Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - May 19, 1998~'g~ Y ,y ~ ,~> CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May 19, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. t~ ~ Next Planning Commission Resolution No.420 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland -Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, and Karolyne Johnson III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and Approval of May 5, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Page 1 - 11 A. Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Tentative Plan for the Shelterwood Subdivision. 12 - 30 B. Public Hearing to consider a request by Mr. Tom Casey to position a mobile espresso cart near the intersection of East Pine and North First Streets. 31 - 47 C. Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Tentative Plan for the Walnut Grove Manufactured Home Park. 48-63 D. Continued Public HearingregardingproposedchangestotheCityofCentral Point and Jackson County Comprehensive Plans and Comprehensive Plan Maps. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT ~„~9.~ y d CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 5, 1998 Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Central Point Planning Commission: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, Don Foster, and Angela Curtis. Jan Dunlap, Bob Gilkey and Karolyne Johnson were absent. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, and Arlene LaRosa, Public Works Secretary. Jackson County Planning Commission: Larry Fowler, Leon Hofford, Don Greene, Reeve Hennion, and Deborah Crouse. Also present were Laurel Prairie-Kuntz, Jackson County Planning Director and Tom Schauer. III. CORRESPONDENCE Tom Humphrey stated that correspondence was received and will be introduced at a later time. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the minutes of April 7, 1998, as written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson. ROLL CALL: Curtis, yes; Fish, yes, Foster, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES Mr. Steve Shearer entered into the record a copy of a letter from Oregon State Historic Preservation Office which was an official notification that the John W. Merritt Store and Residence built in 1888 has been entered into the National Register of Historic Places. VI. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing reg ~rdin g~roo ose d ch anges to the Cit y of Cent ral Po int and Ja ckson Cou nty C ompre hens ive Plans an d Compr ehen sive Plan Mates., Chairman Piland opened the public hearing. There were no conflicts of interest or ex-parts communication. Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report and .~ ;, City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 1998 -Page 2 explained that the City is required to meet with the Jackson County Planning Commission for joint City/County review and amendment of the urban growth boundary and -policy amendments. Major revisions in boundary or policies will be considered amendments to both the City and County comprehensive plans and, as such, are subject to a legislative review process. The City is not proposing any changes to the Urban Growth Boundary at this time but is proposing amendments to Sections A, B and C of Policy 9 dealing with specific Bear Creek Corporation properties which are already in the City's UGB. Tom explained that the land use amendments are broken down into four geographic areas in he northwest, south, southeast and northeast of the city and discussed the changes in each area. Tom read into the record a letter from the Bear Creek Orchards concerning the economic life of the orchards on the property affected by Policy 9. Tom suggested discussing the Policy 9 amendment and the Comprehensive Plan separately. Chairman Piland opened the public hearing on Policy 9. Craig Stone, agent for Reddaway Trucking, Bear Creek Orchards and Harry & David stated that several people want to address the Policy 9 amendment and the comprehensive plan together, but recommended that an independent decision be made on Policy 9. Mr. Stone stated that Bear Creek Orchards/Harry & David, because of urbanization around them were looking for other land to farm in an area with substantially greater acreage and which is not threatened by urbanization. Mr. Stone also discussed what he understood to be a State comprehensive planning concern namely the redesignation/rezoning of industrial land along the railroad. He identified various large parcels of vacant industrial land in White City with rail access and talked about the attractiveness of developing unincorporated land that has ample infrastructure and pays no municipal taxes. White city has become on of the region's industrial centers. Mr. Stone entered into the record a Transportation Impact Study for entire Central Point Rezone prepared by Hardy Engineering and Associates. Laurel Prairie-Kuntz stated that Jackson County Lands and Parks has asked for time to review the Traffic Impact Study and prepare a response to the Oregon Department of Transportation. Tom Humphrey read into the record a letter from Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad dated May 4, 1998 concerning the proposed rezoning of n City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes -May 5, 1998 -Page 3 Industrial to Residential Properties. Their primary concern is safety and improved access either by upgrading existing public crossings or adding new ones. Tom stated that the city has had another separate transportation study done by RVCOG, the results of which were included in the packet. Also entered into the record was a letter from the Oregon Department of Transportation dated May 1, 1998 asking for two weeks to review and analyze the draft Transportation Impact Study, and a letter from Bob Quillen of Central Point concerning the Area #2 Proposed Zone Change. Mike LaNier, P. 0. Box 4368, Medford, OR., agent for the Batzer property, stated that they supported the staff proposals. He asked that the Batzer property be included in the commercial rezoning orientation schedule for the rest of the property in that area. Mr. LaNier placed into record Findings of Fact for John Batzer, Petitioner in the Matter of a Proposal to Amend the General Land Use Plan Map for The City of Central Point in Area #3. Herb Farber, 675 Glenn Way, Central Point, agent for W. L. Moore Construction, stated that the Moores own the bulk of Area 1. Area 1 is surrounded by schools. He stated that from a citizens standpoint, it is a wise move to resdesignate industrial land in Area 1 to residential uses. The Moores are making application for a railroad crossing on Front Street. They will work on safety aspects with the railroad, a sound wall will be constructed and a potential landscaping buffer. They are looking at a small commercial zone in the vicinity of the railroad crossing for small mom & pop type businesses. They feel with 50 homes they won't need a signalized railroad crossing, but as the area develops and the need arises, they are prepared to do what needs to be done and can contribute toward signalization. Herb stated that. they are applying to the PUC and ODOT but will still need a traffic study. They are looking at about two acres fronting along the railroad for commercial use and an undetermined amount of land, also along the railroad, designated for a park. He will get something more specific prepared in the next two weeks for the commission. Tom Humphrey introduced some additional information taken from a technical background paper from the Oregon Department of Transportation which discusses different modes of transportation including rail. He stated that another railroad crossing was inferred in the correspondence from the railroad and was also included in the EMME/2 model run done by Rogue Valley Council of Governments. Tom Humphrey read into the record a letter from Mr. Antone Pedersen, n City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 1998 -Page 4 4269 Grant Road, Central Point, dated May 4, 1998 concerning the Area M-1 Zone Change. Mr. Pedersen stressed the importance of good long range planning in Area #1. Ron Reames, Rogue Valley Bin, 1824 Taylor Rd. Central Point, OR stated that he wanted to make sure that changes in Area #1 will not adversely effect their business. Sharon Boyd asked when City water and sewer would be brought close to properties on Table Rock and Biddle Roads. Tom Humphrey described the process and the possible time-line for the water and sewer through the subdivision on Hamrick and Biddle Roads. Chairman Piland closed the public hearing associated with Policy 9. Chairman Piland declared a break at 8:48 p.m. Chairman Piland called the meeting back to order at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 419 recommending that the City Council approve the recommended changes to Policy 9 as outlined on Pages 16 and 17 of the Planning Commission packet. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Curtis. ROLL CALL: Curtis, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes. Laurel Prairie-Kuntz stated that Jackson County Road and Parks said they do not have a concern with Policy 9 but would request not making a decision until the Transportation Impact Study has been reviewed and analyzed. Don Green stated that Policy 9 changes will not affect Jackson County's ability to make a decision on transportation in the area. Craig Stone, agent for USF Reddaway, stated that his client has an urgent need; their lease in Medford will expire in a couple months and it will not be renewed. They are in a desperate need in regard to timing and the development of land already zoned for Industrial use I Area #3. Laurel Prairie-Kuntz stated that the language the Jackson County Planning Commission is uncomfortable with is in Paragraph A. She suggested eliminating paragraph A and renumbering the subsequent paragraphs. Reeve Hennion moved to recommend that the Jackson County Planning Commission adopt the revised wording for Policy 9 as recommended by n City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 1998 -Page 5 Laurel Prairie-Kuntz, eliminating paragraph A and renumbering paragraph B to A, Paragraph C to B. The motion was seconded by Don Greene. ROLL CALL: Crouse, abstains Fowler, yes; Greene, yes; Hennion, yes; Hofford, yes. Motion passed. Commissioner Fish made a motion to amend Resolution 419, deleting Paragraph A in Policy 9 and renumbering Paragraph B to A and Paragraph C to B. Commissioner Curtis seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Curtis; yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes. The Jackson County Planning Commission stated their enjoyment at joining with the Central Point Planning Commission for tonight's session. The Jackson County Planning Commission left the meeting. Chairman Piland asked about the Commission's options on the Comprehensive Pian Amendment and zone changes. Tom Humphrey reviewed the changes and revisions as noted on Page 33 of the Planning Commission Packet. Commissioner Fish made a motion to continue the public hearing concerning the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Changes for two weeks until the next regular meeting on May 19, 1998. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Curtis. ROLL CALL: Curtis, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes. VII. MISCELLANEOUS There were no items under Miscellaneous. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Curtis made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. , PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: May 19, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Amendment to the Tentative Plan for the Shelterwood Subdivision. ~ .lip C811t/ Michael E, Sullivan Owner: 305 Harvard Place Medford, OR 97504 ers of Jack & Betty Beale Robert & Bemaduie Cartwright Record: 3344 Bursell Road 3316 Bursell Road Central Point, OR 97502 Central Point, OR 97502 37 2W 11D TL 1700 37 2W 11D TL 1800 Ernest & Betty Brewer Michael & Sandra Sullivan 1'550 Moon Road 305 Harvard Place Medford, OR 97504 Medford, OR 97504 37 2W 11D TL 1901 37 2W 11D TL 2201 & 2300 Property 37 2W 11D TL 1700 - 1.01 acres 372W 11DTL 1800=1.01 acres Description/ R-2, Residential Two-Family R-2, Residential Two-Family Z~11Elg:. 37 2W f1D TL 1901 - 1.53 acres 372W 11DTL2201-O.SOacres R-2, Residential Two-Family R-2, Residential Two-Family 37 2W 11I) TL 2300 - 2.07 acres R-2, Residential Two-Family Summary The applicant,' Michael Sulli"van is requesting that an existing wo story house located on property the Planning Commission has approved' for subdivision be allowed to be moved elsewhere on the site, specifically Lot 21 (refer to Exhibit A, tentative map). 01 tAi ho itv CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a tentative subdivision. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B). Annlicable Law CPMC 16.10.010 et seq.- Tentative Plans Discussion The Planning Commission may recall that it reviewed and approved a Tentative Plan for Shelterwood on October 21, 1997. At that time it was generally agreed and stipulated in the conditions of approval that, among other things; single family, one-story homes would be built on the site even though it is zoned R-2. Furthermore, of the two residential lanes permitted, the applicant would build a sidewalk on the south side of Greenleaf Lane with a crosswalk in the area of Lots 11 & 12 (refer to Exhibit C, Planning Commission minutes). The decision to build one-story single-family homes appears. to have been influenced by neighbors; and was also a conscious choice by the developer. As the time has neared for final platting and the construction of improvements, Mr. Sullivan has stated that he intended an existing house (shown on the tentative map in the Shelterwood Drive right-of--way) be relocated on the site to future Lot 22 (refer to Exhibit D, Memo from Lois DeBenedetti). The house in question is a two-story dwelling and it is staff's understanding that Mr. Sullivan has been speaking to the neighboring property owners who have not objected to his proposal. This is the only two-story house planned in the subdivision. L The project site is located in an R-2, Residential Two-Family Zoning District but the applicant has stipulated and the City wnditioned approval of the tentative map upon the censtruction ofsingle-family one-story homes. The project site is located in an R-2 zoning district in which the construction of single- family dwellings is permitted. There is currently and was at, the time of tentative map approval a two story dwelling located on the site however it was not shown to remain. 2. The relocation of an existing two-story dwelling is acceptable to neighboring property owners for whom single-story homes were originally stipulated and will not lead to the construction of additional-two-story houses in this subdivision. 02 M The applicant has spoken with neighboring property. owners however the Planning Department has not yet received any correspondence indicating that there is no objection to the relocation of an existing two-story dwelling from its current location to future Lot 22 on Arborwood Lane. The Commission may be able to make this finding from evidence and/or testimony presented at the public hearing. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. , approving a revision to the Tentative Plan and conditions for Shelterwood; or 2. Deny the proposed revision;, or 3. Continue the review of the requested revision at the discretion of the Commission. xh'bits A. Approved Tentative Subdivision Map for Shelterwood - B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Planning Commission minutes, dated October 21, 1997 -- - D. .Memo and attachments from City Building Official Lois DeBenedetti 0~ Planning llepaz'tment _ T.,InI~• - NII.1i•,1 Exhibit A Shelter~vood pn~,p•1WyN, 1/ (w '1 OW~bW P•N1. ~I•~int1rY,~IgibMG~i1~ Michael E. Sullivan ~y E ~D °}i' S1 /' a e 8 0 ~ I let t: L_°J emotw it . 8 ~t 11 ~L~etp of a ~,J{~let wr __ ~~~~~ terry 11 ~ i ~ ~~ J L e3 iL 1)OD g, _ ____. .w L m N T 11l.m _._._._._._____._._._ O.m _._____._._. _._ 101_.01 ____._.._._.___~. y ! Lot 9 ___.____._ to 8, ~ Lot Id Ay g ya- ~ Lot la g (mown IY Lot Is /1 B ~wll S+' Y ~ 6DW N It y ww L t 1 •TL~i ~ .__.__.__._ In.m E.m o _ _.~ 09.m ~ i _______. IO N ~ ~< 1 ~ M $I Lat B g ~.(~, + ~, 6]a9 M 11 - ~ ~.,t fQ.1V ~ ~ Lel !f ~8 1 g~ m]1 N 11 Ig m ®li iet l g 1 ~ ~D Wu~l~ ~ ~ ~ R2 T 0.W0.W0.W..80005 7 Bj~ 60b3 p 11 ~ Let 45 I - 0. 1 B at ° ~ ° ~ 1 a~-0v-~tD ,a I ty " g li IsOO °r I'n . 1L°~ I 1 9P.T ~ d , 1 -- a -'--'--- 0.% c ~ Lot 19 ~ g (SI w 11 g 2V-9f,11a mm ~. IOl .ai . g ~t at l w ~ Lot ao ~g, __ ________ 8 moo .an I ) • ._..._p.!! ....... .... .. ~1 .19._._. _ .. Applicant: a D G {mn a E am ll ~~ . , va" aTBa Oolaaan Creek aaad r o " ~ 0 o ana - J OWnBra: ~.It0 ..'ntitiy~ 10' e•N" ~ I MlOhul E. aM amtlra {. 8ulllvan r(w ro •a) M ~~ Lok is ' aTN Colenn Cruk {mtl Ked(ord. BrelWn 9)!DI -""° Let as )000 p 11 ;U Jaek M. and {akty J. Beale ~ fm:y n aad {Ir,.u m.d g ~ » 1 Central Pelnk, BreOOn 9ilOE n ' Ernot L. and BBUY A. Braer aa9a B lFA tl 3 k .• ' & uru oa CenMal Pe1nQ BN OB 9)508 01 (~ `, ~ E { ..__... bt t ~ 75: Bebvt L. antl Bernatllne K. Carterl {M1t Mm M 11 C~ntr~l rP°InkB, Od.{en 9 n~ ~ B 7Qt 'iz snar~a . . w e w r.n~ p ~ I , Wln4n M. 9ff91B11 r~ Lat a5 eeNr.l wl.a: a66D .. 11 ; r MM•••T . KF Nn. w ~~V-~ Taub INO, lam, , ~'. Ai1F11D 1L'e Iim,IBY,OOD W 001 w leln .. gl mW P ~ .J._ ...._~_... ( a1'1 ~' l. m{x~ let N L ~ g~ 6H6 M11 __ • _ -- ~ ' - zero {a sE.>a v1 N i6~ Lot a ~ 81 I BXd w 11 q -_______ i ' u.Te ul s I ~ ............ 6)(b 11 ~ . tl~ ~ N VI l1t ~ 9t.TB 10'mmw1 -..-.-. ~I Leta dXd ll g~ M g lets ' 9AM a w~ ~ -------- ~I Let 1 y Tomw~,_ • y _ vln ( ; 4 ~ 9WYEYE0 0Y: FAIBIBB { 10X8, INC. dM IMBO EUMYap (5117 )M-0{i6 OFFICE LOCATIBN: MA3LIN0 AODIE89: 1O 1{{f1El0E P. O. {n( 99{6 WDIOD, DaYd110lYt CMIIY. p0'alf. OIEBN11I900 GaP111O B(: WF,iK RBIAnB1: 90' EDY.E • 1 IItl1 : !0 Ixt ,UB N•. aatm MTE: F fP 1M OUODI: MOO.Om N 1010.000 E 1 Lane a 04 b 1 l4lllllllb' Ll.l/tU LLlll.lll. City of Central Point Exhibit B PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: May 8,1998 Meeting Date: May 19, 1998 Time: 7:00 p.m: (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a request to modify a condition of approval for the proposed Shelterwood Subdivision. In 1997, the Planning Commission approved the subdivision with a condition that prohibited the construction oftwo-story structures. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the two-story requirement that would allow the relocation of an existing two story structure within the subdivision. At the meeting, the Planning Commission will discuss the request and render a decision to modify or retain the condition of approval. Chapter 16 of the Central Point Municipal Code .requires that substantial modifications to Tentative Subdivisions be reviewed and approved by the Central Point Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMMENTS 1. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned request may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting cheduled for Tuesday, May 19, 1998. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 155 South Second Street ~ Cerltcal Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 • Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~5 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all information provided by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Deparhnent at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the request, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the modifications. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. riawmg uepartment Exhibit C CTTY OF CBNTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1997 -Page 5 including all conditions in the staff reports and staff comments and adding a condition that the subdivision CC&R's notify buyers that the subdivision is abutting a light industrial zone. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap. ROLL CALL: Curtis, yes; Dunlap;, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. Chairman Piland called a recess at 9:40 p.m. Commissioner Dunlap left4he meeting. Chairman Piland called the meeting back to order at 9:47 p.m: E. Re~'P~~ and determination regarding a Tentative Plan for Shelterwood, a 26-lot single- family recidential subdi~'sion 2 z n~7 2W 11D Tax Lot-1600)~chael Sullivan Rpplicantl There were no conflicts of interest or ex-pane communication. Tim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Lee Brennan reviewed the Public Works Department Staff Report. Lee stated that on item 10 on page 3 concenung the accurate location of utilities, at the beginning of the paragraph add "As feasible" and "pertaining to City rights-of--way and easements" at the end of the paragraph. Commissioner Gillcey made a motion to extend the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson. Ali said "aye" and the motion passed. Lee Brennan stated that the building requirement concerning fill placement and geotechnical concerns will be added to the conditions of the staff report. Herb Farber, 120 Mistletoe, Medford, OR, agent for the applicant, stated that they stipulate that they will have deed restrictions to restrict the development of property to single-family. He stated that they concur with the staff reports. He stated that they will stipulate to concrete approaches on the residential lanes to cut down on cut-through traffic. Mdse Sullivan, applicant, 3784 Coleman Creek Road, Medford, OR stated that they are proposing 7 foot sidewalks on the residential lanes. Ruth Campbell, 3252 Bursell, Central Point, OR expressed concern regarding the removal of the wIId pheasants in the area. She also stated that she did not want 2-story houses. _ Emest Brewer, 3296 Bursell, Central Point, OR. stated that Mr. Sullivan has purchased 1 acre of property from him and he has specified in his contract of sale that houses on this property will be single family and one-story. ,..•. ~~ CITY OF CBNTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1997 -Page 6 Jack Beale, 3344 Bursell, Central Point, AR. stated that Mr, Sullivan is purchasing property from him and the sale contract indicates they will be single family homes. Herb Farber stated that they can sq~ulate o single-story homes. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution 405 approving a Tentative Plan for Shelterwood, a 26-(otcingle-family residential subdivision. (R-2 zone) (37 2W 11D Tax Lot 1600) (Michael Sullivan, applicant) including conditions to the staff reports, and adding conditions requiring (1) single-family, one-story homes and (2) sidewalk on the south side of Greenleaf Lane only with a cross walk in the area of Lots 11 & 12 to the. south side of Greenleaf Lane.: Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilkey. ROLL CALL: Curtis, yes;. Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Tim Bennett discussed the street addressing problem on Pittview Avenue and future agendas. VIII. 'ADJOURNMENT Conunissioner Gilkey made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Curtis. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m. O$ Planning llepartment Exhibit D MEMO O F F I C E To: TOM Fxom: LOIS DE BENEDETTI Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION 5/19/98 ' Date: May 8, 1998 TOM; MIKE SULLIVAN HAS REQUESTED TO BE ON THE. 5/19 AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REQUEST THAT THE EXISTING TWO STORY HOUSE LOCATED ON THIS LOT BE ALLOWED TO BE MOVED TO A NEWLY CREATED LOT WHICH IS A PART OF THE SHELTERWOOD SUBDIVISION. THE ORIGINAL SHELTERWOOD SUBDIVISION APPROVAL INCLUDED RESTRICTIONS ON TWO STORY HOMES. MIKE HAS PROVIDED THE ATTACHED PORTION OF THE APPRAISAL HE•HAD DONE. FOR THE PROJECT TO SHOW THAT IT WAS ALWAYS HIS'INTENTTO RELOCATE THIS EXISTING TWO STORY HOUSE TO A LOT WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION. SOMEHOW THIS WA5 MISSED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP AND SUBSEQUENT MAPS PROVIDED TO US FROM HERB FARBER. ~~ INVOICE.. November 26, 1997 TO: Valley of the Rogue Bank 4000 S. Pacific Highway Medford,- Oregon, 97501 Attn: Michael W. Bingaman, VP/Manager RE: Appraisal of the proposed 25 lot Shelterwood Subdivision with two houses on two of the lots, Central Point, Oregon APPRAISAL FEE $2,250 , OWNER: Michael E. Sullivan and Sandra M. Sullivan. PROPERTY: Shelterwood .Subdivision Central Point, Oregon PLEASE REMIT TO: Rick V. Frohreich 502 S. Central Avenue Medford, Oregon 97501 (541)772-7258 FEDERAL I. D. No. 93-1091572 APPRAISER: Rick V. Frohreich ~Q Summation of the Cost Approach Total value of 23 improved residential lots $~79~000 Value house 3316 Bursell Road 8105 000 Value house 824 Beall Lane 822,000 Value Indicated by the Cost Approach: $ INCOME APPROACH The income approach as used for investment property is based upon the assumption that value is set by the investment needed to acquire a project that has an equally. desirable net income flow. This approach is accomplished by the estimation of economic rent, less vacancy and credit loss, and less expenses, for a net income which is capitalizing or converting the expected future net income into a present value estimate. There was insufficient data to properly develop the Income Approach. Single-family residential lots in this area are not rented or leased, but are sold in fee simple estate. Therefore, there is no net rental income to capitalize or discount. - DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH This approach has as its premise the idea that an investor will pay no more for a property than it would cost to purchase an equally desirable property without undue delay in the open market. -In developing this approach the following were complet- ed: 1. An estimate of the gross selling price for the subdivision lots. 2. An estimate of the present value of the gross sales. A'.> Discount the gross sales, by using comparable sales. B. Discount the net cash flows from the lot sales to present. value. eriod of the lots. 1) Estimate the absorption p 2) Deduct holding costs and selling. costs from sale price for the holding period. 3) Discount the net sash Flows to a present value estimate. 3. Correlate and estimate-the gross-.value and discounted value. 28 ii PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF R_F.PORT HEARING ` DATE: May 19, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Site Plan Review of 37 2W lOAA Tax Lot 300- Casey . Espresso Bar. licant/ Tom Casey Owner: 754 Marshall'Avenue Medford, OR 97501 Agent: Same Property Description/ 37 2W10AA Tax Lot 300- 0.09 acres C-3, Downtown Business District mun The applicant, Tom Casey has requested a Site Plan Review for an Espresso Drive Thru cart' that he would like to locate near the intersection of West Pine and North First Streets on an undeveloped lot in the Downtown Business (C-3 zoning) District (refer to Exhibit A). Authority CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Site Plan Review. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060: (ExhibitB). Agnlicable Law CPMC 17.40.010 et seq.- C-3, Downtown Business District. CPMC 17.72.010 et seq: Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval Comprehensive Plan Historic Policy #2, Page V1-74 1~ Although the proposed business activity is a pernvtted use in the C-3 zoning district, CPMC 17.72.020 requires that the City perform a site plan review for all construction requiring a building permit or which is a change of use, In this case the project site is an undeveloped vacant lot measuring 140 feet long by 27.5 felt wide. Historic photographs indicate that it was probably part of the Memtt Building's yard. The development of the property and establishment of the espresso business constitutes a change of use. The mobile espresso cart proposed is manufactured by Caffeine Machines in Portland and has the standard features listed in the building plans attached to Exhibit A. The 128 square foot unit has two opposing service windows and is designed to be entirely self contained with a 60 gallon fresh water holding tank and a 70 gallon holding tank for waste water. Electrical service would be provided by the local utility provider. The applicant has not indicated any definite signage or color of the building at this time. Mr. Casey has indicated that he would like to pave the majority of the lot with asphalt and providetwo-directional travel from a curb cut along North First Street and an alley at the rear of the site. First Street does have garb and gutter but no sidewalks. The Public Works Department has a few requirements that they.would like to see implemented with any new development and these are listed as conditions in Exhibit C. The Department also believes that the site plan configuration places vehicles in the 8 foot wide driveway too close to the property line. The Jackson County Health Department is concerned about the lack of restroom facilities on site. However health regulations allow access to a restroom within five minutes or one half mile from the espresso cart. In the neighboring communities of Medford and Ashland, similar espresso businesses have been located near existing restroom facilities such as gas stations or other business activities. If this project were approved, the applicant would need to provide City staff with evidence of compliance from the Jackson County Health Department. Neighboring. business owners from the Merritt Building have expressed concern about the development of theproject site for a variety of reasons. The Commission may recall that at their last meeting, a letter was introduced by Steve Shearer to substantiate the fact that the Merritt Building is on the National Historic Register (refer to PC minutes and Exhibit E). Mr. Shearer lives in the Merritt Building (a mixed commerciaUresidential use) and would prefer not to have vehicles passing by his windows to use the Espresso Drive Thru. He has introduced an alternative site plan (Exhibit F) which proposes moving. the cart closer to the First Street property line and having walkup traffic on one side and one-way vehicle traffic on the other. The remainder of the property wuld be lawned or landscaped. ei Comprehensive Plan policies encourage the City to work toward zoning ordinance amendments that ...ensure that significant sites or structures will be adequately addressed in terms of their value to the community and state whenever they are threatened by demolition, reconstruction, major remodeling or adjacent development: ' In this case, staff believes that asemi-permanent use like the Espresso Drive Thru, if developed tastefully, can enhance and not detract from the Merritt Building's historic significance. The-proposal submitted by the neighbor is a reasonable alternative and could also include tables, benches, or other street furniture in the vicinity of the Merritt Building patio (Exhibit F). Staff has not yet spoken with the applicant about an altemative but has made efforts to contact him and will attempt to schedule a meeting prior to the Commission hearing. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 17.72.040: A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to. not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission. may Yequire the maintenance of existing plants or the installation of new one for purposes of screening adjoining property: ^ .The applicant depicts a single tree located south of the mobile cart. The lot has potential for additional landscaping and outdoor sitting areas that would encourage pedestrian patronage. B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The project would take access to North First Street via a curb cut that must .meet Public Works Standards. This includes, but is not limited to; a sia foot wide sidewalk, and a standard driveway approach. There are no objects that confiicf with the required 55 foot clear vision area along East Pine Street. C: To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such a manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets;. 14 ^ The facility is designed as a drive up unit and is exempt from the off street parking requirements under the provisions of the C-3, Downtown Commercial district. D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traffic' control signs or devices arr21 that they are compatible with the desigmof their buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; The literature provided by the cart manufacturer depicts signage positioned on the side of the structure. All signage will require a permit from the Central Point Building Department. E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; ^ Construction and positioning of the mobile cart would be subject to applicable building code and fire 'ode requirements. The City Planning and Public Works Departments pr0fer a single driveway arrangement. Jackson .County Fire District Number 3 will require a fire extinguisher and legible address. F: Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The proposed construction meets the minimum setback requirements for the C-3, Downtown Business District. G: Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ^ The vinyl lap siding and pitched roof are generally complementary to the surrounding structures. Site landscaping and the minimal development of the front of the lot (along Pine Street) would enhance the aesthetic value of the project. 15 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1, Adopt Resolution No. ,approving the Site Plan application for the. Casey Espresso Bar, based on the findings of fact contained. in the recordand subject. to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit C ); or - 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan Review application; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan Review application at the discretion of the Commission. A. Site Plan, Building Plans and Letter of Description B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Recommended Conditions of Approval D. .Comments from Other Agencies. . E. Verification of Merritt Building National Historic Register Significance F. Alternative Site Plan Proposed by Adjacent Business Owners 1.6 'f .~, I i _ ~~ ~ N O ' ~ ~ ~'-~ oR-f' y >~- v ~ ~ t i 0 0 ' i M ' F O W J S F ~' h ~ ~ ~ , o -. n m ~ I r - m V / / 'c V W /~ T a 9' e o ss N 4 M - ~ ~f O ~ ~ ~ Y - ~ V ~ i ~ o ~ t ~ ~ ..~~ -~ ~1 ~ I ~~1 T ,l ~ ~ ( ~ V i ; ._) < ~ ~ w 'p I ~ ~ y i t' r r ~ + ; ~ ~~ ~~~'~, Z <~; 5 t~. i~4 5 {v, LL f ~~, ~` 1 t~ F 1 7 ti b~. r)~} t . ~ t. /j 6 1 1 ~~ ~ ~~~ t( df1> i t1~ ~ ~~ ~ 40 i .r:>' tx 'tt ~ :i.'Y :.~4~.~'d~ ,~n~ Y i ~` it W'`,{ g'`~'+A;17 ~ ~ A ~ '3I4 tr'~l ytp(Ip;'~Tt ~,~ L, ~''~~'~V~, f~ sl ~ ~ fi ! ,Y C ~ 4h{~' ~ esy. ~' 1~ ~~ t Z di /~y ~~. ~ r~~,,/~{{ ~pJY >K ( i~ Hk Pfd ~W~ ~ r ti6@~ n"~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~f ~4f { 4if ~ ,('',rT e ~ ~' 3f ~ r ,'%' <tt~~ Tr[ µtff;;~~~~'~ -~~ti: ~ ~i. ~ ,~ .. ~_' ~. %i `, ~ '~ ~~;~, ,.I ~,Q I' 11 ~~ ~ ~~:a ~. ~ " ~$ ~~ ~~ „ o z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~~ ~::: ~::~ ns?~ !t ~:: ,;dt~~,;'.... ~1 ifl 1 ~'~ L ~`J W ^~ L~ O ^v+, i W _ _ ~ 4 ~:. ~~' ~ ~ ~ 'i - ~. ~' . x: _, }}. k _I ''°~ a r~ ~: ~ ;:~ -- ~ A: ~, s ' ~~,~ ~ - . ~-;. 1 «a - ~' a 'E N O .~ ~U a - U N O ~~ 'c v O C O U .~ C d) ~ _ w _ ~ w O C N N ~ ti~ O O N E Q~Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ .0 u7 3~ N c N~ O~~ ~' O~~ O c~ LL y 0~ N C ~~ N O Q p ~~ ~ O ~ ~ C C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ c Q C O O O O~ N C C `6 O~ -O ~ C N z ~O 0 0 0 O L" ~ C p N~ U, O O Qo~N O ~ c S<.;> ~ ~ ~ c~n .O ~ 3 ~ o ~ ~ ~ 20 1~ To PhmninS Department City of Central Point From Tom Casoy 754 Marshall Ave. Medford OR 97501 ', `.,./ Please review the following site plan for approval of "THE HUMAN BEAN "drive ihru Espresso Bar. The Moblle Espresso Cart will be located at Pine and First street in Central Point. Map 372W lOAA Taxlot 300. The current zonning is G3. The pre manufactured Mobile Cart is an Oregon State approved . BRSidesPower the cart is totally self sufficient and does not require sewer or water hookups. City of Central ; point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technidan Deanna Gregory Administrative/planning Secretary ~~ Notice of Meeting city orCeait'iraiut Date of Notice: April.23,1998 tit tt BXHT~I'i' B Planning Department Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING May 19, 1998 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Site ]?tan Review; The applicant is requesting approval to construct a drive through espresso bar at the corner of North First and West Pine Streets on Jackson Coiuity Assessor's map 37 2W lOAA, Tax Lot 300. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Conshuction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 19, 1998. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City. Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 22 4. Copies of all evide~~ce relied upon by the applicant are availaole for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 332Text. 23 L SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Tentative Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. "~r ~v i ~ '("<Yy ;~., f: t,~<. ~~ y'; Street EXHIBIT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OE APPROVAL 1. The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on March 19, 1999 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received - by tha City. 2. The'project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. The applicant shall install or enter into a deferment of construction agreement with the City for improvements including, but not limited to; a six foot wide sidewalk, and a standard driveway approach. 4. The applicant shall prepare, submit and implement landscaping and sign plans to the Planning bepartment for approval prior to obtaining a permit to operate. . 24 '"05/13/98 08:17 FAE 5418284586 FIR& DISTRICT k3 ~ 02 SIRE DIST'RICT' No. 3 JACKSON COUNTY 8333 AGAl~ ROAD, WHITt CITY, OREGON 97503-1075 (541) 826-7100 fAX (541) 826.4566 GYty of Chitral l?~int EXHIBIT t'T1't P1anning Department 5-13-98 Ken Gerschler Planning Technician RE: 98034 (Casey Espresso Bar) Fire District #3 has no comment on the layout of the espresso baron 1st and Pine. The occupant will need a fire extinguisher for the inside (2A- 10BC)minimum. If the occupancy is given an address the building will need a sign. Contact Fire District t'K3 for a free sign. ~~~~~~~ Nail Shaw Deputy Fire Marshal _ 25 BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY 9916 60UTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFOR0. OREgON 97601.9099 •{6tl1779.41{{ • FAX (6H) 696.6279 May 8, 1998 Ken Gerschler City of Central'Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: Casey Expresso Bar 98034 Dear ICen, ~E~EIVED MAY 121998' CITY OF C ~T FAL FOINT TIME - We have reviewed the subject planning action with regard to providing sanitary sewer service to the project location. It appears the proposed use will not require a sewer connection but may require offsite disposal permission.. This procedure should be established and permitted as required: If the proposed use will include a permanent sewer connection have the applicant contact BCVSA for connection requirements and permit... Sincerel ames May, r. P. District Engineer 2G Planning Department Exhibit E March 30, 1992 Stan Fouts 5045 Crestwood Avenue Central Pointe OR 97502 Dear Mr. Fouts• Earlier action by the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation led to nomination of the following property to the National Register of Historic Places. Merritt, John W., Store and Residence .(1888) 117 East. Pine Street Central Point, Jackson County, Oregon Official notification has been received from the Department of the Interior that the property was entered in the National :Register on March 9, 1992. We extend our congratulations to all concerned. Owners of National Register properties who are interested in learning about the benefits offered under the State Historic .Property .:Tax Law (ORS 358.475-358.565) are encouraged to request an application/application packet from the State Hstoric.Preservation Office. It should be remembered that~_participation in; the program for spacial assessment of historic properties is optional and involves an entirely separate application process. No one need feelaompelled to apply for the benefits. If a property owner wishes to have the true cash value of his property frozen an a given calendar,-year~he is required by statute to file his application for special assessment status to this office not later than'December 31 of the preceding calendar year. ' If questions concerning this recent action arise, please be in touch with the State Historic Preservation Office, telephone 378-6508. Si rely, ` ~~~ David G. Talbot state Historic Preservation officer'- DGT:jn cc: Linda A, GeHaw The Honorable,ROger Westensee 27 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVAT[ON OFFICE Parks & Recreation Department i 525 Trade Street SE Salem, OR 97310 (503) 378.5001 FAX (503) 378-6447 w ,> . ~~f r,{ n~. . # ~ :1 r , 1 1 ` J})t 1• ` ) ~~ j ~. 1~. 1 u~i j 1: ,.. ...~.. _. 5 ;'..! 1 . 1. ' Re y""'_ --~1. s. ';t ~. 4~ M '. .:. l' '. ~~i. .. ;~ ~ ~ ~f : 1 '' ` w r~;,_ ~ 5 i r•~ 11 3 Y i 1 Yt,. F:: µ ~)': ~ 4 ~~~ ~, ~ eta 1 Z, 9 ~ ~. ~ ~, o , o a ~ , ~d ~ N r J ~ Q 0 -q< ~~ ~ .q n .. N q - :. J Q' '~ °cQ, g Q N . ~ ' ~ <~ ~ 3 ~~ ti~ ~ ,~ ~, / V ~ f' ~ .} aa~ `s .: :. ., ~~ - -~-- - - -~ - -x- -o _~ I s. ~ '~ ~~ City of Central Point :, ` EXHIBIT "F" Planning Department _s r--- ~. ~o~ ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: May 19, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Amendment to the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Walnut Grove Manufactured Home Park. Qpnlicantl Walnut Grove Village Partners Owner: P.O. Box 8271 Medford, OR 97504 Agent(sl: Wayne Christian, Pat Havird and John Schleining 1'.O. Box 8271 Medford, OR 97504 Pronerty Description/ 37 2W 02 Tax Lot 100- 32.20 acres Zonin¢: R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District The applicant, Walnut Grove Village Partners, is proposing amendments to the Site Plan for the Walnut Grove Manufactured Home Park located near the intersection of West Vilas and Hamrick Roads. Amendments include moving the clubhouse buildings and park area to the Vilas Road entrance and using the existing clubhouse site for RV parking and seven (7) additional manufactured home spaces (see Exhibits A, B & D) CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Site Plan Review. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit C). e~ CPMC 5.32.010 et seq.- Mobile Home Parks CPMC 17.28.010 et seq.- R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District CPMC 17.72.010 et seq: Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval CPMC 17.76.010 et seq: Conditional Use Permits Discussion The Planning Commission initially approved the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for a 193 unit Manufactured Home Park in July 1997. Six months later, the Commission approved an amendment to New Haven Estates. (an adjoining subdivision) resulting in the conveyance of an additiona12.5 acres to Walnut Grove Village: The additional acreage was approved as a recreational vehicle storage area for the park'. The RV storage area was to be enclosed with a masonry wall along Hamrick Road and included other conditions noted in the Planning Commission minutes (refer to Exhibit E). It is staffs understanding that several factors led to this request for a site plan revision: 1) approval of the pond, originally planned for the clubhouse and open space area, could not be obtained from the irrigation district; 2) relocation of the clubhouse/park site will be more attractive at the entrance to the village; 3) internal RV storage will be more secure, private and accessible to village residents in the park's interior; and 4) the applicants want to add seven additional manufactured home spaces. Since this project was last discussed at the Planning Commission, the applicants have prepared a boundary line adjustment but have not yet transferred a 20-foot Hamrick Road right-of--way dedication from the New Haven Subdivision to the Walnut Grove Village property. The property line adjustment increases the total mobile home park land area to 34.7 acres which, when. the density is calculated, allows up to 202 MHP spaces. The applicant wishes to increase the number of spaces from 193 to 200 with this site plan revision. The-relocation of the RV storage area is a more aesthetically pleasing arrangement than having it along Vilas Road which is elevated and from which the RV's would be noticeable. The new parking area will accommodate approximately 96 RV's and is adjacent to five residential lots in the New Haven Estates subdivision. A sight obscuring fence is planned around the mobile home park perimeter. The exception to this is the masonry wall on New Haven and Hamrick Roads mentioned earlier. The applicants are now depicting a vinyl coated fence with slats` in place of the masonry wall.. ' The Commission will need to detemune whether to authorize this change as part of the site plan revisions. The New Haven Estates subdivision will still have a masonry wall along Hamrick. 32 In the course of scheduling this item for the Commission hearing the Planning Department received correspondence from property owners on Gebhard Road (see Exhibit F). Most, if not all of the issues raised in the enclosed letters were'discussed during the initial approval of the Walnut Grove Village CUP and Site Plan and are mitigated by public works conditions that have been adopted by the City, The applicants will be expected to adhere to previous conditions of approval unless they ardmodified by the Planning Commissionand/or City Council. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 1. The project site is located in an R-3, Residential. Multiple-Family District and the project and proposed revisions are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies which encourage a range of housing types, styles and costs including manufactured homes. It is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map which designates the project site as High Density Residential 2. The project involves the revision of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan to establish a 200 unit mobile home park. The site plan includes all information required by the CPMC. The proposed manufactured home park falls within the comprehensive plan density requirement for the R-3 zone which is a maximum of 25 units/acre. CPMC Chapter 5.32 actually limits mobile home park density at a maximum 6 units per acre and the total number of units allowed given this stipulation is 202. 3. The applicant has satisfied previous City conditions/requirements including, but not limited to: a boundary line adjustment and transfer of a 20-foot Hamrick Road right-of--way dedication from the New Haven Subdivision to the Walnut Grove Village property; the conditions adopted by the Commission on July I5, 1997 and theroonditions associated with modifications to the Site Plan adopted on January 20, 1998. The conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission on January 20, 1998 are listed in Attachment E. The applicants have submitted their improvement plans to the City and they are being reviewed for consistency with the conditions previously imposed by the Commission and City Council. Some improvements have been deferred to a later date while others including drainage are being worked out by the developer. Staff will have a copy of the conditions from earlier staff reports should the Commission need to refer to them at the meeting. 33 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ake one of the following actions: L Adopt Resolution No. ,approving revisions to the Site. Plan and. Conditional Use Permit for Walnut Grove Village Manufactured Home Park, based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit G); or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan revisions; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan and Conditional Use permit revisions at the discretion of the Commission. i is A. Amended Site Plan & Typical Space Detail -Walnut Grove Village B. Original Site Plan -Walnut Grove Village C. Notice of Public Hearing D. Applicant's letter and project description E. Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 20, 1998 P. Additional correspondence G. Recommended conditions of approval 34 is ~ ~~ :~ ~ .- 000000000 1{~ ~ ~ ~it~~~~ ~ ~iil1li~~ i ~~ 9~ B :: 4 9 s s ~.. e i i i' s~ ~ i i ~ S f ~ ~, ~ c s s i ~ f 1 S ~ i ;e i S ~ i i ~ f .+ i ,~ ; i ~ ~ i ~ n X 3 3 c c s i ri ~~\ ` / \ ` ~ n \~ ~ ~~ ~: ' ~~ ' ~: , ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 4 ~ s 3 6 i i e ~ e i i e i ~ : i i a i e i i r e f t i { i [ t i ~ E 1 { i ~ i ~ i i i s i i. ++ .. i i i i i ~ i i ~ ~ i 35 s n z ~~ s~m~k. z~ ~r n~ ~ r1 ~O ~~ m rr- b G~ty of Central Perot ~xxi~~ Matt Planning Depurtmeat . CIT'~ OF CENTRAL POINT pU81.IG WORKS DEPT. RECEIVED ' MAY 01998 P fll ~~ :S C. ~• ~J N 't m ;; ... ~, r. o ~~ ~' ~ z --~ _ D~ N~ r ~ n r DRNiN BY. PIUI CHECKED 0Y~ pLL41 m d ~~ ~~ - DATE N m ArPRDV~D uTr ENONEER, oATe A(i'IBTYED PIELIC IVHCS DIPECTCR DATE APPROVFDOY ORDNANCE NO' - - DATA ~~ DATE DATE.. v v 'I 1~ w - - - - :Y. . ri _. _ al0 OO R i .. .: i i ~ . _ i ~ ~ G ~ ~ i ~ ~ { C •-- ~ i i ~ ~ o.w on 1 r x 6 p F y ~ e a s s s a ~t .~ C" s ' 8 E E ~.7 ~ I s , , E ~ r, ~ ~ e a a ~ ~ a i ~ n a i ~ e 9 9 i E 8 E 'i f 8 8 6 5 E 4aa 4.a A ~ ~ E ~ t~ ~ ~ i ~ O e •a i i ~..,... E+ ~HI~IT t'B'' n Y .s E E E B E E @ 5 E @ 6 Y i i 6 p i 4 @ p 9 Y 8 R i g 6 8 8 8 8 E 5 S e i 5 Qity of Cenfrai i'oinE 8 P ~ Planning Deparlmen't A Y f e ~ ~ it a L R ! r t i~ 9 i' L. L• ~ ~ i tl ~~ i ~ p t y S s a a. .~ ~ ®® I 0 g L , .d - .....,.. s e a~ a s 0 R t a n ~ ~ s 1~ s E ~ a c t i q a R •~ 6 Y a n = s a Y R r w s_ a -Y: s R -~ ~ e s i s n s a s - i F t ^ ~,~ , - ~ mm mm ~ ~,~ ~~ ~~~ ~ . - .~ ,r~ .fie.. ,_, . ~. , L a~~ ... > ~ ~• ~~i,~y. •. 3.7 City of Central Point PLANNXNG DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: Apri129,1998 Meeting Date: Tuesday May 19; 1998 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon City of C~ttral Foist ~XHI~I7' "C't Planning Department NATURE OF MEETING Beginning at the above place andtime, the Central Point Planning Commission will review applications to modify the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for the proposed 193 unit Walnut Grove Mobile Home Park. The Parcel is located in a Residential Multiple-Family. (R-3) district on Tax Lot 100 of Jackson County Assessor Map Page 37 2W 02. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Condition Use Permits and, Site Plan reviews are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS L Any person interested incommenting ontheabove-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 19, 1998. 2.! Written comments may be sent iu adYance' of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 :.South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. ' ~ 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied uponby the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15-cents pet page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Tentative Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. 10 ~M-1I ,. V'ilas Road 55 MRY-05-1998 15 01 EHGLE POINT SRLES . 1 ,503 630 1558 P. 01iQA2 WALNUT GROVE VQ,LAGE PARTNERS P.O. BOX 8271 MEl)k'ORl), OY2EGON 97504 (541) 779-8390 May 5, 1998 Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician Planning Department City of Central Point Re: ,. Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park Dear Ken, City of Central Poittf EXHT~I3' tt~ t~ ..Planning Department RECEIVED MAY 51998' CITY OF CENTRAL P01NT TIME - ~S°° i4"' Euclosed you will find the application and maps as per your request for the site plan amendment for Walnut Grove Village. At our ast hearing when we acquired additional land on Hamrick Road and New Haven Drive, we asked the council to allow us to put our RV storage. is that azea. That amendment was approved but. the two concerns that the City Council members brought up were 1) having RV's parked at the front entrano, and 2) security for the RV storage. In order to improve the design of the pazk we would like to make three {3) amendments to the site plan:. 1) To have the clubhouse amenities and open space up in the front along New Haven Drive. This will make for a very attractive entrance way to Walnut Omve Village and allows more functional use' of the area. This clubhouse and open space area consists of more square footage than was submitted in the previous-plan. 2) To move the storage to a more secure and private area; This will be accomplished by having the RV parking in the middle of the park with security gates-:and fencing. 3) Adding. seven spaces. It should be noted that we meet all of the zoning criteria to allow the addition ofthese seven spaces. Also, the property that we acquired from New Haven Estates already had approval for seven lots upon the property that we are now putting the clubhouse, therefore, the total density of both projects does not increase. ~0 MRY-05-1996 1501 ERGLE POINT SRLES 1 503 630 1556 P.02i02 Ken Gerschler May 5, 1998 Page Two The additional pazk space along Gebhard-Road will remain the same as it was inthe previous approval. We feel that these minor changes will make Walnut Grove Village even better than it was. Sincerely, ~"'.--\ Jo Schleining er Cc: Jim Bennett City Administrator TOTRL P.02 Planning DeparUnent. . ' Exhibit E CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1998 -Page 2 Skyrman stated that he did not realize the significance of this until others mentioned the size, the allergens and the. leaf drop of these particular trees. Karolyne Johnson came in at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Skyrman stated that he would be satisfied with only the Photinia Hedge. He would like for them to remove the trees or replace them with a much smaller tree, possibly a Golden Gingko, Carl Skyrman, Lucille, Idaho, brother to Mr. Wally Skyrman, stated the he is a practicing landscape architect. He stated that one of the biggest Issues with the trees is the size. It is not a tree to put in a confined area, next to a sidewalk, curb or paving because of the root system. It puts out a lot of shade and would severely impact the hedge. The root system would also damage any water pipes underground. Shannon Bennett, Jacksonville, Or, stated that the Golden Gingko is a very good tree, but they need to specify male trees rather than female trees. Commissioner Dunlap made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the Oregon State Police remove the London Plane trees a.k.a. Bloodgood Sycamore trees on the north side of the property, let the Photinia hedge grow enough to cover the fence area, and, if the State wants to replace the trees, replace them with a smaller tree, possibly a Golden Gingko. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. B. Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. New Haven Estates would eliminate Lots 1 through 7 south of New Haven Road and transfer ownership to the Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park via a lot line adjustment. There are a few areas of concern: (11There is a 16-foot easement proposed for access from the mobile home park to the RV storage area. The City feels it needs to be a 20-foot easement and the Fire District concurs; (21 If the entrance to the RV storage area is gated and locked, the Fire District would like to have a lock box on it or some kind of device so they have access to it; (31 This area would be for RV storage only and there-would be no occupancy allowed in any vehicle in that area; (4) Thls area was to have 42 C1TY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission ]VTinutes January 20, 1998 -Page 3 a masonry sound wall when it was apart- of the New Haven Estates subdivision. The appflcant has assured the City they would still build the sound wall and would continue it around the R.V. storage area along New Haven Road all the way. up to the entrance of the mobile home park so that it would be completely screened from the roadway. The City would like a minimum height of 8 to 10 feet for the wall to adequatelyscreen the R.V.'s. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, stated that there is a visibility issue with the masonry wall"and it might be an appropriate location for an entry sign or landscaping with low shrubs. Herb Farber, 120 Mistletoe Street, Medford, OR, agent of record for New Haven Estates, stated thero will be no problem with giving a 20-foot easement. There is enough space to accommodate that. Commissioner Fish stated that there has to be an adequate sight triangle at the intersection of New Haven Road and Hamrick Road. Herb Farber stated that the mobile home park would be responsible for dedicating, by deed, the 20-foot additional right-of-way for Hamrick Road. The engineering and design for the intersection, road improvements, and the wall will have to be reviewed and approved by the engineering department to make sure that the sight triangle is free and clear. It is the Intent of the applicants to do some landscaping along the wall when it is built. The applicants have stipulated that they are willing to build an 8-foot wall and whatever style is chosen will be used for all of the frontage of both the mobile home park and subdivision. He stated that on lots 15, 16, 17 and 18 they dropped one lot and changed the alignment of the lot lines. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 412, amending Resolution 403, approving the following modifications to the Tentative Plan for New Haven Estates: 11 Lots 1- 7 and Lot 15 are eliminated; 2) Lots 8 - 14 are renumbered Lots 9 - 15; 31 Lots 16 - 18 are reconfigured and will require driveways ffiat ere curved to provide proper access to Hawthorne Way; 41 The 20-foot dedication of street right-of-way along Hamrick Road for Lots 3 - 7 is removed contingent upon transfer of ownership of Lots 1 - 7 to the Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park and completion of a lot line adjustment. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Fish. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes, Johnson, yes. 43 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1998 -Page 4 Commissioner Gilkey. made a motion to adopt Resolution 413, .amending Resolution 390, to approve the #ollowing modifications to the Site Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit for Walnut. Grove Mobile. Home Park: 1) The proposed recreationaF vehicle storage area.. is approved subject to the requirements of Fire District 3; 2) The perimeter of the .property along New Haven Road and Hamrick Road.. will. be enclosed by an 8-foot masonry wall or an acceptable combination of a berm and a masonry wall subject to approval by the Planning Department and affected: utilities;. 3) The masonry wall will be designed to meet sight vision triangle ,requirements at the intersection of New Haven Road and Hamrick Road; 4) The mobile home park will. dedicate to the city a 20-foot section of street right-of-way for Hamrick Road adjoining the recreational vehicle storage area. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes. with reservations; Fish; yes, Foster, yes; Gilkey, •yes; Johnson, yes. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Johnson handed out posters for the Town-Hall Meeting. Jim Bennett discussed future agendas. VIII. Adjournment Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. 44 4411 San Marino Drive Davis, CA 95616 May 9, 1998 Mr. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director Planning Dept, City of Central Point 155 South Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Meeting regarding Walnut Grove Mobile Home Park, May 19, 1998 Dear Mr. Humphrey, City of Cintral E'oint EII~I'T t,F tf Planning Department We are unable to attend the above mentioned hearing but would like to note our concerns regarding this development. We own 5 acres located on Gebhard Road west of the Walnut Grove development This was part of the original Walter Gebhard orchard (the land now being developed) and was deeded to my wife in 1977 by her father, Walter Gebhard. It had a bardett pear orchard on it until last year (1997) when we had to have the orchard pulled because we could find ho one who was interested in continuing to maintain an orchard of such a small size. The Walnut Grove development presents several concerns to us: #1. Adequate drainage requirement. The land being developed has always drained to the west, however when it was being farmed, the soil was able to absorb the rainfall without flooding our property. With the total parcel now being black-topped, there will be no place for the water to drain, except toward our 5 acres. We understand that there will be a requirement to provide facilities to prevent our property from being flooded. We hope that these facilities will be adequate for even the heaviest rainfall years. If a deep ditch to carry this wastewater is constructed (as has been mentioned as a possibility) just to the north of our property line, we would expect that the ditch would be constructed in such a way as to not interfere with the drainage we now have into the current ditch. #2. Sewer hookup. There is presently a sewage pumping station located on the extreme northeast comer of our property. This provides us with the opportunity at some later date to tie Into the sewer. We want asurance that the opportunity to connect with the new sewer line will still exist. #3. We presently have water rights on our flue acres and want to retain these rights. Therefore, there will need to be provision made to continue irrigation water delivery to the ditch bordering Gebhard Road on the east of our property. #4. We hope that we will be kept apprised of how the above problems are being addressed. While we cannot attend this meeting because of prior commiltments, our property is probably the one most affected by this development and is of vital concern to us. In closing, we want to commend Mr. Ken Gerschler, who has been most gracious and helpful when we have talked with him on two separate occasions when we have made the trip to Central Point to find out what we could about this development. Thank you for addressing the above concems. Sin e~ly,u~'~ Roland and Meryllene Smith~~~U cc: Mr. Ken Gerschler 45 ~J~~ c~ Gz~~ P ~ s ~ 7so,_ ~~ ~ Mr. Samaellnkley 5055 Gebbard Road Cenhal Point' OR 97502-3033 46 EXHIBIT G RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The approval of the Site Plan shall expfre in one year on May 19; 1999 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. All conditions previously imposed by the City relating to the development of the Walnut Grove Village Manufactured Home Park will continue to apply unless modified or rescinded by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. This includes, but is not limited to; the approval of Planning Commission Resolution No.' 390 dated July 15, 1997;. City Council Resolution No. 795 dated August 21, 1997; and Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 412 and 41'3 dated January 20, 1998. ;, 47 DATE: May 19, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Cgntinuatign of Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan Amendments As the Commission is aware, the public hearing for the Cgmprehensive Plan Amendments being proposed by the Gity was continued tq your meeting of May 19th. The primary reason for this was to allow the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to comment on the Traffiq . Impact Study prepared by Hardey Engineering (see Exhibit A). The-.city has not yet received any comments from ODOT but will provide these to you if they are available for the meeting. The Planning Department has however received other correspondence since your last public hearing. The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DECD) has completed its review of the planned amendments and has several issues they would like the City to address (refer to Exhibit B). The issues are identified and discussed below. The City also received a letter from Jeannie Savage regarding the rezoning of property she owns on the northwest corner of Biddle and Table Rock Roads in Area #4 (Exhibit C). The decision made at the last public hearing to recommend approval of Policy 9 Amendments has moved quickly through the Jackson County process and the Jackson County Planners completed their findings and decision paperwork on May 14th. Once the City Council and County Board of Commissioners can schedule a joint meeting the Urban Growth Boundary Agreement will be amended. I have enclosed a copy of the bound Comprehensive Plan Policy Revision for your use (Exhibit D). Even though you have already acted upon revisions to the agreement, the document contains colored maps, a Vacant Commercial and Industrial Land Inventory and other information that may be of interest to the Commission. Discussion DECD Correspondence DECD has raised several issues including maintenance of a Jobs and Housing Balance, preservation of Rail-Served Industrial Sites and compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). City staff is working on a response to the issues raised by the State and as you know two different traffic analyses have already been performed. Evidence has been entered into the record regarding the TPR and the Rail issues and City staff intends to have additional information to submit to you on May 19th. I encourage the Commission to review the excerpts ~~ from Harding Engineering TIS in Exhibit A. It is consistent with the Traffic Analysis performed by RVCOG, goes into more detail at intersections, defines the levels of service (LOS) before and after the Plan Amendments and was actually prepared under the direction of ODOT. City staff will present new evidence to support testimony received at your last meeting regarding the regional industrial land inventory and other issues raised by DLCD. These two issues were previously. discussed in your last staff report under Statewide Planning Goa19 -Economic Development (findings). We have enclosed the May 5th staff report at the back of your binder and will use the findings and conclusions in that document to assist ypu in making a decision. Other Correspondence The Commission discussed recommendations made by the Citizen's Advisory Committee and you may recall the request made in Area #4 to change C-1 zoning on the northwest corner of Biddle and Table Rock Roads to M-1. Staff is not in favor of this and in response Ms. Jeannie Savage has requested the Commission consider an amendment from C-1 to C-5 instead. The Planning Department's primary interest is in maintaining consistent and compatible zoning in this area as it will become Central Point's eastern "gateway". If the Commission believes that the C-1 and C-5 zoning designations will be reasonably consistent and compatible with other changes being proposed, you have the prerogative to recommend this ohange to the City Council. As stated above, any decision made by the Planning Commission should be based upon findings of fact. Staff has prepared findings (located in the back of your binder), which canoe used as is or with revisions, should the Commission chose to proceed in making a recommendation to the City Council. Attachments A. Excerpts from Traffic Impact Study by Hardey Engineering B. Letter-from DLCD dated May 6, 1998 C. Letter from Jeannie Savage D. Urban Growth Boundary Agreement, Comp Plan Policy Revision 49 Hardey Engineering & Assoc., Inc Yla[1I11It~ iJCyzu uuci.. Exhibit A _ P.O. Box 1826 May 5, 1998 „Medford, OR 97601 641.772.6680-tel Craig Storie 641.772.9573'-fax Craig Stone & Associates Hardey®wave.net 708 Cardley Avenue Medford, Oregon 97504 RE: Traffic Impact Study -Zone Change Central Point, Oregon Deaz Craig, Hazdey Engineering & Associates is pleased to submit for. your review one copy of the Traffic Impact Study for the re-zone in Central Point. This study is to determine the anticipated traffic impacts the proposed zone change could cause on the surrounding street system through Central Point. Traffic analysis was performed for existing and proposed conditions. To determine potential build-out we looked at undeveloped land and generated traffic for their appropriate land-use using trip generation rates which agreed with Central Point's zone requirements. For comparison purposes, we assumed full build out as of today. This includes present traffic added to existing zoning atfull build out;. or existing traffic added to the proposed zoningat full build out. PROJECT CONDITIONS Currently there aze 377 acres in Central Point with proposed zone changes. These lots are located along Highway 99, Table Rock Road and Pine Street. The majority of the lots are proposed to change from Industrial to Residential, or Residential to Industrial zoning. Presently 41.7 of these acres are already operating at the proposed zone. The expected traffic generation rates for the proposed zone changes were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I'TE), Trip Generation, Sth Edition. These rates were multiplied by the acreage or units per acre to determine daily and peak hour volumes. The following tables show traffic generation rates used to determine traffic volumes for the existing and proposed zones. Hardey Engineering & Assoc., Inc. - 1 .., :..a, ...:,~::-,..~:.,~:~~-~ ~.:,:.::.:-. 50 ~;-~ . ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES PER UNIT ne ADT AM Peak PM Peak Units .per . PTE. Rate In Out Ins- Out Acre IG -2 - Li ht and. Hea Rates avers ed to determine General Rate (110+12 /2 R-LD (R-1-8) DU 9.55 0.2 0.56 0.66 0.36 4.36 units ITE 210 R-LD R-1 DU 9.55 0:2 0.56 0.66 0.36 5.8 units ITE 210 R-HD (R-3) DU 6.28 0.23 0.31 0.33 0.3 25 units ITI• 220 Parks R-1-8) DU 9.55 0.2 0.56 0.66 0.36 4.36 units PTE 210 n S ace - -- -- - - en S ace C-2 TSF 15.05 1.81 0.22 0.34 1.68 80 TSF PTE 710 C-4 OR 10.19 0.28 0.45 0.42 ' 0.34 40 rooms * 80 ;b PTE 320 DU = Dwelltng.Untt TSF =Thousand Square Feet OR =Occupied Room Since all residential zoning had previously.been determined by dwelling unit rather than acreage we multiplied the trip generation rate for dwelling unit by the amount of dwelling units ,permitted by Central Point's zoning ordinance. Also, the lots proposed to become C-2 and C-4 'are expected to be built out as'an office building and a motel. Trip generation rates for these lots '. were determined based on an' 80,000 square foot office building and a 40 room motel with. 80 J occupancy, as can be seen in the preceding table. TRAI+TIC GENERATION RATES PER ACRE Zone Unit ADT AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak In Out In Out IG 2 AC 29.28 2.375 2.375 5.21 5.21 IL. -1) AC 51.8 6.2333 1.2767 0.8712 6.3888 R-LD -1-8 AC 41.638 0.872 2.4416 2.8776 1.5696 R-I,D -1 AC 55.39 1.16 3.248 3.828 2.088 R HD 3 AC 157 5.75 7.75 8.25 7S Pazks (R-1-8 AC 41.638 0.872 _ 2.4416 2.8776 1.5696 S ace AC 0 0 0 0 0 CG C- AC 159.75.. 17.119 2.8196 3.9512 14.0088 C 2 TSF 1204: 128.872 L936 4.624 111.552 C-4 OR 326:08 '. $.96 14.4 13.44 10:88 t Rates one detamirtal in precEdGtg table... s Rates derluad directly from TPB, TdP Cxaendon, 5th &lidon Harley Engineerutig & Assoc:, Tnc. - 2 .. v., arJ.31. ERISTING STUDY AREA CONDITIONS The following key intersections were studied to determine transportation impacts associated with re-toning and growth in the surrounding area: 1. Highway 99 & Senic 7: Pine & Penninger 2 Highway 99 (Front) & Pine 8. Pine & Hamrick . 3. Highway 99 & Beall 9. Pine.& Table Rock 4 Pine & Freeman 10. Biddle & Airport . 5. Pine & I-5 south tamps 11. Table Rock & Vilas 6. Pine & I-5 north ramps TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION In determinitig traffic movements, PM Peak Hour movements were used to analyze the eleven (11) intersections along Highway 99, Pine Street,, and Table Rock Road. Traffic movement at the key.intersections was`designated by the percentage of turning and..through movements of actual traffic behavior observed at those intersections. To ease the task of traffic distribution, nine blocks were assigned. (Map of blocks at end of report.) Three of these blocks are already operating at the proposed zoning. These blocks; D, E, and G were eliminated from the traffic analysis:for full build out, both of the existing zoning and for the proposed zoning as they arealready accounted for in the background traffic. The acreage of the six remaining blocks were then multiplied by the trip generation rates to determine the traffic volumes leaving and entering each block. The ADT, AM Peak Hour InlOut, and PM Peak Hour In/Out volumes can be seen in the following tables. ~Qre~r_ ~.nivnvr Block A ~t~ Block B. mts Block C tnh flack D Block B B.~~ tot .~~ Black G Acreage Zoning ADT AM Peak In AM Peak 0~ PM Peale ~ L'M Peak l)~ 107:06 I -2 3134.72 254.27 254.27 557.7$ 557.78 36.89 -1 1910.90 229.95 47.10 32.14 235.68. 22,20 -1 1149:96 138.38 2834. 19.34 141.83 35.08 -1 1817.14 218.66 44.79 30.56 224.12 2.33 -1 level and as zone C-4 ..3.76 -1 ~,~~ ~ 8 as zone C-N '47.80 -i "2476.04 "~ '.247:95 61.03 41.64 305.38 IiardeY ~B&neeim8 8t Assoc... Ittc. - 3 .:~~ _~-«.i N e Block H B1oCk I to Block A tats Block B tote Bl®® tot B Block H tol Block I tol Aoreage Zoning ADT AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak 72.32 R-LD -1-8 3011.26 63.06 176.58 208.11 113.51 13.95 R-MD -1 772.69 16,18 45.31 53.40 29.13 13.95 772.69 16.18 45.31 53.40 29.13 „r~nnc~cr •ln7-T7ATf! AccpBe a Zotting \Va vvavai ADT u AM Peak In AM Peak Out PM Peak In PM Peak Out 143.95 R-LD -1-8 5993.79 125.52 351.47 414.23 225.94 22.20 R-HD -3 3485.40 127.65 172.05 183.15 166.50 7.60 R-HD -3 ..1193.20 43.70. 58.90 62.70 57.00 2.33 C C~4 dcvel anti as wt~e C-4 27.48 R-LD -1 1522.12 31.88 89.26 105.19 57.38 2.50 C~ 326.08 8.96 14.40 13.44 10.88 11.90 G2 1204.00 128.87 1.94 4.62 111.55 33.40 I -2 977.95 79.33 79.33 174.01 174.01 72.32 I -2 2117.53 171.76 171.76 376.79 376.79 13.95 -1 722.61 86.95 17.81 12.15 89.12 13.95 722.61 86.95 17.81 12.13 89.12 Traffic movements in and out of blocks A, B and C were based on the generaitrafficbehcvior of the surrounding streets and similar intersections like those that would be found accessing these blocks. The location of schools, shopping, nearby towns, and the freeway were also taken into consideration in determining the direction of the traffic. In appraising the destination of traffic from Blocks F, H and I we analyzed the intersections of Hamrick and East Pine, and Hamrick and Table Rock Road. We concluded that traffic would be traveling toward three main directions, these are White City. Central Point, and Medford. For outbound traffic is was determined that 29°l0 of traffic was traveling toward Medford, 60% toward Central Point, and 11% toward White City. Of inbound traffic, 26% migrated from Medford, 48`~ from Gemral Point, and 26% from White.City. These percentages, were then used to decide the direction of traffic leaving the said blocks either. turning left or right,-'and their behavior through the key intersections. Hardey En8ineering'8c Assoc:Inc. - .4 53 LOS ANALYSIS The standard used to evaluate traffic operating conditions of the transportation system is referred to as the level of service'(LOS). "Level of service" is defined as those operational conditions withina traffic stream as perceived by users of the traffic facility. It is a qualitative measure of operational measures such as speed and travel time, delay, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, wmfort and convenience, and safety. There are six levels of service, "A" through "F". Level of service"A" is the highest quality of service a street can provide. It is a condition of free flow in which there is little or no restriction on speed or maneuverability caused' by the presence of other vehicles. Level of service "F" is the worst for uninterrupted flow and describes forced-flow operations. Common practice for traffic engineering is to use a LOS "D" for the standard minimum LOS. This standard is often used for the planning and design of transportation facilities. Level of service results under existing conditions, existing zoning at full build out, and proposed zoning at full-build out are listed in the following table. n~mi,'ucF.rTInN LEVELS OF SERVICE B TWS F TWS C TWS B 58% F 109% D 84% A 49% C 63% B 56% B 51% C-D 72% C ~% B 56% C 65% B 61% B 53% C 63°b C -63°6 B 53% C 62% B 60% C-D 73% E 94% E 90% C 63% D 78% D 82% E TWS F TWS F TWS D '77% E 92% E 919fo 2~WJ = LHO W({)' uw(i wiw vucu As can be seen in the table, all intersections are expected to operate at better levels of service under the proposed zone change: Both intersections that are two way stop controlled were also analyzed as signal controlled intersections. As can be seen in the following table, both intersections improved greatly. ,~ Iiardey F-ngineering 8c Assoc., Inc.,- 5 - 54 ,~~ iA ZONE CHANGE IMPACTS Traffc generated by the proposed zone change does not decrease the level of service at any of the key intersections more than the existing zoning will. Of the intersections that will be operating at acceptable levels of service, the majority of the intersections operated at one level of service higher at the proposed zoning than at the existing zoning at full build out. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the analysis, Hardey Engineering & Associates believes that the proposed zone change decrease the overload on the surrounding street system in comparison to the existing zoning..... Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit this copyt of the Central Point Re-zone to you. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to call us at any time. Sincerely, ~~p ~ ~G, A,,,Q~ ~~Fp PRO, John L. Hardey, P.E., P.L.S. ~ ~ to;ate President 9,.~c 7 08E60N /~ e~ 14 14 Su er Hardey, Traffic Tech. tiN H; R' HARDEY ENGINEERING & AS50C., INC. ~„e~ ~ aU1i~Filakp /rxomMpd Hardey Engineering & Assoc., Inc. - 6 .-~ 55 ~ 3o-gy Unslgnaiized Intersections Analyzed using nom a;napcer au May 6, 1998 Tom. Humphrey, Planning. Director City of Central Point 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Planning Department , Exhibit B r~~gon DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Dear Tom: We have recently received several proposed plan amendments and zone changes for review. These are: • Replan/rezone 156 acres of land in "area 1"from industrial use to residential use, located between Highway 99 and Grant Road (DECD file #001-98); • Replan/rezone 31 acres of land in "area 2" from light industrial use to residential and commercial use, located near Highway 99 and Beall Lane (DECD file #002-98); • Replan/rezone 148 acres of land in "area 3" from light industrial, residential and open space use to industrial and commercial use, located at Table Rock Road and Hamrick Road, south (DECD file #003-98); • Replan/rezone 12 acres of land in "area 4" from residential use to commercial and industrial use, located on Table Rock Road, near Schultz Rd. (DECD file #004-98); These proposed changes are related because the changes in industrial, commercial and residential acreages need to "balance" so that the city continues to have a twenty year supply of land for residential, commercial and industrial use. Jobs and Housing Balance Statewide Planning Goals 9, 10 and 14 require the city to provide a twenty year supply of residential, industrial and commercial lands. The net effect of these proposed amendments will be to decrease 1° Govemoraber the amount of industrial land within the city's urban growth boundary by 104 acres, increase the amount of. commercial land by 32 acres and increase the amount of residential land by 94 acres. 1175 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97310-0590 (503)373-0050 PAX (503) 362-6705 56 Tom Humphrey -2- May 6, 1998 To justify this plan amendment, the city must demonstrate that, after losing 104 acres of industrial land, it will still have enough land to meet future employment and industrial land needs (see OAR 660-09-025). In addition the city must demohstrate a need for the additional residential (see OAR 660-08-010) and commercial acreage If the city does not maintain a balance of jobs and housing, it will tend to increase the number of work trips to other employment sites in the metropolitan area, making it more difficult for the,region to meet its transportation objectives. Rail Issues Rail-served Industrial Sites. Area 1 is a large industrial site which has access to the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, Highway 99 and Interstate 5 (via Hwy. 99). In addition,. Area 1 meets federal and state air quality standards and, therefore, is not limited in its development potential as are several other sites in the region. Based on these factors, Area 1 may be one of the best sites in the region for rail-oriented industrial development. The Oregon Rail Freight Plan states (page 2-15): "The availability of rail service not only adds flexibility of use to industrial land, but in some cases, especially in urban areas where rail-served lands are scarce, adds value. One study concluded that "values of industrial land abutting railroad facilities exceeded the value of industrial land away from the railroad by 50 percent." The city proposes to amend a plan policy (Plan, page"X-21) to emphasize "industrial development in the vicinity of highways and airports" in addition to land "located adjacent to rail facilities." However, ti70`city proposes to rezone the two major sites which are now available for,new rail-served industrial development (Area 1 and Area 2). LCDCs administrative rule on industrial and commercial development, OAR 660-09-015, requires the city to complete an Economic Opportunities Analysis. to °identity the major categories of industrial and. commercial uses that could reasonably be expected to locate or expand iri the planning area" and to "identify the types of sites that are likely to be needed." The city's analysis and findings for this proposal need to provide a factual base to justity and explain the 57 i 6 Tom Humphrey -3- May 6, 1998 city's change in policy and. redesignation of these industrial sites., Some relevant questions are: • What rail-oriented industries are likely to expand or locate in-the region? • What other site requirements, such as size of the site, do these industries have which would make Area 1 or Area 2 in Central. Point more or less attractive? • Are there other sites in the region which can meet the need better, considering siting requirements and related issues such as jobs/housing balance? To address these issues; the city should: (1) coordinate with Jackson County and other cities in the county with rail service, and (2) obtain any relevant information which is available from` truce Laird at the Oregon Department of Economic Development and Gordon Safley at SOREDI, your regional economic development agency. Compatibility. Residential uses located adjacent to the, railroad tracks in Areas 1 and 2 will conflict with the continued operation of the railroad because of noise, smoke and vibration.. The Oregon Rail Freight Plan (page 2-18) recommends that railroads be buffered by a parallel street at least 500 feet from the railroad with industrial developmentbetween the tracks and the road. In evaluating this proposal; the city should consider the need to buffer residential uses'from the railroad. Transportation Planning Rule Transportation Objectives. We'are concerned that the increased imbalance between jobs and housing resulting from these plan amendments will make it more difficult for the city to meet the objectives of LCDC's Transportation PI'aning Rule, OAR 660-12-035(4) and (5), the regional transportation systems plan (TSP) and the city's TSP. These objectives, which are listed in the transportation planning rule, are: • no increase and ultimately a reduction in vehiole miles traveled'(VMT) per capita' • increase the in modal share of non-automobile trips 58 Tom Humphrey -4- May 6; 1998 increase in average automobile occupancy decrease in the number or length of automobile trips [by] rearranging land uses As is pointed out above, the proposed net reduction in industrial land and increase in residential land would have the effect of increasing commutes to other job locations in the region. These land use changes may have the effect of increasing the numberand length of automobile trips, which is the opposite of the last objective above. The city should evaluate whether these land -use changes will make it more difficult for the region to meet itsVMT objectives. Traffic Analysis. As you are aware, LCDC's Transportation Planning Rule requires an analysis to ensure the. proposed uses will be consistent with the operation of the planned transportation system (see OAR 660-012-0060). The purpose of this transportation planning rule (TPR) requirement is to ensure that the planned land uses and transportation facilities in the city's comprehensive plan are in balance and thatthe street system can support any increase or change in traffic that may result from the plan amendments and zone changes. This requirement can be met by evaluating the operating conditions of nearby roadways in the future with the proposed zone change. This analysis will enable the city to determine if the proposed plan amendment will significantly affect any transportation facilities. We have reviewed the Technical Memorandum prepared by Bart Benthul of RVCOG dated March 16, 1998 and additional information provided to us by Mr. Benthul. Based upon our review;'this analysis does not appear to be complete or accura4elyreflect the potential traffic impacts of the proposed land use changes. Consequently; we da not believe this analysis provides an adequate factual basis to determine that the proposed land use changes will not significantly affect the transportation system. First, the analysis does not appear to have correctly modeled the proposed. land use changes. For example, the inputs used in the transportation model have assumed-that Area 3 will generate approximately 3,000 fewer daily trips if the zoning is changed from residential and lightindustrial to commercial and industrial uses. We do not believe this accurately describes the potential change in trip generation since the analysis does not appear to have considered that uses which could generate a significant number of vehicle trips, such as grocery 59 ,. Tom Humphrey -5- May 6, 1998 stores, restaurants, and motels, could be developed in the proposed commercial district. Second, the analysis has only evaluated the operating conditions at the Hwy. 99/Pine Street intersection. In addition to this intersection, other locations such as the I-5 interchange and off ramps, should be evaluated for potential impacts. Third, we noticed that the analysis has included an additional crossing of the railroad tracks to serve Area 1. If this area is to be residential, we believe an additional street connection would benefit both vehicular traffic and access to downtown for pedestrians.. Although we support this connection, an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan to provide an additional railroad crossing requires coordination. with the provider of transportation services (see OAR 660-012-0015(5)). The city should coordinate with the railroad and. any other agencies involved in approving additional railroad crossings to ensure this street connection can. be .provided. We encourage the city. to reconsider, revise, and, clarify the transportation analysis and findings to address these comments. We understand an additional analysis prepared by Hardy Engineering may address some of these issues. We will review and provide comments on this additional analysis when we receive it. Community Solutions Field Team (CST) Several. state agencies (DEQ, DOT, EDD, HCS and DLCD), in conjunction with the Governor's Office, have recently organized a "field team" to coordinate state responses to issues which affect these agencies. This proposal raises issues which affect all of these "CST" agencies:.air quality,. transportation, economic. development; housing and land use. - I encourage-you-to work with this group to resolve the issues raised in this letter. To coordinate with the "field team", please contact Bruce Laird, OEDD Regional Development Officer at 776-6234... Summary and Recommendation. The city needs to provide a more detailed analysis of how these proposed a land use changes affect its ability to accommodate future industrial: development. and. future increases in vehicular traffic so '.~ 1T A p r' Tom Humphrey -6- May 6, 1998 To maintain a balance of jobs and housing and to protect an area which is particularly suited for large, rail-oriented industrial development, the city should consider the option of maintaining at least 100 acres of Area 1 in General Industrial use. This consideration should be based on an "economic opportunities" anaysis and and evaluation of this and other rail-served sites in the region. To avoid conflicts between "General Industrial" and residential uses to the south of Area 1, the city should also consider retaining at least a 200 foot wide "buffer strip" of "Light Industrial" uses. Served by an east-west street, this light industrial area could provide several development sites of approximately 1 acre. The department has a "quick response" program to prepare design options such as the one. proposed above. If the city accepts, we can provide design assistance on a specific development plan for areas 1 and 2. Such a plan would designate residential and industrial areas and provide for appropriate buffers and local street connections. Eric Jacobson coordinates the "Quick Response" program for the department. His number is (503) 373-0055. Please-enter this letter into the record of the local hearing on this issue. f=eel free to contact me at (503) 373-0088 if you-have questions. Sincerely,. ~...~ rm Hinman Plan Analyst JH <j:\...\centr1_4.98> cc: Laurel Prairie-Kuhtz, Jackson Bruce Laird, OEDD Claudia Howells, ODOT Mark Ashby, ODOT Greg Wolf, Governor's Office County Planning Department Disfribution: Jim Sitzman, Jeff Grin, Eric Jocobson, Bob Rindy 1.. 61 Planning I)epartm~nf `'c<~ Exhibit C "'' Jeannie Savage 4404 Biddle Rd. P.O.Box 5167 Central Point OR 97502 Mr. Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director City Of Central Point 155 So.Second Central Point, OR 97502 Dear Mr. Humphrey: 1 am writing in reguards to our discussion of the comprehensive plan zone change that was discussed at the February rimeeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee. At that meeting I made the statement that I would like to have the comprehensive plan zone changed from C-1 to M-1, on my property located at 4400'Biddle Road. This is still the zoning that i would prefer, however at a later meeting with you, it was pointed out to me that a ~ 5 Thoroughfare Commergial District =.would also meetmy plans for the development of the property and would be more compatible with the area. 1 already operate a portrait studio under a nonconforming use with Jackson County allowing the portait studio with limited processing. I would like to expand to a thirty minute photo processing facility as well, which is one of the proposed uses in the C-5 zoning.. The property has high visibility and Biddle Road is a major thoroughfare from the City of Central Point to the City of Medford, and also the most direct approach to the airport from the freeway. The property meets ali of the criteria for a C-5 zonig. There has also been a C-1, type strip mall proposed at the Intersection of the property.. located on the corner of Vifas and Table Rock Road. This property is also adjacent to the residential subdivision, and across the street from an already established convenience store. That area seems to be much more suited to the C-7 zoning. ~ .~C~~~ C Je Savage _~ ~ll~~'/~ ,.,~ 62 Planning Department Exhibit D