES '' \ ti,, r' '~ \ ,` ;,-~°= ~_ ~,a ~" ;~ o~ ~ 3 ..~ _.flTA~ AAFA 3S6 eCRFS y ,/ , ~ ,t V ' Ml s¢ ~ ~,p'3` ~ 1 r`~s ~ L.~nb ~ <' ~ s~ '~~ ~"~ ~ '.v;N:uUa+ c4' JSCS Sf' 'day\\ \ \`jh -xt'taact car.r3:o s.' \ ~ 9 `Q 70 J •.~$~ ya` t y4 ~Y // Zt ^tii7.4ifi:R GF LO:S . l? 'R 4 1 9^ t 1 ~ 1 ~f - AV. PIiJL!C V1!tf Kf$ £A$£'VEN' FQR WA!FR, $AlY:APY $.:ty'A, $'C,~~.4/ 1, fC \ ~ 5> .~ ~s Ss 55' h. Y ~ ~G1z ~°' g i` CRA!v. Cz9 R1.0 Ca9:- ;v f~\ ~ 'L~J ~, ~ 1 r a l ~ ~y0 v9S, t-' '{~~ fy ~ d5~ tk~ A ~"",q` ~ 1~h ' , i~~} ~ S£VCx=-ARY,r!J1'~~RCP1dP:v C.£vA P.Cry t2a5.3i f^' 09 \ ~ `~~o° .r ~ ~ ~ 4pt~5!~ yo o\\\.,._r\/"/- oy\ hp +s\\\_\\`_+ o r ~"~~"~-"~ _ \ `\ -^1f-31-}f-. S,+.V: ttRr S:If.'A ::t"E fb `''4 r...r ~,V r.} 99~ .r .-5. Ck~,~ ` >5` !.^~, q- \ 1~y Sib pa `/~Y~bs; 1 11 4 sz.vr t.Ar Sf~r.'a kArv.NOL£ t' L [' \ " v S r Rj 'fP ++p5t' l1 `L`~ \ 9, \ \\` _ v?'F ^CAw DA:i:u HA'r.1 :928/3ff 1 ~i ~ / to r~ ~S ~ F4~ J'2p 's{Q k, 5? f1F 'S J \ P5 h~+~ /f typ Js ~i ~ - IOtii!!G C15 tarC+'S r A+#R Y t \ ~ ~ S ~ / ,~ p . sc Tl „~ af."G~ ~ isa i,^'~u'!t'~ / t.~7•i r -,,, aa~ ssn'rt.~ p ^ .. 9.1~i$ Cf 9FFAFxG t$ TftVF vG i4. vA0 &3%9f t}A.^„'ll. A$ C£P:4Eu 9+' C. »:F: s, /,.fR'6 wa0 0 Jss. COT ~ ,,~ f ^;i' ~' '+~. 8 ~b~ r hn rs 1 s~`if"S~rst~, ~ a0S 3Cnt,YG SrS rE=a Q95£AVA P.a'.'S. <o \ ° \ \ ,~+~ yy y oo ".`o /~~Q s~ ,~Y''~ .{, y..w'~ tia~ y sm. y,r r °m4 sa ~ / \ \r . 'H ~ 'tA .A f 'S ~~Opp Y ~~ho gh~~}t~m^ ,rS .(~ ~QT b ay.o "A' f' f/'^~/"c~ b~ LJSb ~ p ,~ `6;~9 ~p r t ` ?a h ZJ Ay. ~`P'rv.A ~~ 0` \ 1 S w ~ ar2~~ ~ ~ ~ p~01 S'~i~ .. ,~ (" ,,~""' y, y~ ~ Y ':\~ f~ \\'tV i S *}YVrc m~oT `~,-.:. '.r "Qpo ~ b. V~\1\\\ 'y's\\ ~ :~0~,, ~^f}r~ "r'o \" ' "yY J~ ,r` ~~~ s ~ ~y1h ^o aa. :R '~y,`Ti~ r °a oR 1'~` c `` a9 \ s ~y, m~ ~ \ ,.r~a ,,y r ° ,~ r ~ r s. ~aa' "o s ' ' '° '~~ ~sbs. t s°;. /: ^ N ~F eh~~yt 4, p_6,./$ ~ Yn4',~ _ S. 2'"~o n Sr' ~ •y~S 5 s~~~/r `y br .+'}' 0 ''~ sR ~'--' g l ~,~' '~"' w.. ~cr 1 t" ~ 'a$ y ,,:!rj 1 ~ cSR `c~~ FOn y;, / \ er4 ~,.,- ~, *;; ,,. .-4~s{OT f' ° n~ $ s. t'" ° 'f 4 "~ . 's.°T~ . ~ ' s r' ~'0 `' f'' \ \ / o , ... Yy~,n. L?s ~T m_ ~ ~ 7 .."' `{a `~3` ~. Pa RK S :. hSV t°,9~ "'^+: ~ a. pYat tot tit ~ .r~ ............ _____ .........r'r ~ ~sCp~,`4. \ t'~ _ / "i~ 4 has lv` ~'9b Ca:Nnp 7 v S`~g~7~g9~ 2~ rs lag~9." ~-'F`~ 3 ss9'aY18'w fa'T.3i S s, ~s r,2 s _ _ ~ 33.p@ as.00 aB.CJ 23-}f r c. ~ AP r..5'cs pp , L6; tta 1 i !, ~ __.... ° `~~ .~~lQT'AS ,R U ~yo ~ _......, +-H 3 ' N tr h Y ~ ~ a ~~ .g.~ iF, R^VQ .VS S LOS ":.. ~ v O i Nk '- c~ ~a^?Z. f! sJ \\ 3 1 a J \ V M }/ S I (om ~ O~ ~ ~ ~n .v O°^ ~e ~ r CQT 1;i (..~ 2' ~ti ~ ~ ~ rt ~ M y~O't T____ x » 9~lrr~ f~ \} S3.G0 +3.00 as. b E zA,62 SsR.n: Sb w J !s+s.e "' ~ ~~ n ......... ~ :~ ~ 4 ...~..~. U ' .:gg£550?S F!.aa FILE xC. 37 2N C3C8 'L ffarq.BSCC.7fa0, 3~ 2w P3C.: 7CC. BCC, J~ RW 0390 7'C ,32C0, 3.TC0 f ~~ r ~ ` r f ~`Q, yJ ~~` ~,(`? l ' \ ~'At?t3ER do SONS. lNC. \• ~ dbn FAFt19E12 StJRirEYlNG {~sr) ss4-sass rzx:o:srcaso c ~ `` rya Box fr28+a PROPSSSlONaL \\\\ \ a3t OAK S'Re c'+" LAND SURV'tYOR ` '~~ eEv=QAC ac,vr, ap~co~: ~;~>;2 .u~ 2~~9~9a ~ ` ~ 5~' 0 ~5o rpC' IcaecR:a uo "rye[R ~ `~~ OA ~': .:EJNE 24, 2Ca2 \\~\ .+UV rva. o5i!a.. s+c+r Rf"~f!t'FL CA if !p-St-4~ ~ '(}. `` ORa FVNC F+[E: J'JBS~C[rP"RAC A4YN (\IN1N CREEKS LtC\+lEtCN$CtRt~tQCCS~ .'Ea'~1dQt T pf i \, ;sStN CREEv,S CRDSS+NG tt;'tiFf!CftC5f/RVEY\TCCirt_PpELtkr;~1ARY Ft:tA;, R:,A'. CiS'S ATTA~NM~NT "~~ ~'! \\ r;:4 :i~ ~ ~__.__. ~.. ~ ~ _-~ _ ! ! - ~ ~._. 1 I } i .~ ••hnS'-wfTi ~... L'llrilrir 1fi. I,rerr! iisc Plnr: 0£Y£t.OPU£Ri SI1trFf~RY: .,.,_. _.,~ £mploymenifGammertial (£C): A.2 otter (1.67.} }sigh 3i;z Rcsi4.fComm (FiAiR}: 18.8 otres {8.fi7.} ~'~-" 58A units 430 uja minimum (650 sixrxn} xtadum uix Res;denF=ak (i3t1R}: 27.G noes (k2-07.) ~' RRt uniks Q 16 u/a minimum {457 ahaxn) E 3 knx 1(ix ResAentiaE {t,tAR}: 6f.R ac+cs (26.710) . _.....-.___..3 3S6 unit: G 6 ufa minimum (366 Shawn) ... ._. I Qflen 5µvte (65}: 48.7 arcs {21.0x} ~--'`- - C~vt {G}: 16.8 ocr'cs {7.3x} Rights of Way: Si,i otrns (22.07•} ~v~..~ ~.4- rev. 1103 iJnits~minimvm (1 R75 shorn} R i ~~r .~ ~`\ ~" ._~', j t ~I l~ z + ~~ R ~~ f ~ >~'•c ,, ~ ~~ E ~ ~~ .~:: ;~ l ) k~ _t ' ~ '_k 1 ~;~' ~~ }~}; F ~ fi¢ 'I t~ 2: ~' (i I'af;e; 1 of 1 Lisa Morgan From: Matt Sarni#ore Sen#: Thursday, July 06, 2(}07 3:42 PM To: Lisa Morgan Subject: win Creeks Crossing Phase ii nd West Valiey Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesss Attachments: Tod triggers.xls Lisa, Public Works has no comments on either project. They are both considered development in-fill. They were planned as part of the original subdivisions and afi utilities and services have already been stubbed to the properties. The TUb triggers are still nat met. l've attached an updated table for you. Matt Samitore Parks/Recreation and ©evelopment Services Manager City of Central Paint Parks and Public Works bepartments (v41 } 664-3321, ext. 205 City of Central Point, C}regon 140 So.Third St, Central Feint, C}r 97502 541.564.3327 Fax 541.864.6384 www.ci.centra4-poi nt.or.us CENTRAL POINT Building Department inois €~eBenedetti, Building flfficiaf BUILDING DEPARTMENT STA1=~ F ~;EPQRT DATE; p'~1I0147 TQ: Planning Department Planning ale: FRpM: Building Department SUBJECT: Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase III Name: TCC Dev. Co. Address: P.C}. Box 31'7 City: C.P. State:C?r. dip Code: 9'502 Property Description: See Attached PUR.~'C3SE: The staff report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Applicant regarding City Building Department requirements and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed project. This is not a plan revi+~w. This report is preliminary and co7mpiled solely for use by the Central Point Planning Corr~mission. 1 "~ pity of Central Point, Oregon 740 So.Third St., Central Point dr 975D2 5~E7.664.3327 Fax 547.664.6384 www.ci.cent ra i-poi r~t.ar.u s ~- ~ _. CENTRAL POINT Building Department Lois DeBenedetti, Building Qf~€cial BiTIIIDTN~ DEP.A~RTIVI~NT COMIVIEN'~`S: 1. Applicant, agent and contractors must comply with all current State of Oregon adopted codes, and apply for all permits through the Central Point Building Department. 2. If a private storm drain system is proposed it must be reviewed and a permit issued by the Central Point Plumbing Department. 3. Any private street lighting must be reviewed and permitted by the Central Point Electzical Department. 4. Provide the building department with a Geotechnical report as required by C3SSC Appendix J and chapter lb ofthe dSSC. A written report ofthe investigation shall include, but need not be limited to, the following information: a. A plot plan showing the location of all test borings and/or excavations. b. Descriptions and classifications of the materials encountered. c. Elevations of the water table, if encountered. d. Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects ofliquefaction and soil strength, and the effects of adjacent loads. e. V1~hen expansive soils are present, special provisions shall be provided in the foundation design and construction to safeguard against damage due to expansiveness. Said design shall be based on geotechnical reconrrraendations. ~, ~radinglexcavation permits are required in accordance with E~SSC Appendix J and chapter 18 and regarding any fill material placed on the site. pills to be used to support the foundation of any building or structure shall be placed in accordance with accepted engineering practices. A soil investigation report, and a report of satisfactory placement of fill including special inspections of placement of fill and corrapaction~ acceptable to the Building C3ff vial, shall be submitted prior to f nal of the gradinglexcavation permit. Building permits will not be issued until gradinglexcavation permit is approved and finalled. Exception: l . The upper 1.5 foot of fill placed, outside of public rights-of way. 2. `I'he upper 1.5 foot offll that does.not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas. 2 pity of Central Point, C~r-egon ~~~ wilding Department 340 So.Third St., Cerstra€ Point, Or 47502 7wR.~ l ~!!"-~ Lo€s L3eBenedetti, $ui€dinc~ C7ffiria€ 541.664,3323 Fax 543.664.6384 ~y~~ ~ 1 www.ci.central-point.csr.us ~''"" ~. To move or demolish any existing structures located on the property call the Building Department for permit requirements. 7. Notify the City Building Department of any existing wells, or septic systems located on the property. S. Any development zany man-made change} to improved or unimproved real estate located within the flood hazard area of the City of Central Paint shall require a Development Permit as set forth in the Central Point Municipal Code 8.24.12Q. 9, Dust control, erasion control, and track out eliminations procedures must be implemented. 1 ~. Application for building permits will require three sets of complete plans indicating compliance with Qregon Residential Specialty Code ~20fl5~. 1 1. Fire District 3 will determine fire hydrant location, as well as access to buildings. Any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Applicant, or Applicant's contractor to the Building Department for approval prior to start of work. Respectfully, Todd Meador Plans Examiner (664--332J -ext. 228) 3 .E . J.: f J ., I.~j~£'_f ~. S `.~'. i ~~ ~ _ _ J~~~~.~I'Y~oI~'~ (..+lll.'~~'~1 ~1 ~2Ji~'~~L,~;J s~,... i:, ~~'-'~1. 4 ~rv ~' ~"'r~rv,~ ~~` i ~j i ~' r~~rraris+E~yrr~ J~ ~ J~~r.~,'~ ~--- _~ .~oG~~S ,ftily 1 fl, 2{1017 ~zi~~~~s ;rr9c :Vierneper, P~ 7'rr;~c cir 1)sL~e7oprr~snl Er~gttz~r 200 Ant¢Inirc FiRad while Ciky, QF2'375t~3 Phonr~: (54i) 774-828a Fttx: (v4i } 774.62b5 nlprrtayal~l~Jsckaancaunry.arg ~wrw.Jacksaaaau nty.a r{~ A#tenfiorr: Lisp Mor>~~n ..~..'....~ify...~f`~'erif~al~( oinfP~i~r~r~(r~~ 1401 Sauth Third Sfreet Gen~fral Point, GF~ ~J7~02 PE: Sul~divisian off Narfh Naskeil S#reef ~ a city-mainfair~ed road. Pl~nnirtg Pile: 07132. IOear I,Isa: Thank you far the c>pparfunify to comment on fhis app[icatiort far Twin Greeks Grossing, Phase III, Roads has na comment. Sincerely, I ric Niemeyer, PE Traffic ~ Developmenf Engineer ~~ 3:tEn~inee~ingtbeveloprnenftCl'rI>W ~1CritTRinP~F i0713~.w~d ~, ATTACHMENT" F " S U R V E Y 6 N C • FARBER +& SC?NS, INC. + PAST vFF1CE BOX v2$6 • CENTRAL POINT, QR 9T502 • + QFF1CE + 431 C?AK STREET ~ CENTRAL PC?!NT # City of Central Point Planning 1 ~€0 South third Street Central Point, DR 975fl2 To ~Izozn It May Concern: This letter is to address xecent density concerns in the MMR zoning district iz~ the Twin Creeks Development. Attached is an application for Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase III, a replat of Lots 65, 6G, f'7, 82, 85, 86, and 88 of twin creeks Crossing Phase II. "I'l~e Subdivision of the these lots along with the construction of Apaz-tments on Lot 1 of Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase I and Parcel 3 of Paz~ition; Plat P-11 ~a-~OC}6, will increase the density to meet the standards of the MMI~ Zoning. We hereby stipulate this condition of approval and are willing to put deed restriction on said Lot I and Parcel 3. % (~` incerely Ilerbert A, Farber ~~ # HERB~R~' A. FARBER PRESIDENT/StJRYEYC}R * SUSAN NC. FARB~R BUSINESS IVlANAGER• PNC7NE: X41-&64-559 + FRX: 5~ 1-6~i4-56Q3 r Findings of Fact ATTA~HM~HT " ~ ~' And Conclusions of Law Tentative Plan Review Application City File No. 07132 Applicant: Twin Creeks ievelopment, LLC Agent: Herb Farber -Farber Surveying INTRt7DUCTIQN In the Matter of a Type III Tentative Plan Review for the creation of a thirty four (34) attached single family lot subdivision known as Twin Creeks Grassing, Phase III, located within. the T(~D-MMR, Medium Mix Residential zoning district and identified an the 3ackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 03CB Tax Lots 64(}0, 6500 and '7100; & 37 2W 03CA, Tax Lots 700 and 800,. Also identified as part afthe Twin Creeks Master Plan area, Central Point, QR 97502 16.111. (II (1 Submission of application--Filing fee. The applicant shall submit an application and tentative plan together with improvement plans and ether supplementary material as may be required to indicate the development plan and shall 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 specif ed in section 16.1(1. (?2Q and one copy in an eight- and-cane-half=inch by eleven-inch format. Finding: All information required to deem the application complete far processing has been submitted. Conclusion: The criterion has been met. 16.1(1.(115 Applicativrr and review--Fees. .f#pplications and review thereof shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 17. fJS and all applicable city ordinances and laws of the state. rill costs of administrative and legal staff time costs, plans checks, construction inspection, preparation of agreements, in excess of the filing fee, shall lac borne by the applicant and paid upon br'lling by city. Failure tea pay such costs as billed shall constitute grounds for dental of~nal plat approval or building permits. 16.111 Ct2tJ 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. 16.1 f1. fI3t1 General information. The, following general information shall be shown on or included with the tentative plan: ~~ Twin Greeks Xing Ph III Tentative Plan Findings 07132 -Page 1 of 13 X 6.1 ft. f16t1 Fartial development, when the property to be subdivided contar'ns only part of the tract awned ar 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. ~'he city shall have authority to require that any adjacent parcel or parcels awned 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: N1A. Conclusion: NlA 16.I t1. f17t1 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 and unsubdivided land ownerships adjacent to the proposed subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be connected to existing streets; Finding: The applicant has included existing subdivisions and unsubdivided land with their proposed tentative plan. Finding: The applicant has identified all proposed streets and their respective classifications as part of the original Master Plan approval. Conclusion: The applicant has met this criterion, B'. Proposed deed restrictions in outline form; C. Approximate centerline profiles showing the proposed finished grade of all streets, including the extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision; ~?. The approximate location and sire of all proposed and existing water and sewer lines and storm drainage systems. Finding: This information has been provided in civil drawings in accordance with Public Works Standards for approval with the Master Plan. Conclusion. This criterion has been met, 16. X 4. U8tT Tentative plan approval. Approval of the tentative plan shall not ~onstitutefnal acceptance of the~nal plat of the proposed subdivision or partition for recording; however, approval of the tentative ~~ Twin Creeks Wing Ph lIl Tentative Plan Findings 07132 -Page 3 of 13 plan shall be binding upon city far the purpose of the approval of the final plat if the~nal plat is in substantial compliance with the tentative plan and any canditians of approval thereof The action of the council in approving the tentative plan shall be Hated an two copies thereof, including reference to any attached documents describing any canditians. Cane copy of the tentative plan shall be returned to the applicant and the other retained in the city files with a memorandum setting forth the action of the council. ,t 6.1 f1. f191I Conditions on 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, including but not limited to the following.' A. Construction and installation of any on-site or off-site improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, curbs, gutters, streets, street signs and street lights, traffic control signs and signals, water, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and park and recreation improvements. In requiring off=site improvements, the city shall frnd that said improvements are reasonably related to the development and would serve a public purpose such as mitigating negative impacts of the proposed development. All improvements required under this subsection shall be made at the expense of the applicant, and shall conform to the provisions of the Standard Spectfications and Uniform Standard .Details for Public Works Construction in the City of Central Point, Qregon, however, the city, in its discretion, may modify such standards and determine site-specif c design, engineering and construction specifrcations when appropriate in the particular development; B. An agreement by the owner of the property to waive, on his or her beha~ and on behalf of all future owners of the land, any objection to the formation of a local improvement district which may be formed in the future to provide any of the improvements specified in subsection A of this section; C: An agreement by the owner of the property to enter into a written deferred improvement agreement, providing that one or more of the improvements specified in subsection A of this section shall be made by the owner at some future time to be determined by the city; I3. Any agreement entered into pursuant to subsections B or C of this section shall be recorded in the county recorder's off ce and shall be intended to thereafter run with the land, so as to bind future owners of the lands affected. Any and all recording costs shall be borne by the applicant; E. Any other conditions deemed by the city to be reasonable and necessary in the interests of the public health, safety or welfare. Finding: These requirements are continuously monitored as development occurs within the Master Plan area. Canclusic~n: The applicant has met this criterion. 17.(IS.4(It7 Type II,I procedure (quasi judicial). A. Pre-Application Conference. Apre-application conference is required for all Type .1I1" applications. The requirements and procedures for apre-application conference are described in Section .l 7. C1S. 6Q(1(e~. B. Application Requirements. Twin Creeks Wing Ph III Tentative Plan Findings 0'7132 -Page 4 of 13 I. Application Forms. Type III applications shall be made on forms provided by the community development director or designee; however, if a Type II applicatr`on is referred to a Type III hearr`ng, either voluntarily by the applicant or staff; or upon appeal, no new application is required. 2. Submittal Information. When a Type III application is required, it shall: a. Include the information requested on the application form; b. Be filed with one copy of a narrative statement that explains how the application satisfies each and all of the relevant criteria and standards in sufficient detail for review and decision_making. Note: additional information may be required under the specific applicable regulations for each approval as referenced in Table I7.OS.1; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; and d. Include one set ofpre-addressed mailing labels for all real property owners cif record who will receive a notice of the application as required in Sections 17.05.00{C,~{I~{a){i), {iii, {ivy and {v~}. The records of the ~Iackson County assessor's office are the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall produce the notice list using the most current .Iackson County assessor's real property assessment u records to produce the notice list. The city shall mail the notice of application. C° Notice of Hearing. I. Mailed Notice, The city shall mail the notice of the Type III action. The records of the .Iackson County assessor's of~ee shall be the official records for determining ownership. Notice of a Type III application hearing or Type II appeal hearing shall be given by the community development director or designee in the following manner: a. At least twenty days before the hearing date, notice shall be mailed to: i. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the property that is the subject of the application; ii. All property owners of record within IOC? feet of the site; iii. Any governmental agency that is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the city. The city may notify other affected agencies. The city shall notify the road authority, and rail authority and owner when there is a proposed development abutting or affecting their transportation facility and allow the agency to review, comment on, and suggest conditions of approval for the application. iv. Owners of airports in the vicinity shall be notified of a proposed zone change in accordance with C?RS 227.175; v. Any neighborhood or community organization recognized by the city council and whose boundaries include the property proposed for development; vi. Any person who submits a written request to receive notice; vii. For appeals, the appellant and all persons who provided testimony in the original decision; and viii. For a land use district change affecting a manufactured home or mobile home parr all mailing addresses within the parr in accordance with C7RS .227. I75. b. The community development director or designee shall prepare an affidavit cif notice and the affidavit shall be made a part of the file. The affidavit shall state the date that the notice was mailed to the persons who were sent notice. c. At least fourteen business days before the hearing, notice of the hearing shall be printed in a newspaper of general circulation in the city as well as on the city's ~~ Twin Creeks Wing Ph III T~n~ative Plan Findings Ct7I32 - Page 5 of l3 website. The newspaper's affidavit ofpublication of the notice shall be made part of the administrative record. 2. Content of Notice. Notice of appeal of a Type II administrative decision or notice of a Type I.II hearing to be mailed and published per subsection {C~{I) of this section shall contain the following information: a. The nature of the application and the proposed land use or uses that could be authorized for the property; b. The applicable criteria and standards from the development code{s) that apply to the application; c. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; d. The date, time, and location of the public hearing; e..~t statement that the failure to raise an issue in person, or in writing at the hearing, or far`lure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decr'sion- maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, means that an appeal based on that issue cannot be raised at the Mate Land Ilse Board of r4ppeals; f The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number where additional information on the application may be obtained; g. A statement that a copy o, f the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or for the applr'cant, and the applicable criteria and standards can be reviewed at city of Central Point City .Hall at no cost and that copies shall be provided at a reasonable cost; h. A statement that a copy of the city's staff report and recommendation to the hearings body shall be available for review at no cost at least seven days before the hearing, and that a copy shall be provided on request at a reasonable cost; i. A general explanation of the requirements to submit testimony, and the procedure for conducting public hearings; and j. The following notice: "Notice to mortgagee, lien holder, vendor, or seller: The City of Central Paint Land Development Code requires that if you receive this notice r`t shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser. " D. Conduct of the Public Hearing. 1. At the commencement of the hearing, the hearings body shall state to these in attendance: a. The applicable approval criteria and standards that apply to the application or appeal; b. ~ statement that testimony and evidence shall be directed at the approval criteria described in the staff report, or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or land use regulations that the person testi, fying believes to apply to the decision; c..f# statement that failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to give the hearings body and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue means that no appeal may be made to the State Land Ilse Board of~lppeals on that issue,• d. Before the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may ask the planning commission for an opportunity to present additional relevant evidence or testimony that is within the scope of the hearing. The hearings body shall grant the request by scheduling a date to f Wish the hearing {a "continuance') per subsection {I?){2) of this section, or by leaving the record open for additional written evidence or testimony per subsection {D){3} of this section. ~~ Twin CreeiCS Xing Ph iii Tentative Flan Findings C}~ 132 -Page 6 0~' 13 2. If the planning commission grants a continuance, the completion of `the hearing shall be continued to a date, time, and place at least seven days after the date of the f rst evidentiary hearing. An opportunity shall be provided at the second hearing for persons to present and respond to new written evidence and oral testimony. If new written evidence is submitted at the second hearing, any person may request, before the conclusion of the second hearing, that the record lie left open for at least seven days, so that they can submit additional written evidence or testimony in response to the new written evidence; 3. If the planning commission leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least seven days after the hearing. Any participant may ask the city in writing for an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period that the record was left open. If such a request is filed, the planning commission shall reopen the record to allow rebuttal evidence. a. If the planning commission reopens the record to admit new evidence or testimony, any person may raise new issues that relate to that new evidence or testimony; b. An extension of the hearing or record granted pursuant to subsection D of this section is subject to the limitations of t~RS .227,178 {'"one-hundred-twenty-day rule "}, unless the continuance or extension is requested or agreed to by the applicant; c. If requested by the applicant, the city shall allow the applicant at least seven days after the record is closed to all other persons to submit final written arguments in support of the application, unless the applicant expressly waives this right. The applicant's final submittal shall be part of the record but shall not include any new evidence; d. The record shall contain all testimony and evidence that is submitted to the city and that the hearings body has not rejected; e. In making its decision, the hearings body may take official notice of facts not in the hearing record {e.g., local, state, or federal regulations; previous city decisions; case law; staff reports}. The review authority must announce its intention to take notice of such facts in its deliberations, and allow persons who previously participated in the hearing to request the hearing record be reopened, if necessary, to present evidence concerning the noticed facts,• f. The city shall retain custody of the record until the city issues a final decision and all appeal deadlines have passed. 4. Participants in an appeal of a Type II administrative decision or participants in a Type III hearing are entitled to an impartial review authority as free from potential conflicts of interest and pre-hearing ex pane contacts see subsection (.L~}{"t5} of this section} as reasonably possible. However, the public has a countervailing right of free access to public officials. Therefore: a. At the beginning of the public hearing, hearings body members shall disclose the substance of any pre_hearing ex pane contacts (as defined in subsection ~L?}~5} of this section} concerning the application car appeal. He or she shall also state whether the contact has impaired their impartiality or their ability to vote on the matter and shall participate or abstain accordingly. Hearing participants shall be entitled to question hearing body members as to ex pane contacts and to object to their participation as provided in subsection ~1~}(5}(b} of this section; b. A member of the hearings body shall not participate in any proceeding in which they, or any of the following, has a direct or substantial financial interest: their spouse, brother, sister, child, parent, father-in-law, mother-in-law, partner, any business i8 Twin Creeks Xing Ph ~lI Tentative Plan Findings (}7132 -Page 2 of 13 in which they are then serving or have served within the previous two years, or any business with which they are negotiating far or have an arrangement or understanding concerning prospective partnership or employment. Any actual or potential interest shall be disclosed at the hearing where the action is being taken; c. Disqualifrcation of a member of the hearings body due to contacts or conflict may be ordered by a majority of the members present and voting. The person who is the subject of the motion may not vote on the motion to disqualify; d..lf all members of the planning commission abstain or are disqualified, the city council shall be the hearing body. If all members of the city council abstain or are disqualified, a quorum of those members present who declare their reasons for abstention ar disqualification shall be requali~ed to make a decision; e. Any member of the public may raise conflict of r'nterest issues prior to or during the hearing, to which the member of the hearings body shall reply in accordance with this section. 5. Ex Porte Communications. a. Members of the hearings body shall not: i. Communicate directly ar indirectly with any applicant, appellant, other party to the proceedings, ar representative of rx party about any issue r`nvolved in a hearing without giving notice per subsection C of this section; ii. Take of~eial notice of any communication, report, or other materials outside the record prepared by the proponents or opponents in connection with the particular case, unless all participants are given the opportunity to respond to the noticed materials. b. IVo decision or action of the hearings body shall be invalid due to ex parse contacts or bias resulting from ex parse contacts, if the person receiving contact: i. Places in the record the substance of any written or Drat ex pane communications concerning the decision or action; and ii. Makes a public announcement of the content of the communication and o, f all participants' right to dispute the substance of the communication made. This announcement shall be made at the fzrst hearing fallowing the communication during which action shall be considered ar taken an the subject of the communication. c. A communication between city staff `and the hearings body is not considered an ex pane contact. 6. Presenting and Receiving Evidence, a. The hearings body may set reasonable time limits for oral presentations and may limit or exclude cumulative, repetitious, irrelevant or personally derogatory testimony or evidence; b..t1lo oral testimony shall be accepted after the close of the public hearing. i~TTritten testimony may be received after the close of the public hearing only as provided in subsection (L~~~3) of this section; c. Members of the hearings body may visit the property and the surrounding area, and may use information obtained during the site visit to support their decision, if the information relied upon is disclosed at the beginning of the hearing and an opportunity is provided to dispute the evidence under subsection (L1)(S)~h) of this section. The Decision Process, 1. Basis for Decision. Approval or denial of a Type .lI administrative appeal or of a Type IIl application shall be based on standards and criteria in the development Cade. The standards and criteria shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary ~~ Twin Creeks Xing Ph IIT Ten#ative Plan Fzndin~s O~I32 - Page S cif 13 development permit application to the development regulations and, when appropriate, to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development regulations and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole; 2. Findings and Conclusions. Approval or denial shall be based upon the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision. The written decision shall explain the relevant criteria and standards, state the facts relied upon in rendering the decision, and justify the decision according to the criteria, standards, and facts; 3. Form of 1ecision. The planning commission shall issue a final written order containing the~ndings and conclusions stated in subsection (P}~2) of this section, which either approves, denies, or approves with specifrc conditions. The planning commission may also issue appropriate intermediate rulings when more than one permit or decision is required. If the application is for a quasi judicial zone change, the planning commission shall issue a denial as a final written order. However, if the planning commission decides in favor of the zone change, it shall issue written recommendation to the city council, which shall hold a hearing and adopt either an order denying the zone change or an ordinance approving the zone change. 4. .t~ecision-Making Time Limits. A final order for any Type II administrative appeal or Type III action shall be fr'led Yvith the community development director or designee within ten business days after the close of the deliberation; S. Notice of .pecision. Written notice o, f'a Type IZ administrative appeal decision or a Type III decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to all participants of record within ten business days after the hearings body decision. Failure of any person to receive mailed notice shall not invalidate the decision; provided, that a good faith attempt was made to mail the notice. 6. Final Lecision and .Effective .bate. The decision of the hearings body on any Type II appeal or any Type III application is final for purposes of appeal on the date it is mailed by the city. The decision is effective on the day after the appeal period expires. If an appeal of a Type III decision is~led, the decision becomes effective on the day after the appeal is decided Iry the city council. an appeal of a land use decision to the State Land LTse Board of Appeals must be filed withr`n twenty-one days of the city council's written decision. F. Appeal. A Type III decision may be appealed to the city council as follows: .l. Who .1~Iay appeal. The following people have legal standing to appeal a Type .III decision: a. The applicant or owner of the subject property; b. Any person who was entitled to written notice of the Type III decision; c. Any other person who participated in the proceeding by submitting written comments. 2. appeal Filing Procedure. a, Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection (F)(I) of this section, may appeal a Type III decision by frling a notice of appeal according to the following procedures; b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the community development director or designee within ten days of the date the notice of decision was mailed; c. Content of Notice of appeal. The notice of appeal shall contain: i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision; ~~ Twin Creeks Xing P1~ III Tentative Plan Findings 07132 - Page ~ of 13 ii. A statement demonstrating the person f ling the notice of appeal has standing to appeal; iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal; iv. If the appellant is not the applicant, a statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the comment period; and v. The applicable frling fee. 3. Scope of Appeal. The appeal of a Type III decision shall be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the Type II administrative review. ~. Appeal Procedures. Type III notice, hearr`ng procedure and decision process shall also be used for all Type III appeals, as provided in subsections (C~ through (E~ of this section; S. Final Decision. The decision of the city council regarding an appeal of a Type III decision is the jinal decision of the city. Finding: This application has been processed in accordance with. the above requirements for a Type III, Tentative Plan Application. Conclusion: The remainder of the requirements that follow the approval car denial of this applrcatit~n will be processed in accordance with CPMC 1'i.45.400 as specified. 17 65.t15(J Zoning regulations--~T(1A district. A. Permitted uses, Permitted uses in Table I are shown with a "P. " These uses are allowed if they comply with the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the same application and review process as other permitted uses identified in this title, B. Limited uses. Limited uses in Table 1 are shown with an "L. " These uses are allowed if they comply with the specijc limitations described in this chapter and the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the same application and review process as other permitted uses identified in this title. C. Conditional ZTses. Conditional uses in Table I are shown with a "C. " These uses are allowed if they comply with the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the same application and review process as other conditional uses identified in this title. D. Density. The allowable resr`dential density and employment building jToor area are specified in Table 2. E. Dimensional Standards. The dimensional standards for lot size, lot dimensions, building setbacks, and building height are specified in Table 2. P: Development Standards. I. ,Housing Mix. The required housing mix for the TC?D district is shown in Table ~. 2. Accessory ~Tnits. Accessory units are allowed as indicated in Table I. Accessory units shall meet the followr'ng standards,- a. A maximum of one accessory unit is permitted per lot; b. The primary residence andlor the accessory unit on the lot must be owner-occupr'ed; c. An accessory unit shall have a maximum, floor area of eight hundred square feet; d. The applicable zoning standards in Table 2 shall be satisfied. ~1 Twin Creeks Wing Ph III Tentative Plan Findings fl'7132 -Page IO of i3 Table 2 T~7D District Zoning ,Standards Standard Zoning .Districts LMR MMR HMR EC GC ~ GAS Density--Units Per Net Acre {f} Maximum l2 32 NA NA NA NA NA Minimum b !~ 30 NA NA NA NA Dimensional Standards Minimum Lot or Land Area/Unit Large single family 5, 000 SF NA NA NA NA NA NA Standard single family 3, 000 SF NA NA NA NA NA NA Zero lot line detached' 2, 71111 SF 2, 700 SF NA NA NA NA NA Attached row houses 2,111111 SF 1,500 SF 1,2Q11 SF NA NA NA NA Multifamily and senior housing 2, 000 SF 1, 500 SF l,Ot70 SF 1, 000 SF NA NA NA Average Minimum Lot or Land AreatUnit Large single family 7, 500 SF NA NA NA NA NA NA Standard single family 4 51)11 SF NA NA NA NA NA NA Zero lot line detached 3,OOOSF 3,OOOSF NA NA NA NA NA Attached row houses 2,500 SF 2,000 SF 1,5{71? SF NA NA NA NA Multiamity andsenior housing 2,5017 SF 2,000 SF 1,50Q SF 1,500 SF NA NA NA Minimum Lot Width Large single family 50' NA NA NA NA NA NA Standard single family 50' NA NA NA NA NA NA Zero lot line detached 30' 30' NA NA NA NA NA Attached raw houses 24' 22' 18' NA NA NA NA Twin Cxeeks Wing Ph III Tentative Plaza. Findings 07I 32 - Pale 12 of i 3 ~- ~ultifamily and senior ht~uszng NA NA NA N.~ NA NA N~ NA ' N~ , St1 S£? 5Q' Minirrrurr~ .Lot .Depth area width and depth requirements as outlined in Table 2~ II lots proposed are in compliance with. the rr-inirnum lot Finding: A Conclusion. ~'he apptication meets this criterion. Texttative Ilan Findings 0X32 - Pa~,e i3 c~~ 13 'win Creeks Xing Ph III N~ N~ ATTA~N~F~T " ~~ PLANNING C©MMISSION RESOLUTIf~N NU, A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPR!tJVAL OF A TENTATIVE PLAN APPLICATION TO CREATE A THIRTY FOUR {34} ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LDT SUBDIVISION KNOWN A5 TWIN CREEKS CROSSING, PHASE III Applicant: Twin Creeks Development Co., LLC {37S ZW 03CB, Tax Lof 6400, 6500 and 7100} {37 2W 03RD, Tax Lflfs 700 and 800} {37 2W 03BD, Tax Lflfs 3200 and 33{}0) File Nfl. (}7132 "~YHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application for a Tentative Plan approval for the creation of a thirty four {34} attached single family residential subdivision located within the Twin Creeks Master Plan area, and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 03CB, Tax Lot 6400, 6500 and 7100; 37 2W 03BD, 37 2W 03B~, Tax Lots 700 and S00 Tax Lots 3200 and 3300 , in the City of Central Point, Oregon; and tYHEREAS, on August 7, 2007, the Central Point Planning Cornmissian 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; and ~'VIiEREAS, the Planning Cozruun.ission's consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to the Tentative Plan requirements -- section 26.1.0, Application Review Process -section 17.05, TOL7 L?istrict 17.65, of the Central Point Municipal code; and "WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as part of the Tentative flan application, has considered and finds per the Staff Report dated August 7, 2007, that adequate findings have been made demonstrating that issuance of the Tentative Plan is consistent with the intent of the TOD-MMR, Medium Mix Residential, zoning distxict, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Cornn~ission, by this Resolution No, does hereby approve the application based on the findings and conclusions of approval as set forth on Exhibit "A ", the Staff Report dated August 7, 2007, which includes attachments, attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. ~~ Planning Commission Resolution No. (08072007} .PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 7th day of August, 2007. Planning Commission Chair AT"I'EST: City Representative Approved by me this 7th day of August, 2007. Planning Commission Chair ~~ Planning Commission Resolution No. ~08072007~ r ~- -~i., ..I ~)l ,,.., 'T r m .........~.. m 3~\-'C t_: S'')~ C11 it ~ ~ i~. 1' ~ i Ii i, ~;i r _ iJtJ ,' . ~~1f~ ~~~i?{; I ~i i 1 '.~)'O~ ~ i ~~~ i(~ i l; ~ r.. '. - ~~ ~~ it )~ i lll` 7 a~' Lt){~ i ~ I i _ i _ li.ii )S~C'L ~, ~i<," L~ j ~..I; ~ ~ :~i I it ,~ .~.~~tIC:~ I ~O:(l~~Jltl)7) ii';'~1)1~', {llt: C31'7<: ii ~' ZJ`+~'se C}4~ <iV ~...(I i il,~ 71~'~'(.' i1(}'L _''i ~~~ ~~.3{'fie ~\ t11:1C~. ~_ :~~ .~a~0z)z~7-C'~k~elaf2 ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment "A" -Request for extension letter dated .Tune 28, 2047 Attachment "B" - Public Works Me~noranduzn. ACTICtN: Consider request for an extension. RECOMMENDATI(?N: Approve request for a six {6} month extension. ~~ final Plat extension Staff ~epan Q$07200'i -Page 2 of 2 r ~ t , r~ ~fr ~ l'~~ c. ~ V j ~. J(1/ 'r .~ ZQQ~ ~ ~+~t1 VIII ~c~'1~11?, Ueve~v~er's Agent 3941 Brxdgepvrt Dave, Medford, Uregvn, 97544 (541 85"7-4374 Clff~ce, {541 X1.0-IOf3 Cep, (541} 282-953' Fay calmartir- l ~rz~Iv1SN.Ct:~M Design, Cnns7ructlvn lilana~~ntent, Construcilvrt ~'asl ~SllltiUlE`f, ~trntrri,Ct N~galiat~aas Febit~iy SYudi'~s, Quantify Surveys, Contrast Mauttger~zettt, Carttract Alsput¢ Resnlutivns GYty and 14e,~iorsal Plarusing, X,and D~velopmexrt, ,~vbbyirtg, Wast~vater Tcchno~~cs 6128 ! 20(17 Request ~'or :'~~tensi~on Ms. Lisa Morgan Planner City of Central Poin# Central Point, 4re~on 975()2 Re,~arding; Grtry Caurl.t'ZTD, 7'4S Htxpkitts ~`aattr Ce~tfrtrt Paint, 4regott D~ X~isa, This le#ter is an official request #o exte~xd the c}eadline for subm%ssion ofthe :~na1 plat and PUD documents for the ei~ray Court pCIL? at the above address iu. Central Point. As you may know we are well along with the infrastructure for the prc-~ec# and are begis~.ix~g to dace the pins in fr~r the final plat c-fthe project. We wi11 be submitting the final. plan for review in about two weeks or so. '~~xk you for your ec~zasidea~ion of this req~t in advat3.ce and if you have auy questions regarding this or other issues please feel free #o call me at the above numbers. Sizxc y, L. alv~n. ( } M.artis~ Agee Gray lnvestmerz#s LLC. CC. Jon S. Gray Edward Sullivan, Esq. Crarvey, Schubert, Barer Portland Gene Grant, Esq. Davis, 'VClright, Tremaine, Portland ~~ F'ubl~c Works Depattmen~ ..„ ~~~~~~ - ~~~ ~~ A~'TA~I~M~N~' ~~ ~~~ Robert fierce, Director Matt Samitare, Manager .~'ublt'c ~l ~orl~s .L?e~~artrz~e~ ~ , Iv1EMORA~~UM T('3. P1A2~~lII~G DEPARTMENT The Public Works Department is in the final stages o~ approving all of the public improvements for the Grey Court Planned Unit Development {PUD). Construction started late this spring and has been continuing at a normal pace. The largest item left for the developer to complete is the installation of street lights. The Public Works Department is anticipating the development being completed in the next 34 days. ~~ 74fJ South Third Street Central Point, C7R 97'St12 ~ 54 fi. 664.3321 ~ Fax 541, 664.6384