The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Commission Packet - June 2, 19981~;~ l~. ~. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 2, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 423 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 1-50 A. 4~`~' Public Hearing to consider a request by USF Reddaway for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to establish a truck terminal on 20 acres in the vicinity of East Pine Street and Hamrick Road. 51-60 B. ~~a Public Hearing to consider a request by James and Sharon Mock to partition a 1.25 acre parcel at 527 Freeman Road into three parcels. 61 - 83 C. ~Ic~SPublic Hearing to consider a request by W.G. Beard for a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Plan for the Cedar Shadows 26 Unit Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 2.3 acres off of Freeman Road. 84 - 86 D. Consideration of Central Point Municipal Code revisions to eliminate references to planning fees and adopt a planning fee schedule. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT h CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 19, 1998 Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, Karolyne Johnson. Jan Dunlap and Angela Curtis were absent. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, and Arlene LaRosa, Public Works Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE All correspondence received will be introduced later in the meeting. IV. MINUTES a. Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the minutes of May 5, 1998, as written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, abstain, Johnson, abstain. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Tentative Plan for the Shelterwood Subdivision. Chairman Piland opened the Public Hearing. There was no ex-parte communication or conflict of interest. Ken Gerschler reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. He read into the record a letter from Jack and Ruth Campbell dated May 12, 1998. Commissioner Fish stated a concern that the house be upgraded. Mike Sullivan, 3784 Coleman Creek Rd., Medford, applicant stated that he will completely remodel and restore the house to fit the homes around it. Mike stated that it is a single story home with a large attic space. He intends to remodel only the ground floor for habitation. The attic will be uninhabitable. Darin and Judy Hilyer, 852 Beail Lane, Central Point, stated that their ' City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1998 -Page 2 backyard is very small, the house was moved behind their property, very close to their property line and blocks their view. Mr. Sullivan, stated that if this house were not moved to Lot 22, another house would be built there and he is at the standard setback from the property line. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 420 approving the move of the existing house located on the Shelterwood Subdivision site to Lot 22, with a title restriction that the attic will not be converted to living space but will remain uninhabitable. Motion was seconded by Bob Gilkey. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. B. Public Hearing to consider a request by Mr Tom Casey to position a mobile gs~resso cart near the intersection of East Pine and North First Streets Ken Gerschler reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Lee Brennan stated that the Public Works Department would defer the construction of sidewalks, provided the applicant signs a Deferred Improvement Agreement. The department would like to put afive-year maximum on the deferment. He stated the applicant will need a storm water control plan, the storm water cannot drain to the sidewalk or street, the driveway should be one-way, northbound only with directional arrows, and a 20 foot radius on the alley egress. Tom Humphrey stated that landscaping can be required with a possible green buffer between the paving and the Merritt residence next door and a pocket park on Pine Street for people to use as they are walking downtown. Tom Casey, 754~Marshall Ave., Medford and Tami Lanmaker, 1110 S.W. Freeman, Central Point, applicants stated that the espresso cart is on wheels and will remain on wheels. The hours of operation will be 5:45 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Casey stated that the unit was self-contained so they would not need water right away. They considered putting in wine barrels with flowers for the landscaping with possibly a table and chairs near Pine Street for pedestrians. Mr. Steve Shearer and Ms. Judy Bultrane, 117 Pine Street, Central Point, neighbors of the property under discussion stated they are concerned about (11 Whether this was going to be a Conditional Use Permit, (2) The asphalt radiating a lot of heat, (3) the direct impact on the livability of their residence with pollution and noise generated by vehicles in the drive- through, 141 the impact of business hours of operation on their right to City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1998 -Page 3 privacy, 15) potential deterioration of the Merritt building itself because of exhaust, vibration and possible collision, (6) Issue of safety on the particular corner which is congested because of proximity of Highway 99. Mr. Shearer requested a 10 foot setback between the driveway and their residence and requested that the driveway cut be 40 foot from Pine Street. Mr. Casey stated that across the street from the Merritt building on two sides, are businesses that have much longer hours of operation and generate noise, light and vehicle traffic. They originally considered an attractive wall to deflect the lights. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 421 approving the application to position a mobile espresso cart near the intersection of East Pine and North First Streets, including all conditions of the staff report and adding the following: The applicant shall enter into a maximum of five-year Deferred Improvement Agreement fora 6 foot sidewalk; a standard driveway approach shall be installed prior to occupancy with a 40 foot setback from Pine Street and a 20 foot radius in the alley; a pitched roof on the espresso cart; implement a landscaping plan using wine barrels; aone- way, 12-foot driveway northbound with directional arrows; surface water drainage shall be controlled so it will not drain on the street, alley, sidewalk or remain on the property; hours of operation shall be 5:45 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey yes; Johnson, yes. Chairman Piland declared a recess at 9:47 p.m. Chairman Piland opened the meeting again at 9:57 p.m. B. Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Tentative Plan for the Walnut Grove Manufactured Nome Park Chairman Piland opened the public hearing. There was no ex-parte communication or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Richard Stevens, P. O. Box 4368, Medford, OR, representing the applicant, stated that this is an amendment to an approved manufactured home park. The proposal is to exchange the open space designated for the park and the R.V. Storage area. The R.V. Storage area would then be in the middle of the middle of the project for more security and the park would be on Hamrick Road. The proposal will add 7 additional lots to the manufactured home park, however, /residential lots have been lost from New Haven Subdivision. He stated that they recognize the previous conditions and City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1998 -Page 4 continue to accept those in the approval process. They had considered a masonry wall, but that will be replaced with a 6 foot chain link fence with green slats. Given the park and other changes, the masonry wall is no longer needed. Commissioner Fish suggested that all along Hamrick Road the fence at the park should be made up of corner posts so that if a car goes out of control the fence will catch the car. Wayne Christian, 2821 Bullock Road, Medford, OR, agent for the applicant, stated that the area along Hamrick will be raised to the level of the roadway. Sam Inkley, 5055 Gebhard Road, Central Point, stated that he circulated a petition to those families on Gebhard Road and he entered the petition. into the record. The petition stated that the neighbors would like to see a maintenance gate on the entrance from Gebhard Road so traffic will not go through the park and out onto Gebhard Road. It is a farm road according to Jackson County, not a secondary road. Jerry May, 5098 Gebhard Road, Central Point, Or, stated that he feels a 6 foot, chain link fence will not be enough buffer or security. Children will be able to get over that fence into his farm and orchard. He will also be spraying the trees and the spray will filter through the fence. Mr. May wanted to make sure the covenants include a "right to farm" clause for the neighbors. Mr. Stevens and Mr. Christian stated that the issues raised in Mr. Inkley's comments were addressed at a previous commission meeting and they are not an issue now. They also stated that Mr. May does have a right to farm however, he is next to land designated for urbanization. Mr. Christian stated that they are required to plant a tree on each lot and may look into planting more trees on the lots next to Mr. May's property to give a visual buffer. Commissioner Fish suggested that the lease agreements with the tenants should include a statement that there are farming activities behind them- and there may be spraying. Tom Humphrey stated that the City has an agreement with Jackson County concerning a buffer between farm land and the land in the city limits. There are several buffer options that can be considered which include special setbacks adjacent to urban growth boundaries, acquisition of land by public agencies, lower densities at the periphery of the urban growth boundary, City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1998 -Page 5 strategic location of roads, golf courses and other major public areas and facilities, and included a declaration recognizing common, customary and accepted farming practices. Chairman Piland closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 422, approving the amendment to the tentative plan for Walnut Grove Mobile Home Park including the changes mentioned in the application as it was presented with the condition that property owners or lessees of the manufactured home park be notified that there is farmland adjacent to it. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. D. continued public hearing regardino orooosed changes to the Citv of Central Point and Jackson County Comprehensive Plans and Comprehensive Plan mates. Chairman Piland opened the public hearing. There was no ex-parte communication or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey stated that the meeting was continued for two weeks so that the Department of Transportation could review the Traffic Impact Study. The City has received a letter from ODOT and a letter from the Department of Land Conservation and Development concerning the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Tom read into the record a memorandum he wrote in response to the correspondence received from DLCD and ODOT. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to extend the meeting beyond 10:00 a.m. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Fish. All said "aye" and the motion passed. Tom Humphrey introduced into the record the grid map resulting from an air quality computer model from the Rogue Valley Council of Governments. Tom Humphrey stated that a land owner, Jeannie Savage, also submitted a letter to the Commission requesting that her property on the northwest corner of Biddle Road and Table Rock Road, be designated C-5 Thoroughfare Commercial district. Herb Farber, 120 Mistletoe, Medford, OR, agent for W. L. Moore Construction, gave the Commission a drawing quantifying the park area and the Neighborhood Commercial area in Area 1. He also stated he wanted to City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1998 -Page 6 add his support for the work Mr. Humphrey was doing in responding to the letters from ODOT and DLCD and his business would be happy to help in that effort. Chairman Piland closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gilkey moved to recommend to the City Council the approval of the proposed change to the City of Central Point/Jackson County Comprehensive Plans and Comprehensive Plan Maps per the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee, adding a park and commercial zone in Area 1 redesignating Tax Lot 700 in Area 3 to Commercial Neighborhood, and in Area 4 changing Tax Lot 701, 4404 Biddle Road, from C-N to C-5 Commercial zone. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. IV. MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey stated that the Sycramore trees at the Oregon State Highway Patrol office on Front Street have been replaced. Tom stated that the City received a letter from SO-REDI notifying the City that they have been awarded a S45,000 grant for the downtown revitalization. Lee Brennan stated that on Monday night, May 18, there was a neighborhood meeting concerning Country Meadows. Hammond Engineering addressed the Flood Study on Horn Creek. The City will bring the study to the Planning Commission in the future. Tom discussed future agendas. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilkey. Everyone said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m. HEARING DATE: June 2, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Conditional Use Application and Site Plan Review of 37 2W Ol C Tax Lot 800-USF Reddaway Truck Terminal. lic USF Reddaway Incorporated Owner: 2890 Nansen Drive Medford, OR 97504 Bear Creek Orchards, Inc. 2518 S. Pacific Highway Medford, OR 97501 nt: Craig A. Stone & Associates Description/ 37 2W OIC Tax Lot 800- 20 acres of 34.4 acres oni M-1, Industrial The applicant, USF Reddaway has requested a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to establish a truck terminal near the intersection of East Pine and Hamrick Roads on a parcel of land that has recently been annexed to the City. The property is currently farmed as a pear orchard (refer to Exhibit A). on 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 Conditional Use and Site Plan Review. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B). Z ~policable Law CPMC 17.48.010 et seq.- M-1, Industrial District CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval CPMC 17.76.010 et seq.- Conditional Use Permit Discussion Subsequent to the recent annexation of this 34.4 acre parcel, prospective owners USF Reddaway, Inc. have submitted plans to develop 20 acres as a truck terminaVfreight forwarding facility and office. The details of the operation and proposed use aze described on Pages 5 and 6 of Exhibit A.. The USF Reddaway company is relocating an operation it currently conducts in Medford due to the expiration of a lease agreement. They have selected Central Point and this location in particular because of the available vacant land zoned-for industrial use and its proximity to Interstate 5. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Conditional Use The applicant's agent has thoroughly addressed the findings and conditions which must be satisfied in CPMC 17.76.040 and justification can be found on Pages 6 - 9 of Exhibit A. Staff concurs with the-fmdings and conclusions listed in this exhibit. After discussing this project with the applicants, City staff have developed conditions for the Planning Commission's consideration if they elect to approve the proposal. Site Plan Review Once again the applicant's agent has addressed the findings and conditions which must be satisfied in CPMC 17.72.040 Standards for Site, Landscaping, and Construction Plan Review. These findings are listed on Pages 9 -12 of Exhibit A. The applicant has made some late changes to the site plan which they will present at the public hearing. Changes include moving the shop building north approximately 20 feet and removing one row of pazking in front of the office and replacing it with landscaping. The relocation of the shop building will'actually improve internal circulation on the site and staff supports such a revision. The applicant has provided more than,enough parking on-site to satisfy City code requirements and the loss of the spaces in question does not jeopardize these requirements. The additional landscaping will enhance the overall appearance of this industrial property. _. 2 The applicant initially proposed landscaping inside their perimeter fence but has agreed to relocate the fence inside of their landscaping at no greater risk to the property's security. The Public Works Department has prepared a staff report (Exhibit E) which will require full improvements. The applicants have questioned the need for sidewalks along both frontages of their property. Public works has made a case for their requirement which can be supported by the municipal code, public works standards and comprehensive plan. This will however be debated by the applicants during the public hearing. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No., approving the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit D ); or 2. Deny the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan; ,or 3. Continue the review of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission. Exh' its A. Application and Exhibits submitted by USF Reddaway B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Correspondence from Other Agencies D. Planning Department Conditions E. Public Works Staff Report 3 CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION EXHIBrr ~~ r City of Central Point Planning Department APPLICANT INFORMATION DATII STAMP - OFFICE USB ONLY Name: USF Reddaway Incorporated Address; 2690 Nansen Drive Clty: Medford State: OR Zlp Code: 97504 Telephone: Business: Residence; 2. AGENT INFORMATION City: Medford State: OR Zip Code:97504 Telephone: Business: 779-0569 Residence: 3. .OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate'Sheet If More Than One) Name: Bear Creek Orchards, Incorp. c/o Ron Henri Vice President Orchard Div Address: 2518 S. Pacific Hwy. Clty: Medford Stater OR Zlp Code: 97501 Telephone: Business: Residence: 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Township: 37 Range: 2w Section: olc Tax Lot(s): 800 Zoning District:: M-1 Total Acreage: 20 acres of 34.4 acres General DescriptionofProject: Truck Terminal 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ErJ This Application Form ® Application Fee ($100) ® An accurate scale drawing of the site and improvements proposed (10 copies) g1 Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process 8] Reduced copy of drawing of site and proposed improvments (8 %z x 11) E7 AstatementindicatingtheprecisemannerofcompliancewitheachoftheapplicableprovisionsofTitle 17, along with other data which pertains to the findings required for conditional use permit. 6. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOV E APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND DOCUNIEN'I'S SU$MITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT, AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY IINOWLEDGE. I certify that I am the : ~ Property Owner or ~ Authorized Agent of the Owner l ~,~ o~the proposed project site. Craig A. Stone & Associates Ltd, 708 Cardley Ave'. SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION City of Central Point Planning Department , _ . _....._,.,_._ . DATE STAMP OFFICE USE ONLY I. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: USF Reddaway, Incorporated Address:2890 Nansen Drive City: Medford State: OR Zip Code: 97504 Telephone: Business: Residence: 2. AGENT INFORMATION Name: Craig A. Stone & Associates Ltd. Address: 708 Cardley Ave. City:. Medford State: OR Zip Code: 97504 Telephone: Business: 779-0569 Residence: 3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Than One) Name:Eear Creek Orchards, Inca c/o Ron Henri, Vice President Orchard Div. Address: 2518 S. Pacific Hwv. City: Medford Stater OR Zip Code: 97501 Telephone: Business: Residence: 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION TypeofDevelopment: Truck Terminal Township: 37 Range: 2w Sectiori: o1c Tax Lot(s): soo Address: Zoning District- M-1 Project Acreage: 28 acres of 34.4 acres Number of Dwelling Units: None Non-Sale Area Sq. Footage Sale Area Sq. Footage =Gross Floor Area NumberofParlcingSpaces: 50o total 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ~] This Application Form. ~ Legal Description. $] Application Fee ($200.00). ~ Letterof Project Description. ~ Site Plan Drawn to Scale (10 copies). L~J Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process. ~l Reduced Copies (8 %s x 11) ofthe Site Plan, Building Elevations and Landscape Plans (1 copy Ea.). lh Landscape and Irrigation Plan (3 copies). 6. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED 1N THE ABOV E APPLICATION AND THE P1:ANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARETRUE, CORRECT, AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I certify that I am the : ~ Property Owner or uthorized Agent of the Owner ~,~ of the proposed project site. rj /'. /'\ - i BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF THE APPROVAL OF ) APPLICATIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE. ) PERMIT AND SITE PLAN,. LANDSCAPING ) AND CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL ) RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ) A TRUCKING DISTRIBUTION FACILITY ) ON LAND IN AN INDUSTRIAL (M-1) ZONE ) WHICH LAND IS LOCATED SOUTH OF ) BIDDLE AND WEST OF HAMRICK ROADS ) WITHIN THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT ) USF Reddaway, Inc.: Applicant ) i PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Exhibit 1 SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE ACTION Applicant USF Reddaway ("Reddaway") seeks a conditional use permit for the purpose of relocating it's existing truck terminal and freight forwarding facility, located in north Medford offNansen Drive, to property acquired from Bear Creek Orchards Inc. The subject property is located south off Biddle Road (East Pine Street) east of its intersection with Hamrick Road. A site plan application depicting landscaping and construction plans will be submitted concurrent with the conditional use application as required by Title 17 Chapter 17.72.020. II EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION The following evidence was before the City during its consideration of the land use applications: Exhibit L The. proposed ,findings of fact and conclusions of law, demonstrating how the conditional use, site plan, landscaping and construction plan complies with the applicable substantive criteria of the Central Point Zoning Ordinance of 1981 (CPZO) Exhibit 2. Completed Conditional Use and Site Plan application forms Exhibit 3. Jackson County Assessor plat map 37-2W-O1C Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 1 USF Reddaway, Inc.: Applicant C Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Exhibit 4. Site Plan consisting of the following sheets: A. Conceptual Layout and Outdoor Lighting Plan. B. Building Elevation C. Landscape and Irrigation Plan Exhibit 5. Central Point Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 6. Central Point Zoning Map Exhibit 7. Transportation Impact Study dated February 13, 1998 prepared by Hardey Engineering & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 8. Letter from real estate broker Dean Royce dated March 31, 1998 Exhibit 9. Letter from Bill Ullom, Terminal Manager USF Reddaway dated March 27, 1998 RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The Central Point Planning Commission ("Commission") has determined that the following - constitutes all of thexelevant substantive criteria prerequisite to approval ;of applications for a conditional use permit and permit for site plan, landscaping and construction plan approval for the purpose of locating a trucking distribution facility within an Industrial (M-1) zone. 77.76.040 Flndings and conditions. The planning commission In granting a cohditional use pennitshail find as follows: A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and ail other provisions of this code; B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate In size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be genereted by the proposed use; C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the perrnitted use thereof.. In making this determination, the cemmisslon shall consider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulaflon; setbacks; height of buildings; walls and fences; landscaping;'outdoortighting; and signs; D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for wilt comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety br general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and Improvements in the neighborhood or to the generel welfare of the community based on the review of those factors listed in subsedlon C of this section; E. That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect tMe public health, safety and general welfare and may include; Flndings of Fact and Conclusions Page 2 USF Reddaway CUP and Site Ptan Revte Craig A. Stone &Associates, Ltd. 1. Adjustments to lot size or yard areas as needed to best accommodate the proposed use; provided the lots or yard areas conform to the stated minimum dimensions for the subject zoning district, unless a variance is also granted as provided for in Chapter 17.80, 2. Increasing street widths, modifications in street designs or addition of street signs or traffic signals to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed uSe, 3. Adjustments to off-street parking requirements in accordance with any unique characteristics of the proposed use, 4. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress, 5. Requidng landscaping, irrigation systems, lighting and a property maintenance program, 6. Regulation of signs and their locations, 7. Requiring fences, berms, walls or other devices to eliminate or reduce the effects of noise, vibrations, odors or otherundesirable effects on,surrounding prpperties, 8. Regulation of time of operations for certain types of uses if their operations may adversely affect privacy of sleep of persons residing nearby or otherwise. cgnflict with other community ar neighborhood functions, 9. Establish a time period within which the subject land use must be developed, 10. Requirement of a bond or other adequate assurance within a specified period of time, 11. Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, 12. In considering. an.appeal of an applica(ion for a conditional use permit for a home occupation, the planning commission shall review the criteria listed in Section 17.60:190. (Ord. 1684 ss72, 1993: Ord: 1616 ss55; 1989: Ord. 1533 ss1, 1984: Ord. 1436 ss2 (part); 1981): 17.72.040 Standards. In approving, conditionally approving, or denying the plans submitted, the city shall base their decision on the following standards:, A. Landscaping and fencing and fhe construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to notsubstantially intertere with the landscaping scheme of the. neighborhood, and in such a manner as to .use the same to screen such activities ahd sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The planning commissiah may require the maintaining of existing trees for screening purposes and for sound and. sight insulation from existing neighborhood use; 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; C. To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such a manner as is wmpa4ible 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 interterence with the traffic flow on public streets; D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traffic control signs or devices and that they are compatible with the design of their buildings or uses and will not intertere with or detract from the appearance or vislbiliry of nearby signs; E. Accessibility and sufficiehcy of firefighting 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 an the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; Findings of Fact and Conclusions Page 3 USF Reddaway CUP and Site Plan Review 8 .. Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. ' __ F, Compliance with all city ordinances and: regulations, including,Section 16.20.080 pertaining to the maximum number of single-family dwellings or dwelling units allowable on cut-de-sac streets, and applicable state laws; G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and its environs: The architecture and design proposals may be rejected by the planning commission if found to be Incompatible with the existing architectural or design characteristics of adjacent properties or uses. In addition, the planning commission reserves the right to establish additional height, setback, buffering, or other development requirements that may be necessary to ensure land use compatibility and ensure the health, safely, and privacy of Central Point residents. IV FINDINGS OF FACT The Commission finds the following facts to be true with respect to this matter: 1. Property Ownership: The subject property is owned in fee simple by Bear Creek Orchards, Inc. Applicant USF Reddaway ("Reddaway") has an agreement to purchase the subject property.. In the agreement, Bear Creek Orchards, .Inc. has pledged its cooperation and has authorized Reddaway to apply in its name for any .and all permits required to secure approval for Reddaway to construct its trucking facility on the subject property hereinbelow described. 2r< Property Description and Location: The property is described as Tax Lot 800 on Jackson County Assessor's: Map 37-2W-O1C. The property is situated at the southeast corner of the intersection of Biddle Road (East Pint Street) and Hamrick Road. 3. Comprehensive Planning and Zoning: The property is presently designated as Light Industrial on the Central Point Comprehensive Plan. The City of Central Point zones all land within its acknowledged urban growth boundary, such that when land is annexed to the city, it takes on the zoning which has been predetermined. The subject property is presently zoned Industrial (M-1). 4. Jurisdiction: The property, recently annexed, is within the corporate jurisdiction of the City of Central Point, , 5. Size and Shape of Property: The property is rectilinear in shape and consists of 34.40 acres according to the records of the Jackson County Assessor.. The property is depicted on maps attached as Exhibits 3 through 6. 6. Access: -The property, along its north boundary, fronts upon Biddle Road (East Pine Street) for a distance of 1,380 feet. Along the prop'erty's west and south boundaries, it fronts upon Hamrick Road for 1,120 and 1,350 feet respectively. As illustrated in Exhibit 4, all direct access to the property will be from Hamrick Road at points thereon indicated. Biddle Road and Hamrick Road are both county roads. - -- - ---- Findings of Fact and Conclusions Page 4 USF Reddaway CUP and Site Plan Review Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. 7. Abutting Land Uses: The following uses now existing on land abutting the subject property: North: Lands north of the subject property and north off Biddle Road aze developed with single family dwellings. Some parcels are vacant. South: Land to the south is an existing pear orchard owned and operated by Beaz Creek Orchazds, Inc., a subsidiary of Bear Creek Corporation, Ina West: Lands west of the subject property and west off Hamrick Road are developed with single family residents, an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) maintenance yard, and the business office, maintenance building, equipment storage and aggregate materials storage for LTM, Inc., an aggregate mining and heavy equipment construction company. East: Lands east of the subject property consist of two parcels bounded by Table Rock Road to the-east, and Hamrick Road to the south. The northerly-.most parcel is vacant. The southerly most parcel is developed with a single family dwelling. 8. Permitted Uses on Abutting Properties: A copy of the zoning map is attached as Exhibit 6 which. indicates that the. following city zones which cover land abutting the subject property. The abutting zones, including land which abuts. across the rights-of- way of public streets, are: • Residential-Single Family (R-I-8) • Residential-Multiple Family (R-3) • Commercial-Neighborhood (C-N) • Commercial-Tourist and Office Professional (C-4) • Industrial (M-1) • Bear Creek Greenway (BCG) The permitted uses for the above abutting zones are those listed in CPZO 17.20.020, 17.28.020, 17.32.020, 17.44.020, 17.48.020 and 17.54.020 respectively. 9.' Operation of the Proposed Use: The proposed use is illustrated on the Exhibit 4 Site Plan. Based upon Exhibit 9 (a letter from terminal manager Bill Ullom), the use is described as a freight forwarding facility and office for applicant USF Reddaway. According to Exhibit 9, Reddaway presently employees approximately 80 full time workers at its Medford site. The facility operates 7 days a week, Monday through Saturday, 24 hours daily. The applicant states that, "employees rotate through the 24 hour period with the majority of employees working between the hours of 7 a.m: to 6 p:m, Our office and dock operations begin at 4 a.m. until approximately midnight Monday thtough Saturday". Sunday operations consist of an 8 hour shift from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. i .~ Findings of Fact and Conclusions Page 5 - USF Reddaway CUP and Site Plan. Review Craig A. Stone & Assaclatas, Ltd. The facility is to be used as a "transfer cross-dock" operation for Oregon, Washington and California. Freight to be transferred from one trailer to another for shipping to direct delivery terminals at other locations, is done on a daily basis. No warehousing of freight is proposed. The new facility is anticipated to expand to approximately 90 full time employees from the present 80 full time employees and thereafter growth is expected to be 8 to 10 percent annually. 9. Traffic and Roadway Capacity: In evaluating related land use matters, applicant USF Reddaway engaged qualified traffic engineer John Hardey of Hardey Engineering & Associates, .Inc. to evaluate the impacts of making various land use changes, one of which would affect the subject property. The study evaluated the traffic impacts related to use of the subject property for the proposed trucking distribution facility. The study concluded that the proposed use and related comprehensive plan map designations could be satisfied without exceeding the capacity of nearby affected streets. A copy of the study is attached as Exhibit 7. V CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following discussion and conclusions of law are preceded by the criterion to which they relate, and by citations to the applicable findings of fact as set forth in the above document Section IV. The Commission reaches the following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions under each of the relevant substantive criteria for first, the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and, second, for the Site, Landscaping and Construction Plan Permit (SLCP): CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17 76 040 Findings and conditions. The planning commission in granting a conditional use permit shall find as follows: Criterion 1 A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code; Conclusions of Law: Based upon the size and shape of the subject property and the design and orientation of the use as depicted in Exhibit 4, the Commission concludes that the site is adequate in all ways required by Criterion. l to accommodate the proposed-use. The Commission also wncludes, based on Exhibit 4, that the proposed use complies in all respects with the development and loYrequirements of the subject M-1 zoning district and all otherprovisions of the CPZO. 11 Findings of Fact and Conclusions Page 6 USF Reddaway CUP and Site Ptan Revtaw Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Criterion 2 e. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use; Conclusions of Law:.As illustrated on Exhibit 4, the property has access to Hamrick Road from two access points, each of which provide ingress and egress. The size and. condition of nearby streets and highways as evidenced by Exhibit 7, can accommodate the .additional traffic loading anticipated by applicants proposal without significant impact to the operation of street. facilities at or near the subject property.. Reddaway anticipates 100 to 110 passenger cars to arrive and depart on a daily basis, with an increase of approximately 10 percent per year for ten. years. Additionally, 125 trucks are expected to arrive and. depart on a daily basis with 4-5 percent increase per year for ten years. This equates to 13 vehicles and 7 trucks in and out daily during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.' Traffic counts were conducted at five intersections, which are believed to have the greatest impact as a result of this proposal. All five intersections were found to operate at acceptable Levels of Service, (LOS) B and above, at present traffic conditions. When existing traffic was combined with the expected traffic of the project all intersections remained unchanged, with LOS B and above. The Commission concludes that access' to the site is .adequate in size and condition to accommodate the traffic generated by-the proposed distribution facility. ********>k>k**++>k+*+*>k****>« Criterion 3 C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall wnsider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs; Conclusions of Law: The Commission concludes as follows: 1. The permitted uses on abutting properties are those identified in the findings of fact for each of the abutting zones. 2. Although the proposed use will produce additional traffic and additional traffic can be considered an adverse effect, the Commission also concludes: that. the amounts of new truck and passenger vehicle traffic, based on Exhibit 7, are not significant.. The Commission reaches this conclusion because the additional raffic does not exceed, or threaten to exceed, the capacity of the affected public roads. ' Numbers of passenger cars and truck traffic generated in and out of the facility site are approximate counts. -- _ _ -- - -- --- -- --- 1 ~~ N Findings of Fact and Conclusions Page 7 USF Reddaway CUP and Site Plan Review Craig A. Stone. &.Associates,.Ltd. 3. The roads and jntersections serving the property are safe and the safety of said roads and intersections will not be compromised by the proposed use. 4. In reaching the above conclusions, the Commission has carefully examined Exhibit 4 with respect to the .proposed location of improvements on the site, vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation, setbacks, the height of buildings, walls and fences, landscaping, outdoor lighting and signs. 5. In all respects, the Commission concludes that the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. Criterion 4 D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community based on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of this section; Conclusions of Law: The Commission concludes as follows: 1. Applicant USF Reddaway has agreed to stipulate (refer to Section VI) to compliance with -local; .state and federal health and- safety regulations and, therefore, the Commission concludes that the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods or to the general welfare of the community. 2. Based on the evidence, the Commission has also examined matters connected with the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use with respect to the question of whether it would be injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community based on the location of improvements on the site, vehicular ingress, egress. and internal circulation, setbacks, building height, walls and fences, landscaping, outdoor lighting and signs. Based upon the Commission's examination of these matters, it concludes that the proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community. In reaching its conclusion, the Commission has principally relied upon evidence in Exhibits 4, 7, 8 and 9. Criterion s E. That any coriditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and may Include; 13 Findings of Fact and Concluafons Page 8 USF Reddaway CUP and Slte Plan Review Craig A. Stona 8 Associates, Ltd. 1. Adjustments to lot size or yard areas as needed to best accommodate the proposed use; provided the lots or yard areas conform tp the stated minimum dimensions for the subject zoning district, unless a variance is also granted as provided for in Chapter 17.80, 2. Increasing street widths, modifications in street designs or addition of street signs or traffic signals to accommodate the traffic generated bythe proposed use, 3. Adjustments to off-street parking requirements in ac6ordance with any unique characteristics of the proposed use, 4. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress, 5. Requiring landscaping, irrigation systems, lighting and a property maintenance program, 6. Regulation of signs and their locations, 7. Requiring fences, berms, walls or other devices to eliminate or reduce the effects of noise, vibrations, odors or other undesirable effects on surrounding properties, 8. Regulation of time of operations for certain types of uses if their operations may adversely affect privacy of sleep of persons residing nearby or otherwise conflict with other community or neighborhood functions, 9. Establish a time period within which the subject land use must be developed, 10. Requirement of a bond or other adequate assurance within a specified period of time, 11. Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public health, safely and general welfare, 12. In considering an appeal of an application for a conditional. use permit for a home occupation, the planning commission shall review the criteria listed in Section 17, 60,190. Conclusions of Law: The above CPZO 17.76.040(1) through (12) does not function as a decisional criterion. Instead, the above regulations fixnction to restrict the City in what it may impose as conditions attached to the approval of a conditional use permit. The Commission concludes that the conditions it has required as prerequisites to the approval of the subject application are reasonable and do not exceed the authority established under the above CPZO 17.76.040(1) through (12). SITE, LANDSCAPING AND CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW Criterion 6 17.72 040 Standards. In approving, conditionally approving, or denying the plans submitted, the city shall base their decision on the following standards: 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 as to use the same to screen such activities. and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses.. The planning commission may require the maintaining of existing trees for screening purposes and. for sound and sight insulatlodfrbm existing neighborhootl use; Findings of Fact and Conciuslons Page 8 USF Reddaway CUP and Site Plan Review 14 Craig A..Stone & Associates, Ltd. Conclusions of Law: The location of landscaping and fencing is illustrated on Exhibit 4. As to the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, the Commission concludes that the "neighborhood" as used in the above Criterion 6 consists of the surrounding lands which abut the subject property. The Commission, based upon its first-hand knowledge of the area, further concludes that the surrounding neighborhood is largely undeveloped and lands that are developed are largely void of ornamental landscaping. The. Commission concludes that the landscaping which has been proposed on Exhibit 4 is appropriate and that is homogeneous-that is, it is not heterogeneous-to existing neighborhood uses. In reaching its conclusions, the Commission does not find it necessary to retain any of the existing fruit trees for any purpose and, in all respects, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 6. Criterion 7 B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interterence with the traffic flow on public streets; Conclusions of Law:. The Commission has carefully examined the Exhibit 4 site plan and the design, number and location of ingress and egress points which proposed to serve the truck and vehicular traffic which will flow to and from the site. Based on the evidence, and notwithstanding that the use will produce additional traffic volumes, the Commission concludes that the .design, number and location of ingress and egress points will. serve to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets. Based upon the preceding, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 7, Criterion 8 C. To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle Oow facilities in such a mannef 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 interterence with the traffic flow on public streets; Conclusions of Law: The Commission concludes, based on Exhibit 4, that off-street parking and loading has been provided in accordance with CPZO Chapter 17.64 (Off-street Parking and Loading). Exhibit 4 also illustrates the location of pedestrian facilities and routes for vehicular traffic. Based on Exhibit 4, the Commission also concludes, that facilities designed to accommodate pedestrians and vehicles are compatible with the use and for the proposed site, and, notwithstanding increases in traffic volumes, that such facilities will improve and avoid interference with traffic flows on the adjacent public rights-of--way. Based upon the preceding, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 8. ---- ---- - --- --- j. Findings of Fact and Conclusions Page 10 USF Reddaway CUP and Site Plan Review Crelg A. Stone & AssoGates, Ltd. #!kk##$+k+k~F*##?k*4Fk4M4M k!k.?k Criterion 9 D. Signs and other outdoor atlvertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traffic conlroP signs or devices and that they are compatible with-the design of their buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of neartiysigns; , Conclusions of Law: The Commission concludes that there is nothing in the placement or location of the proposed business identification sign, as indicated on Exhibit 4, which will conflict with or deter from traffic control signs or devices. The Commission also concludes that the proposed sign is compatible with the design of the proposed buildings and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs. Based upon the preceding, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 9. Criterion 10 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, acc@ss roads aqd fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; Conclusions of Law: Based upon Exhibit 4, it is the Commission's judgment and it concludes that all buildings and other structures proposed to be located upon the property are fully accessible by fire fighting vehicles and equipment. The Commission also concludes that the accessibility for fire suppression equipment is sufficient to provide for the reasonable safety of life, limb and property. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission has examined and evaluated fencing and gates proposed to be located upon the property. The Commission has also examined and evaluated proposed access roads and fire lanes, and it concludes that all buildings are accessible to fire apparatus. In ali respects, the Commission concludes that the. application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 10. Criterion 11 F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations, including Section 18.20.080 pertaining to the. maximum number of single-family dwellings or dwelling units allowable on cut-de-sac streets, and applicable state laws; Conclusions of Law: Based upon Exhibit 4, the evidence of record and the stipulations made by applicant which are summarized in Section VI herein, the Commission concludes that application and proposed use can and will comply fully with all city ordinances and regulations and the applicable laws of the state. The Commission concludes that the provisions of Section 16.20.080 which are specifically cited in the above Criterion 11 are Findings of Pact and Conclusions Page 11 USF Reddaway CUP and Site Plan Review 16 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. inapplicable. In all respects, the Commission concludes that the application can and will be consistent with all requirements in Criterion 10. Criterion 12 G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and (ts environs. The architecture and design proposals may be rejected by the planning commission if found to be incompatible with the existing architectural or design characteristics of adjacent properties or uses. In addition, the planning commission reserves the right to establish additional height, setback, buffering, or other development requirements that may be necessary to ensure land use compatibility and ensure the health, safety, and privacy of Central Point residents. Conclusions of Law: The Commission has carefully examined the site plan and the architectural elevations which are a part of Exhibit 4, and, based on these, the Commission concludes that the proposed architecture is aesthetically acceptable in relation to the surrounding neighborhood and the Central Point area and its environs as a whole. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission again defines the term "neighborhood" to mean the properties which abut the site proposed for the subject use. In reaching its conclusions, the Commission finds it unnecessary to establish any additional requirements related to height, setback, buffering, or other development requirements in order to ensure land use compatibility and the health, safety, and privacy of Central Point residents. VI APPLICANT STIPULATIONS Applicant USF Reddaway, Inc. agrees that it will stipulate to the following if attached as conditions prerequisite to the approval of the subject Conditional Use Permit and Site, Landscaping and Construction Permit: 1. The use will be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. 2. Applicant will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission ultimately concludes that the requirements for granting a Condition Use Permit under CPZO Chapter 17.76 and for approving an application for Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan approval under CPZO Chapter 17.72 and all other relevant provisions of the CPZO have been fully and completely satisfied. Therefore, the Council approves the Condition Use Permit and Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan as herein above described. Findings of Fact and Conclusions Page 12 USF Reddaway CUP and Site Plan Review 1 1 Craig A. Stone & Assoclafes, Ltd Respectfully submitted on behalf of USF Reddaway, Inc. CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Cr ' one Co sul ng Urban Planner Findings of Fact and Conclusions Page 73 USF Reddaway CUP and Site Plan Review . LIIVITTED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY _ AUTHORIZATION TO ACT. on behalf of the annexation applicant of real property described as ` .: ~ . Tax Lot 800 on Jackson County Assessors Map 37-2W-01 C.: ` . • _ LET TT BE .KNOWN that CRAIG STONE of Craig A: Stone & Associates, Ltd. is the+duly ~ ,.. - authorizedrepresentative of USF Reddaway, Incorporated, the annexation applicant of the above - . described real property,' and hereby authorizes Craig Stone_ to perform in its name all acts proeedm-ally required in conjunction with obtaining annexadon of said property into the City of Central Point, Oregon, and such other land use and zoning permits as may be required. THIS T rMr~n AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by the undersigned. represeatitive of annexation applicant and shall expire on December 31, .1998, but may be extended by the mutual consent of the parties.. , Done and dated this o2 ~ day of ~F.gRtIAt~`1 1998. ;sident and Chief Executive Officer a ......19 LIIVIITED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZATION TO ACT on behalf of the owner of real property described as Tax Lot $00 . on Jackson County Assessors Map 37-2W-OlC.: : ' ,::. ' : ... - LET IT BE KNOWN that CRAIG STONE of Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. is the~duly - authorized representative of Bear Creek Orchards, Incorporated, the owner of record of the above described real property, and hereby authorizes Craig Stone to perform in its name all acts ' procedurally required in conjunction with obtaining annexation of said property into the City of Central Point, Oregon, and such other land use and zoning permits as may be required. THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by the undersigned representitive of record owner and shall expire on December 31, 1998, buf may be extended by the mutual consent of the parties. ~ - Done and dated this 9 f~ day of ~d,~; ,~ ,' 1998. G I - Dale Gooding Executive Vice President a ~Q ___wr. ,. ~ ~ -~~ (iY1-1K YV ..~-, ~~ p~ N`o~ld 3JJS'1VIOti3WW0~ ~~ e,e.. ~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~Y ~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ E ~ ~~~ ~ 6~i ~:~~s :~~ ~Q98 ~ S; 6i Flf. ~ ~ ~ ~6~EE[[6 ~~Y ~ ~ ~ eg~ ~ ~~ ~~~ !~!l1~iE~ ~ eei ~ ~ € ~,....a ,...,KRe.. ---- pYC -- _ „I / !~ ~ \ H ~EFg iB~ Y 0 q ~ ~ I yY p I D II m Iltlll~ 4 o i g~ 9 i av i :~. pp~ S iiRGi ut xRYm ` ~ Uy 2n I~n~n~ni ~nu. nnnn.. n n.nunnnrt nun i~nuwn Weer cr ~nr rn ~.~ irly r i i Run~ rocorn mini iaen~a~~nnua~cnc~ ~a ~, b _~ J W Q~Q W tl ~I~ i------- EX~IIBIT~~ a J W ~~ ~~~~ e~ `a w~• s ~~ Q a ~ 0 a~~ u: ,~ ui U~ z ~.~ a ~ Y3 J W ~~~ Zd ~~~ ~€ @~ 4 ~i F 00 e w J w z i 111 J U.1 3 0 Q J V,I N ~~ 24 EXkIBIT~~ d . Z ~~~ ~ W~e~~ x r~ w~, x~~ ~ I a 3 w o~ ui ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ 33~` W ~ ~ W G ~'I7~ '~ Ifrf1 II~HI H~IH IN ~~• I~ ~ ~ :,~:I' Vii:'."~:: •~ ;;' t i •~r k(Y~ ~~ ~ o •~i I 11i is ~: ~ I ~• :~ •t : • • /, 4 ~ Y~ ~ ~+~.- ~Y i/vim :/!• •~• ~ • n • ~ •^~ i ~.._~ ;~ i:: • ~ ~ ~I . a I•t I ~ I I• ..~t ~• ~ h I I ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ... of U S F. REDDAwAY NATURAL SYS: ~M I! ~ i 25 2 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN + re - s o s s - - • - ~f 3 .~~~:.. -- ~ ,. ~ flf~i1~1 : . ~ ,~ ,,. ~ . I 3'~~ 5~~ ~1 ~w 5 . \n ; . I„ f t J~ ~ _' :. 1 " : i..:... .r. ~:. ~., 1N 3 ~~ ~. ~ ~ Si ~~~ 1 ~ -y i :~ . -- u '•, .. ~ ~N~Y Y ~ 1 ~ ~ ~1. " ~ 14 ~,~j~ 3: (~: n ~/~.~' is • • I~ . r yam{ li . 14 ~~°~ ~e~ ~ ~R.s ~f~~ ~r~~ ~~ L2 U.S.F. REDDAyVAY 2F IRRIGATION PLAN 0 .~ ;. 1 .~ .i'Y.4:q~ .. NATURAL - SYSTEMS "~'~I~ ~ ' 11 ,,...... ..,o~~,~. ~~-,~. 26 G B~ ~~i~ ~~~ ~# ,~ i+i:i" ~C~ 2 ~~.~1 _S~•:ti Ray„ J1'. itr`t ,~.~r. } t ,:_ Industrial Light PE Re Comprehensive Plan Map Sauce: City of CerWal Paemt PM Map USF Reddaway: Applicant Not to Scale Conddional Use & Site Plan Review 27,1998 ~~«~ ,~~ NORTH EXHIBIT 5 2'7 Zoning Map Sprce: CBy d Can4al Point ZaYrg ~P USF Reddaway :Applicant 800 7800 Conditional Use & Site Pian Review 1888 scntE ~~~a.~ M.tlfara Organ NORTH EXHIBIT 6 nn 2-12-1998 4~:d5aP1 FRt_lM HaRDEti ENGINEERING 5©37729573 Hardey Engineering & February 12, 1998 Mr. Craig Stone Craig A. Stone Ec Associates, LTD, 708 Cardley Avenue Medford, Oregon 97504 RE: Reddaway Re-location Traffic Impact Study P. 2 P.O. Box 1625 Msdtord, OR 97501 541.772,6880-rel 547.772.9573-fax hartley~wave.net Dear Mr. Stone, We performed a traffic impact study for the re-location of USF Reddaway in August of 1997, This letter report was approved by Mike Arneson from ODOT, but Eric Niemeyer from- the Jackson County Roads Department requested additional analysis.. We have prepared for you a revised letter report which addresses concerns from Jackson County. The USF Reddaway re-location site is tax lot 800 in the SW I/4 of Section I, T37S, RZW in Jackson County; The property is bounded by E. Pine Street to the north and Hamrick Road to the west and south. We expecK these sites to have the greatest impact on five intersections in the sursounding area. These intersections include: 1. E: Pine Strcet & Hamrick Road 2. Peninger Road l~ E. Pine Street 3. E. Pine Street & 1-5 SS amps 4. E. Pine Street St I-5 NB ramps 5. Table Rock Road & Biddle Road CURRENT TRAFFIC CONDiTION5 EXISTING LOS ANALXSIS Traffic counts were performed at each of the irtersections listed above in mid August, 1997. Results can be seen in the following,table. Engineering Integrity 29 -12-Iggg L1:15AP1 FROta HaRpEt- ENGINEERING SL3377?9573 F. 3 -TABLE 1. EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE E, PINE ST. & IIAMRICK RD. B(C-D) PENINGER RD. & E. PINE ST. AB) E. PINE ST. ~ I-5 NB RAMPS ,fi(g) W. PINE ST. & I-5 SB RAMPS B(B) TABLE ROCK RD. Fe BIDDLE RD. B(C) AM(PM) As can be seen in Table I, all intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under existing traffic conditions The intersection of HamrickRoad/E. Pine Street operates at a level ``C-D" during the peak hour, which appears critical, but it should be noted that this intersection has an east and west left turn which is protected and then allowed to proceed on a yield basis.. SIGCAP, which is the signalized software used to evaluate intersection levels of service, does not have the capability to account for the left turn movement after the protected cycle has ended. Therefore, the intersection will operate better than what it shows in the analysis. All I,OS calculations in this report are based on the Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Program (SIQCAP). PROJECT TRAFFIC According to Reddaway, approximately 100 to 110 passenger cars enter and exit per day. This is expected to increase at about l0% per yeaz for ten (10) years. Likewise,. approximately 125: Ducks arrive and depart per day. Reddaway expects to have l55 trucks perday in five,yeazs and 200 in ten years. Their daily figures for existing conditions amount to approximately 7 trucks and 13 vehicles in and out during the AM and PM peak hours. To double check these numbers, we pertbrmed two manual coums at the existing Reddaway location during different times ht the day. Results of theca counts reflected the numbers sivetr by Reddaway. Incoming and outgoing truck traffic at the Central Point I-5 ramps will produce approximately 40% front the north and GO'% from the south, We estimate there will be approximately 13 vehicles and 7 trucks entering and exiting the site during the AM and PM peak how's under. existing conditions and 1 G vehicles and 11 trucks entering and exiting the site during the AM and PM peak hours with future projeoctions. The 7 trucks and 13 vehicles currently utilize the Reddaway site on Nansen Drive ofI of Biddle Road in Medford, and will not be additional traffic, However, at this time, a portion of the trucks use the North Medford I-5 exit 30, At the re- location site, all of the truck traffic will enter from and exit to the Central Point I-5 exit 33. For the. consideration of peak traffic in the study area, it is important to know that Reddaway generates asteady-state volume of truck traffic and does not have defhrite peak times. Shift changes and truck deliveries occur throughout the day. 30 2-12-1993 13:d6A1.1 FRl~1 HaRDEY ENGINEERING 5©37729573 - P d E7i:ISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFE7C EXISTING PLUS PROJECT LOS ANALYSIS Our estimau of 7 trucks and 13 vehicles in acrd out during a peak hoar was combined with existing traffic to determine existing plus project trat£c, since some of the route patterns may have changed with the re-location. Tlris combined traf5c was used to perform intersection level of service analysis. Results are given below. TABLE 2. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LOS INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE V/C RATIO N-S, E-W E. PINE & EIAMRICK B(C-D) .137(.232), ,311(.409) PENINGER RD & E. PINE A(B) .076(.086), .312(.349) E. PINE & I-5 NB RAMPS A(B) .074(.097), .259(.343) W. PINE &G I-5 SB RAMPS B(B) .205(.161), .307(.301) .TABLE ROCK & BIDDLE B(C) ,273(.276), .152(.254) AM(PM) As can be seen in Table 2, all intersections remain unchanged and continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under existing plus project traffic conditions. Based on this, it is reasonable to assume that the re-location of USF Reddaway will not Have a significant impact ot> the street system. FUTURE BACKGROUND ~ BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC In an effort to estimate future traffic growth in the study area, we referred to the Trarupvrtation Needy Analysis, Final Technical Memurcmdiem S, prepared for the Rogue Valley Council of Governments. Many of the projections seemed mueliable, however, since some of their projections were already exceeded. Aue to this, we assumed asa average growth rate of 2%, which is a rate we have used for other studies in the vicinity. Future USF Reddaway projections were based on their 10% per year increase for vehicles and 4-5% increase per year for trucks. This amounted to approximately 11 trucks and 16 vehicles in and out during the AM and PM peak hours. 31 2-12-1983 ~3:a6nP1 FROP1 HaRDEYENGINEERINC.54337729573- ~ p 5 FUTURE LOS ANALYSIS Calculations were made for two conditions under future development. The first condition involved "future background traffic" without the addition of Reddaway traffic, and the second condition combined future growth with Reddaway h~affic to become "future background plus project traffic", Level of service analysis was performed for both conditions and can be seen in Table 3. TARLF 3 FI ITIIRE BACKGROTJAII) Rc RACKr12M ITII) Pi.i i.C PR l11F(`T r f1c Interoectiou Future V/C Ratio Hlrture V!C Ratio Background AM(PM) Background AM(PM) Traffic N-S, E-W Plus Project Traffic Hamrick 8c Pine C(D-E) .145(,268), ,379(.498) C(D-E) _162(,280), .379(.498) Peninger & Pine B(B) .093(.lOS), .364(.410) B(C) .093(,105), .370(,415) I-S NB & Pine A(C) .086(.115), .304(.404) A(C) .091(.119), .307(,407) I-5 SB & Pine GD(C) .259(.185), .356(.377) C-D(C) .262(.188), .361(.383) Table Rock B(C-D) .331(.337), .173(.298) B(C-A) .332(.338), .174(.299) Road & Biddle As can be seen in Table 3, all intersecfions evaluated are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service under future conditions with the exceptiomof Hamrick & E. Pine. The Hamrick Road/E, Pine intersection, however, will once again operate better than the analysis shows_ The actual amount of left turns in one cycle will be histrer than SIGCAP can account for due to the yielding turns after the protected phase has lapsed. This intersection, therefore, should not be evaluated by a level of service analysis, but should be monitored to determine when actual excessive delay and stacking occurs. 32 ._ I -- 19~+~ U : a%q1q FRURt HaROE't EfJ%:I NEER I NG 5~3 _t77_LK7 p LEFT TURN & RIGHT TURN ANALYSIS Jackson County requested that analysis be performed for left and right turn lanes at the Hamrick RoadB. Pine intersection, and Hamrick Road/Reddaway entrance location. Results are given in the following table.: TABLE 4, LEFT TURN ~ RIGHT. TURN ANALYSIS RESULTS Intersection Movement Existing Existing Plus Project Future Background Future Background Plus Project Hamrick Rd. & -EB right turn taper - W taper - W taper - W taper - W E. Pine Street -NB left turn NW NW NW NW protection -SB left turn NW NW NW NW protection Hancrick Izd. & SB le$ turn NW NW NW NW Reddaway lane into Access ' Reddaway W = Warranted, NW =Not Warranted - - As can be seen in Table 4, the Reddaway entrance intersection with Hamrick Road will not ,,,, ,,,._. warrant a left turn refuge lane under any of the conditions evaluated. The through volume on Hamrick Road only encompasses 66 vehicles under existing conditions and 133 under future . ... background plus project traffic conditions. This volume is not enough to meet warrant criteria, Protecting the northbound and southbound left turns at the Hamrick Road/E. Pine intersection does not improve the level of service mainly because of the large southbound right turn movement. Protecting the left tum movement actually lowered the level of service and increased the saturation level by 23%. Adding an extra northbound and southbound lane to include a left turn, through, and right turn movement did not even improve the intersection level of service. The majority of traffic travels eastbound and westbound, and when the northbound and southbound left turns are protected, the delay time increases for the eastbound and westbound movement, thus, decreasing the level of service. The best solution to the Hamrick Road/E, Pine intersection would be to leave it as it is. CONCLUSIONS USF Reddaway currently has a site off Biddle Road. Tntcks traveling north and south utilize the North Medford and Central Point i-5 exits. Witlt a re-location site offof E. Pine Street and Hamrick Road, an increase in truck traffic will occur at the Central PoirK I-5 exit. The amount of increase is approximately 3 trucks per hour. The same amount will decrease at the North Medford I-5 exit. It is our understanding that the North Medford exit operates at a less functional LOS than the Centra! Point exit, at present time. Therefore, it is our assumption that the re- 33 2-12-1998 ~~:d7g14 FRUP1 HaRDEt ENGINEERINGSL337729573 location alternatives would be favorable. The Hamrick Road re-location site is adjacenf to the LTM plant. The auersection of FIamrick Road & E. Pine Street currently supports LTM truck traffic, which accounts for approximately 45% of the northbound traffic. From observations during counts at tlris intersection, it does not appear that trucks have auryproblems with excessive delay or turning movement difficulty. Based on this, we do not anticipate auy tun»ng movement difficulty for Reddaway truck traffic. Autoturn, which is a turning radius software program used with AutoCAD, was used at the project entrance to determine whether sufficient space is provided for a simultaneous southbound left uim and westbound right turn movement. Results indicate that there is adequate space for this maneuver. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our analysis, it is the professional opinion ofliardey Engineering & Associates, Inc. that the re-location of Reddaway'.to Hamrick Road, tax lot 500, will not nega[ively'impact the ' surrounding street system and should be allowed to proceed. In fact, it should' help the overall transportation system. If you have any questions or require further clarification please feel free to call Respectfully Submitted, Kimberly Parducci Traffic Eng./Tech. John L. Hardey P.E., P.L.S. HARI~EY ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES„ INC CC: ]vfike Arneson ODOT Eric Niemeyer, Jackson County F'. 7 34 i-I?-1998 t~:ddaR1 FRUP1 HaROE7 ENGINEERING 5~1377?9573 p I HA,.RDEY ENGINEERING P.O. Box 1625 Medford, OR 97501-072d Phone (503) 772-68gp Fax (503)772-9573 TRANSMfI'TALS To: C. 21~ IG STB~) E Date: Z~f ~ ~ 9$ Project: In S ~ rZ~DDPr-rAy L~7rc-f Project Ne: Subject: ~ `-~ F 2~D Prw ~Y VIA: ^ Overnight ^ U.S. Mail ^ Hand ^ Sus /Air Carrier: Fax # 77 °I ` ° I I~-1 No. of pages.(including cover): ITEM °' es .DATE DESCRIPTION ^ For your Approval ^ For your information ^ O For your review ^ As you requested Comments: C2r~, r=• - y i---av E r-~xc~ -r~-rE QE V t S Ea R-E~'Da-~-.+RY 2GPo/t.'i'' <.:,'t+ic1-r /}n'b~u~S~S C1ZtC_ n~rc~rvlfiYG-~S Co r~ w, 6v rs / coo rv e..c--2~ s P r~-w~s E 2..~v e e--~ ~ /krv GAT '~Phe ~L -ro M G ~}-1-t~rv1L- Yo'tn _ ,~..,_ ~___ __. 37 .~;.~ EXHIBITS " , . <er.~, .~ , REAL ESTATE SERVIGES,INC. March 31, 1998. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION c/o Mr. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director . City Hall Central Point, OR 97502 Dear Commissioners: _ As a real estate broker licensed in Oregon and having extensive experience in the sale and valuation of real estate in southern Oregon and elsewhere, I am sometimes called upon to evaluate the potential effect that various elements might play on the value of real property, as well as ascertain the value of same. have been asked to examine the area surrounding the proposed site for USF Reddaway at the intersection of East Pine Street and Hamrick S4reef and to offer my professional opinion as to value diminution. Specifically, I have been asked to determine whether the presence of Reddaway on its proposed site will produce damages to the value of other abutting and nearby properties. Based upon my experience and expertise, I am of the opinion that the establishment, ._ maintenance and operation of the proposed truck terminal will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the surrounding area or to the general welfare of the community, and in fact, the additional employment base of USF Reddaway will help the existing and any _ future commercial development in the area of the proposed site. In reaching this conclusion and opinion, I have based my review on the following: • location of improvements proposed for the site • vehicular ingress and egress • internal circulation of the site setbacks and height of buildings • location and types of proposed fencing • proposed landscaping - • proposed outdoor lighting, and - _ signs • the uses in area surrounding USF Reddaway's existing and. proposed location Sincerely yours . ' Dart o ce, er Royce Real Est• ervices, Inc.. - - 1133 South Riverside Avenue Suite #3, Medford, Oregon 97501 Voice: (541) 858-5797 ~ (800) 350-0680 ~ Pager (541) 776-9463 ~ Fax (541) 858-5799 ~ Home (541) 488-5686 E-mail: royce@mind.net ~ Web Site: httpa/id.mind.netl-roycel - 36 l1~ Reddaway March 27,1998 EXH1BITg Craig A. Stone & Assoc., Ltd 708 Cardley Avenue Medford, OR 97504 1tE: USF Reddaway, Medford/Operation 2890 Nansen Dtive Medford, Oregon 97504 Telephone; 541.779.0386 Facsimile: 541.772.8956 Dear Sirs: USF Reddaway currently employs approximately 80 full time employees, working 7 days per week. Monday through Saturday is a 24 hour a day operation. Sunday shift is approximately 8 hours. Employees rotate through the 24 hour period with the majority of employees working between the hours of 7AM to 6PM. Our office and dock operation begins at 4AM until approximately midnight Monday through Saturday. Sunday operation is from 8AM to SPM. We anticipate growth at the new terminal to approximately 90 employees with about an 8 to 10% growth per year thercaftea This facility will be used as a transfer cross-dock operation for Oregon, Washington, and California. Freight will be transferred from one trailer to another to sh[p to the direct delivery. terminals. All transfer freight is moved on a daily basis. There is no warehousing of freight. _Sjinc~erely, BiB Ullom Terminal Manager ~ osr~°kax~m ea+~pem , ~ . 3 7 CltJl Of Central Point L~1-,;t1T `~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom I [umphrey, AICP Planning Director I<en Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: May 11, 1998 Meeting Date: June 2, 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 Conditional Use .Permit and Site Plan Review applications fora truck terminal in the vicinity of East Pine Street and Hamrick Road. The proposed development is located in an M-1, Light- Industrial zoning district on tax lot 800 of Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W O1C. The proposed trucking facility if approved, would employ approximately 80 employees during various hours, at a location adjacent to the LTM plant and the Oregon Department of Transportation storage yard. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Conditional Use Permits and 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 Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. ~ PUBLIC COMMENTS 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, June 2, 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 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above... Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. 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- 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 applications for the Conditional Use Permit and the Site Plan. 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 Condition Use Permit. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. 1 N IACX90X ro~ txea P1\x\ Subject roperty 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY 3915 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFOAD, OHFGON 97501.9099 • (541) 779.4144 • FAX (641j 535.5275 EXHIBIT May 26, 1998 By Facsimile :(541)664-6384 Tom Humphrey AICP City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: CUP98024 - Reddaway Dear Tom, We have reviewed the proposedplanning action with regard to providing sanitary sewer service. to the project location. It appears the proposed use will require a sewer extension of the existing offsite sewer line from the proposed manhole in LTM along this developments' Southerly boundary to the midpoint of the Hamrick Road frontage. The service main extending across the truck depot to serve the future motel site shouldbe moved to closer to the North/South Hamrick Road Right-of--way with provision for public_operation and maintenance of the the line. up to the limits of this first phase. Grantsafsanitary sewer easement will be necessary for this line and any other public sewer lines except where they are in dedicated rights-of--way. Please have the applicants design Engineer contact BCVSA at his earliest convenience tb establish design requirements, fees, and permits. Sincere James May, Jr. P. . District Engineer 40 EXHIBIT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan shall expire in one yeaz on June 2, 1999 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any. changes discussed and approved at the public hearing within 30 days of Planning Commission approval 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Fire Code and Structural Specialty Code. 3. Final approval of the conditional. use pernnit is contingent upon City Council approval of Comprehensive Plan Policy 9 revisions to the Central Point/ Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary and Policy Agreement. 4. The applicant shall submit final parking, landscaping and sign plans to the Planning, Public Works and Building Departments for approval and shall implement these plans prior to obtaining a permit to operate. 5. The applicants design Engineer shall contact BCVSA to establish design requirements, fees and permits for sewer extension and hook-up. 41 EXHIBIT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for USF REDDAWAY, INC. TRUCK TERMINAL FACILITY PW#98002 Date: May 27, 1998 Applicant: USF Reddaway Inc. 2890 Nansen Drive, Medford, Oregon 97504, Agent: Craig A: Stone, 708 Cardley Ave., Medford, OR 97504 Project: Phased Commercial/Industrial Development Location: Southeast of Hamrick/Biddle Road Intersection, along Hamrick Road. Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 1C, Tax Lot 800 Zoning:... M-1 Area: 34.4 Acres: Truck Terminal to occupy approximately 20 acres. Units: Phase I: 20 acres occupied by truck terminal. Other acreage potentially occupied by hotel and professional office space. Plans: 1 page entitled "USF REDDAWAY COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN", dated 4/24/98, prepared by Hardey Ehgineering and Associates, Inc: Report By: Lee N. Brennan, Public Works birectdr Purpose Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as °Developer") regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be.iricluded in the design and development.of the proposed industrial facility. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding proposed development: SpeciaP Requirements Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not intertere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure, or will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as approved by (as applicable), the regulatory agency, utility owner, and/or property owner involved. 2. Master Plans: In association with City PWD staff, the Developer shall prepare master plans for the storm drain collection, retention, and conveyance system, the sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system, and the water distribution system for this area of the City. The master plans should take into account the flows or demands of the proposed development, any future development on neighboring portions of the subject tax lot, on neighboring properties, and any areas deemed by the City that will need to connect-into the proposed development's or existing .neighboring infrastructure. The prepared master plans should take into account any previous master plans that have been prepared and approved by the City and Jackson County. 42 USF Redda}vay Truck Terming! Tenmiive Plan PWD S(aff Report May 27, / 998 Page 2 3. Water Distribution System: The water distribution system shall not be as shown on the tentative plan; and shall be designed and constructed to facilitate keeping as much of the water distribution system within the City's rights-of-way as possible. The water distribution system will need to be constructed along Hamrick Road to (as a minimum) the extent of the subject tax lot's frontages with Hamrick Road. The water mains will be of such diameter that facilitate water demands for projected future development in the surrounding areas, and for completion of the City's water main distribution system in this portion of the City. On other recent development projects, the City has or is proposing to reimburse the developer for a portion of the costs for up- sizing of water lines above the minimum water line diameter of 8-inches. The proposed water line reimbursement is only for projects where the required up-sizing was not the result of the flow demands of the development, but is the direct result of providing additional capacity for the supplemental demands that may be placed on the water distribution system caused by additional surrounding future development. The proposed reimbursement methodology for water line up-sizing includes payment of the estimated material cdst differences for the 8-inch- dlameterversus 12-inch-diameter pipe and appurtenances. This reimbursement methodology is similar to the rriethodology used by the Medford Water Commission for this same type of water- line up-sizing. We would propose this same type of reimbursement methodology for the proposed development. The water distribution system serving the truckterminal and the remaining proposed development on this tax lot shall be of"reinforced-loop design", where feasible. 4: nights-of--Way and Easements: Provide dedication for:expansion: ofahe;:rig4it-of-way along Hamrick Road to a minimum of 72-feet in width (36-feet each side of centerline). Since the existing right-of-v/ay width for Hamrick Road is 60 feet, the City wilt requirelan additional 6-foot dedication for right-of-way along the Developer's property frontage;With Hamrick Road. Additional right-of-way dedication will likely be needed at the southwest corner of the proposed deVelopmenf for the construction of improvements on Hamrick Road to accommodate the expected type of truck and vehicular traffic on Hamrick Road: Additional right-of-way dedication will also likely be required from the tax lot in the vicinity of the Hamrick Road/Pine Street intersection when this portion of the tax lot is developed. The Developer shall provide suitable and acceptable easements for any public works 'infrastructure located outside the public rights-of-way. A separate 10-foot minimum width public ratilities easement (P.U.E.) should also be required for utility installation outside the Hamrick Road right-of-way along the property's exterior frontage with Hamrick Road. 5. Trafrc Studv: There have been several recent traffic studies performed by Hardey Engineering, Inc: regarding the potential impacts to the neighboring major street intersections of this development; as the result of operation of the proposed truck facility. In summary, the traffic studies have indjcated that "the re-location of USF Reddaway will not have a significant impact on the street system". However, due to the wide variety in unknowns associated with future develo~iment on this tax lot and on surrounding properties that would take access to Hamrick Road (or otherwise impact the studied intersections), we feel that additional traffic studies will likely be warranted in the future when the nature of the surrounding development is known. As stated in the traffic studies, USF Reddaway predicts that peak hourly traffic flows from the truck terminal will not exceed 16 vehicles and 11 trucks per hour. If it is determined that traffic flows from the truck terminal exceed these predicted flows by more than 20%, then it is 43 USF Reddaivay Trvck Terming! Tentative Plan PWD Staff Report May 17, /998 Page 3 suggested that the Developer would be required, as requested by the City, to reevaluate the effects that the increased traffic flows have on Hamrick Road and the applicable intersections, and as applicable, be responsible for financially participating in the implementation and construction of any necessary improvement to the street infrastructure system to accommodate the increased. traffic flows generated from the truck facility, to maintain or improve the level of services of the streets and intersections. 6. (improvements to Hamrick Road: Hamrick Road along the frontage of the subject tax lot is a rural road that does not meet City or County urban standards. The road will need to be improved, as a minimum, to meet City standards. The Developer will be responsible for, as a minimum, all "half-street" improvements to Hamrick Road along the proposed development's property frontage with Hamrick Road, and any applicable taper or end sections. The improvements include, but are not limited to, street section, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bikeways, street lighting, storm drainage, and traffic control and delineation, which shall be coordinated and approved by the JC Roads and the City PWD, and designed and constructed at the expense of the Developer as part of the development of the proposed truck terminal. The planned street section shall have acurb-to-curb width of 54 feet, and include adjoining 6-foot wide sidewalks. As may be requested by the Developer, and as approved by the City Administrator and/or JC Roads, the Developer may defer any or all of the required improvements along the east-west portion. of:Hamrick Road (along the southern boundary of the subject development) until a later -date. If any or all of the improvements are to be deferredao a later date, then the Developer will be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement. with the City and/or Jackson County for the "half-street" improvements. 7: Erosion Control Plan: If applicable, a suitable erosion control plan must be prepared and .submitted to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for the construction of any improvements associated with this development. The construction plans associated with this development will not be approved by the City PWD until the City PWD receives a copy of the written approval of the erosion control plan by the DEQ. 8. Wafer Distribution System and New Water Master Meter. The proposed development and surrounding development has necessitated the installation of a new water master meter (including a suitable connection to the Medford Water Commission's water main line, and other associated appurtenances), which is being installed on the north side of the corner intersection of Hamrick and Vilas Roads. Large diameter. (greater than 12-inch-diameter) water distribution. lines are also being installed to facilitate new development in this. area of the City. It is the City's intent to have this master meter and large diameter water lines installed. as part of this and other currently approved development, and to be installed at the expense of the Developers and surrounding land owners, determined on a per acre of development basis as established by the Ciky Thus the Developer will be responsible for paying apro-rated share of the costs. for implementation and construction of these facilities. 9. Storm Drainage System: The storm drain system shall be designed to accommodate the storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (either surface run-on or culvert or creek/ditch conveyance); any future development on adjacent properties; conveyed storm drainage or surface water flow, and any flows from areas deemed by the City that will J ~. Z Q USF Reddaway Truck Terminal Tentative Plan PWD StaJj'Report May 27, 1998 Page 4 need to connect-into the proposed development's SD System. It appears that the majority of surface water flows from the properties east of the subject tax lot drain across the subject tax lot. The proposed storm drainage system will need to be designed to accommodate these existing "run-on" flows: However, the City is requesting that the developer design the storm drain conveyance system to accommodate projected post-development flows from these eastern properties. City would propose reimbursement to the Developer for up-sizing the applicable up- sized portion(s) of the storm water conveyance system to accommodate the future development on properties to the east of the subject tax lot. The City is currently developing a schedule for the cost differences for up-sizing storm drain pipe and manholes. Once the cost table is developed, the cost differences will be multiplied against the lineal feet of storm drain pipe for the various pipe up-sizing, and the number of manholes up=sized, to determine the total reimbursement that would be due the Developer. Once the amount of the reimbursement isdetermined, it is proposed that the City would enter into an agreement with the Developerthat calls for payment of the determined reimbursement amount (which would likely be designated as the "Hamrick Road/Pine Street storm drainage'projectfee") as it is collected from the developers of the affected properties. 10. Off Site Storm Drainage Infrastructure: For any storm drainage infrastructure constructed or improved outside the City's rights-of-way or easements for drainage of surtace waters from the subject development, the Developer"shall provide a suitable document or documents which oontain approvals forthe implementation of such connection and/or improvements and which describe: ` ^ Who is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the infrastructure facilities to maintain the original design parameters associated with the infrastructure. If the City into operate and maintain the infrastructure, the applicable funding mechanism that will be created (i.e local improvement district) for the associated City expenditures; How will access be afforded and maintained indefinitely to maintain and repair the infrastructure facilities; ^ That an easement or'other suitable conveyance document has been granted, as necessary, to provide suitable access on private propertyfor'the inspection, maintenance, and repair work to be pertarmed on the infrastructure facilities. The easement shall include a statement which allows access by City personnel for inspection and maintenance purposes; and General 1. Atl construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special 'specifications, details, standards,'and/or upgrades as may be approved by the City. Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to implementation. 2. Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals, and conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Department of ~.,. 45 USF Redda}vay Truck 7'erminn! Tentative Plan PWD StaJjReport May 27, 1998 Page 5 Environmental Quality (DEQ), affected irrigation districts, and JC Roads. 3. Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard :copy" form (produced on Mylar'®) and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCACP, or other form as approved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip. elevations; spot .elevations identified on drawings; road alignment; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral stationing; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet locations; street light locations; other-below grade utility line locations and depths; etc. Provide a "red- line" hard copy (on Mylar~), or an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD~ compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. 4. All elevations used on the construction plans, ohtemporary-benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. At least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of which shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer. 5. If applicable, all existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures, clear and grub materials, and other deleterious materials shall be removed from: the site and either recycled or properly disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the DEQ.. ti. Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable]) should be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.E. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of:five (5) feet from the edge of the easement. ;If two or more City owned utilities are located within an easement, then a minimum of 20-foot width should be required. Easement dedications in final deeds or CC&Rs need a statement which should clearly indicate that easements must be maintained with suitable, driveable vehicular access to City public infrastructure facilities, as determined by the City PWD. Prior to the City PWD final approval of the construction plans for the proposed improvements, the following should be submitted: ^ A copy of written, approval from Fire District 3 of the final street and,driveway layout, site .access, fire hydrant placement, and water system improvement plans for the proposed development. ^ The plans relating to the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the appropriate signature blocks should be completed on the plans. 46 USF Reddaway Truck Terming! l enmiive Plan PWD Staff Repmv May 27, l 998 Page 6 ^ A copy of written approval from JC Roads regarding Hamrick Road improvements and driveway connections to Hamrick Road. 8. Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, top of banks, ditch/channel inverts, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed development's infrastructure will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submittal for final approval. 9. Overhead power lines. If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US West, and TCI Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities within the proposed development to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer. 10. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) on the construction plans and as-built drawings. Streets/Traffic ..::Existing Improvements - Hamrick Road -Current ROW 60' wide, increasing near intersection with Pine Street/Biddle Road, varying street width. Right-of-Way required: 72-feet width; 36-feet on either side of centerline.. Jurisdiction -Jackson County: Constructlon drawings for this Tentative Plarr shall include a Street Lighting Plan and Traffic Control Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City PWD. Street lights shall be placed in a "zig-zag" pattern along the streets and at maximum 200-foot spacing (as measured from light post to light post) to afford better lighting of the public rights-of-way. Street lights shall be of 22,5001umen design. Indicate location of street lights on plans,: with table indicating stationing and offsets. The City PWD shall, at the cost of the Developer, evaluate the strength of the native soils and determinethe'street section designs in accordance with the City PWD Standards. The City's engineering staff or selected engineering consultant (at Developer's expense), shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the street section designs in accordance with the City PWD Standards. Minimum street section shall be as follows: - 4-inches Class"B" A.C. - 8-inches of 3/4"-0" crushed rock - 12-inches of 4"-0" crushed rock (City of Medford specifications), - Woven geotextile fabric over compacted subgrade. Street section (excluding the asphalt concrete portion) shall be extended, as a minimum, underneath and one foot beyond the curb and gutter portion of the street section to provide better structural support for the curb, gutter, and sidewalk section. - 4'7 USF Reddaivay Tn~ck Terming! Tentative Plan PWD StaJj'Report May 27, 1998 Page 7 3. : The construction drawings shall include clear vision areas{i.e. sight triangles) designed to meet the City's PWD requirements at the driveway entrances to the truck terminal, and at the corner of Hamrick Road. For the purposes of sight triangle determination, Hamrick Road will be .considered to be a "collector" type road. 4: ' The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the access road and parking section designs to handle the expected loads (including fire equipment) to be traveled on these private driveways, access roads, and parking areas. Storm Drainage, Irrigation Improvements Existing Improvements - Orchard surface water drain to ditches on Hamrick and Biddle Roads. 1. During the design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system (SD System) which provides for storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (either surface run-on or culvert or creek/ditch conveyance), the Developer shall demonstrate that the storm water flows from the completion of the proposed development (and at any time prior to completion of development) do not exceed predevelopment flows; or that allowances or provisions have been made (and approval of the applicable properties owners and regulatory agencies has been obtained), which accommodate any additional flow which exceed predevelopment flown. The Developer and the City PWD shall agree on the applicable run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc.; to be used in the engineering calculations. !. Developer's engineershaltprovide asite drainage plan with the facilities being designed, at a minimum, to accommodate a 10 year storm event. Th SD system must be designed to adequately drain the 10-year storm event without surcharging or must be provided. with.. adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to not impact existing public. storm drainage facilities. Catch basins and area drains shall be designed for on-site, sedimenband :petroleum hydrocarbon retention. The private storm drain system shall be designed to directly connect to the public storm drain system, and shall not be designed to discharge to the street surfaces. Surface drainage from the fuel storage and dispensing facilities shall not be directly connected to the storm drainage system without prior approval by the DEQ and City PWD. 3. Roof drains and underdrains shall not be directly connected to publicstorm drain lines, and shall drainto the on-site private storm drain system. Any discharge points of the storm water facilities shall be designed to provide an aesthetically pleasing, useful, and low maintenance facility, that are designed to mitigate erosion, damage, or loss during a 100 year storm event; and that mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these types of facilities. Prior to City PWD construction plan review, the Developer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the SD system, which shall incorporate the use of the City PWD's rainfall/intensity curve, and City approved run- off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, pipe roughness coefficients, etc., that are used in the engineering calculations. 48 USF' Reddaway '!'rack Terminnl Teuta(ive P/an PWD Stajf Repo3v Mny 27, ! 998 Page 8 6. Storm drain pipe materials shall be PVC, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with water-tight joints. Provide concrete or sand-cerrlent slurry encasement where required in areas of minimum cover. 7. If inlets/catch basins are to exceed 4.5 feet in depth from the lip of the inlet; then the inlets and catch basins shall be designed to afford suitable "man" entry into the inlets/catch basin for maintenance/cleaning purposes. 8. Developer's engineer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations and flow line plots for private and public storm drains. Plot HGL on profile or provide a separate profile drawing that indicates the HGL on the profile. Pipes should maintain cleaning velocity (minimum 2.0 feet per second) and have adequate capacities without surcharging during the design storm. 9. The Developer may wish to incorporate the use of a perforated SD system. If so, then the perforated storm. drain system shall be designed to-have adequate capacities to: Convey the collected groundwater and storm water with the. minimum cleaning velocities and without surcharging the collection and conveyance piping; and ^ Minimize silts, sands, gravels, and fines migration from the native soils into the SD system. The plotted HGL shall include both the groundwater infiltration, and the storm water run-off and -- run-on inflows into the,SD system. 10. Maintain a minimum 0.2-foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes and curb inlets, unless flow-through velocities during the design storm event exceed 3.0 feet per second (fps). If flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps and the inlet pipe is in relatively direct (i.e. 180 t 5 degree) horizontal alignment with the outlet pipe, then as a minimum the pipe slope shall be maintained through the base of the manhole or curb inlet. If flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps, and there is other than relatively direct horizontal alignment between the inlet and outlet pipes, then a minimum of a 0.1-foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes or curb inlet must be maintained. A bottom channel shall be formed in the manhole or curb inlet base to mitigate transitionat losses and enhance flow through the manhole or curb inlet. 11. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. The storm drainage system shall include the storm drainage from the bordering streets (i.e. Hamrick Road), as applicable. Sanitary Sewer All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance. system (SS System) design, construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEQ, 1990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. 2. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals. 49 USF Reddaway Trnck Terminal Tentative Plan YWD S[aJf Report May 27, 1998 Page 9 3. The Cityupori dompletion of initial construction plan review and preliminary approval, will forward the plans to BCVSA for completion of the review process. Upon completion of the review by BCVSA, completion of final revisions to the plans by the Developer's engineer, and following the final approval and signature on the construction plans by BCVSA, the Public Works Director willapprove the plans in final form: 4. All testing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be done in accordance with BCVSA requirements; at Developer's expense. The.. Developer shall provide BCVSA and the City with test reports, TV reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance. Water System 1. The water system shall be designed to provide the required fire flow demand capacities for the proposed facility, which meet Fire District 3 requirements. Maximum spacing of fire hydrants shall be 300 feet. 'The water system shall be of reinforced flow{"looped") design. Water service lateral connection stationing and size shall be provided on construction plans and as-built drawings. Site work, Grading, and Utility Plans 1. Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the-plan. Typically, existing grade contouriines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour -lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour °`lines should 6e labeled with elevations. 2. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. 3. Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company which reflects all utility line locations, crossings, transformer locations, valves, etc: 4. Utility locations must be accurately included on the as-built drawings, or as a separate set of drawings attached to the as-built drawings. Rights of Ways/Easements 1. If applicable, Developer shall provide a Statement of Water Rights (on a City approvedform), for any affected properties. For properties determined to have water rights, the developer will coordinate with the State Watermaster the re-allocation of any waters attached to lands no longer irrigable as a result of khe proposed development. -~ 50 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: June 2, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP ' Planning Director' SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Tentative Plan for partition of 37 2W 11A Tax Lot 300- Mock. ~gnlicant/ ' James and Sharon Mock er• S27 Freeman Road Central Point, OR 97502 agent: Dallas Page 900 Windemar Drive Ashland, OR 97520 Property Description/ 37 2W11A Tax Lot 300- 12S acres Zonine: R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District im_~rv The applicants, James and Sharon-Mock are proposing the minor partition of a 1,25 acre parcel into three parcels of 19,922 sq. ft., 18,178 sq. ft. And 16,203 sq. ft. respectively (refer to Exhibit A).-The property is located at S27 Freeman Road in.an-R=3;:Residential~Multiple Family zoning district. The parcels resulting from the proposed partition would take their access from a private road off of Freeman Road. 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 tentative plan for a land partition. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B). 51 Applicable Law CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. Tentative Plans CPMC 17.28.010 et seq. R-3, Residential Multiple Family District Discussion This minor land partition creates three residential parcels with access from Freeman Road via a private lane (Shadow Way) which varies in width from 20 to 25.feet. If approved, the private lane would also provide access to a proposed planned unit development on an adjoining parcel. Shadow Way would need to be improved and, as comments from other agencies indicate (Exhibit C), utility easements must be granted to maintainwater, sewetand storm drain systems. Mingus Creek runs along the eastern edge of Parcel 3. In accordance with state law, the Division of State Lands was notified that a potential wetlands may exist on the site, The applicant must comply with any conditions proposed by the Division of State Lands. An existing residence is located near Mingus Creek on parcel 3 of the proposed partition. If at a future date, the existing structure is moved, modified or replaced, the flood mitigation setback (25 feet from top of bank) requirements would take effect. Lot 3 of the tentative division fails to comply with the requirements of CPMC 17.60.130 pertaining to lot access. Lots that abut cul-de-sacs must have a minimum 30 feet of frontage.. The Planning Department will request the applicant adjust the lot line between lota2 and 3 to meet the requirement. The Planning and Public Works Department have reviewed the tentative plan for the proposed minor land partition and have concluded that it is in compliance with all city requirements if all conditions of approval pertaining to minimum lot size, dimensions and access to public roadways are met. The recommended conditions of approval included in the Public Works Staff Report dated June 2, 1998 are. incorporated herein by reference., indin s CPMC 16.10.010 requires that applications for tentative plans be submitted with improvement plans and other supplementary information as may be needed to indicate the development plan. ^ The proposed minor partition the subdivision requirements listed in ,CPMC 16.36.030 and CPMC 16.36.040. The Public Works Department may request additional information to satisfy standard specification requirements. 52 CPMC 17.28.050 establishes minimum area, width and yard requirements for the R-3, Residential Multiple-Family district. ^ Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed partition meet the area, width and yard requirements for the R-3, Residential Multiple-Family district. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Tentative Plan for the Minor Land Partition of 37 2W 11A Tax Lot 300 subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit C ); or 2. Deny the proposed Tentative. Plan for the Minor Land Partition; or 3. Continue the review of the Minor Land Partition at the discretion of the Commission. xhibi A. Site Plan, Building Plans and Letter of Description B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Comments from Other Agencies ~- ~ D. Recommended Conditions of Approval 53 ~, ~ ~ ,; ~ :. c u ~yns ~~~ 6 ~ G ~ ~^ rqH ~'~ u G r G~ty of Centr~-i Point EXHIBIT «A~t ~ ~„ Planning Department ~ °w. N i C ~ ~.~ 0 1~~ I ~~ oa. ~ r~~ ~~~ MlJ~ ~ r~ ~.~ ~ : _ C~ C ~~ _ a '•\ .. . \.., O O ~. 54 z p ~. 3 - "~ 1 0 ~ rnrn ~ 3 '1, ~c O s ~~ nrn~ ~o ~~ flo 0 N O N .'~.z fl° ~ l ~= -~ 3~ ~~ 3 N 7d N 1 p ~ ~ I; 9 ~ ~y. i A ~ CFA ~. ~~~ M City of Central ~'ornt PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Adrninistrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Cuy of ceYttra>, ralnt Date of Notice: May 5, 1998 ~~Hj~jT `t,B.t~ planning Department Meeting Dater June 2, 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 place and time, the Central Point Planning Commission will review applications for a Tentative Partition (3-parcel) and Tentative Subdivision (25-parcel) in the vicinity of Freeman Road and Cedar Street. The proposed development is located in a R-3, Residential Multi-Family caning district on tax lots 300, and 301 of Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W 11A. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Plans are set forth in Chapter 16 and 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 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, June 2, 1998. 2. Written comments maybe 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 55 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at I S cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Departrnent 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. ~~~~~ ~~~~ _~ ~D ,p SIflEET /^^\ \^ Subject Property 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-33211 Fax: (541) 664-6384 56 OS/1J/98 13: z8 ~FAb 5418z84588 FIRE DISTRICT IF3 ~oz FIRE DISTRICT No, 3 ,JACKSON COUNTY 8333 AGATE ROAD, wturE CITY, OREGON 97503-1075 (541) 826-7100 FAX (541) 826.4566 LILY of CeniTal Faint 5-13-98 Ken Gerschler Planning Technician RE: 98037 &98038 EXHI~T'I' t~Ctt Planning I)eputiment Fin: District iff3 has reviewed the fire hydrant layout for the Mock partition and the Cedar Shadows Subdivision and approves them based on plans reviewed on 5-13-98. Any changes to the Tice hydrant layout will require approval of Fire District#3 . ~~~ ~ ~c'_ ~Jeil Shaw Deputy Fire Marshal 5'7 BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY.. AUTHORITY 3915 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. •MEDFOflD, OHEOON 97 6 01-9 0 9 9 • (6411779.4114 • FAX (641) 635.6279 RECEIVED MAY 12 1998" May 8, 1998 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: Mock Partition- 98037TP Dear Ken, CITY OF CENTRAL. PAINT 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 require a sewer extension of the existing offsite sewer line and perhaps a line in a portion of possibly in proposed Shadow Way access road. Grants of sanitary sewer easement will be necessary for these lines unless the sheets are dedicated rights-of--way. Additional information will be necessary to determine service routing and easement needs for Parcel 3. Sincere ames May, Jr. P.E. District Engineer 5R RHY-Utt-ytS h K l Uli ~ l U Yf1 W t' NH tUKHL URS h HX NU. b4l tfbti 4 (yU Y. U l 5-8-98 FAX MEMO TO Central Point Planning Department. ' Ken Gcrschler, Planninfi Technician 664-3321 Fax 664-6384 FROM WP Naturnl Gas David McFadden 858-4740 Fax 858-4790 RE: Comments on Planning Action Applications 98-037-1'P Mock Partition WP Natural Gas recommends drat 10-foot Public Utility Easement be created along all stccotfrontages. 98-U38-TP Cedar Shadows Subdivision WP Natural Gas recommends that 10-foot Public Utility Easement be created along all street frontages. If the roadways are to be private, both the road right of way and the adjoining 10 feet should be established as a Public Utility Easement. WPNG recommends that the developer hold autility pra-design meeting with all utilities before developtnent of any lot. Call Before You Dig! 1-800-33Z-2344 it's The Law! 59 EXHIBIT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The approval of the Tentative Plan shall expire in one year on June 2, 1999 unless an application for final plat or extension has been received by the City. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. The tentative and final plats shall depict utility easements requested by the City, BCVSA and WP Natural Gas. Any changes to utility layout including fire hydrants shall require subsequent approval by the respective service provider. 4. The applicant shall make aneffort-to acquire an additional five feet of road right of way along the.northern frontage. of tax lot 201 of assessment plat 372W11A to expand Shadow Lane to a fu1125' width from Freeman Road. 5. The applicant shalladjust the boundary between lots 2 and 3 of the tentative partition to meet the requirements of CPMC 16.30.130. ~Q CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OFPUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for MOCK PARTITION PW#98037 Date: Applicant: Project: Location: Legal: Zoning: Area: Units: Plans: Report By: Purpose May 29', 1998 James and Sharon Mock, 527 Freeman Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Dallas Page, 900 Windemar Drive, Ashland, Oregon 97520 Minor Land Partition: 1 to 3 lots East of Intersection of Freeman Road and Ash Street T37S; R2W, Sectioh 11A, Tax Lot 300 R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District 1.25 Acres. 3 lots with sizes 18,178; 16,203, and 19,922 square feet respectively. 1 page entitled "Tentative Partition -Mock", dated 4/22/98, prepared by Eagle-Eye Surveying Corporation. Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed industrial facility. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. Review Note: This partition application was submitted with an application for the adjoining tax lot to the north; tax lot 301. Proposed development on Tax lot 301 is for a planned unit development (PUD) (hereinafter referred to as the "Cedar Shadows PUD") which has vehicular and pedestrian access off the flag lot's driveway. This staff report is based on the assumption of creation of the minor partition only. If the Cedar Shadows PUD is approved by the City's Planning Commission, there the applicable portions of the PWD conditions of approval for the Cedar Shadows PUD would also apply to the subject Mock partition. Special Requirements Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing .infrastructure (i'~e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure, or will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as approved by (as applicable), the regulatory agericy, utility owner, and/or property owner involved. 2. Flag Lot Access/Shadow Way: CPMC 16.36.040 B. Requires "no less than twenty feet wide" access to the lot paved with cement or asphaltic surface to City standards. According to the assessors map there is only a 20 foot strip of land available for access. The Developer's plan iliiastrates a width of 20.65 feet. If, within this 20 to 20.65 foot wide access; the proposed fence is constructed (assuming a necessary 1 foot width for installation of posts), and curbs are installed (assuming two curbs with a width of 0.5 feet, as shown on the tentative plan) results in an available width of only 18 to 18.65. feet which is less than 20 foot minimum width required for driveway access. It is the PWD's opinion that the maximum available width does not afford safe vehicular passage of two way traffic. Thus, if the Developer proposes access to the three lots from this shared driveway, that additional access width would need to be obtained from the adjoining tax lots to afford the minimum paved width of 20-feet. If the developer is proposing to make this access way a private or public street, then the following minimum vehicular traffic paved access widths would be recommended: Private Streets: The City does not have standards for private streets. The City has. recently approved private. street widths ranging between 24-foot curb to curb width with 0.5 foot curbs on both sides of the street (Rosewood. Estates; 25-foot width in total), to 29-foot curb to curb width with 0.5 foot curbs on both sides of the street (Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park: 30-foot width In total). No parking on streets permitted. A minimum 25-foot width (24-foot width curb-to-curb) is recommended. Public Streets: The City is utilizing a new "Residential Lane" standard which consists of the following: ^ A 25-foot-wide traveled section, with a 2 percent crown ^ Standard curb and gutters ^ A 2-foot-wide. strip located behind the curb for installation of water meter service box ^ Requires a 30-foot-wide right-of-way. ^ Street parking not allowed on residential lanes. These Residential Lanes are designed to accommodate access to a maximum of 10 dwelling units, and are intended to be used for "in-fill" type projects only. Sight-triangles:. Field review of this property's access to Freeman Road indicates that the sight- triangles are currently blocked by topography, trees, and other obstructions that do not afford the propersight triangles fora "residential access" or "local street" that connects to a secondary arterial (the classification for Freeman Road), which requires a 55-foot sight triangle. The Developer should be required to make arrangements with the adjacent property owners to obtain the proper sight triangles, clear of obstructions, prior to the initiation of new development on this partition. 3. Sidewalks:. The City PWD is recommending that a 5-foot wide sidewalk section (with a suitable public ingress and egress. easement requirement) be provided overlying the public-utility- easement or partitioned properties to facilitate pedestrian traffic. The sidewalk would be installed as part of the development and will be maintained by the. property owner, similar to the City's current ordinance requirement. The City PWD is further recommending that a portland cement concrete drive approach (constructed somewhat similar to driveway aprons) would be required at the intersection with Freeman Road, the design of which would be jointly determined by the Developer, the City PWD, and JC Roads. 3. Storm Drainage Infrastructure: It is our understanding that the storm drainage irifrastructure will be privately operated and maintained. A suitable system will need to be designedfior a minimum 10-year storm event, designed to the City's Public Works Department's Standard Specifications and Details (PWD Standards), or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. The discharge. point and potential retention of storm water run-off shall be coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide an aesthetically pleasing, Mock Partition Ten(ative Plan PWD StafjReport May 29, ! 998 Page 3 efficient, and low maintenance facility. Any storm water retention facilities shall be suitably landscaped; designed to mitigate erosion. and sediment and hydrocarbon deposition; and to mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these facilities. If applicable, the Developer shall also secure written permission to connect/discharge into adjoining storm water conveyance facilities managed by other jurisdictional agencies. 4. Water Distribution System: The water distribution system will need to be designed in accordance with City Standards, allowing a valved, 8-inch tee stub-out for potential future development on tax lot 301. 5. Riahfs-of -Wav: Provide dedication for expansion of the right-of-way along Freeman Road to 84-feet in width (42-feeYeach side of centerline). This will require dedication of 12-feet of right- ' of-way from the Developer's property that fronts Freeman Road. Provide suitable and acceptable easements for any public works infrastructure located outside the public right-of-way. A separate 10-foot minimum width public utilities easement (P.U.E.) should also be required outside the Freeman Road right-of-way and Shadow Way street section for utility installation. 6. Hammerhead Turnaround: A suitablehammerhead turnaround or City standard cul-de-sac will need to be designed at the end ofthe driveway (Shadow Way) to afford emergency vehicle and utility vehicle turnaround. The current cul-de-sac design and location is unacceptable as proposed without the allowance for continuation of Shadow Way to the North. 7. Improvements fo Freeman Road: All improvements to Freeman Road including, but not limited to, street section, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bikeways, street lights, storm drainage, and - traffic control and delineation, shall be coordinated and approved by the JC Roads and the City PWD, and'constructed at the expense of the Developer as part of the development of the proposed subdivision. Acceleration and deceleration lanes meeting JC Roads standards may need to be provided at the proposed development's intersections with Freeman Road. As approved by the City Admihistrator, the Developer may request or be required to defer any or all of the required improvements along Freeman Road until a later date. If any or all of the improvements are to be deferred to a later date, then the Developer will be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement with the City for the development/improvement of the street section and appurtenances (i.e. sidewalks, curb, gutter, street lights, storm drainage, etc.) along the development's frontages with Freeman Road, as required and approved by the JC Roads and City PWD General All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications; details, standards, and/or upgrades as may be.approved by the City Administrator or-his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to implementation. 2. Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals, and conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Department of Fish and Mock Partition Tentative Plan PWD S(aff Report May 29, /998 Page 4 Wildlife (DFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Division, of State Lands (DSL),U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), affected irrigation districts, and JC Roads. 3. Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the. Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings.. If feasible, the Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy' form (produced on Mylar~') and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCA~, orother form as approved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved construction plans that identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of 'actual installed items; including, but not limited to, invert, inlet; and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; road alignment; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral stationing; modifications to street section; manhole and. curb inlet locations; street light locations; other below grade utility line locations and depths; etc. Provide a+'red- line" hard copy (on Myla~); or an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD~ compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public. infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as otherwise: approved by the City Administrator or his: designee. 4. All elevations used on She construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and.on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. At least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of which shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer. 5. If applicable, all existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures, clear and grub materials, and other deleterious materials shall be removed from the site and either recycled or properly disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the DEQ. 6.' Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water,. and storm drain [if applicable]) should be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines.. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.E. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five (5) feet from the edge of the easement. If two or more City owned utilities are located within an easement, then. a minimum of 20-foot width should be required: Easement dedications in final deeds or CC&Rs need a statement which should clearly indicate that easements must be maintained with suitable, driveable vehicular access to City public infrastructure facilities, as determined by the City PWD. Prior to the City PWD final approval of the construction plans for the proposed improvements, the following shorlld be submitted: ^ A copy of written approval from Fire District 3 of the final street and driveway layout, site access, fire hydrant placement, and water system improvement plans for the proposed development. ^ The plans relating to the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the appropriate signature blocks should be completed on the plans. Mock Partition Tentative Plan PWD Staff Report May 29, /998 Page S ^ A copy of written approval from JC Roads regarding Freeman Road improvements (as applicable) and driveway connections to Freeman Road. 8. Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, top of banks, ditch/channel inverts, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed development's infrastructure will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submittal for final approval. 9. Overhead power lines. If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US West, and TCI Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities within the proposed development to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer. 10. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) onthe construction plans and as-built drawings. 11. The Developer's engineer orsurveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a drawing •. of the recorded Final Plat'map reproduced on Mylat~ and in an acceptable electronic form in x -_ AutoCAD® format. The Final Plat shall be tied to a legal Government corner and the State Plane '. Coordinate System. The Final Plat shall either reflect or be later modified to reflect any applicable "red-line" changes noted in the construction "as-builts", at the discretion of the City 'Administrator or his designee. 12. If the proposed development places structures within the 100-year floodzone of Mingus Creek, the Developer's engineer will be required to explain and provide detail as to what affect the placement of these structures will have on the floodzone; what affect it will have on the floodplain elevation and floodzone boundary; and what affects the modification of the fldodplain elevation and floodzone boundary will have on the existing and proposed facilities, and properties surrounding the proposed development. As applicable,the Developer's engineer shall determine the existing Base Flood Elevation contours and illustrate the existing boundaries of the Floodplain and floodway fora 100-year storm event (commonly referred to as the "Base Flodd Event") associated'with Mingus Creek, on the construction plans submitted for the development. The drawings shall also indicate the revised Base Flood Elevation contours and boundaries of the Fldodplain and Floodway expected to occur following the completion of any development within the identified floodzone (also referred to as the'Area of Special Flood Hazard"): Streets/Traffic Existing Improvements - Freeman Road -Secondary Arterial. Current ROW 60' wide, ` varying street width. Right-of Way required: 84-foot width; 42-foot on either side of centerline. Jurisdiction -Jackson County. 1. Cdnstruction`drawingsfortkis Tentative Plan shall include a Street Lighting Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City PWD or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his Mock Par[i[ion Tentative Plan PWD Staff Report May 29, 1998 Page 6 designee. The. construction drawings shall include clearvision areas designed to meet the City's PWD Standards. 2. The Developer's engineershall, at the cost of the Developer, evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the driveway/street section designs to accommodate the expected loads {including fire equipment) to be traveled on these driveways. If a public street, then the City will design the required street section. Storm Drainage, Irrigation Improvements Existing Improvements - Mingus Creek across the southeast corner of proposed development. Rogue River Valley Irrigation. District potentially controls irrigation rights within the project area including conveyance of water in Mingus Creek. 1. Developer's engineer shall develop a facility plan for the storm drain collection, retention, and conveyance system (SD System) which provides for storm water run-off from and run-on onto the. proposed development (either surface run-on or culvert or creek/ditch conveyance), any existing or future development omadjacent properties, conveyed storm drainage, or surface waterflow (i.e. Mingus Creek),. and any areas.deemed by the City that will need to connect-into the proposed development's SD System. 2. Developer's engineer shall determine how SD system will work during 10-year and 100 year flood events associated with Mingus Creek. Identify the HGL in Mingus Creek during 10- and 100-year storm event, and what affect it will have on the proposed outlets and storm drain system. System should be designed to adequately drain 10-year storm without surcharging or should be provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to prevent backflow of water from Mingus Creek up into SD system during storm events. 3. During the design of the SD system, the Developer's engineer shall consider the, effect of the proposed improvements and structures with regard to the 100-year base flood event floodway and floodplain of Mingus Creek. The design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system (SD System) should provide for storm water run-off from and,run-on onto the proposed development (either surface run-on or culvert or creek/ditch conveyance); the Developer shall demonstrate that the storm water flows from the completion of the proposed development (and at any time prior to completion of development) do not exceed predevelopment flows into Mingus Creek; or that allowances or provisions have been made (and approval. of the applicable properties owners and regulatory agencies has been obtained), which accommodate any additional flow which exceed predevelopment flows: The Developer and the City PWD shall agree on the applicable run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc., to be used in the engineering calculations. 4. Developer's engineer-shall provide a site drainage plan with the facilities being designed, at a minimum, to accommodate a 10 year storm event. The SD system must be designed to adequately drain the 10-year storm event without surcharging or must be provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to not impact existing public storm drainage facilities. Catch basins and area drains shall be designed for on-site sediment and Mock Partition Tentative Plan PWD SfnfjReporf Mny 29, 1998 Page 7 petroleum hydrocarbon retention. The private storm drain system shall be designed to directly connect to the public storm drain system,'and shall not be designed to discharge to the street surfaces. Surface drainage from the fuel storage and dispensing facilities shall not be directly connected to the storm drainage system without prior approval by the DEQ and City PWD. 5. Roof drains and underdrains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain lines, and shall drain to the on-site private storm drain system. 6. Any discharge points of the storm water facilities shall be designed to provide an aesthetically pleasing, useful, and low maintenance facility, that are designed to mitigate erosion, damage, or loss during a 100 year storm event; and that mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these types of facilities. 7. Prior to City PWD construction plan review, the Developer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the SD system, which shall incorporate the use of the City PWD's rainfall/intensity curve, and City approved run- off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, pipe roughness coefficients, etc., that are used in the engineering calculations. 8. Storm drain pipe materials shall be PVC, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with water-tight joints. Provide concrete orsand-cement slurry encasement where required in areas of minimum cover. 9. If inlets/catch basins are to exceed 4.5 feet In depth from the lip of the inlet, then the inlets and catch basins shall be designed to afford suitable "man" entry into the inlets/catch basin for maintenance/cleaning purposes. 10. Developer's engineer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations and flow line plots for private and public storm drains. Plot HGL on profile or provide a separate profile drawing that indicates the HGL on the profile: Pipes should maintain cleaning velocity (minimum 2.0 feet per second) and have adequate capacities without surcharging during the. design storm. 11. The Developer may wish to incorporate the use of a perforated SD system. If so, then the perforated storm drain system shall be designed to have adequate capacities to: ^ Convey the collected groundwater and storm water with the minimum cleaning velocities and without surcharging the collection and conveyance piping; and ^ Minimize silts, sands, gravels, and fines migration from the native soils into the SD system. The plotted HGL shall include both the groundwater infiltration, and the storm water run-off and run-on inflows into the SD system. 12. Maintain a minimum 0.2-foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes and curb inlets, unless flow-through velocities during the design storm event exceed 3.0 feet per second (fps). If flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps and the inlet pipe is in relatively direct (i.e. 180 t 5 degree) horizontal alignment with the outlet pipe, then as a minimum the pipe slope shall be maintained through the base of the manhole orcurb inlet. If flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps, and there is other than relativelydirect horizontal alignment between the inlet and outlet pipes, then Mock Partition Tentative Plan PWD Staff Report May 29, 1998 Page 8 ,. a minimum of a 0.1-foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes or curb inlet must be maintained. A bottom channel shall be formed in the. manhole or curb inlet base to mitigate transitional losses and enhance flow through the manhole or curb inlet. 13. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. 14. Plans which propose to include the discharge to Mingus Creek and any construction or modification within the floodway of Mingus Creek or in the road ditches, shall be in compliance with DSL, ACOE, ODFW, DEO; JC Roads, and/or City PWD (as applicable) guidelines and requirements. and any applicable conditions and or approvals, of these regulatory. agencies. Sanitary Sewer All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design, construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the.. Oregon DEO, 1990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals. 3: The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary approval,. will forward the plans to BCVSA for completion of the review process. Upon completion of the review by BCVSA, completion of final revisions to the plans by the Developer's engineer, and following the final approval and signature on the construction plans by BCVSA, the Public Works Director will approve the plans in final form. 4. All testing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be done in accordance with BCVSA requirements, at Developer's expense.. The Developer shall provide BCVSA and the City with test reports, TV reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance. Water System The water system shall be designed to provide the required fire flow demand capacities for the proposed facility, which meet Fire District 3 requirements. Maximum spacing of fire hydrants shall be 300 feet. The water system shall be of reinforced flow ("looped") design. Water service lateral connection stationing and size shall be provided on construction plans and as-built drawings. 2. Developer shall comply with Oregon Heaith Division (OHD) and City requirements for backflow prevention. Site work, Grading, and Utility Plans 1. Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final.grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour Mack Partition Tentative Plan PWD StafjReport May 29, 1998 Page 9 lines should be labeled with elevations. 2. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. 3. Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company which reflects all utility line locations, crossings, transformer locations, valves, etc. 4. Utility locations must be accurately included on the as-built drawings, or as a separate set of drawings attached to the as-built drawings. Rights of Ways/Easements If applicable, Developer shall provide a Statement of Water Rights (on a City approved form), for any affected properties. For properties determined to have water rights, the developer will coordinate with the State Watermaster the re-allocation of any waters attached to lands no longer irrigable as a result of the proposed development. @., a PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: June 2, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP ' Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Plan for the Cedar Shadows Planned Unit Development located on 37 2W 11A Tax Lot 301 Applicant/ W.G. $eard er• 1570 Angel Crest Drive Medford, OR 97504 agent: Dallas Page 900 Windemar Drive Ashland, OR 97520 Property Description/ 37 2W11A Tax Lot 301- 2.30 acres Zonine: R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District The applicants originally submitted a tentative plan fora 26 unit single-family padlot development (Exhibit A). Due to several unique developmeatfeatures (wmmon area,- on- street parking, etc.) and the inability to satisfy some of the City's zoning and access requirements, the applicants subsequently submitted a request to develop a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which premits more development flexibility without the necessity of applying for variances. As the Commission may be aware, PUDs must be processed as Conditional Usesin the R-3 zoning district. u on CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on conditional use permits and preliminary development plans for planned unit developments. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B). ~~, 61 ,. Applicable Law City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. Tentative Plans CPMC 17.28.010 et seq. R-3, Residential Multiple Family District CPMC 17.60.130 General Provisions, Access CPMC 17.60.210 General Provisions, Padlot Developments CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. Planned Unit Development CPMC 17.76.010 et.seq. Conditional Use Permit Padlot Developments Padlot developments are a permitted use in all zoning districts in Central Point with the exception of the R-1 district. Development proposals are normally processed as a subdivision application which is how Cedar Shadows was originally introduced. Under CPMC 17.60.210, parent lots must comply with the standard requirements for lots, which in the R-3 zone call for a lot area of 6000 square feet. Additionally, CPMC 17.60.130 requires a minimum frontage for padlots of not less than 30 feet. None of the parent lots in Cedar Shadows met the minimum area requirements and there were several instances in which lots did not meet the minimum frontage (refer to Exhibit A, flag lots 11, 12, 16, 17, 23 & 24). The common areas, on-street parking and narrower (private). streets proposed by the applicant have all lead to this development being considered under the City's PUD guidelines. Conditional Use Permit CPMC 17.28.030 lists Planned Unit Developments as a conditional use in the R-3, Residential Multiple Family District. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit Conditional uses require special consideration so that they may be properly located with respect to ... the zoning title and their effect on surrounding properties.. The Planning Commission in granting a Conditional Use Permit must find as follows: A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code. ^ The parcel for this.proposed development has an area of 2.30 acres and because it does not satisfy current padlot requirements, is being processed as a PUD. 6~ ^ The applicant has created 26 buildable lots, l3 of which are considered parent Tots. The residential density for the R-3 zoning district is 6 to 12 units per acre -.and irrthis case could. accommodate up to 28 units.: B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway. and that the street or highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use. ^ Each of the twenty six lots in :the Cedar Shadows PUD would access Freeman Road from a private 25 foot wide street (Shadow Way) which narrows to 20 feet at its intersection with Freeman Road. The Public Works Director has raised a question regarding the adequacy of the sight distance triangles from Shadow .Way onto Freeman which is a secondary arterial. The lot to the south is unobstructed but the .lot to the north does not satisfy ,the public work requirement. ^ The Planning Commission approved the fourteen lot Rosewood Estates Subdivision with a 25 foot private road last year. C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. ^ The proposed padlot development if approved would provide a less or equally intense development to the parcel than if the developer were to construct an apartment complex. D. That the conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare ^ Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority commented that sewer service can be provided to the site. ^ Jackson County Fire District Number 3 will require the: developer to provide. hydrant locations for the project. Planned Unit Development A planned unit development (PUD) may be permitted in an R-3 zoning district subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Pernut and a preliminary development plan. If the preliminary developmentplan is approved, an application for final development plan must be submitted within six months of such approval. 63 CPMC 17.68.010 states that the purpose of planned unit development (PUD) is to gain more effective use of open space, realize the advantages of large-scale site planning and the mixing of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and enviromnental preservation. This is achieved by allowing a variety of buildings and structures, types of open space, variable building heights and setbacks, and shared services and facilities. A PUD can be residential, commercial or industrial in nature. The proposed PUD is a single family residential padlot development. It consists of twenty-six (26) lots ranging in size from 2,210 to 14,129 squaze feet. Each lot will be constructed with a single family attached residence from 1,400 to 1,500 squaze feet in size. One lot has been reserved-for an existing single family residence on the site (refer to Exhibit A). Access to the site will be from Freeman Road via a pridate road serving the twenty six lots and the three Mock Partition lots. Each Dwelling unit will have atwo-car garage and additional on-street visitor parking is also provided. The applicant plans to construct the project in a single phase, taking approximately two years (see Exhibit C). The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary. development plan for compliance with the City's water, sewer, storm drain and transportation standards. The Public Works staff report is attached as Exhibit E. Written comments were also received from Fire District #3, and WP Natural Gas which discuss each agency's requirements for the planned unit development (Exhibit F). Other-correspondence received .(Exhibit F) includes a petition signed by 24 people all of whom live on Freeman Road and object primarily to the two-story buildings proposed by the applicant. One neighbor from the Meadows Manufactured Home Park asked that the applicants build a masonry wall as a barrier from Mingus Creek. Criteria for PUD The applicant has prepared documentation that addresses the development schedule for a PUD set forth in Chapter 17.68 of the Central Point Municipal Code (Exhibit C). Staff has reviewed the development schedule and determined that the standards for a PUD can be met for this project subject to the recommended conditions of the Planning Department (Exhibit D) and the Public Works Department (Exhibit E). Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for PUD 1. The project proposes the development of a planned unit development on 2.30 acres consisting of twenty-five single family dwelling .units and one existing single family dwelling. 6 -1 findings of fact for consideration by the Commission (Exhibit G). The City finds that the project complies with the purposes and requirements of a planned unit development. 2. The Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the preliminary development plan for the planned unit development for compliance with municipal rules, regulations and standards. The project meets all City standards and requirements subject to the recommended conditions of the Planning Department (Exhibit D) and the Public Works Department (Exhibit E). Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the preliminary development plan for a planned unit development... 1. Adopt Resolution No.~ approving conditional use permit and preliminary development plan for the Cedar Shadows ]?UD, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in the staff reports; or 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit and preliminary development plan for the Cedar Shadows PUD,based on findings of fact articulated by the Commission. 3. Continue the review of the subject application at the discretion of the Commission. i its A. Tentative Plan-Cedar Shadows PUD, Building Elevations B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Applicants Projected Construction Schedule D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions E. Public Works Staff Report & Recommended Conditions F. Correspondence G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for PUDs J O Q g U y~~ 1 p^V L ! N ~fi.2A e li ,I , ~wM:M.p ~ ~~ A la Iwo ~IG,,I °III-~ I L 16 II5 J L ~ .n .e IYwla M ~I w. O lae .~ (rl - I n-nw-n. w la we 1 ~ uir i O O W i i O _ . ~ `t I 4/ lal nx-wti-~.. ~ m u. e» Wi ~ wi i lww•m•w Wi w. J lei i O SHAt00W 'WAY C .......... ~ ~ 'I 5 .a .i .a .. l01 w ul u ary o r centrri ro't~c - E~HI~iT t'A't Planning Deparhnen't ;~ S O i ~rn y `G I~~lti~ ~ o .qA ~~ `~' fii ~ IU ~~ O C ~ nw..w is la i~Y. l'+ 5 9 ~ V V c+ 3 lC iy. /~ mla wa ~ rn O N Z ~ i p ~ ~ .• un~w~w W O ~ -' ~ -n O N N "- rt ^ i re . !~ w ~ L p A O 3 P _ nn-.w O' 7 ~' ~I ~ y O ~ N •• 5 YO y, 3 . ~ iu: la ae R ~C '''}}~i N O /\ m V < ~ \ N \ G n-e,w_„~ I l9 rn N ~,p ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ 6 5 I 6 I 70 E i i N - ~ ... y ~ tl ~i i O .a ~ ..~ ................. ' 7 la u . 1 OF16`00 ~ O as $[ lM p 1 9 ui a b p Ip ~~ 6 1 ~ 10 IO 1 O it 1 i 1 i jl l ;1~ /~ 1 I ~1~ 1 ./. nn.+w-uea w{lei .epa '._- .^...~~..._... t~ €~ E? E~ E~ ~~ E € E E E d ~ ~ E { g~ ~~ $ O d • ~ Wyk I~ ~~R ~ y 9 k$ &~+ ~ gg ~~ a a a ~ ~~~ ~~~ y ~~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~9 ~ ~. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~€ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~'~ 1~ !i ~6! }~ ' d ~! ~~ ~~n ii ~•~ ~a~ ~ y~ I\ ~ I' I tpEli N~.: VZ \, ; e'e~ O)O 2 B' v N 6'7 French Door ~~~~fi' ...,~,y,,, ~°~ ~~- ~ o '~ ~ ~ ` ~: ' `~ G y w ~~.\. y C 1 U r W . -' I • it r L( i w .. •.. . ,. ,.,_. ~~ I.. j ---------- ------- ' Br 2 ~ 11-4x11 ___ ~ ' open te. ~~~ III l i bebw J ~, ~ i DN III\/II/II ~; skyr4 ~ ^. Br 3 y!~ I: 11-4x10 I ". 1 :~ ---- i '~ ~ ~-_ I .I, :" e~~~ ~~~Master Suite 12-6x15-4 vauneo _ _~ Patio ; i ,, ~ Dining _ ~ 12-4x10 i ~a<,nea of h Living Rm ~ ~ 12 ~a4unea3 ~~' U :,~ . _ ., ,J ~~ ~ ~~ ~J_ I ~ i ' '~v :h ir- _ -.. O u -- h -~ -~ ' ~~.. ! Kitchen 12-4x13 F = -- I~II lndry C,arage 19,4x21-4 y ~~~ ~v~ .:,j-- _., _ ~~~.~~ .: Plant. Shelf ~•~~- • ~ • • • AARSter." ~ I~ Bedroom French Doorsli .'12' X"16',~ to' ay: • ~ living Room Below ~ • i '^"'~~.~~~ ~~ Plant Shell ~ ~ i I Unen 2a Ix Bedroom 2 I I ti'-8' x 10' ~.<,; . Bedroom 3 10' x 10' i s i s ~ . ~ '` w~], -.M... N G7 x D N ~7 O x ~7 ~ ~ 4~ m ~~~ _ N ~~ ~ ~' ~ - • X. °_ x r~ - ~ Z c ~ < ~ ~ ~o o x ~ r1 0 riszr.. ......~_, D-~ O 111'I ~rl~l I111~i III11 1 tll~l Y ti: t •~ _~-!// ~--_-. r- - ~jr Ir ~~ - - mbr ~ ~ - 10'10X13 i ~ .OPEN II I TO ~ I '' I I BEIAW RAILING ~ I 1 O ___~ -- 9'IO X 9'10 J 9't0 br2 x9'io bra ~Illlil~l~ ,~I ~ ~ ,I 1 I1.V 1171 X 12'10 Sui~tcEN 20'4x22' two-ear garage '7 l din 14'X10' • ' ~ • ~ Bedroom 2'. ~'~'a+' ~ Bath 14'-4"X4.11'-8' 1. : y:~x'"''` ~ ` ~,y=3 ::~' . ~ S•' ~~' , PfeMt.edaw ..0 ' ~ee~' ... , " ..: r •~, Master Bedroom 15'-8' x 13' .~, Bedroom 3 r 11'-4' X 10' 4 28' ~I ~ ~C French Ooa '7 2 v (V a City of Central ~'oint PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning. Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting .Date of Notice: May 11, 1998 Meeting Date: June 2, 1998 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING aty of centrsi Point EXHII~IT t,;g tt Planning Department Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review Conditibnal Use Permit and Planned Unit Development applications fora 25 lot Planned Unit Development in the vicinity bf Freeman Road and Cedar Street. The proposed development is located in a R-3, Residential Multi-Family zoning district on tax lot 301 of Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W I IA. Additional Note: You may have recently received a notice in the mail concerning the development of a 251ot tentative subdivision on this tax lot. This is the same proper but the applicant has selected to process the project as a Planned UniYDevelopment rather than a standard subdivision. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (CPMC 17.68.010) is to gain more effective use. of open space, realize advantages of large scale site planning, mixing of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation by allowing a variety of buildings, structures, open spaces, allowable heights and setbacks of buildings and structures. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Conditional Use Permits arid Planned Unit Developments 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 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, June 2, 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. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 4 S cents per 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 applications for the Conditional Use Permit and the Planned Unit Development. 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 Planned Unit Development. City. regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ~ u~- SubJeat Property ~~ 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 PARTH~NO~j CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN City of Centrai I'ofiit EXHIBIT «C ~t Planning Department PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR CEDAR SHADOWS AFTER APPROVAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION WITH ANY CONDITIONS. FIRST 35 DAYS - - WORKING DRAWINGS BY ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR 35 '- 60 DAYS -- REVIEWED BY CITY AND APPROVED 60 - 90 DAYS -- EXCAVATION AND INSTALLATION OF SEWER, WATER AND STORM DRAIN LINES. 90 - 120 DAYS -- INSTALL CURBS, STORM DRAINS AND PAVING. START CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST MODEL UNIT. 120 -- 150 DAYS -- LANDSCAPING OF OPEN SPACE AND CONSTRUCTION OF T07 LOT AREA PERIMETER FENCING AND GATES. PROPOSE TO COMPLETE PROJECT WITHIN 2 YEARS OF BREAKING GROUND. e~ 900 WINDEMAlc ASHLAND, OREGON 97b20 teOS) X88-9E9E7b EXHIBIT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall submit an open space management plan to the Planning Department indicating the manner and schedule by which open space areas within the subdivision will be developed. This shall include any proposed landscaping, irrigation, architectural features and play equipment. All landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy, growing condition and shall be served by an automatic irrigation system. 2. The applicant shall include within the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the subdivision provisions governing the use, maintenance and improvement of common open space areas and authorizing the city to enforce these provisions. A copy of the recorded CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 3. The applicant shall submit a fencing plan to the Planning Department specifying the type and location of all fencing fqr the subdivision. 4. A homeowners' association shall be established for the proposed subdivision for the purpose of permanently maintaining all of the subject property, including common open space areas, individual residences and accessory structures. A copy of the recorded bylaws of the homeowners' association shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Divisiomof State Lands for the project as indicated by it's response to the Wetland Land Use Notification Form. 6. The approval of the preliminary development plan shall become void six months following the date of such approval unless an application for a final development has been submitted to the city containing in final form the information required in the preliminary plan. 7. The development of each residential lot within the planned unit development shall be limited to single-family attached dwellings with allowed accessory uses. 8. The PUD shall be developed in accordance with the preliminary development plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Modifications to the preliminary development shall be subject to further review and approval by the Planning Commission. "7 6 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for CEDAR SHADOWS PUD PW#98038 Date:. May 29, 1998 Applicant; W.G. Beard, 1570 Angel Crest Drive, Medford, Oregon 97504 Agent: Dallas Page, 900 Windemar Drive, Ashland, Oregon 97520 Project: Cedar Shadows Planned Unit Development Location: East of Intersection of Freeman Road and Ash Street Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 11A, Tax Lot 301 Zoning: R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District Area: 2.3 Acres. Units: 26 lots Plans: 1 page entitled "Tentative Subdivision -Cedar Shadows", dated 4/22/98, prepared by Eagle-Eye Surveying .Corporation. Report By: Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director Purpose Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding City Public Works Department (PWD). standards,. requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed industrial facility. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. Review Nofe: This partition application was submitted with an application for the adjoining tax lot to the south; tax lot 300.. Proposed development on Tax lot 301 is for a minor partition (hereinafter referred to as the "Mock partition". The Cedar Shadows PUD needs vehicular and pedestrian access across lot 301. This staff report is based on the assumption that suitable access across tax lot 300, and either tax lot 900 or 201 can be obtained by the Developer to meet the requirements of the City. If the Mock Cedar Shadows PUD is approved by the City's Planning Commission, then the applicable portions of the PWD conditions of approval for the Mock partition would also apply to the subject Cedar Shadows PUD. Special Requirements 1. Exlsfing Infrastructure: ,The. Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of the. infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure, or will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as approved by (as applicable), the regulatory agency, utility owner, and/or property owner invglved. 2, Shadow Way: CPMC 16.36,040; B. Requires "no less than twenty feet wide" access to the lot paved. with cementor asphaltic surface to City standards. This is for flag lot access, and is the PWD interpretation that this type of access is not suitable for the proposed development. According to the: assessors map there is only a 20 foot strip of land available for access. The Cedar Shadows Subdivision PUD Tentative Plan P4VD S(afjRepor( Mny 29, 1998 Pnge 2 Developer's plan illustrates a width of 20.65 feet. If, within this 20 to 20.65 foot wide access, the proposed fence is constructed (assuming a Necessary 1 foot width for installation of posts), and curbs are installed (assuming two curbs with a width of 0.5 feet, as shown on the) results in an available width of only 18 to 18.65 feet which is less than 20 foot minimum width required for driveway access. It is the PWD's opinion that the maximum available width does not afford safe vehicular passage of two way traffic. Thus if the Developer proposes access to the three lots from this shared driveway, that additional access width would need to be obtaihed from the adjoining tax lots to afford the minimum paved width of 20-feet. If the developer is proposing to make this access way a private or public street, then the following minimum vehicular traffic paved access widths would be recommended: Private Streets: The City does not have standards for private streets. The City has recently approved private street widths ranging between 24-foot curb to curb width with 0.5 foot curbs on both sides of the street {Rosewood Estates; 25-foot width in total); to 29-foot curb to curb width with 0.5 foot curbs on both sides of the street (Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park: 30-foot width in total). No parking on streets permitted. A minimum 25-foot width (24-foot width curb-to-curb) is recommended. Public Streets: The City is utilizing a new "Residential Lane" standard which consists of the following: ^ A 25-foot-wide traveled section, with a 2 percent crown ^ Standard curb and gutters ^ A 2-foot-wide strip located behind the curb for installation of water meter service box ^ Requires a 30-foot-wide right-of-way. ^ ' ' Street parking not allowed oh residential lanes. However, these Residential Lanes are designed to accommodate access to a maximum of 10 dwelling units, and are intended to be used for "in-fill" type projects only. The proposed project is an "in-fill"type project, but has a significantly greater number of dwelling units (26) than the planned use of the Residential Lane. If a residential Lane was determined not to be appropriate for this development, then a standard local street would be required, which has a 50-foot right-of-way and acurb-to-curb width df 36 feet. Sight-triangles: Field review of this property's access to Freeman Road indicates that the sight- triangles are currently blocked by topography, trees, and other obstructions thatdo not afford the proper sight trianglesfior a "residential access" or "local street" that connects to a secondary arterial (the classification for Freeman Road), which requires a 55-foot sight triangle. The Developer should be required to make arrangements with the adjacent property owners to obtain the proper sight triangles; clear bf obstructions, prior to the initiation of new development on this partition. 3. Sidewalks: The City PWD is recommending that a 5-foot wide sidewalk section (with a suitable public ingress and egress easement requirement) be provided overlying the public-utility- easement or partitioned properties and/or lots to facilitatepedestrian traffic, if Shadow Way is to be a private street or Residential Lane. The sidewalK would be installed as part of the development and will be maintained by the property owner, similar td the City's current ordinance requirement. The City PWD is further recommending that a Portland cement concrete Cedar Slvndoivs Subdivision PUD Ten(a(ive Plan PWD S(aff 2epar( May 29, 1998 Page 3 drive approach (constructed somewhat similar to driveway aprons) would be required at the intersection with Freeman Road, the design of which would be jointly determined by the Developer, the City PWD, and JC Roads. 3. Storm Drainage Infrastructure: It is our understanding that the storm drainage, infrastructure will be privately operated and maintained. A suitable system will need to be designed for a minimum 10-year storm event, designed to the City's Public Works Department's Standard Specifications and Details (PWD Standards), or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. The discharge point and potential retention of storm water run-off shall be coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide an aesthetically pleasing, efficient, and low maintenance facility. Any storm water retention facilities shall be suitably landscaped; designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and hydrocarbon deposition; and to mitigate.the."attractive nuisance"hazards associated with these facilities. If applicable, the Developer shall also secure written permission to connecUdischarge into. adjoining storm water conveyance facilities managed by other jurisdictional agencies. 4. Water Distribution Sysfem; The water distribution system will need to be designed in accordance with, City Standards, allowing a valved, 8-inch tee stub-out for potehtial, future development on tax lot 301. 5. Rights-of -Wav: Provide dedication for expansion of the right-of-way along Freeman Road to 84-feet in width (42-feet each side of centerline). This will require dedication of 12-feet of right- _ of-way from the Developer's property that fronts Freeman Road. Provide suitable and _ acceptable easements for any public works infrastructure located outside the public right-of-way. A separate 10-foot minimum. width public utilities easement (P.U.E.) should also be required outside the Freeman Road right-of-way and Shadow Way street section for utility installation. 6. Cu/-De-Sac Turnaround: The cul-de-sac for the 90-degree turn of Shadow Way should have a minimum radius of 28-feet to face of curb, and have a minimum 24-foot wide driveable access to the north and west. /-~t provements fo Freeman Road: All improvements to Freeman Road including, but not limited to, street section, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bikeways, street lights, storm drainage, and - traffic control and delineation, shall be coordinated and approved by the JC Roads and the City PWD, and constructed atahe expense of the Developer as part ofthe development of the proposed subdivision. Acceleration and deceleration lanes meeting JC Roads standards may need to be provided at the proposed development's intersections with Freeman Road. As approved bythe City Administrator, the. Developer may request or be required to defer any or all of the required improvements along Freeman Road until a later date.- If any or all of the improvements are to be deferred to a later date, then the Developer will be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement with the City for the development/improvement of the street section and appurtenances (i.e. sidewalks, curb, gutter, street)ights, storm drainage, etc.) along the development's frontages with Freeman Road, as required and approved by the JC Roads and City PWD 8. ' Creek Setback Requirements: Creek setback requirements (particularly CPMC 1fi.60.090 E.) may make lots 18, 19, 20, 21,22,23, and 24 unbuildable due to setback requirements. Should require maintenance access easement and 20-foot. Cedar Shadows Subdivision PUD Ten(n(ive Plan PWD SlafjRepa~( May 19, 1998 Page 4 maintenance access road as indicated in the this creek setback requirement of the City's municipal code. 9. Water DJstribution System: The water system should be of "reinforced loop" design: a second connection will need to be made to the City's distributionsystem. The. propbsed system is a "dead-end" loop that would be better served by a reinforced Idop design. The City will work with the Developer to obtain the necessary easem2nts, if feasible, to obtain the reinforced loop design required. General 1. All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commissldn; and other special specifications, details, standards, and/or upgYades as may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development: During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD for approval priorto implementation. 2. Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals, and conditions as may be required by'other agencies, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Divisionof State Lands (DSL), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), affected irrigation districts, and JC Roads. 3. Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings: If feasible; the Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form (produced on Mylar®) and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCA~, or other form as approved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved construction plans that identify the locatiohs and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; road alignment; water lines; valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral stationing; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet locations; street light locations; other below grade utility line locations and depths; etc. Provide a "red- line" hard copy (on Myla~), or an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD'~ compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior Yo acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. 4. All elevations used on the construction plans, on tempdrary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. At least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of which shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer. 5. If applicable, all existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures, clear and grub materials, and other deleterious materials shall be removed from the site and either recycled or properly disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the DEQ: Cednr Sbndoivs Subdivision PUD Tentn(ive Plnn P 4VD StnfjRepor( A4ny 29, 1998 Page 5 Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable]) should be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and; water lines should be dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.E. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five (5) feet from the edge of the easement,. If two or more City owned utilities are located within an easement, then a minimum of 20-foot width should be required. Easement dedications in final deeds or CC&Rs nei;d a statement which should clearly indicate that easements must be maintained with suitable, driveable vehlculacaccess to City public infrastructure facilities, as determined by the City PWD. 7. Prior to the City PWD final approval of the construction plans for the proposed improvements, the following should be submitted: ^ A copy of written approval from Fire District 3 of the final street and driveway layout, site access; fire hydrant placement, and water system improvement plans for the proposed development: ^ The plans relating to the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the appropriate signature blocks should be completed on the plans. .; _ ^ A copy ofwritten approval from JC Roads regarding Freeman Road improvements (as applicable) and driveway connections to Freeman Road. 8. Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations,. .~ . top of banks, ditch/channel inverts, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed development's infrastructure will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submittal for final approval 9. Overhead power lines. If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US West, and TCI Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities within the proposed development to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by and between the utility ownersand the Developer. 10. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) on the construction plans and as-built drawings. 11. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a,drawing of the recorded Final Platmap reproduced on Mylar~ and in an acceptable electronic form in AutoCAD®format. The Final Plat shall be tied to a legal Government coiner and the State Plane Coordinate System. The Final Plat shall either reflect or be later modified to reflect any applicable "red-line" changes noted in the construction "as-builts", at the discretion of the City Administrator or his designee:' 12. If the proposed development places structures within the 100-year floodzone of Mingus Creek, the Developer's engineer will be required to explain and provide detail as to what affect the placement of these structures will have on the floodzone; what affect it will have on the Cednr Slmdows Subdivision PUD Tentntive Pfnn PWD Staff Repay Mny 29, 1998 Pnge 6 floodplain elevation and floodzone boundary; and what affects the modification. of the floodplain elevatidn and floodzone boundary will have on the existing and proposed facilities, and properties surrounding the proposed development. As applicable, the Developer's engineer shalt determine the existing Base Flood Elevation contours and illustrate the existing boundaries of the Floodplain and floodway fora 100=yearstorm event (commonly referred to as the "Base Flood Event") associated with Mingus Creek, on the construction plans submitted for the development. The drawings shall also ihdicate.the revised Base Flood Elevation contours and bouhdaries of the Floodplain and Floodway expected to occur following the completion of any development within the identified floodzone (also referred to as the'Area of Special Flood Hazard"). StreetsRraffic Existing Improvements - Freeman Road -Secondary Arterial Current ROW 60' wide, varying street width. Right-of Way required: 84-foot width; 42-foot on either side of centerline. Jurisdiction -Jackson County. 1. Construction drawings for this Tentative Plan shall include a Street Lighting Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City PWD or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. The construction drawings shall include clear vision areas designed to meet the City's PWD Standards. 2. The Developer's engineer shall, atthe cost of the Developer, evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the driveway/street section designs to accommodate the expected loads (including fire equipment) to be traveled on these driveways. If a public street, then the City will design the required street section. Storm Drainage, Irrigation Improvements Existing Improvements - Mingus Creekacross the eastern boundary of proposed development. - Rogue River Valley Irrigation District potentially controls irrigation rights within the project area including conveyance of water in - Mingus Creek. 1. Developer's engineer shall develop a facility plarrfor the storm drain collection, retention, and conveyance system (SD System) which provides for storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (either surface run-on or culvert or creek/ditch conveyance), any existing or futuri; development on adjacent properties, conveyed storm drainage, or;surface water flow (i:e: Mingus Creek), and any areas deemed by the City that will need to connect-into the proposed development's SD System.: Developer's engineer shall determine how SD system will work during 10-year and 100. year flood events associated with Mingus Creek. Identify the HGL in Mingus Creek during 10-and 100-year storm event, and what affect it will have on the proposed outlets and storm drain system. System should be designed to adequately. drain 10-year storm without surcharging or should be provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed tq prevent Cedar Shadows Subdivision PUD Tentative Plan PWD Stafj'Report May 29, 1998 .. Page 7 backflow of water from Mingus Creek up into SD system during storm events. 3. During the design of the SD system, the Developer's engineer shall consider the effect of the proposed improvements. and structures with regard to the 100-year base flood event floodway and floodplain of Mingus Creek. The design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system (SD System) should provide for storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (either surface run-on or culvert or creek/ditch conveyance); the Developer shall demonstrate that the storm water flows from the completion of the proposed development (and at any time prior to completion of development) do not exceed predevelopment flows into Mingus Creek; or that allowances or provisions have been made (and approval of the applicable properties owners and regulatory agencies has been obtained), which accommodate any additional flow which exceed predevelopment flows. ,The Developer and the City PWD shall agree on the applicable run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance; etc., to be used in the engineering calculations. 4. Developer's engineer shall provide a site drainage plan with the facilities being designed, at a minimum, to accommodate a 10 year storm event. The SD system must be designed to adequately drain the 10-year storm event without surcharging or must be provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to not impact existing public storm drainage facilities: Catch basins and area drains shall be designed for on-site sediment and - petroleum hydrocarborrretention. The private storm drain system shall be designed to directly connect to the public storm drain system, and shall not be designed to discharge to the street surfaces. Surface draihage from the fuel storage and dispensing facilities shall not be directly - connected to the storm drainage system without prior approval by the DEQ and City PWD. 5. Roof drains and underdrains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain lines, and shall drain to the on-site private storm drain system. 6. Any discharge points of the storm water facilities shall be designed to provide an aesthetically pleasing, useful, ahd low maintenance facility, that are designed to mitigate erosion, damage, or loss during a 100 year. storm event; and that mitigate the "attractive;nuisanse" hazards associated with these types of facilities. Prior to City PWD construction plan review, the Developer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the SD system, which shall incorporate the use of the City PWD's rainfall/intensity curve, and City approved run- off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, pipe. roughness coefficients, etc.,. that are used in the engineering calculations. 8. Storm drain pipe materials shall be PVC, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with water-tight joints. Provide concrete orsand-cement slurry encasement where required in areas of minimum cover. 9. If inlets/catch basins are to exceed 4.5 feet in depth from the lip of the inlet, then the inlets and batch basins shall be designed to afford suitable "man" entry into the inlets/catch basin for maintenance/cleaning purposes: 10. Developer's engineer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations and flow line plots for private and public storm drains. Plot HGL on profile or provide a separate profile drawing that indicates the HGL on the profile. Pipes should maintain cleaning velocity (minimum 2.0 feet per Cedar Shadows Subdivision PUD Tentative Plan PWD Staff Report May 29, /998 Page 8 second) and have adequate capacities without surcharging during the design storm. 11. The Developer may wish to incorporate the use of a perforated SD system. If so, then the perforated storm drain system shall be designed to have adequate capacities to: ^ Convey the collected groundwater and storm water with the minimum cleaning velocities and without surcharging the collection and conveyance piping; and ^ Minimize silts, sands, gravels, and fines migration from the native soils into the SD system..: The plotted HGL shall include'both the groundwater infiltration, and the storm water run-off and run-on inflows into the SD system. 12. Maintain a minimum 0.2-foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes and curb inlets, unless flow-through velocities during the design storm, event exceed 3.0 feet per second (fps). If flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps and the inlet pipe is in relatively direct (i.e. 180 t 5 degree) horizontal alignment with the outlet pipe, then as a minimum the pipe slope shall be maintained through the base of the manhole or curb inlet. If flow velocities exceed 3.Ofips, and there is other than relatively direct horizontal alignment between the inlet and outlet pipes, then a minimum of a 0.1-foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes or curb inlet must be maintained. A bottom. channel shall be formed in the manhole or curb inlet base to mitigate transitional losses and enhance flow through the manhole or curb inlet. 13. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. 14. Plans which propose to include the discharge to Mingus Creek and any construction or modification within the floodway of Mingus Creek or in the road ditches, shall be in compliance with DSL, ACOE, ODFW, DEOr JC Roads, and/or City PWD (as applicable) guidelines and requirements and any applicable conditions and or approvals, of these regulatory agencies. Sanitary-Sewer All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design, construction and testing shall conform to'the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEQ, 1990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. 2. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals; 3. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary. approval, will forward the plansto BCVSA for completion of the reviewprocess. Upon completion of the review by BCVSA, completion of final revisions to the plans by the Developer's engineer, and following the final-approval and signature on the construction plans by BCVSA, the Public Works Director will approve the plans in final form. 4. All testing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be done in accordance with BCVSA Cedar Shadows Sabdivision PUD Tentative Plan PWD Staff Report May 29, /998 Page 9 requirements, at Developer's expense. The Developer shall provide BCVSA and the City with test reports, TV reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance. Water System The water system shall be designed to provide the required fire flow demand capacities for the proposed facility, which meet Fire District 3 requirements. Maximum spacing of fire hydrants shall be 300 feet. The water system shall be of reinforced flow ("looped") design. Water service lateral connection stationing and size shall be provided on construction plans and as-built drawings. 2. Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for backflow prevention. Site work, Grading, and Utility Plans Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. r 2. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. 3. Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company which reflects all utility line locations, crossings, transformer locations, valves, etc. 4. Utility locations must be accurately included on the as-built drawings, or as a separate set of drawings attached to the as-built drawings. Rights of Ways/Easements If applicable, Developer shall provide a Statement of Water Rights (on a City: approved form), for any affected properties. For properties determined to have water rights, the developer will coordinate with the State Watermaster the re-allocation of any waters attached to lands no longer irrigable as a result of the proposed development. 77 Cent>'+~1 i'•' in :1 'tai! ~ t~e,~t. 155 South ;iecond :>treet Central. point Oh 9752 !MY 2 T 1998 This letter is concerning tentative sub-division in the vicinity of Freeman 1?d. and Cedar St. As a home owner in .the Meadows our property is adjacent to the tentative sub-division. If the plan is approved by the city we would like only single storey d~rellings and a barrier, such as a wall between-the Meadows and the property in question. We feel the barrier is neeesary because of Mingus 6Heek. City of Central Point E~:IiISI'I' itF tt Planning Department Thank you for your csonsidereration .Clayton & Phyllis Smith 555-27 Freemaxi Ad. Central Point, OH 97502 - 664-3288 ryJ~ ~~ S /(Yr /Gi Central Point City Hall 155 South Second St. Central Point, Oregon 97502 Petition We who live around the barrier of the proposed development of tax lot 301, in the vicinity of Freeman R.d and Cedar St., are verv much oggosed to the c9nstruction of any two-story building. This would introduce. a foreign type of structure in our neighborhood that would be in aesthetic and practical conflict with the previous structures - in which people have. lived for up to 21 years. Our view and our privacy would be taken away. Our property values would be adversely impacted. And those most directly affected were not informed about any previous meeting on this subject. We need to assure that the city is up front with us about any proposed changes to this existing neighborhood, and that our interests are properly represented. Print Name dr s re ~e.~~ ~c,c~,boau y6s sree,w~.Gvi R.~. ~ V 1~uld~.~ Cook . ~~ FY~'~Vhcx.H 1110 ~r~rA~ C Q~.L~D~,YS" EYLt/aA ~11/O ~e e~ .~ n/17a~~ 1 d ~'Y e cY1,tG.~/~ ur6's' F~eemfrn Rn .ZL ~, w~~S II.~C~~ »~ Z- I.t. Ss's ~vtir rx vvi ~ ~^ly- ,~SSFm~man ~ '6~ ~iNv ~~~~~ ,~. '79 S- /~'~ `7~'' Central Point City Hall 155 South Second St. Central Point, Oregon 97502 Petition We who live around the barrier of the proposed development of tax lot 301, in the vicinity of Freeman R.d and Cedar St. are very much opposed to the construction of any. two-story building. This would introduce a foreign type of structure in our neighborhood that would be in aesthetic and practical conflict with the previous structures - in which people have lived for up to 21 years. Our view; and our privacy would be taken away. Our property values would be adversely impacted. And those most directly affected werenot informed about any previous meeting on this subject. We need to assure that the city is up front with us about any proposed changes to this existing neighborhood, and thatour interests are properly represented. Print Name dr s Signature ~% , -vrivtr~ ~~~ .~. 80 Central Point City Hall 155 South Second St. Central Point, Oregon 97502 Petition We who live around the barrier of the proposed development of tax lot 301, in the vicinity of Freeman 12.d and Cedar St., are very much ogposed to the. construction of any two-storv building. This would introduce a foreign type of structure in our neighborhood that would be in aesthetic and practical conflict with the previous structures - in which people have lived for up to 21 years. Our view and our privacy would be taken away. Our property values would be adversely impacted. And those most directly affected were not informed about any previous meeting on this subject. We need to assure that the city is up front with us about any proposed changes to this existing neighborhood, and that our interests are properly represented. Print Name dr ss Signature sss Jld' ~~~"'»6A~1 ' "~ ICS V1~nfYy.d~ 1 .>f7li~n/~ .. 81. CTty of Central I?oiDif ~hxrr~rT ,rvGtt Planning Department 4. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA A. That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of this title: The proposed PUD would offer an affordable alternative for persons who desire to own a residence but might not be able to qualify for financing in other circumstances. B. The proposal will be consistent with. the .comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance,and other applicable policies of the city: The objectives of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and .other planning policies of the city are to have' residential development of high density in the area of the project site. The proposed development meets the gross density limits for the R-3, Residential Multiple Family Zone of the City of Central Point. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will.have minimal adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area: A majority of the parcel identified for .development has been ,vacant for many years and any development will affect the liveablity of surrounding properties. The R-3, Residential. Multiple' Family could allow a higher density apartment complex (25 units per acre) on this parcel. D. That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they are financially able to carry out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete said construction within a reasonable time as determined by the Commission: The developer is able to finance the project and intends to begin construction within six months of the final approval of theproject by all agencies. E. The traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, .internal traffic circulation and parking: The proposed development will impact existing traffic patterns with the single ingress/egress point located at the intersection of Freeman Road and Shadow Lane. Internal vehicle circulation is limited to a dead end street. Extra parking is provided at the interior terminus of Shadow Way and should result in a lack of need for parking to overflow the development during a social event. F. That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed: There is no commercial development proposed. G. That proposed industrial development will be effcient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage: There is no commercial development proposed. H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present: Mingus Creek follows the easterly boundary of the project and is not integrated as a portion of the development. The Central Point Municipal Code will require a minimum setback requirement of 25 feet from the top of bank. J - .. `' N I. The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area: This being a residential development, it will be compatible with the other developments in the area. J. The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land: Maintenance of the streets will be provided by a home owners association. The water system will be looped through the project to .provide better service on-site and enhance the City's distribution system. Other facilities will be needed to approximately the same degree as would be the case for a conventional subdivision having the same number of dwelling units. 83 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Central PoinfMunicipal Code Revisions and Adoption of Planning Fee Schedule Background The Commission may recall earlier discussions we have had about the numerous references to planning fees that are listed in the City's Municipal Code. Planning staff proposes the deletion of any direct reference to fees in the CPMC and create instead a Planning Application Fee Schedule (see Exhibit A) which the City Council could adopt as part of this year's budget. Discussion Direct references to planning fees in the context of the municipal code makes it difficult for both City staff and the general public to determine costs associated with various planning applications. The Building Department experienced a similar problem and created their own fee schedule last year. Additionally, the Planning Department has canvassed other municipal planning departments and compared Central Point's fee with theirs. Consequently, we are recommending increases to some planning actions and decreases in others in order to be equitable. For instance, the City has not been charging fees for Comp Plan Amendments or Lot Line Adjustments and yet there are costs associated with these. By the same token, Administrative Variances, approved over the counter by staff do not require as much time, public notice, etc. as those variances that go to the Planning Commission. ecision The Commission's consideration does not require a public hearing as this will be taken care of at the City Council. Staff would appreciate a recommendation from the Commission regarding a Municipal Code revision and the adoption of new planning fees. A draft of Exhibit B will be circulated during the Planning Commission meeting. Exhibits A. Planning Application Fee Schedule B. Excerpts from Central Point Municipal Code 8 ~~ EXHIBIT T_l- Type of Action CPMC Section City of Central Point Planning Application Fees Current Proposed Fee Fee Annexation 01.20.040 $325 $325 Vacation Request 12.28.020 $325 $325 Tent. Subdivision 16.10.010 $200 $500 + $25/lot Minor Land Part. 16.10.010 $200 $255 Final Subdivision 16.12.020 $10/lot $100 + $10/lot Home Occupation 17.60.190 $25 $25 PUD Application 17.68.030 Fee set by City Council Site Plan Review (R) 17.72.021 $200 $10/permit Site Plan Review (C) $200 $255 Conditional Use 17.76.011 $100 $325 Comp Plan Amend $ -0- $650 Variance (P/C) 17.80.010 $200 $200 Variance (staff) 17.80.010 $100 $50 Zone Change 17.88.030 $325 $500 - Lot Line Adjustment. $ -0- $325 Appeals to Council $ -0- %2 original fee SJ 8G