HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - April 15, 1997~y
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 1, 1997
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chuck Piland -Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Bob Gilkey, Valerie Rapp.
Absent: Karolyne Johnson
III. CORRESPONDENCE
There was no correspondence.
fV. MINUTES
A. Changes requested to Co~mnissioner comments regarding Central Point East tentative plan: Fish:
change "... no access to Vilas Road ..." to "... no access to Vilas Road from the development ...' ;
Gilkey: change "... questioned the letter from Rogue River Irrigation District..." to "questioned
whether or not the concerns of the Rogue River Irrigation District could be met..."; add "and
expressed concerns about the prnjcet's development of residential uses adjacent to industrial uses."
Candy Fish moved that the March 18, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes be approved as
corrected. Bob Gilkey seconded. ROLL CALL: Angela Curtis, yes; Jan Dunlap, yes; Candy Fish,
yes; Bob Gilkey, yes; and Valerie Rapp, abstain. Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Tom Sabins, representing a group of residents primarily from Jackson Creek Estates, requested that their
representative be allowed to voice concerns about the Rosewood Estates tentative plan at the upcoming
Planning Commission meeting on April 15th. Mr. Sabena was assured that their representative would be
heard during the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Chairman Plland requested that Mr. Sabina inform the Jackson Creek Estates group that, bylaw, the Planning
Commission members: are not allowed to discuss potential development projects coming before the
Commission outside of Commission mcetings. A few people have recently attempted to discuss the
Rosewood Estates tentative plan with members of the Commission.
VI. BUSINESS
A. Continued Public Hearing -Review and decision regarding a Tentative Plan for the Central Point
East Subdivision, R I.6,'R-1-8, R-2 & R-3 zoning districts. (37 2W O1C Tax Lots 100 & 200; 37
2W O1B Tax Lots 2500, 2700 & 2900) (Partners Trust Company, applicant).
City Administratpr Jim Beaitett'txplained that the applicant has requested a continuation of the Public
Hearing to May 6th in ordea to complete their review and to prepare the additional information requested by
the }?tanning Commission; Candy Fish moved to approve the continuance; Angela Curtis seconded. ROLL
CALL: Angela Curtis, yes; Jan Dunlap, yes; Candy Fish, yes; Bob Gilkey, yes; and Valerie Rapp, yes.
Motion passed.
F•
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 1, 1997
Page Two
B. Public Hearing -Review and decision regarding a Tentative Plan for the North Valley Estates
Subdivision, R-1-6 zoning district. (37 2W 03B TL 300 and 401). (Pactrend, Inc., applicant)
With no wntlicts of interest or ex pane communications to declare from Commissioners, Chairman
Piland opened the public hearing.
Jim Bennett presented the Planning Department staff report for the 114-lot, North Valley Estates
tentative plan. Public Works Director Lee Brennan, presented the Public Works Department staff
report.
Mike LaNier ofthe Richazd Stevens Company, 336 W. 6th Street, Medford, appeared on behalf of
the applicant and made the following comments:
1) There is a need to establish an easement for storm drainage that will not be in a public right-of-
way onthenortheastern and northwestern quadrants of the property. However, the manholes
for this storm drainage would be in the publicright-of--way.
2) A portionofthe property (Lots 5-18) lies within the 100 yeaz floodplain as designated on the
~` FEMA map. Mr. LaNier stated that these areas aze in a "slack water" azea some distance from
the floodplain. The applicant believes that if the fmished floors are installed 1 foot above the
~ basic flood elevation (B:F.E.) along with the proposed drainage improvements, the project will
have no impact on the floodplain.
3) The owners of the property to the south of North Valley Estates do not want to develop thew
property with access to or from the proposed subdivision. Also the developers do not plan to
use "rolled curbs" unless mandated. They feel that the subdivision should blend with the
existing development, and have no problem with the 52'right-of--way.
Pat Hadud, 145 S. Grape St., Medford, Civil Engineer for the project, discussed storm drainage
issues, including the use of storm water deteartionbasins (about 200' squaze and 2 Yzfeet deep, gently
sloped'for children's safety) to provide storage. This type of basin is used locally to limit storm
water nmoffto levels existing. prior to development. Storm water runoff from the project would be
piped along the south side of Scenic Avenue to the eastern limit of the subdivision and then across
Scenic Avenue to empty into Griffin Creek on the north side of the box culvert.
Staff brought up the issue of maintenance of the detention basins and providing access to them for
that purpose. It was also noted that these basins often serve a dual purpose: storm water storage
during the winter and open space/recreational areas in the summertime.
Commissioner Gillcey asked about plans for buffering lots adjacent to Hwy. 99. Dennis Hoffbuhr
of Hoffbuhr &Associates, 1062 East Jackson Street, Medford replied that the applicant planned
to work with staff on that issue, possibly using a wood pilaster fence along with a landscaped
azea and meandering sidewalks to serve as a sound barrier.
r~
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 1, 1997 Page Three
The discussion moved to the issue of traffic improvements to Scenic Avenue and the Hwy 99
intersection that may be nceded. Staffexplained that a traffic study would be required for the project
and that the results of the study would determine the improvements needed.
The following individuals gave testimony regarding the proposed subdivision. This testimony was
primarily cancemed with the issue of storm water runoff from the project and its impact on adjacent
properties:
Luis Martinez, 1200 Comet Avenue
Ruth Crews, 4706 N. Pacific Highway
Violet Singier, 1797 Marys Way
Jodi Parker, 1220 Comet Avenue
Stave Tanner, 1843 Marys Way .
Charlotte Leonard, 1885 Nancy Avenue
Mike LaNier presented a brief rebuttal to the Commission. This included a stipulation that all storm
water runoff and drainage would be wntained on the site with no impact to adjacent properties.
Chairman Piiand closed the public hearing. After some discussion, itwas moved by Commissioner
Fish to approve the tentative plan subject W the discussion of the Planning Commission and the
recommendations of staff with the final plat to come back before the Commission for approval.
Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Angela Curtis, yes; Jan Dunlap, yes;
Candy Fish, yes; Bob Gilkey, yes; and Valerie Rapp, yes. Motion passed.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
There were no miscellaneous items.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Tt was moved by Commissioner Dunlap, seconded by Commissioner Gilkey and carried unanimously to
adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
`„ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING
DATE: ' April 15 1997
TO: 'Central Point Planning Commission
`'FROM: ' James H. Bennett, AICP
City Administrator
SUBJECT: Zone Map Amendment from R-1-10, Residential Single-..Family (10,000 s.f.)
to R-1-8, Residential Single-Family (8,000 s.f.) and Preliminary Development
Plan for a Planned Unit Development, Rosewood Estates.
(37 2W 10 Tax Lot 5900)
Applicant: Dallas Page.
900 Windemar Dr.
Ashland, OR 97520
' rs• Louis & Jacquiline"Kula W. G, Beard
2145 Kings$wy. 1570 Angelcrest Dr.
Medford, OR 97501 Medford, OR 97504 ,
Zonine 37 2W 10 TL 5900 - 5.50 acres
Descri to ion: R-1-10, Residential Single-Family (10,000 sq. ft.)
SuminarX: The project consists of a Zone Change from R-1-10; Residential Single-Family
(10,000 s:f.) to R 1-8, Residential Single-Family (8,000 s,f.) and a Preliminary
Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development on 5.74: acres fora 29-unit
single-family townhouse development, Rosewood Estates.
Authority
CPMC 1.24:020 Invests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold publiahearings,
review and make recommendations to the City Council on amendments.to the text and map
ofthe-'caning ordinance, and render decisions on preliminary development plans of planned
unit developments: Notice of the public hearing was prepared and delivered in accordance
with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B)
li City of Central' Point Comprehensive Plan, "
Law: ~ CPMC 1.24 Public Hearings.Procedures.
CPMC 17:68 Planned Unit Development (PUD).
`CPMC 17:88 Amendment.
' ~ ~.
Zone Chance
The proposed zone change from R-1-10 to R-1-8 is consistent with the existing land use
designation for the property of Low Density Residential. It would, however, permit the
development of up to 31 single-family dwellings with R-1-8 zoning as opposed to 25 single-
family dwellings with R-1-10 zoning. Under the Planned Unit Development density limits,
this would allow up to 29 single-family dwellings with R-1-8 zoning as opposed to 23 single-
family dwellings with R-1-10 zoning. The surrounding properties to the north and east are
zoned R-1-8. These areas include Central Valley Estates and Jackson. Creek Estates: The
surrounding properties to the south and west aze zoned R~1-IO,and are undeveloped rural
residential areas. However, one parcel immediately west of the project site was rezoned to
R-1-81astNovember, the Mendolia property.
Panned Unit Develonment (PUDI
A planned unit development (PUD) maybe permitted in an R-1 zoning district subject to the
approval of a preliminary development plan. If the preliminary development plan is approved,
an application for a final development plan must be submitted within six months of such
approval.
CPMC 17.68.010 states that the puipose of planned unit development (PUD) is to gain more
effective use of open space, realize the advantages of large-scale site planning and the mixing
of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation. This is
achieved by allowing a variety of buildings and structures, types of open space, variable
building heights and setbacks, and shared services and facilities,
A PUD can be residential, commercial or industrial in nature. The proposed PUD is a single-
family residential townhouse development: It wnsists of twenty-eight (28) lots ranging in size
from 2,720 s.f. to 3,145. s:f.-Each lot will be constructed with asingle-family attached
townhouse from 1,400 s.f. to 1',500 s.f. in size. There is also one lot for an existing single-
family residence on the site (Exhibit A).
The development will also include a historic barn that will be preserved and converted to a
recreation hall, a swimming pool, play areas and an RV pazking area. Open space will also
be provided designed with pathways to encourage pedestrian use. Natural areas-along
Jackson Creek will be preserved, including mature trees and a foot bridge that crosses the
creek. A safety. fence is proposed along both. sides of Jackson Creek where the banks are
steep: Additiona]'landscaping is proposed to pravide'an open space appeazance to .the
development.
Access to the site will be from Hanley Rd. serving nine dwelling units and the RV storage
area and from Brandon St. serving twenty dwelling units and the recreatior: facilities. Both
accesses will be private streets, Each dwelling unit will have atwo-car garage and additional
visitor pazking is also provided. The applicant plans to construct the development in two
phases, each phase taking approximately one year.
c.
O /r~
' -~ The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary development plan for compliance
with the City's water, sewer, storm drain-and transportation standards. The Public Works
staffreport is attached as Exhibit D. Written comments were also received from Fire District
#3, Rogue ltiverValley Irrigation District and' Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority which
discuss each agency's requirements for the planned unit development (Exhibit F).
Exception's to Zoning and Subdivision Standards
Exceptionsto the zoning and subdivision standards maybe allowed withina planned unit
development based upon the applicant's demonstration that the objectives of the zoning and
''subdivision titles will be met:
The planned unit development proposes the following exceptions:
1. Single-family attached dwellings vs: single-family detached dwellings.
2. ' 2,720 s;f. to 3;145 S.f. lots vs. 8,000.s.f lots
3. 32 ft. to 37 ft. lot width vs. 60 ft. lot width.
4. Development within 50 ft. of a boundary line.
The applicant has submitted documentation demonstrating that the objectives of the zoning
and subdivision titles will be met if the exceptions to these titles is granted.
_.,
Criteria foi• PUD
,,,
The applicant has prepared documentation Yhat addresses the criteria for a PUD set forth in
Chapter 17:68 of the Central Point Municipal Code (Exhibit C). Staff has reviewed these
criteria and defetmined thafthe standards for a PUD can be met for this project subject to the
recommended conditions of the Planning Department (Exhibits D) and the Public. Works
Department (Exhibit E).
Findings of Factand Conclusions of Law
If the Planning Commission decides to recommend approval of the zone change and approve
the preliminary development plan for the planned unit development, staff suggests the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law as applicable to such a decision:.
1. The projecf'changes the zoning designation of the subject property from R-1-10,
Residential Single-Family (10,000 s.f.) to R-1-8, Residential Single-Family (8,000 s.f.).
The project site is located within Subarea E of'the Urbanization Element of the
Comprehensive Plan which- designates 'the area for future low-density residential
d"edelopment. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the area. as Low Density
Residential. The zoning designation of R 1-8 is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The majority of properties adjacent to the project zone are zoned R-1-8. The
public health, safety, welfare and convenience will be best served by the zone change.
2. The project proposes the development of a planned unit development,on 5.74 acres
consisting of twenty-eight single-family townhouses.and one existing single-family dwelling.
The requirements for a planned unit development are set forth in CPMC
Chapter 17.68, Planned Unif Development (PUD). :The applicant has addressed the
manner in which the project meets each of these requirements in Exhibit C attached.
The City finds that the project complies with the pprposes and requirements of a
planned unit development and that the exceptions to the zoning and subdivisio~- titles
requested demonstrate that the objectives of these titles will be achieved.
3. The Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed.. the preliminary
development plan for the planned unit development for compliance with municipal rules,
regulations and standards
The project meets alt-City standards and requirements subject to the
recommended conditions of the Planning Department (Exhibit C) and the Public
Works Department (Exhibit D).
Planning_Commission Action
The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions with regard to the proposed
zone change and preliminary development plan for a planned unit development:
l : Recommend approval of the zone change and adopt Resolution No. ~ approving the
preliminary development planfor the Rosewood Estates PUD, based on the findings of fact
'and-conclusions of law and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth
in the'sfaff reports;
2. Recommend denial of the zone change and deny the preliminary development plan for the
Rosewood Estates PUD, based on findings of fact articulated. by the Commission;
3. Continue the review of the subject application at the discretion of the Commission.
xhi i
A. Site Plan, Floor Plans and Building Elevations -Rosewood Estates
B. Notice of Public Hearing-
C. Applicant's Findings of Fact and Supporting Documentation
D: Planning Department Recommended Conditions
E. Public Works Staff Report & Recommended Conditions
F. Written Comments Received
f
9~
N' I
II
I I ~~ ~ +
i j
N
21 i!I ~l
~~
~t~
,,~~.,
~"e
1
I
tl
~.
of
.~I
~Z
0
i
~~~~ ~
~'~ ~aW A
m
i m
f ~~ ti
~~ r
µ°°---~
8 O
~4~
~~ m
.may.. ~ ~ ~
~ ~ (D
~3 a I ~rt~
~",,, , ~~ a m \
..~. yv ~ ~ •~ '~'~ •p• ./L
a eg ' ~
...« p
[~~ ~$gg, g~ ~"s n w
~ e ~ge~ ~:
~N
~~t ~~ ~ '
N
[t<< ~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ i s~`
„ $ti,~
Y!
~ §~
,` ~ !~ ~ li
~~ ~ j~ E z
~6 - -
~p6
~~ ~ oo , ~
~~~~
~ ~`"
Aga
..
J y `~
~J fJ
~~
4,4
1~''<
l .~
~~4~
~~
ff
g o
9
8 ~ ~ ~
~/' ~
8ff i
~ l
1~ \
Z
I.
A
2
2
H
A
`~ ~
Y
~~
b b
~.
r
O
C7
g• m
0
rt
S ~•
N
rt
n s
~ ~
0 ~ O
~\N
~, _ ~ ~
~.
o °.
~`
o -~
0
~ 'od
0
" rtt
(n
J ~ ~
W
p V
~'N
~.~ N
o~
m N
O ~
7
oo.
~ H~ ~~~~~
~ _='
E ~~~
X _~:
c{ <~~ va ~~]j
~'1 K)O 1bi...K
A'.. 4~
V
}
i
o`.
J
.~
7
A
S
.1
V ~'
"s
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date of Notice: 17Iv1arch,1997
City of Central'Pomt
~XIIBIT tt~,,,
_.
Planning Deparlniept
Hearing Date; April 15th, 1997
Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Place: Central Point City Council Chambers
155 South Second Street
Central Point, OR 95702
NATURE OF HEA_R11VGS
Beginning at the above place and time, the Central Point City Council will conduct a public
hearing to review the Planning Commission's.deoisioa to approve the application for a Planned
UnitDevelopmentlecated at 3436 Hanley Road, Central Point, Oregon
1. Twenty eight s'a~gle-family townhouse units; the conversion of an existing barn to
recreation and storage purpose; and the provision of a storage area for recreational
vehicles: Project to be known as "Rosewood Estates."
2. The siteproposed foir this Planned Unit Development is located on a 5.74 acre parcel
fronting oa Hanley Road and accessible from Brandon Street and is legally
descriBed is the records of rho Jackson County Assessor as 372W10CA Tax Lot
5900. An existing home at 3436 Healey Road will be retained oa a separate parcel.
PLiBLIC PARTICIPATION:
L Citizens or interested parties ntay comment on these issues orally and/or in writing during
the public hearing which is scheduled on Apri115,1997.
2. Any person interested in commenting oa these issues in advance of the public hearing may
do so by submitting written comments to Central Point City Ha11,155 South 2nd, Central
Point, Oregon 9751)2, Attention: Planning Department. Failure to raise au issue in the
hearing, is person or by letter, or failure to provide statements of evidence sufficient to
afford the City an opportunity to respond to that issue, precludes appeal based on that issue.
3. For additional information regarding this matter, the public may contact the Planning ' °'
Department at (541) 6643324 (ext 231).
~1.
KATHRYNrCT.
v
(~~
SUBJECT PROPERTY
~~CCKJIU
Z
O
,Z
Q
0:
O
0
Q
O
~ z
~
W Z
(, J ~'
Q
_. ;~
Q -~
S
Beall Lane
'~. ~ .
1
Date:" February 27, 1997
To: Jim Bennett, Planning Director City of Central Point ,.
From:
RE: 'Application for a Zone Change
City of Central Foist
EXHIBIT t'C''f
Planning Department
Applicant: Dallas Page
900 Windemar
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 488-4475
Owners: Luis Kula
2145 Kings Highway
Medford, OR 97501
(541) 779-2749
Jacqueline Kula
2145 Kings Highway ,
Medford, OR 97501
(541) 779-2749
' WG Beard
1570 Angelcrest Drive
Medford, OR 97501
(541) 772-8364 FAX (341) 773-7196
AMP 37-2W-10-CA, Tax Lot 5900; 5.74 Acres
SW 1/4, Section 10, Township 37 South; Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian
"Current Zone District: R-1-10 Requested Zone District: R-1-8 '
Address: 3436 Hanley Road, Central Point
Area: 3.74 Acres
"Property Location: The property is located on the east side of Hanley Road, north of Beall bane
and south of Pine Street. ;The: property is within the incorporated limits of Central Point.
Property Description: The property is designated in the records of the Jackson County'Assessor
as Tax Lot 3900 on Assessor Map 37-2W-lOCA and contains 5.74 acres offend. The owners
have approved this application for rezoning.
Bxisting Usage: `At this time the property is primarily used as pasture. There is an existing single-
family residence, occupied by the owners, and a barn. Jackson Creek traverses the property from
southeast to northwest and where. are apumber of large treeson the property.
-Access: Access to the property is provided by 715 feet of frontage on Hanley Road and access to
Brandon Street at the northeast corner.
Comprehensive Plan Map: The Central Point Comprehensive-Plan Map designates the subject
property Low Density Residential permitting up to six dwelling units per acre.."
1
rM
Existing and Proposed Zoning: The' p' roperty is currently zoned R-1-10, Residential Single-
Family 8000 Square Feet the proposed zoning is R-1-8, Residential Single-Family 10,000 Square
Feet. Both zones are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation.
Surrounding Land Uses: The following land uses presently exist adjacent to or in near proximity
to the subject property:
North: Single-family re§idential zoned R-1-8. - -
East: Single-family residential zoned R-T-8.
South: A rural residential use is immediately adjacent. There is a neighborhood
commercial use at the northeast corner of Hanley Road and Beall Lane.
West: The southerly 400 feet„more or less, of the land to the west, across Hanley Road,
is currently in rural residential use. The northerly portion of that land has recently been
annexed to the city and zoned R-1-8 to provide. for the development of approximately 50
single-family,residences on 8,000 square foot lots.
Topography/Drainage: The property is traversed by Jackson Creek .which provides the primary
drainage. A portion of the property is designated as being within the 100-year flood plain on the
FIltM for the area. The depth of potential flow is very shallow and is subject to mitigation at the
time of development.
Wetlands: There are no wetlands other than Jackson Creek designated on this property.
Public Facilities and Services: The following public facilities and services are available to the
subject property:
Sanitary Sewer Collection Service: There are existing sanitary sewers in both Hanley
Road and Brandon Street.
Sanitary Sewer Treatment Service: The design capacity of the regional treatment plant is
sufficient to serve an ultimate population of 115,00 and currently serves approximately
90,000.
Water Service: It is expected that the existing 12-inch main at the junction of Hanley
Road and Pine Street will be extended southerly along the frontage of the subject
property. There is also an 8-inch main in Brandon Street. It is expected that in addition
to the construction of the 12-inch main, an 8-inch main connecting from Brandon Street to
Hanley Road will be constructed as a part of any development on this property.
Storm Drainage: The property naturally drains to Jackson Creek.
Streets and Traffic Generation: As noted above, the subject property has frontage on
Hanley Road and access to Brandon Street at the northeast corner. Based on Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) criteria, single-family dwellings generate approximately 10
average daily trips (ADT) per dwelling unit. The area of the property, 5.74 acres, will
theoretically allow the development of twenty-five 8,000 square foot lots, If a planned
unit development (PUD) is allowed, there could be on the order of 28-30 dwelling units
constructed. Due to the alignment of Jackson Creek, the potential division of traffic
between Hanley Road and Brandon Street is twenty dwelling units to Brandon Street and
nine units to Hanley Road. Brandon Street is a neighborhood collector and Hanley Road
. i E~
is a county road. The Hanley Road frontage will be developed to full standards at the.
applicant's expense at the time of property development.
Discussion:
The requested change of zone will make the zoning on this property consistent with the
zoning of other properties adjacent to it within the City of Central Point.:The land o'the
east, to the north, and about 40% of the contiguous property, to the west are in the City
and zoned R-1-8. Land to the south and the remaining land to the west are within the
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary but not yef annexed to the city.
The slightly more. dense R-1-8 District will allow more'efficient use of the land by
providing for approximately 5 additional dwelling units:
The slight increase in density (R-1-10 to R-1-8) can be'supported by public facilities and
services which either now exist or will'be extended by the applicant to support ultimate
development of the property. The additional proposed density will help defray the cost of
extending water facilities, constructing street`improvements along-Hanley Road, and
providing environmental protection for Jackson Creek.
1 ~~
Findin s
Date: February 25, 1997
To: Jim Bennett, Planning Director City of Central Point
From:
RE: Application for a Planned Unit Development,
Applicant: Dallas Page
900 Windemaz
Ashland, Oregon 97520
AMP 37-2W-10-CA, Tax Lot 5900 - :- -
SW 1/4, Section 10, Township 37 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian
Current Zone District: R-1-10 Requested Zone District: R-1-8
Address: 3436 Hanley Road, Central Point
1. REQUEST
Attached is the application for a planned unit development (PUD) for the above-cited
property. This request is for authorization to constrnction of 28 single-family townhouse
units, the conversion of a existing barn to recreation and storage purposes, and the
provision .of a storage area for recreational vehicles on a 5.74 acre parcel fronting on
Hanley Road and accessible from Brandon Street. An existing home at 3436 Hanley Road
will be retained on a separate parcel.
All Exhibits referenced in this application may be found in the Appendix.
2. AUTHORITY
The citations below are from the Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC), with specific
applicable Sections noted.
CPMC 17.20.020 lists as permitted uses within the R-1 zoning district the following:
A. Single-family dwelling,
B. Public schools, pazks and recreation facilities;
C. Churches and similaz religious institutions;
D. Parochial and private schools, but not including business, dancing, music, trade,
technical or nursery schools, kindergartens or day nurseries;
E. Developer's project and sales offices;
F. Planned unit development;
G. Residential homes;
H. Single-family manufactured home; and,
I. Residential facilities.
1 ~~
CPMC-17A.DOC 1 2/27197
CPMC 17.03.342 defines a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as:
"Planned unit development (PUD) means the development of an area of land as a
whole for a number of dwelling units or a number of uses, according to a plan
which does not correspond in lot size, bulk or type of dwelling density, lot coverage or
required open space to the reglililtions otherwise required by this title.
CPMC 17.68.010 defines the purpose of a planned unit development, which is:
"... to gain more effective use of open space, realize advantages of large-scale site
planning. mixing of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and
environmental preservation by allowing a variety of buildings, structures, open
spaces, allowable heights and setbacks of buildings and structures. A PUD
should have a harmonious variety of uses, utilize the economy of shared services and
facilities, and reduced municipal costs of operating and maintaining services while
insuring substantial compliance with the district regulations and other provisions of
this code."
CPMC 17:68.020 defines the size of a PUD site.
"A PUD shall be on a tract of land five acres or larger, except that a PUD may be
on a tract of land of more than one acre but less than five acres if the planning
commission finds, upon a showing by the applicant, that a PUD is in the public interest
because one or more of the following conditions exist:
A. An unusual physical feature of importance to the people of the azea or the
community as a whole exists on the site, which can be conserved and still leave
the landowner equivalent use of the land by the use of planned unit
development;
B. The property or its neighborhood has historical chazacter or distinctive features
that aze important to the community and that could be protected or enhanced
through use of a PUD;
C. The property is adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of a planned unit
development of similar design as that proposed and the developments would
complement each other without significant adverse impact on surrounding azeas;
and
D. The property is of irregulaz shape, with limited access, or has unusual
dimensions or chazacteristics which would make conventional development
unreasonably difficult.
CPMC 17.68.040 lists the criteria to grantor deny a PUD.
" ...To approve or deny a PUD, the planning commission shall find whether or not the
standards of this chapter, including the following criteria are either met, can be met by
observance of conditions, or are not applicable.
A. That the development of a hazmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to
the normal requirements of this title;
B. -The proposal will be consistent with the wmprehensive plan, the objectives of
the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the city;
1 ~;
CPMC-17A.DOC 2 ~ naio~
C..The location, size, design and. operating characteristics. of the PUD will have
minimal adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate. development of
he surrounding. area;.
D. That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they aze financially able
to carry nut the proposed project, that they intend. to start construction within
six months ofahe final approval of the project and any necessary district
changes,.and:intend to complete said constructioq within. a reasonable time as
determined by the commission;
E. That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development
or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances,
exits, internal traffic circulation and pazking,
F, That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to
provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed;
G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with
adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessazy storage;
H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded
•cover and rough terrain, if these aze present,
I. The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area;
J. The PUD will reduce need for"public facilities and services relative to other
permitted uses for the land."
CPMC 17.68.080 lists exceptions to the zoning and subdivision titles for a PUD.
"The planning conunission may allow exceptions within a PUD for dimensions, site
coverage; yard spaces, structure heights, distances between structures, street widths or
off-street parking and loading facilities differing from the speciSc standards for the
zoning district in which the PUD is located. Exceptions shall be based upon the
applicant's demonstration that the objectives of.the zoning and-subdivision titles of this
code-willbe achieved. '
A. When the spacing between main buildings is less than the spacing which would
be required'betwcenbuildings developed under this chapter on separate pazcels
outside a'PUD, otherdesign features shall provide light, ventilation and other
characteristics equivalent to that obtained from the spacing standazds.
B: Buildings, off=street parking and loading facilities, open space, landscaping and
' screening shall'conform to the specifio-standazds of the zoning district within
fifty feet of the boundary lines of the development.
C. The planning commission may;approve building heights greater than those
authorized by the zoning district,
D: The building coverage for any PUD shall .not exceed that ,which, is permitted for
other construction in the zone.
E. When a PUD design would require exceptions to the regulations of the
subdivision title, the planning wmmission may grant those conditions as part of
the PUD. Tentative approval of the preliminary development plan of a PUD
.shall also constitute tentative approval of a tentative plan under Chapter 16.10 if
- the materials aze presented in the manner prescribed by subdivision. title:: .
i
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The site proposed for this Planned Unit Development is located on the east side of Hanley
Road 300 feet to 1000 feet south of the juncture of Hanley Road and Pine Street. The
property is a parallelogram measuring 715.63 feet north-south and 350 feet deep from
Hanley Road. Jackson Creek traverses the property from the southeast corner to the
northwest corner in a deep channel. Currently, the properly is partially developed with a
house and barn. The remainder of the property is fenced for use as a pasture. Access is
provided between the house, fronting on Hanley Road; and'the barn, east of the creek, by
abridge: The home is a traditional structure with a detached garage, landscaping and a
parameter fence: It will be separated from the PUD on an 80 foot by 145 foot parcel
retaining its present accesses to Hanley Road.
Access. into the PUD site is provided by direct frontage on Hanley Road along the west
and by a connection to Brandon Street at the northeast corner of the site. The access from
Hanley Road wip serve 8 dwellings and the recreation vehicle storage area. The Brandon
Street access will serve 20 dwelling units and the recreation facilities. Due to the
configuration of the site and the location of the creek, the streets will be private dead-end
streets with turn around facilities both at the ends and approximately 150 feet from each
entrance to the project.
Pedestriantravel to and within the developmentwill be encouraged,by paths within the
open space and across the bridge. A dedicated open space on the north side of the PUD
will be:enhancedby the additionalspace onsite.
This PUD proposes the following:
• Construction of 28 single family townhouse style units (zero side yard) in groups of
from two to Sve. These units will be from 1400 to 1500 square feet with two car
garages, front and. back yards. Individual lots will be 2720 square feet to 3145 square
feet in area. Street pavement area will be approximately 26,000 square feet and open
space will be approximately,130,000 square feet or 52% ofthe total site.
• Conversion of an existing landmark bam for use as a recreation center and for storage.
_ A swimming pool and play court are proposed to be developed adjacent to the
^- building. The center will be within easy pedestrian access from all of the residences in
the development and there are nine off-street parking spaces to be developed nearby.
• Construction; oftwenty-foot (20') wide paved streets for vehicular access to the
residences.. The streets!will have rolled curbs for drainage: control, to protect the
edges of the :asphalt concrete pavement, and for esthetics. An altered cul-de-sac at the
endof the access from Hanley Road will .provide an area for off-street parking.
Streets will be private
' • Drainage from paved areas and roofs will be channeled to grassed retention areas
which will discharge through restricted orifice catchbasins. The combination of flow
through grass and retention will result in a clean, regulated discharge to Jackson
Creek.
CPMC-I7A:DOC 4 2/27/97
1~
• Recreation vehicle storage is proposed to be in a fenced and screened area fronting on
I=Ianley Road between the road and the creek. The area will be graveled in order to
provide for percolation of--rain.
• A safety fence will be constructed along both sides of Jackson Creek where the banks
are steep: access' to the'creek will be provided towazd the south of the project where
the slope to the creek is passable:
• Existing mature trees will be preserved. Brush along the top of the creek banks will be
cleared. of berry vines and thinned. Additionalaandscaping will enhance the
development and provide anopen-space appearance to the neighborhood.
• Water, sanitary sewer, power; natural gas, telephone and cable service will be
provided Yo all residences and the recreation center.
4: ID)~VELlDPM)EllIT CRI'd'ERIA _ .. ... _
A. `T7rat the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justijes exceptions to the
normal requirements of this title: The proposed planned development will result in a
close-knit neighborhood. fihe residences will be open-space oriented with pedestrian
traffic encouraged'by ffiternal pathways. The existing trees and creek bank areas will
be retained and enhanced to provide views and access for the residents. A normal
- - subdivision development would result in a few (8 or 9) lots having access off of
Brandon Streetand possibly four'or five more having direct access to Hanley Road.
Access to the creek would be cut off and the community would lose even visual access
to the open-space which should be retained along this natural comdor. The requested
exceptions to normal requirementsrelate to pazcelsize, street standazds, and building
set-backs. The retention o£the unique.creek-side opeq space justifies the requested
exceptions.
B. The proposal will be consistent with. the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the
zoning ordinance and other applicable policies. of the city:. The objectives of the
comprehensive plan, the caning ordinance and other planning policies of the city are to
have residential development of medium density in the area of the project site. The
proposed development meets the gross density limits for the R-1-8 Single Family
Residential Zone of the City of Central Point. The additional uses of recreation center
andrecreation vehicle storage aze amenities which are available to the residents of the
development and ake the place of on-site vehicle storage and back yard recreation
facilities.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the t'UD will have minimal
adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development oj'the surrounding
urea: The proposed development will have the same number of residents as would a
normal-development of approximately 5'/nacres.' This development will have greater
-setbacks from the neighbors to the east and faz less visual impactor the Hanley Road
frontage.: It is located in an area which has been designated for residential
development and there is such development to the east:. Street access will be limited
to one access for twenty dwelling units to Brandon Street and one access for eight
1 G~
CPMC-17A.DOC ~5 2/27/97
dwelling unitsao Hanley Road in addition to the access forthe existing house at 3436
Hanley Road. The actual number of trips generated maybe less, than normal due to
the existence of the recreation facilities.
D: That the proponents of the RUD have demonstrated#hat they are frnancially able to
carryout the proposed project, that they: intend tostart construction,within six
months of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and
intend to complete said construction"within a reasonable time as determined by the
commission: The developer is able fo finance theproject and intends to begin
construction within six months of final approval ofthe-project by all agencies.
Construction will be completed as expeditiously as possible..
E. That traff c congestion will not likely be `created by the proposed development or will
be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits,
infeniul traffic circulation and parking: With access to the developmentiimited to
two locations. and each of these: subject to a limited number of trips,. traffic congestion
will not likely be a problem: The Beater trat~c loading will be to Brandon Street with
.:.twenty dwellings generating approximately 200 trips per day. The connection to
Hanley Road will be subjectto approximately 90 trips per day including those
generated by the existing house. The limited number of trips accessing Hanley Road
...will result in a minimal impact on this potentially.heavily.traveled route. The
..::.intersection at.BrandonStreet willbe on a curve with good sight distance available.
Theaccess to Hanley Road will be developed to assure greater sight distance to allow
for the higher speeds traveled on that road.
Internal roehicle circulation is 9imited to dead end streets: Extra parking is provided at
several-sites and should result in a lack of need for parking to ovetfiow the
development during a social event.
pedestrian circulation will be emphasized bythe construction of paths and other
amenities which encourage walking.
F. That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to
provide adequate commercial facilities of the. type propossed.• There is no commercial
development proposed,
G: That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with
adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage: There is
no industrial development proposed.
H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover
and rough terrain, if these are present: The prominent natural feature on the property
is the channel of Jackson Creek: Theprimary purpose of this planning unit
development is to establish single family residences on the site while preserving the
Jackson Creek habitat and additional open space desired to provide access to the
creek, Several large trees which may have been in the way of conventional
development will also be preserved,
~; G
CPMC-17A.DOC 6 'i"~Q7
L The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area: This being a residential
development, it will be compatible with the other residential developments in the area
The differences in structure will be minimized by the visual separation of the
development from the conventional dwellings fronting on Brandon Street.
J. The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other
permitted uses for4he land.• The on-site recreation facilities will reduce the need for
residents to leave the site. ,Maintenance of the streets will be provided by a home
owners association. The water system will be looped through the project to provide
better service on-site and enhance the City's distribution system. Other facilities will
be needed to approximately the same degree as would be the case for a conventional
subdivision having the same number of dwelling units.
5. EXCEPTIONS REQUESTED TO BE WAVED.
A. When the spacing between main buildings is less than the spacing which would be
'required between buildings developed under this chapter on separate parcels outside
a PUD, other design features shall provide light, ventilation and other characteristics
equivalent to that obtained from the spacing standards. This PUD utilizes zero side
yard spacing in `order to reduce the area dedicated to buildings: The root zoning
requires minimal side yards which, generally, provide light, air, and sound separation,
but are not useful for other than access between the front and back yard and for
storing things: This development will emphasize the included open space in lieu of
larger individual yards.
B. Buildings, off-street parking and loading facilities, open.space, landscaping and
screening shall conform to the specifrc standards of the zoning district within fifty
..feet of the :boundary lines of the development. Building setbacks will be the same as
or greater than those required in the R-1-8 Zone, off-street parking will meet or
exceed that required, and the open space provided will greatly exceed the requirements
of the zone.
C. The planning commission may approve building heights greater than those
authorized by the zoning district. Buildings will be two-story. This is the same height
as those in the development to the east of this site,
D. The building coverage for any PUD shall not exceed that which.is permitted for other
construction in thg zone. Building coverage will be substantially less than that
permitted in the zone.
E. When a PUD design would require exceptions to the regulations of the subdivision
'title, 'the planning commission may grant those conditions as part of the PUD.
Tentative approval of the preliminary development plan of a PUD shall also
constitute tentative approval of a tentative plan under Chapter 1610 if the materials
are presented in the manner prescribed by subdivision title. Lot sizes are, proposed to
be 2720 square feeYto 3145 square feet in area.-The minimum lotsize for the R-1-8 '
zone is 8,000 square feet. This difference results in the large amount of open space in
this development.
~i~
w
CPMC-l7A.DOC 7 2/27/97
EXHIBIT D
"RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
l . The applicant shall submit an open space management plan to the Planning Department
indicating the manner and schedule by which open space areas within the subdivision will be
developed. This shall include any proposed landscaping; irrigation, architectural features and
play .equipment. All landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy, growing
condition and shall be served by an automatic irrigation system.
2. The applicant shall include within the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) for
the subdivision provisions governing the use; maintenance and improvement of common open
space areas and authorizing the city to enforce these provisions. A copy of the recorded
CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
3. The applicant shall submit. a fencing plan to the Planning Department specifying the type
'and location ofall fencing for the subdivision....
4. Boats, trailers, campers and similar recreational vehicles may only be stored in the area
specifically designated on the site plan for such storage.
5. A homeowners' !association shall be established for the proposed subdivision for the
purpose of permanently maintaining all of the subject property, including common open space
areas, individuat residences and accessory structures. A copy of the rewrded bylaws of the
homeowners' association shall be subrrutted to the Planning Department.
6. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Division of State Lands for the
project as indicated by its response to the Wetland Land Use Notification Form.
7. The approval of the preliminary development plan for the planned unit development is
contingent upon approval of the associated zone change by the City Council. If the City
Council denies the zone change, the. approval of the preliminary development plan for the
planned unit development shall become void.
8. The approval of the preliminary development plan shall become void six months following
the date of such approval unless an application for a final development plan has been
submitted to the city containing in final form the information required in the preliminary plan.
9. The development of each residential lot within the planned. unit development shall be
limited to'single-family attached dwellings with allowed accessory uses.
10. The PUD shall be developed in accordance with the preliminary development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission,- Modifications to the preliminary development shall
be subject to further review and approval by.the Planning Commission.
t" j w~;
rw ~.
„ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT..
DEPARTMENT OF PUBL/C WORKS
STAFF REPORT
for
ROSEWOOD ESTATES SUBD/V/S/ON
PW#97014
CSity of Central Point
E~HI~I`~ t~E tt
Planning Department
Date: 04/10/97
Applicant: Parthenon Construction
Project: Subdivision, Phased
Location: Hanley Rd. near W. Pine St.
Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 10CA, Tax lot(s) 5900
Zoning: R-1=8
Lots: 29-(two phases)
Units: 29 Residential
Plans:. Rosewood Estates Tentative Plan, 02/1 S/97, Eagle Eye Surveying
Report By: Robert W. Pierce,. Public Works Technician -
Purpose'
Provide information to the `Planning Commission and Developer regarding Public
Works standards and proposed new standards and requiements to be included in
the design. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding proposed
.development.
General
1. Applicant shall submit to the'City's Public Works Department. (City's PWD),
plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or
modifications within the City or Public rights-of-ways and easements. Public
improvements include, but are not limited to, streets including sidewalks,
curbs and gutters; storm sewers, sanitary sewers'and water mains including
water service taps and meters; lighting, traffic control devices, street signs
-and delineation. All construction of public improvements shall conform to
the City's Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public
Works Construction (City PWD Standards and other special specifications,
requirements,. standards, or upgrades as may be approved by the Public
Works Drector'and noted herein
2. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted
in writing by the developers engineer to the Public Works Department for
.• - ' 4
Rosewood Estates Subdivision Tenative~Pldt ~ - '
Public Workr Dept. Stafj~Report -
Apri! 10, 1997
Page 2
approval prior to installation.
3. No construction shall commence until the Public Works Department has
reviewed, approved, and issued a Public Works permit for the, proposed
improvements.
4. The Developer shall pay for all costs associated with the design and
installation of the improvements specified on the approved, plans.
5. Developer shall provide copies of any permits and conditions required 'by
other agencies, including, but not limited to Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (bEQ), Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), affected irrigation districts, and Jackson
Counfiy Road and-.Park Services Department IJC.Roads)...
6. Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the developer's engineer or
surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with a set of Mylar plans
and electronic digital drawing (in an AutoCAD compatible format) of the
.construction "red-lined as-builts" drawings. "As-built" drawings are to be
provided to the Gity which provide "red-line" changes or verifications as to
final approved construction plans which identify the locations and or
elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited
to,.invert, inlet, and rim elevations;,spot elevations identified on drawings;
- :road alignment; water lines, .valves, and fire hydrarits; water and sevver
lateral stationing; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet
locations•,-s#reet light locations, other below grade,utility line locations and
> depths, etc.
7. The developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works
Department a drawing of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced'on Mylar
and in'an-acceptable electronic form in a compatible AutoCAD format. The
Final Plat shall be tied to a,legal Government corner and the State Plane
Coordinate System.
.. _ Fi
Rosewood Estates Subdivision Tenative Plat .
Public Works Dept. SfaffReport
Apri[ 10, 1997
Page 3
8. 'All elevations used on the construction plans; on temporary benchmarks, and
on the permanent benchmark shall be ied into an established benchmark
(F.E.M.A: or-other City approved benchmark) and be so noted on the plans.
At least one permanent Benchmark shall be provided for the proposed.
` development, the location of which.shall be mutually determined by the City
PWD and the developer's surveyor.. All adjustments to alignment or, gradient
shall be noted on the "as constructed!' drawings. The nearest F.E.M,A.
Benchmark is a brass disk on the North curb of County Bridge #1 16 on
W. Pine Street. Elevation 1274.83
9. All fill placed in the development shall be "engineered fill", and compacted to
City standards. All existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures,
clear and grub materials, and other deleterious materials shall be removed
from the site and either recycled or' properly disposed of in accordance with
the requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
10. Identify easement dedications and widths on the Plot Plan.
1 1. Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm
drain) `must be a minimum of 15-feet wide, .and should not split lot lines.
Easements for storm drainage, sanitary sevuer, and water lines should be
dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.E.
12: ' All' desigh, construction plans and specifications,, and as built drawings must
be prepared to acceptable professional standards.
13. All street and water improvementplans must be approved in writing by Fire
District 3 prior to review by the City's PWD.
14. if the proposed development places structures within the floodzone;,how
does the placement of these structures modify the floodzone. What affect
vvilf it'have on the floodplain elevation and floodzone boundary, and,vvhat
affects will the modification of the floodplain elevation and floodzone
boundary have on the' existing private and public facilities and properties
., _ ~ e1
Rosewood Estates Subdivision Tenative Plal
Public Works Dept. Staff Report
April 10, 1997
Page 4
surrounding the proposed development. The Developer's engineer shall
determine the Base Flood Elevations and show the-.outer limits.of the
Floodplain and Floodway fora 100 yeacstorm event along Jackson Creek
before approval of Tentative Plat. The Developer's engineer shall also show
-the post-development outer limits of the Floodplain and, Floodway fora 100
" year storm event along Jackson Creek before approval of Tentatiye Plat. In
accordance with F.E.M.A.'s guidelines, no structures shall, be constructed
within the floodway.
15. The developer and developer's engineer and/or surveyor shall obtain all
necessary' City business licenses prior to City's acceptance of tentative plan.
16. ' Street lights shall not be placed in PUE's
Streets/Traffic
Existing Improvements - Hanley Road -Major Arterial. ROW 60' wide,
pavement 25' wide. Jurisdiction -Jackson County.
- Brandon. Street -Local Street. ROW 50' wide,
pavement 30' wide. Jurisdiction -City of Central
Point.
1. Construction drawings for this Tentative Plan shall include a Street Lighting
Plarr in accordance with the requirements of the Public Works Department;
The construction drawings shall include clear vision areas designed to meet
the City's Public Works. A minimum 25-foot unobstructed sight triangle
areas shall be required at the uncontrolled intersection with Brandon Street,
and a rninimum'55 feet shall. be required at intersection with Hanley Road.
2. All improvements for connection to Brandon Street and Hanley Road, and
any improvements o Hanley Road, including, but not limited. to, street
section, curbs, gutters, landscape buffer, .and. sidewalks, shall be,coordinated
and approved by the JC Roads and the City PWD.. Acceleration and
deceleration lanes meeting JG Roads standards may need to be provided at
'the proposed development's intersection with. Hanley Road:
., ..
Rosewood Estates Subdivision Tenative Plat
Public Works Dept. StaJjReport
April 10, 1997
Page 5
3. Stop signs shall be required at the intersections with Brandon Street and
Hanley Road.
4. The Developer's engineer shall evaluate. the strength .of the native soils and
determine the street sectioh designs to handle the expected loads (including
fire equipment) to be traveled on these private roads.
5. '' All roadways should be designated as private roads and not public rights-of-
way.
6. Recommended' minimum Curb to Curb width of,private streets is 24 feet.
Storm Drainage
Existing Improvements - Open ditch along Hanley Rd.
- Jackson Creek through center of property.
1. Developers engineer shall develop a plan for the storm drain collection and
conveyance system (SD System) which provides for run-off from and run-on
onto the proposed development, any future development on adjacent
properties, and any areas deemed by the City thaf will need to .connect-into
the proposed development's SD System.
2. During the disign of the SD System, the•Developer's engineer shall consider
the effect of finished iot elevations with regards to the base flood floodway
and floodplain of Jackson Creek. The allowable flows into Jackson Creek
from the proposed development shall not be greater than the run-off flows
experienced from the property in its current status. The developer's engineer
must provide suitable` hydrological calculations and storm hydrographs to
depict the existing condition and the finished condition of the proposed "
development. The developers engineer and the City PWD shall agree on the
applicable run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc., used in the
developer engineer's calculations. Piovide analysis of the drainage ditch
- 2 "r
Rosewood Estates Subdivision Tenative Plat
Public Works Dept. StaJj'Report
Apri110, 1997
Page 6
along the east side of the development as well as Elk Creek.
3. Plans which propose to include discharge to Jackson Creek and any
construction thereof, shall be in compliance with DSL and ACOE permit
requirements. Any modifications to Jackson Greek shall be done in
accordance with any requirements and applicable permit conditions. of the
DSL and ACOE. -
4. Prior to constructioh plan approval of the improvements for this Tentative
Plan, the developers engineer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set
of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the
SD system. The engineer shall use the rainfall/intensity curve obtained from
the City PWD for hydrologic calculations. Developer's engineer shall provide
hydrology and hydraulic calculations and flow line plots for private and public
storm drains. Plot HGL on profile or provide a separate profile drawing that
indicates the HGL on the profile. Pipes must maintain cleaning. velocity. and
have adequate capacities without surcharging.
5. The'SD -system shall be designed to carry runoff from a 10 year storm event
if Q<100cfs. Use runoff for 50 year storm if Q> 100 or < 200 cfs. Use
100 storm runoff if Q is > 200 cfs.
6. Minimum storm drain diameter for public improvements shall be 15 inches.
7. Materials shall be PVC, ASTM D 3034 with gaskets or HDPE, meeting ODOT
requirements for corrugated polyethylene storm sewer pipe, including;a
provision for premium coupling bands. Provide. concrete encasement where
required to prevent pipe deformation in areas of minimum cover,
8. Construct grated inlets/catch basins in gutter section. Ref. APWA, California
Section, drawing #303-1
9. All storm drairreasements must be 15-feetwide, and include a clause to
Fi
Rosewood Estates Subdivision Tenative Plat _
Public Works Dept.StafJ'Report ,... ..
April 10, 1997
Page 7
maintain driveable access to .manholes for getting vactor/fetter to manholes.
10. Construction of private storm drains is discouraged by the City. However, if
a private storm 'drain is to 6e cohstructed, the following information must be
provided to the-City:
- How vvill the private storm`drain5 be maintained, repaired, etc.
- All roof and lot drainage must be drained #o ahe eurbline.
- Provide invert elevations and lateral statiohing fior construction
of private stormdrain system.
- Provide plan and profile views and elevations for any private
storms drain system that may be proposed.
1 1. Provide 0.2-foot drop through all manholes and curb inlets.
12. Roof drains and underdrains shall hot be directly connected to public storm
drain lines, and shall drain to the streef at the curbline, vvhenever possible.
' Lots should be raised if necessary. Building foundation uhder drains .(and
these type of facilities ohly) may drain to private storm drain lines that
discharge onto the streets, or into a storm drain curb inlet or manhole only;
must be approved before construction by the City PWD; and must be
identified and accurately portrayed onus-built drawings.
13. Curb and gutter sections shall not exceed 350 feat before entering a catch
basin or curb inlet.
Sanitary'Sewer ,
Existing Facilities' - 8"'Sanitary Sewer along West side of Hanley Road
- 8" Sahitary Sewer along East side of Brandon Street'
,. 1. All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design,
' construction and testing shall conform'to the standards and guidelines of the
' - k"i
Rosewood Estates Subdivision Tenative Plat ~ ~ ..
Public Works Dept. Staff Report
April /0, 1997
Page 8
Oregon DEQ, 1:990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley
Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and the City PWD Standards, where applicable.
2. ' The developers engineer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations
and flow line plots for existing and proposed sanitary sewers to both BCVSA
and the City. Calculations and flow line plots should include allowances for
existing flows>and projected future or existing development that will be
connected to the system. Plot HGL on profile or, provide a separate profile
drawing th8t indicates the HGL on the profile.. All pipes must maintain
cleaning velocity and have adequate capacities without surcharging.
3. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral
stationing for construction of sewer laterals.
4. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary
approval, vvill forward the plans to BCVSA for completion of the- review
process with DEQ. Upon completion of the review by DEQ and BCVSA,
completion'.of final revisions to the plans by the,Developer's engineer, the
Public Works Director will approve the plans in final form.
5. All testing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be done in
accordance with BCVSA requirements, at developer's expense. The
Developer shall provide DEQ, BCVSA and the City with test reports, TV
reports and certification of the sewer sys#em construction prior to final
acceptance.
6. The SS System shall be designed in accordance with any master planning
.prepared by Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA) and/or the City to
provide adequate capacity for the proposed develppment.area, any future
development on adjacent properties, and any existing sanitary sewer
collection systems that. may .need to connect-into the proposed
development's SS System.
7: Any proposals requesting the City or BCVSA to share in costs .for
3G
Rosewood Estates Subdivision Tenative Plat
Public Works Dept. Staff Report ..
April /0, 1997
Page 9
`development of the sanitary sewer collection system to accommodate the
upgrade of line sizing to handle the additional capacity requirements for
surrounding development, shall include detailed engineering calculations and
costs analyses. The developer will be responsible to coordinate and develop
any cost sharing agreements with any identified adjacent property
owhers/developers.
Water System
Existing Improvements - 8" Water along West side of Brandon Street
- 12" Water along East side of Hanley Road
1. A water distribution system shall be designed in accordance with a prepared
' water distribution system plan which aocommodates the proposed
development, ahy future development on adjacent property, and any areas
• deemed by the City that will need to connect-into the proposed
- development's water distribution system. The prepared water master plan
shall take into consideration the recommendations and plans that were
presented in the 1979 Water System Master Plan.
2. Any proposals requesting the'City to share in costs for development of the
water distribution system to accommodate the upgrade of line sizing to
handle the additional capacity requirements for surrounding development,
shall include detailed engineering calculations and costs analyses. The
developer wil( be responsible to' coordinate and develop any cost sharing
agreements with any identified adjacent property owners/developers.
3. Developer's engineer shall design the water system to provide a minimum
flow of 1,000 gpm and conform to Fire District 3 requirements. Maximum
spacing of fire hydrants shall be 300 feet.
4. Specifications for the design and construction of the water system shall be in
accordance with City PWD Standards.
z r p;
(i( r..
3~
r -
Rosewood Estates Subdivision Tenative Plat
Public Workr Dept. Stafj'Report
April /0, 1997
Page IO
.-
5. Lateral/connection stationing and size shall be provided on construGtio:n plans
and as=built drawings:
6. Developers engineei° shall provide a reinforced, flow ("looped") water system
within the proposed development as well as any lines required in Scenic
Avenue and Highway 99.
7. Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City
requirements for backflow prevention. An OHD approved backflow
prevention assembly shall be installed immediately downstream of the water
meter serving each dwelling unit.
8. Construction: drawings shall. include the size, type, and .location of all water
mains, hydrants; air valves, service connection, and other appurtenance ^-
details in accordance with City PWD `Standards and as required by the.
City PWD.
,.
9. All connections to the water supply system must comply with OHD
requirements. Water will not be "turned on" by the City until such
requirements have been met to the atisfac#ion of the City's designated
inspector (currently the Jackson County plumbing inspector):
10. Water system-shall be=tested: in aecordanae with City PWD Standards and
requirements, at developer's expense and must be approved by the City.
11. Fire hydrants may not b@ placed in PUE's,
e
N Fr w.
Rosewood Estates Subdivision Tenative Plat
Public Works Dept. StafjReport
Apri! 10, 1997
Page 10
5. Lateral/connection stationing. and size shall be provided on construction plans
and as-built drawings.
6. Developers engineer shall provide a reinforced. flow J"looped") vvater system
within the proposed development as well as any lines required in Scenic
Avenue and Highway 99.
7. Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City
requirements for backflow prevention. _An OHD approved backflovv
prevention assembly shall be installed immediately downstream of the water
meter serving each dwelling unit.,.
8. Construction drawings shall.include the size, type, and .location of all water
mains, hydrants, eir valves, service connection,;and other appurtenance
details in accordance with City.PWD Standards and as required by the..
City PWD,
9. All connections to the water supply system must comply with OHD
requirements. Water will not be "turned on" by the City until such
7equirements have been met o the satisfaction of the City's designated
inspector (curreritly the Jackson County plumbing inspector).
10. Water system shall be tested in accordance with City PWD Standards and
requirements. at developer's expense and must be approved by the City.
1 1. Fire hydrants may not be placed in PUE's.
~~
Rosewood Estates Subdivision Tenative Plat
Public Works Dept. StaJfReport
Apri! 10, 1997
Page / l
Site work, Grading and Design
Existing Improvements -Jackson Creek flows North through the center of the
property
- Existing house and garage on property
- Existing barn on property
1. Developer shall provide'a grading/paving plan(s) with'the construction
drawing submittal to the City PWD. Plan(s) shall illustrate the location and
elevations of the base flood event flood zone and floodway of streams in
proximity to the development' (if applicablel; curb elevations; finish grades;
and building pad and lowest floor elevations.
2. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with
positive drainage away from the building. Drain lines shall be connected to
the curb and gutter and discharge from the curb face:
3. Developer shall provide the necessary "rough" lot grading`to assure that all
lots will drain properly to the curb and gutter, or to a drainage system that
drains to the curb and gutter.
4: Provide for meandering sidewalks vvith`a landscaped sound buffer area along
Hanley lioad. Coordinate design with JC Roads and City PWD.
5. Provide the City with copies of any required permits and approvals (including
any mitigating requirements or conditions) from DSL, DEO, and ACOE
(including any mitigating requirements),'for any required wetland or #lood
haiard mitigation work to be'performed as part of the proposed
development.
6. Grading plans must have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on
the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened
~v
Rosewood Estates Subdivision Tenative Plat
Public Works Depl. Staff Report
April 10, 1997
Page I Z
back, and final grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades
and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines must be labeled with
elevations.
7. Need to place street lights on plans, with table indicating stationing and
offsets for locations.
8. Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company which
reflects. all utility orossings, transformer locations, valves, etc...
9..- Utility locations must be included on the as-built drawings, or as a separate
set of drawings attached to.the as-built drawings.
Rights of-.Ways/Easements;.
1. All easements for improvements dedicated to the City. shall have.a minimum
15 foot width and shall be located (whenever possible) contiguously along
the exterior boundaries of properties and shall not split lot lines. Public utility
easements shall have a minimum width of,10 feet.
2. Developer shall comply with all existing easement owner requirements
regarding any proposed development that may overlap any existing
easement. Any development proposed which overlaps or alters an existing
easement must,be approved by the :easement's owner in writing, and a copy
of that written approval must be submitted to the City PWD prior to
submission of construction plans for City PWD review and approval.
3. ;Private easements shall be located contiguously along the exterior boundaries
of single properties.. Where the purpose of the easement is for maintenance
of a storm drain, etc., the developer shall require covenants and restrictions
that. prohibit introduction of substances other than water and require the
property owner to perform annual maintenance of such improvements to
:,.assure their function.
~~
~° '~
URGENTI i ti i
March 22, 1997
City of Central Point
~XHIBI`T t~F tt
Planning Department
TO: ALL RESIDENTS OF JACKSON CREEK ESTATE AND SURROUNDING
AREAS
The Cit<~ of Central Point will be conducting a hearing on April 15, 1997 at
approximately 7:00 p.m. to determine the approval of a planned unit development
entitled, Rosewood Estates (28 townhouse units, recreational centers and switming
pools j. The subject property is located directly behind Brandon Street (see map
attached). The developer is attempting to change the current zoning to accommodate
wall-to-wall housing and; if approved, will impact alt residents of Jackson Creek Estates
and the surrounding areas for the following reasons:
1. The increased traffic on Jackson Creek Estates as the ~ through streets
for the ne~~• development. With 28 planned units in a small area, there would be at least
54 additional vehicles traveling our neighborhood streets each day.
2. The severe impact on the local schools. Mae Richardson alone cannot
support 38 more families (55 or more grade school children and teenagers in a'small
area).
3. The increased noise cretited'by not only very close neighbors but also by
the "apartment" atmosphere, i.e. recreational centers and swimming pools.
4. The immediate depreciation of our property values.
Due to the time constraint, it's imperative that homeowners write letters to the
planning commission (see sample,letter attached),as soon;as possible. Attending the.
meetings is Also important to show public opposition to the proposed rezoning and
construction of a townhouse development. In addition, we are also circulating a petition
to all affected residents.
For further information, please contact:
Lyle or RubyReed
664-4979
Thank you for your support.
li ..
V'
~, :.
~'
IMPORTANT FOR ALL
HOlVIEOWNERS TO ATTEND:
`(PLANNING COMMI
MEETING)
SSION
~,
(ROSEWOO]D ESTATES
...HEARING)...
LOCATION: CITY COUNCIL. CHAMBERS
-1:55 S. SECOND STREET
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
(PLEASE BE AT THESE MEETINGS -THEY
MAKE THE .DIFFERENCE!)
„ _ ;~
.. ,,,
.. ~~'
r
~~
~1
SAMPLE LETTER
James I3. Bennett. AICP
Planning Director
155 S. Second
Central Point, OR 97502
Bob Gilkey
1165 Gatepark Drive
Central Point, OR 97502
Valerie Rapp
487 Creekside Circle
Central Point, OR97502
REi 'Rosewood Estates
Deat Planning Commission:
Chuck Piland
710 iV. 10th Street
Central Point, OR 97502
I{arolyne Johnson
21 S. 7th Street
Central Point, OR 97502
Jan Dunlap
1000 Rose Valley Drive
Central Point, OR-97502
Candv Fish
212 N. 9th
Central Point, OR 97502
Angela Curtis ,
833 Forest Glen Drive
Central Point, OR 97502
We are opposed to the changes to the current zoning to accommodate development of
townhouse units on the subject property. The basis of our opposition is as follows:
1. The zoning change to accommodate many units in n relatively small amount of
space;
2. The wall-to-wall housing with no space between units. This is contrary to current
`zoning;
3. The increased traffic in our neighborhood. With 28 planned units in such a small
area, there would be at least 56 additional vehicles traveling our neighborhood streets each day;
4. The severe impact on the local schools. Mae Richardson alone cannot support 28
more families:
5. The increased noise created by not,only very close neighbors but also by the
"apartment" atmosphere, i.e. recreation centers and swimming pools; and
6. The immediate depreciation of our property values.
VJ,e ask you as appointed officials. to consider the impact on our neighborhood, schools
and environment before consideritig tax revenue. Thank you very much for~your consideration.
Sincerely,
i~
~~
. , \..
. -.
Bob & Vicki Risner
550"Jackson Creek Drive
Central Point, OR. ?97502'.
541-664-3697
March 25, 1997
James H. Bennett, AICP
Planning Director
155 South Second'
Central Point,!OR 97502
RE: Rosewood Estates
Dear Planning Commission:
We are strongly opposed to the changes in the current zoning
to accommodate the development of townhouse unite on the subject
property. We carefully chose Central Point and this specific
neighborhood for our family home due to the unique small town
atmosphere, surroundings and hospitality. These are priceless
treasures to be protected and cherish.
The basis of :our opposition is as ;follows:'
1. The zoning change to accommodate so many units in a
relatively small amount of space;.
2. The wall-to-wall housing with no space between units.
This is contrary to current zoning;
3. The increased traffic in our neighborhood. With 28 planned
units in such a small area, there would be at least 56
additional vehicles traveling our neighborhood streets
_ eaoh day;
4. The severe impact on the local schools. Mae Richardson
alone cannot support 28 more families;
5. The increased noise created by not only very close neighbors
but also by the "apartment" atmosphere, i.e. recreation
centers and swmmng'pools; and `
6. The immediate depreciation of our property values.
We ask you as our appointed officials to consider the adverse
impact on our neighborhood, schools and environment before
considering any tax revenue. Thanking you in advance for
your consideration:
Sincerely,
~~ ~~
Bob Risner
_ .. ~~
l/LC/Z~ ~~~.oit_
Vicki Risner
... ,;. ,
i
March 26, 1997
Central Point Planning Commission
James Bennett, Planning Director
155 S. Second
Central Point, OR 97502
RE: Rosewood Estates
Dear Planning Commission:
We are vehemently opposed to the changes to the current zoning to
accommodate `development'of townhouse units on the>aubject property.
We oppose this for several'reasonsa
1. The zoning change accommodates many units in a relatively
small amount of space:
2: The, wall-to-wall housing without space between units is
contrary to current zoning:'
3. The increased traffic which would occur in our
neighborhood.. On the heels of the Reddaway controversy,
it is baffling to try and understand why the-city of
Central Point continues to consider mixing both
business/residential and single/multi-dwelling without
considering the impact to Eraffic patterns, noise levels,
etc.
4. Having children in School Dist 6, we are concerned with
the additional impact ..this .townhouse deve~.opment would
.put on local schools.
5. Lastly, we are concerned with the impact these townhouses
would place on our current property values.
We respectfully ask you as appointed officials to consider the
impact on o~ur~~neighborhood, schools, and-environment before you
consi r,t~Yi~ tax r enue. Thank you for your consideration.
@ s
Ro an Robin Ream s
207 Tiffany Avenue
Central Point, OR 97502
v
C,; ~":
u .. ,.
a
~~c~i"z~`~~!,~' ~ y
a_~~ ..
March 31, 1997
James H. Bennett, AICP
Planning Director
155 S. Second
Central Point OR 97502
RE: Rosewood Estates
~.`.~' 11997"
_,....
Dear Planning Commission:
We are opposed to the changes to the current zoning #o accommodate_
development of townhouse units on the subject-property. The basis of our
opposition is as follows:
We oppose the zoning change to accommodate many units in a relatively
small amount of.space. Wall-to-wall housing with no space between units
is contrary to current zoning. With 28 planned units in such a small area,
the traffic in our neighborhood will increase by at least 56 additional
vehicles traveling our neighborhood streets each day. There would be an
impact on local schools. Mae Richardson alone cannot support 28 more
families..
We oppose the increased. noise created by not only very close neighbors,
but also by the "apartment" atmosphere, i.e. recreation centers and
swimming pools, and an immediate depreciation of our property values.
We ask you as appointed officials to considecthe impact on our
neighborhood, schools and environmehf before, considering tax revenue.
Thankyou very much for yaur.consideration.
/`
David C. Smith, CFP
353 Brandon St.
Central Point OR 97502
~.. ~a
Mardi 'L7. 1997
James H. Bennett, AICP
Planning Director
155 S. Second '
Central Point, OR 97502
RE: Rosewood Estates
Dear Planning Commission: '
We are opposed to the changes to the current zoning
to accommodate developmeht of townhouse,units on the
subject property: ''The'-basis of our opposi'tion,is as
follows:
1. The zonitig'c'ttange to accomodate many,units,in a
relatively small-amount of space; ,
2. The wall-to-wall housing-wi'th no space-between
units. -This is contrary to current zoning;
3. The increased traffic in our neighborhood.. With
28 planned uciits in such a small area, there
would be at least 56`additioual'vehi¢les
traveling our rieighborhobd'streets each day;
4. The severe impact on-the local.schools,- Mae
Richardson alone canno support 28 more,#'amilies;
5. The increased poise created
close neighbors but also by
atmosphere, i.e. recreation
pools; and
6. The immediate depreciaCion
values.
by ho.t onlyvery
the ".apartment"
centers acrd .swimming
if our property
We `ask you as appointed officials to 'consider the
impact on oicr'neighborhood, schools and environment.BEFORE
considering tax redeicue'. Thank you very. much fore you-
consideration.
Sincere l'yy
a
,.~
~G~~ec~j'
~~f~'1~~R ~f~~}~h ~ ~R A7~~a
t I,. ~ r P b~ ji
March `L7, 1997 rrti'' 1 1jj]
James H. Bennett, AICP '°
Planning Director
155 S. Second
Central Point, OR 97502
RE: Rosewood Estates
Dear Planning Commission: '
We'z~re oppo5ed'to the changes to the. current zoning
to accommodate development of townhouse units on the
subject property. The basis oY our opposition is as
follows:
1'. The zoning change to accomodate,many t}nits in a:
relatively small amount of space;,
2. The wall=to-wall housing with no space between
units: This is contrary to current zoning
3. The increased traYfic in our :neighborhood.. With
28 planned units in uch a small area, there
would''be at least 56 additional vehicles
traveling our neighborhood.streets .each day;
A. The severe impart on the local schoo s. D1ae
Richardson alone cannot suppox•,t 28 more families:
5. The increased noise created by not. only very
close nei'ghUors Uut $l so Uy the."apartment"
atmosphere, i.e...recreation centers and swimming
pools and
6. The inurediate depreciation of our property;
values.
tQe ask you as appointed officials to 'consider the
impart on'our neighborhood, schools and environment BEFORE
considering tax revenue,. Thank you very muoh for you
consideration.
_, ... ~ F
~~~~
Sincerel//
;~
+.
March 27, 1997 -'~/
.. ...
RE: Rosewood Estates
Dear Planning Commission: ~j,~ M ~i,
We are very opposed to t(~h-e~~~c°h`~anges to the current zoning to
accommodate development of town house units on the subject
property. The basis of our opposition is as follows:
1. The zoning change to accommodate many units in a relatively
small amount of space;
2. The wall.-to-Wall housing with no space between units. This is
contrary to current zoning;
3. The increased traffic in our neighborhood. With 28 planned
units in such a small area, there would be at least 56 additional
vehicles traveling in our neighborhood streets each day;
4. The severe impact on the local schools. Mae Richardson alone
cannot support, 28 more families-
5. The increased noise created by not only very close neighbors
but also by the."apartment" atmosphere) i.e. recreation centers and
swimming pools; and entra"cars.
,~ ,
6. The immediate depreciation of our property values.
We ask you. as appointed officials to consider the impact on our
neighborhood," schools and environment before considering tax
revenue. Thank you very" much for your consideration of this very
important decision affecting manx families.
Sincerely,
,~~'~~ ~~
~a ,~/ t1CJlS(J ~~ IlL! ~~
Mark F,& Charlene Phelps
300 Brandon St
Central Point, OR 97502
>:%
.. .. ~ ~ ~" r ..
._
'a
i'iannir,~_` ,~irec.or -. -
{..'C'll i 1']i Ui:i ~.. (1; 2lTJOG
iiL: rills tl.: liuc; ._.-.. A'. ... ..
;)~. tl- .u Il _' 1.-1 II II .. o... Ull: ~ ~~
1\E' til'r' Uj!ir.~5l't. iU thf' Utdn~C9 1o fitl' Clll'r~.l'i :. ::0171 L~ ,
i.u aecor,nudale~ ~e~~elopmen( of l.oi.'ril~,ousr-unr:.s2;n the -
suU_ec.t. ln-ol~,el•I,y'. Tl~,e basis i,i' our opl~usiton'is as
I'vl;ut;s:
I,e. zuniug' cU:~nge to accumufale main- tulits in a'
relatively- small amount.'ol' space;
The wall-to-wall housing' with no sli:,tce bett,•cen
units. This is contrar~'t.o ctii•rent.' zoning';
The increased Li^affic in oui• neiglihorhood. f+ith !-
. ~8 planned units in such a small areas there
would i)e at least 5G additioual_vehicles
trrz~eiing our neighborhood streets each day,
d. The s~ar:lc. in1l'lrzet on the local schugis. ;`Sae
liichardson alone cannot. suliporl 28'more families;
5. The increased noise created by nqt. onl~•-very
close neighbors but also by "the "apart.ment"
atmosphere, i.e. recreation centers and swimming
pools:. and
G. The immediate depreciation of our property
values.
l\'e asx you as' appuinted officials to cousides the
impact. on our neighborhood, schools anti encironiueht 13EFURE
considering Cat revenue. Thank yot.l ve>•~ much fur you'
consiceration.
Sincerely.
.~
` .)
March 27, 1997
James H. Bennett, AICP
Planning Director
155 S. Second '
Central-Point, OR 97502
RE: Rosewood Estates
Dear Planni~ig Commission:
We are opposed to the changes to the current zoning.
to accommodate development of townhouse units on the '
subject property. The basis of our opposition is as
follows:
1. The zoning change to.aecomodate many units in a
relatively small amount,of space;
2. The wall-to-wall housing with no space between
units. 'This is contrary to current zoning;
3. The increased traffic in our neighborhood. With
28 planned units in sucha smallarea,.there
`would be at'least 56 additional-vehicles
traveling ottr'neighborhood'streets each day;
4. The severe impact on the local schools. Mae
Richardson alone cannot support 28. more families;
5, The increased noise created by not_only very
close neighbors but also by the "apartment"
aEmosphere~ i.e'. recreation centers and swimming
pools; and
6'. The immediate depreciation of our property
.:values.
We ask you as 'appointed offioials to 'consider the-
impact on our neighb6rhood, schools and environment BEFORE
considering tax revenue. Thank you very much for you
consideration.
Sine rely:, !/,,
J
Lyle M. Reed
310 Brandon Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
March 31, 1997
Mr. James H. Bennett, AICP
Planning Director
City of Central Point
155 S. Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
RE: ROSEWOOD ESTATES
~.~~'i1 ryry,~ 1~"~ ~ 4 L fie
1. ^~ 5:ai ~.-Y u - ~ lk ~ ~!
f~AR 3 l i9~~'
CIS`; r;^ _. - ..-„n,'t
~ P~! ~ ..
Dear Mr. Bennett:
It is my understanding that the referenced project, situated on
5.74 aores, is zoned for 10,000 square foot lots. I am also told
that disturbance of Jackson Creek as well as the vegetation along
both banks will not be allowed.
So now, if the creekway area the full length of the property; the
area saved for the currently established residence; and the area
occupied by a large barn, are all deducted, there seems ;to be
left an approximate 4.74 useable acres for the: development. But
wait, there are streets and sidewalks to be deducted from useable
space for housing. Lets just say-there might, be 4.5 useable
acres for the development.
There 'is hardly anyway this project will fit the property under
current zoning. upon annexation, the property owner had to know
what the zoning was, and is now back a few months .later, trying
to re-zone to 3,300 foot ".lots".with complete. disregard for any-
thing or any one, except of course.,- the almighty dollar.
Increased traffic load on Brandon Street, in addition to creating
a hazard to `families trying to raise their kids,, will accelerate
the deterioration of the street itself. If this project is app-
roved as proposed, it will be very difficult to understand why
you are deliberately contributing to a declining street condition
when we'aonstantly hear you complaining about "shot" streets that
you are unable to maintain.
Once zoning is established, defend it. To twist the zoning to
this degree, to the whim of a self-serving developer is just
ridiculous. 7~S P~p~y~~~u~~ /~-~=,~iC~,
Thanks fo~ eni g.. ,. ..
\, f
George & Joan Hall
707 Da1Mey Lana ~'~ ~.~ ~~ ~ ~~
Central Point, OR 97502
ft9AR 3 11997'
'~ Efi>,r- -\ \o~t~`c~.r~.~ ~o'ct~'(r.ss ,o r~: _ _
. ,. ,
~~c'. ~uSe~oF~~. ~sXn~e.~
~ "" ;
l `. W 2 QrG U Q~Sc-?~ ~~i `~J-l'~ (~~ C.~(~lY1~l p,5 w`t~ ..; ....
~~0.~~~ . _
.WY.V-~~\ ~CJLJ ~\~l7 CJCSG ~`C'~ ~K~U 1P'(S1C~Y~ `
C
~9J0~`~- c~cC~-c, v~ . ``~
.~ • ' ~` v ~ ~-~\n=~ ~ ~n~ ~c ~ '~' Vic, \~`~ ~~
olY~ ~~ ~cc),c-3 r~ c~Y~ \1'C«. ~ ~\`p2 rdSc~V~
~~~`~ ~~~~7~ ~Xe LRX?~fC O
`~ ~`~'
~-
.... ~~~
J
JRNES H. PEFdNETT
PLANNINt; AIRECTOR
15°r 5. ^aECGi'dA
CENTRRL POINT, OR.
BEAR SIR
J
CEi'dTRAL PGINT, GR
AICP
975Eh2
I WISH 7O VOICE NV OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CHRNOE IN
THE CltRRENT 2O1'dlfdG RECil1LATIGI'd5 TG ALLOW AEVELGPMEPdT [tF TGWN-
HCfliSE Uh1I75 ON THE SUP.7ECT PROPERTY.
A5 PL.ANNIPdti AIRECTGR YEiU Y~tUST PE RWARE THAT SUCH R CHRNf3E
IN ZOS'JIIV3"., !•fILL SERIOUSLY IMPRCT NOT ONLY PROPERTY 'dALUES PUT
ALSO THE as^ECURITY ANA GtUALITY GF LIFE IYS THE EWTISE h7EIGHPGRHGOA.
PEFORE WE POUfaH7 AT .''.76 VINCENT COURT WE L[]OKED RT OVER
FIFTY HGNE^a IN THE NEAFGRA RNA CENTRAL PGIPdT RRER'RNA IN A
i3REAT VRRIETY OF, LOCATIf?1~15. WE CHOSE 'iO LIVE ,HERE PECAUSE
GF THE APPRRENT LEVEL GF SAFETY, THE GBVIGUS PRIAE GF GWNERSHI#,
THE RES7RIC'TIONS, AND THE GtURLITY RND C}]MNITTNENT OF NEIGHPORS.
E~ECRU5E GF THE ZGNINf~ OF THIS AREA ANI7 ITS SURRGNAIYSG AREA WE
HRD EVERY l2ERSON TO PELIEVE THAT WE HAD NRDE.A WISE DECISION
TG L£7CATE IIV THIS FINE CGMNUNITV. WE HA'dE NOT R~uKEA FGR AtdM
VARIENCES OR WAIVERS ON f7UR PROPERTY RS WE 'WERE-'RWRRE OF THE
RESTRICTIONS PEFGRE WE ~URCHA5£If IT.
I THINK, IN ALL 3USTICE, 'iHRT THE OWNEf2 OF THE RROPERTY
GF THE PRt1AGSEA `RGSEWGGA ESTATES` WRS ANA IS VERY RWARE GF
THE ZONING RESTRICTIONS IN THIS ARER. I RLSCt STRONf3LV SUSPECT
THAT THIS ~iWNER AGES IVGT. CARE- HGW THIS NEIGHE~CtRHG~il7 WGULA HE
AFFECTED PEEAUSE THIS WOULD NOT PE THEIR PLACE C1F RESIDENCE.
I WGUL.A THEREFGRE ASK IN THE LIGHT GF THESE GE+JECTIGNS
AND SEVERRL OTHERS THAT I HAVE NO'f RDDRESSED ,IN T1-FI8 LETTER
SUCH R9 SCHGGL5} 1V~tI5Ei ANN GGNGE9FIGN, THAT VGU PRGTECT THE
CITIZENS THRT HAVE RELIED ON THE PAST ASSURANCES RND ZONINE.,S
GF THIS FRIR CITY.
~~~~~~~~
r,~ta~ z ~> ~gsr
err, Jc: r;uiyTi.;~i_ ~:ry!rIT
-n ti~ c _.:...... __.w ......... .....~...._s,.
~RE~SpP~ECTF Y,
k~'~/~'E;~Fp~ GTH
~ £~ J ` ,'
~..
_.~-
"~~> ! 3
March 25, 1997
James H. Bennett, AICP
Planning Director
155 S. Second
Central Point, OR 97502
Chuck Piland
710 N. 10th Street
Central Point; OR 97502
Candy Fish
212 N. 9th _ _
Central Point, OR 97502.. '
Bob Gilkey
1165 Gatepark Drive
Central Point, OR 97502
Karolyne Johnson
21 S. 7th Street
Central Point, OR 97502
Angela Curtis.
883 FoFest Glen Drive
Central Point, OR 97502
Valerie Rapp
487 Creekside Circle
Central Point, OR 97502
Jan Dunlap
1000 Rose Valley Drive
Central Point, OR 97502
RE: Rosewood Estates
Dear Planning Commission:
This letter is in response to the notice we recently received regarding Rosewood
Estates.
~' r~>
,.
We purchased our home at 296 Brandon three months ago. Before purchasing
our home, we called the Planning Department to inquire as to the zoning of the property
directly behind us. We were faxed a map showing the zoning as R-1-10.
We are opposed to changing the zoning of the subject property and the building of
Rosewood Estates for the following reasons: '
1. The zoning change would allow for many units in a very small space;
2. Wall-to-wall housing with no space or setbacks between units. This is in
violation of Section 17.20.050;
3. The extremely close proximity of two-story townhouses directly behind
our backyards;
4. The increased traffic on Brandon Street as a through street. With 28
planned units in such a small area, there would be at least 54 additional vehicles traveling
our neighborhood streets each day;
5. The overcrowding of our local schools;
6. The noise created by very close neighbors and also by the "apartment"
atmosphere, i.e. recreation centers and swimming pools; and
7. The immediate depreciation of our property values.
I ask you as our representatives to consider all the factors, i.e., the'impact on our
neighborhood, schools and environment before considering tax revenue. Thank you very
much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
- O~o~_
Lisa Lakin
296 Brandon
Central Point, OR 97502
541-664-2967
;.g
Dearest Planners-and Council. Members,`
I am opposed to the changes to the current zoning that would
allow townhouse units next to my property, and designate all its
traffic onto Brandon street.
I moved to Central Point the first of this year, 1997. i live
at 29b Brandon. The taxes were high, but the neighborhood was
beautiful, quiet, and well worth the price.
I cal5.ed the planning department prior to purchasing my house.
They informed me the zoning behind my residence was R-1-10. I
was pleased because"even though i love .the pasture and horsed, I
am no fool and realize that all cities must expand and grow to
support the community.
I, was shocked to find a note on my door telling me the intended
to rezone this pasture and-build townhouse units on it. This
will cheapen my property value, ruin an excellent community,'and
degrade a piece of property with such. good potential:
I further am to understand that the traffic from these townhouse
units is to be diverted onto Brandon. I advise against that.
because this street twists at several places, and it is full of
haPPy children.
;.~.
I also was told that these townhouse units would support
families with children. Our schools well over capacity and
cannot support this. growth. .
Lets consider keeping it at its current zoning, and allow for a
builder to build large beautiful homes on it, tax it, and-leave
it as it.,was originally and wisely first planned.
Sincerely,
~:
-- Daniel Lakin
'_~ ,: a
., .. J
~~
y ~
n w pr; l .
L~. t:.,. ra3 max. ~' [. ~_., ~.:~~•
I'ETITIONAGAINSTRFZONING AND ROSEWOOD ESTATES
1'~PR 1 i3:i7• ' ..
jam, the undersigned are 2p~[losed to re-Drain; artd Rosewood Estates-
'; ~ ~ ~, ;
Name Address i :'•,Ahone ~ _ .._ .__.. __.
i~'s"~'
ys 2.
v~ `~l
-s~-~
::~ =.~ s
ii r n.
.
{
`~~/
~7
~ c~-Y, ~6 q 3
~ J ~
z~~~ S3~ ,I~a~c~m /~4y, ~38'z1
i ~c ~ ul ~ %~io~aUS C~, ~dy-/6~~
~~;;~~
U ~2•~Cti~•V ~Gflll~ ~~~ /2'Z `fG'zt'~Il,/C~ (i~"• ~o /~ `l - 417
J`,~- - -
PETITIDNA AIN T REZONIiV AND RO YYOOD E4T;iTE
We. tl~e und~r~gr:ert `are o~noserl to reronireg and Roseivaod E fate
Name Add1r/ess / ` ' P/hone r
. _
9. 6 , vtwce.~ l~ v~ 'y: 77U
i.~7 ~ 3
/3.
i
1~ ~ '~~ . ~7_ b` KQhLIU` Clr~ ~ loQ~ V(ncell i~V ~-
~~, ~2~x: .S'o8 t/u2e~~,f
.,Q
~..3. / ~/,
~7'/~ LGG6ZLly6G6L~ 5C'(/' GtilLGG6~'C~.C4Qi,
oC'~-~ / A,f. ~l~~. ~ Tli',•n /'~~//~ /// ~I ~ ~~i1ai1. CCYli~
, i~ ,
~ ..
~.
PETITIONAGAINSTREZONWG AND ROSEN~OOD ESTATES
6I%e the u~t~lersignerl rue posed m re-onine mill Rosewood Estntes•''
Name Address Phone
C v~M,6,aµa,~I~ - ~ •i 'J
ss i
.,
~~ ~ ~~ ~;
:,
~~/ ~`~
,~~ l
~~ ---~
~~ v,Nc,~~;yao~ 4G ~r.~ ~a,=~7
~~ ~ 1~~~ ~2~,J~~-a
i r~~ i/~ ~~ 1?
p ..
~. L a,u.~: ~~ 7 V iN ~ ~ ; C P ~~ lµ,7 0
~3 - ~ ~ P. • -h~c~
'tI .~~ 4 c,~I~=,, ~ k~u. ciI"/ ~ /yi.tu..,:~E .~~ Ci/~ G~ ~, S~ `" ~O$ ~
PETITIONAGAINST REZONING AND ROSEWOOD ESTATF4
Rye flee undersigned' Rre oRnored to re-oning and Roseivnod Ectates•
Name Address /~ Phone
~l z.~-Z` vac- iU~-r/ y`~~/ ~'-~il.^ ~ ~~~' ~ lv ~ 4~ - .~ `~~.3
Y ;,
1...
a;t t. Lc:..+~.r~-: ~7~ l f1,~na; ~e e ~ . ~,L• Y - ~SC~~
C~~f,~+etf~'`-mil . ` Jch£~'i~ ~e.,C ct~. ~ c '
J +
~ G
s ~ Vii/ ,9~~~/~= ~~ ~• ~ ~~~:,
~~7~
+/ /
J
r++.
I'ETITIONAC:AIN.ST REZONIN AND RO WOOD E TATS
6~e_[l~edersigrted. are ~pnosed to rezoning and Rosewood E rate
Name Address Phone;:
/I 9 ,
`T. .S
~~ ~~
J .. ~. t F J ~ .. ..
DETI TIONA AIN4T RF7nN1Nr' en' R04EWOOD 4T,4~
lt'e 11~e u~id~~naed are~porad» r n~~;~,g ~rrd Rosewn d F stat
e Address Phone
• ~~ ~ ' ~~
~' ~ -97i
, ~
t V ~ ~~ -~ ~
I ~i f - /~. ~Y` -~7G6
,J )
iG ~ ' ~;
~ ~ ti~ -~,~ ,; -
1,~; 2 ti~5~
4 ,2 C,cl.H"(i2G4.~ ~~J /~.Ct~~'~evl., ' G ~ - ~C~E'.`i
.~ ~ 5 ~~ ~ /t~u~~ct1 G ~ 5~~~~
L~ ~
~
'
~
7
~ b • ~=stl~
~,
3~y~ ~~ ~~
~
~
-
r~3
~~ ~~~ ~Vl,'IjNOce~ ~ "
_ .. J(..
PETITIONAGAINST REZONING AND ROSEWOOD ESTATES
We the uarlet'sigtterl «re obooserl to re-oJting and Rosewood Estates•
Name Address Phone r
_ _ ;~.
(~~- 7zr~
w ~~ ~ ~~~
;.
c
~'~3~
~y ,
S-~
z~~~
~~Q- - :~,~,s
~~
PETITIONAGAINST REZONING. AND ROSEWOOD ESTATES
;,
6I~e the unrler~i,~uerl nre onnoserl to re-oning mu/ Rp~cnvoorl Estates•
Name Address Phone
~,
,r
~!
~~
~~ ~.,
~~~.~
5 ~';' `%
~~:i~
~_ ~ ~ sl ~s F~~
;~y-7/2~
;~y_~~s~
ob ~-- 3~3
~iuvvtaGtw ~-~ ~ 6 ~'- ~ 7Z
~si~, C~ G~~~ zlq~
•, -
,,~ ~,,
fit ~°"
"~G•
,~ ,
PETITIONAGAINST REZONING AND ROSEWOOD ESTATES , ,
61'e the underslyatied ar~nocerl m re-otrng aiirl Rosewood Estates
Name Address Phone
-,
~/
r ('~ /r / '
I
120 ~j~r-i=+~~~ Covrzr ~~01 ~ I8~S
'u~
ail' ,n ~c~ -i.~i~ ~`;
./ . Y ets i f T
// ~ L/ .1
i ,: j
0
C2 . ,
,„
PETITIONAGAINST REZONIIVC AND ROSER'OOD ESTATES
N/ame ~ " Address / /Phone/F
Il ~
ll ~ ---r~
D~ICCG~ /~`1~ ~3~ ~
~f'F.¢~.~Ur~/e
.~ u ~ O C' r~ GG 36 7
~~~ ss~ ~,~~o,~ C ~ /J~ C ~ GGs~=-~9~
. , c~-~, ;l7~
~ ~ ~
`" 8 ~
~ a~....~ ~
C'Qr>,~.- G a 7 yA.~,l~s
o w C'rE~. .
C'Dr
GG y /8Yd
,
,~'>' /~~ ~; ~~~ ~5O ~ rX.Sc,N ,
C.6Z~. X72. (~6~ • I l3~
•
G~ ..
'' .L661 ~~ btlUd
,,
~~~~ ~~~
;ue;s!ssy $uuaau~ug
!oonpaed•Z u;auua}I
• `~ia.Laau!g
•uo!;ae pasodoad aq; uo;uaunuoa o; ~-unyoddo ay;,LO3 not xueyy
.s;-uuad pue
`saa~ `s;uauiaambai uo-;aauuoa .~03 $u-uueid ~-i!;n ,tisu!u[!ia.~d Suunp ySA~g;o~uoa ;uBOiiddg
aneq aseaid •peo~ ,Caiueg u! ,fpaquou 4uiuucu uieut aarnas dues qou! g ue seq dSA~g
•a;!s s-g33o
,i;-ucotn aq; u! s! u-eut uo);oaiioa ~arnas ~i-e;!ues mo pug any `sdew sat;!i!ae3 mo3o n+arnai cagy
saurep azaQ
bi0L6 •oN al!LL- sa;e;sg poon~asog :ag
ZOSL6 uo~a.~p `;u!od ~e.L;ua~
~aauS puooaS 4;noS SSi
io;aa.~[Q $utuueid / io;eus!u!wPV ~I~
d~iy"~auuag •H s2luep :u~d
;uiod iBl;ua~ 30 ~!~
L66I `SZ ~Io1eI^I
.. BLZS•SE9lt44I7(Vd •9btb•fiLL1tb9)•.8606•{04L4 NOO3tlO'OtlOdO3W•AMN OIdIOtld HLOOS SL6E
1 j
AlIbOHlnd Aad11NdS A3'1'itlA ~133a~ at/39
.
.L6~1 ~~ ~bU'J
~~~~
r? {~
1
SLbb-88b ~s absg saTTsQ o~ paxs3 1Cdo~
uo~eTpuag u
~s is os~r~r
x~ x~x'~n~ou
' 1CTasaoutg
• 1Cpsaa aas
Aaq~ uat;M aot33o ano gbnoaq~ sansei 3gbix .za3sM aq~ atpueq usa
aNj •uraTgosd s aq you ZtFM-gotgM ~uawdoTanap aq~ 3o K~so3 os pus
ssa,zs vado aq3 0~ uo a3szodaoouT o~ 3usM 1Caq~ ~eq3 ~uawdoTanap
aye uT aao pziq~ s 1CtgTSSOd pus s~gbia sa~sM oM~ ass a.~auy
- •aousua~uisw .~o
!uoi~ssado s,~aTZ~stQ aq~ q~TM a,za3aa~ur ~sq~ usTd ubrsap aqq u~iM
suratgoxd ~usoi3TUbis ou puT3 usa I •sa~s~s8 pooMasog pasodosd
aq~ buzpzsbas absg satTsQ q~tta haw I 'L66i 'bZ gossyl v0
:vax ssaQ
Z05L6 2I0 '~uiog tss~uaa
puZ q~noS 55S
~uiog Tss~va~ ;o A~z~
uszatugoay buivusTg
,zaTgasaa~ uax
~,
7
.~
`, ~.
;f;
L66T 'SZ go,zsy1
i>
LZ 19-ELG IEOSI 4 LLLI•IOSLB NOO3tl0'OtlOl03W b OYOtl NYWItltl3W 6EIC
1~I~11S1a NOIl~JiZ1~11 ,~~ll~'A ZI~AIZ1 ~(190Z1 ~~
`.~
£ @~.
~ ~~
IeysreW any/;aly~ uaslnlo
eualSn~ 'y no-l
',(laaa~uig
•snlpv 8u1wn38 S~ a Hoops o} pa}~n.gsum aq ileys spuelsl 7~~o'J U°+snOH a41 '£
3uvP~4 ~91~o9!PPe ue a~mbaa
osie,(ew Swp~lnq ay}'uol}~ru;sum pus ails uo pase9 'panssl 8ulaq syuLad o}aoud s;uawa~mbaa
X9661 JJflO) aP°"J ark ~wo~un ao; pa~7lwgns aq pet's pet' uogea~ai puE a8e~o~s aya.~o} sueld 'Z
•parmbai }ou sl anowa~
pa;ou ' a8uvo w pa~ew l;uvP~4 ayl 'Paatnbai aus'{,'£'Z' I Pill s~uvp,(y aig ayl ::~uvpll-I a~~ ' I
:Suln~opo} ay> ssaappe aseald Sugaaua 8wuue~d-aad aye;e passmslp ann sd
:sa;e}s3 PooMaso~l :ad ~aly~sia~ ua~
ZOSL6210'w!od I~uaJ
~aall$ Pumas 47no$ SS
lulod ivlua~)o'G!~
L661 'L INdb'
995b-9Z8'IbS~~~
OOIL'9'Z8'Ib5
£OSL6'uo2a~p',(y~ ayypn
' ' '' _ P21 a3eEy £££8
f op uiaisip guy uaoo~ Nos~~n~
i
~:..
^
~(~
°~,
i
' CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
" PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
April 15, 1997 - 7:00 p.m.
Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 383
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Chuck Piland -Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Bob Gilkey, Karolyne Johnson,
and Valerie Rapp
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES
A. Review and approval of April 1, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
~~
j VI. BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing -Review and decision regarding a Tentative Plan for the Beall
Estates Subdivision, Phase III, R-2 zoning district. (37 2W 12C Tax Lot 3404)
(Noel A. Moore & $ret A. Moore, applicants)
B. Public Hearing -Review and recommendation regarding a Zone Change from
R-1-10, Residential Single-Family (10,000 s.f.) to R-1-8, Residential Single-
' Family (8,000 s.f.). (37 2W 10 Tax Lot 5900) (Dallas Page, applicant)
C: Public Hearing -Review and decision regarding a Planned Unit Development,
Rosewood Estates. (37 2W 10 Tax Lot 5900) (Dallas Page, applicant)
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
~~'