HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - July 7, 19980
~ ~
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
July 7, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.
Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 426
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
f ~+-
Chuck Piland -Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, and
Karolyne Johnson
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES
A. Review and Approval of June 16, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
Page 1- 23 A.''~'~OContinuation of Public Hearing to review a Site Plan and request for
variance from special setback submitted by the Central Point Assembly of
God Church to construct a new sanctuary on property located east of the
intersection of North 10th and Maple Streets in the R-3 zoning district.
24 - 33 B.Cohk Public Hearing to consider a request by Michael Burton to vary from the
maximum fence height requirements on property located at 1130 Mayfair
Place in the R-1-6 zoning district.
34 - 47 C. ~.~~ Public Hearing to consider applications for Tentative Partition and Site
Plan Review to facilitate the construction of a commercial shopping center
east of the Freeman Road/Oak Street intersection in the C-4 zoning
district.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
1~ ~ ~
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 16, 1998
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, Karolyn
Johnson. Angela Curtis was absent. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning
Director, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician,
and Arlene LaRosa, Public Works Secretary.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence from Fire District 3 will be introduced in Item A under Business.
IV. MINUTES
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the Minutes of June 2, 1998, as
written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Fish. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes;
Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
There were no public appearances.
VI. BUSINESS
A. Pub lic Hearing to rev iew a Si te Plan subm itte d by the Ce ntral P oint As sembly
of God Church to co nstruct a ne~~ sa nct uary on o roD erty locate d east of the
"'
inte rsection of North 10
an d Maole Stre ets.
Chairman Piland opened the public hearing. There were no ex-pane
communications. Commissioner Fish declared a conflict of interest and
withdrew to the audience.
Tom Humphrey reviewedrthe Planning Department Staff Report. He explained
that this is a proposal for the expansion of the Assembly of God Church on
North 10"' Street. Based on the area of all the buildings this application would
potentially require 184 parking spots. Because the church does not plan to
occupy all the buildings at the same time the commission may consider one of
three calculations for the number of parking spots and may also allow the
'~, ~ 7
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16, 1998 -Page 2
applicant to phase the parking over time. The first Phase could involve
repaving the current parking lot (40 spaces) and creating an additional 39
spaces. The second phase area will be covered with crushed rock. As that
area begins to fill, it will be paved and the phase 3 area will be covered with
crushed rock and eventually paved.
The letter from Fire District 3 was distributed to the commission and identified
the need for additional fire hydrants in the vicinity of the church expansion.
Tom Humphrey explained that on the first public notice for this application, the
City failed to notify 4 people. Not all of these people could be reached by
telephone prior to the meeting. Tom recommended to the Commission that
public comments be taken in this meeting and the record be left open which
will enable the City to notify the people that were not previously notified and
the application will continue to the next Planning Commission.
Lee Brennan reviewed the Public Works Staff Report. Lee stated that the city
will work with the applicant to get access to the storm drain system
associated with Willow Glen Apartment Development.
Jeff Anderson, 361 No. 3`d Street, Central Point, applicant, stated they are
working to secure rights from Willow Glen Apartment Development to use the
private lane for ingress and egress of the third phase parking and access to
the storm drain between their two properties.
Tom Humphrey explained that the church wanted to end the parking at the
planters on the north side of phases 2 and 3 so they can extend the open
space area of an outdoor`amphitheater they are currently using.
Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant whether, if needed in the future,
the area on the north side of the parking lot Phase 2 and 3 could be turned
into a parking area and be called Phase 4.
Applicant, Mr. Anderson, stated that would be satisfactory.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to continue the Public Hearing on the
Site Plan submitted by the Central Point Assembly of God Church to construct
a new sanctuary on property located east of the Intersection of North 10"' and
Maple Streets to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission on July 7, 1998. Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, abstain; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes.
4
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16, 1998 -Page 3
B. Withdrawal of the Batzer Prooertv 19 41 acres from Jackson County Fire
PrntPrtinn District No 3 following its Annexation to the Citv of Central Point.
Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report.
Commissioner Fish made a motion to recommend to the City Council the
withdrawal of the Batzer Property (9.4 acres) from Jackson County Fire
Protection District No. 3 following its Annexation to the City of Central Point.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilkey. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes;
Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes, Johnson, yes.
C. Presentation of Horn Creek Flood Study and Drainage Plan for Country
Meadows Subdivision
Tom Humphrey explained that this is not a public hearing. A similar
presentation was made at a neighborhood meeting of residents on Donna
Way.
Chad Gamble of Hammond Engineering reviewed the Horn Creek Flood Study
with the Commission. Hammond Engineering recommends cutting the bank
down 2 feet on the west side of Horn Creek, making that area a maintenance
area, which would allow the 100-year storm event to be safely contained
within the banks of the creek. Mr. Gamble stated that a proposed detention
pond will be larger and will be on 2 lots. He stated that in Phase 2 of the
subdivision, they will change the channel and rip rap the corner so it will not
wash away. The Division of State Lands has looked at the proposed plans and
the applicant has a tentative approval for Phase 2.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
Tom Humphrey reviewed future agendas for the commission.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Dunlap. Everyone said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: July 7, 1998
(continued from June 16, 1998)
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Site Plan Review and Variance from Special Setback Requirements
for 37 2W 02CB Tax Lots 7200, 7300 & 7302- Central Point Assembly of God
-Church.
licant/ Central Point Assembly of God Church
er: 310 No. 10th Street
Central Point, OR 97502
en • Rev. Jeffrey Anderson
r e
Description/ 37 2W 02CB Tax Lots 7200, 7300 &:7302- 334 acres
nin R-3, Residential Multiple-Family.
umma
The Planning Commission continued the public hearing for this application from its meeting in June.
The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review for the addition o£ a new sanctuary, classrooms and..
the remodel of existing buildings that are part of a local church complex on North, l Oth Street. The
church has also applied for a variance from special setback requirements since the last meeting when
it was determined that some of the. proposed on-site: parking would be within. the setback area
associated with a secondary arterial street. City staff has -renoticed this application to include
property within 200 feet of all three tax lots in question..The applicant has also completed more
preparatory civil engineering and site.. planning work in an effort to provide additional and better
information for the Commission.
uthor'
CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and
render a decision on any application for a Site Plan Review. Notice of the public hearing was given
in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B).
~~.. 1
Applicable Law
CPMC 17.28.010 et seq.- R-3 Multiple Residential District
CPMC 17.60.010 et seq.- General Regulations
CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking
CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval
piscussion
The Planning Commission postponed a decision on this application until planning staff could
renotice it and the church couldapplyfor a variance and provide more specific site plan information.
This has all been done and the package in front of you includes the following: 1) a revised site plan
with a phased parking proposal; 2) a landscaping & irrigation plan; 3) authorization from ODOT to
discharge storm water into the I-5 system and 4) an application to vary from the special setback
requirement along a secondary arterial street (refer to Exhibit A). The applicant's engineer is still
working on a grading and drainage plan which is not imperative for the hearing and would normally
be submitted to the Public Works Department as a condition of approval. It appears however that
the church will be able to use surrounding infrastructure to satisfy various CPMC requirements.
One of the issues discussed at the previous meeting dealt with .parking:. and a phased plan which
would allow the church to pave as they go. 'Understanding the church's limited financial resources,
the Commission seemed willing to consider a proposal by the churclito resurface the existing upper
parking lot, pave the area identified as Phase I and gravel the area identified as Phase II. Then at
some point in the future, pave Phase II and gravel Phase III and then finally pave Phase III and
construct a driveway in to the Willow Glen access road. The northern. portion of the parking area
isproposed-for open space and a future parking reserve which could be~used as churchattendance
dictates. Insubsequent conversations with the applicants they have stated that they would like the
ability to gravel the areas identified as Phases I & ILuntil they can afford to pave.
Other improvements that depend upon the parking surface (namely drainage) are being worked ouf
by Marquess and Associates and will coincide with the phasing plan adopted by the Planning
Commission. The applicants have obtained authorization from ODOT to drain to an open ditch from
the northeast corner of the property (see Exhibit C). The Public Works Staff Report and
recommendation (Exhibit E) have not changed from the previous meeting and the Director has stated
that he wishes the Commission to consider it as both a preliminary and final report.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review
In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision
on the following standards from Section 17.72.040:
~~., 2
A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause
the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such
a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing
neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the. maintenance of existing plants or the
installation of new ones for purposes of screening adjoining property.
^ The applicant has completed a landscaping plan since the Commission's last meeting
and a copy of the full sized plan will be presented at the hearing. The plan depicts
numerous planters with trees and shrubs in the parking lots and around the new
sanctuary. There are also lawned areas along the North 10th Street frontage and in the
vicinity of the sanctuary. The landscaping plan is accompanied by an irrigation plan.
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;
^ There are presently two driveways on to North Tenth Street, the third driveway from
the Willow Glen. access drive has been moved. farther north since the last meeting.
Research done by the church indicates that they are entitled to use the Willow Glen
access which would be developed in phase 3 of the parking plan. Traffic generated by
.churches typically occurs at off-peak periods.
,. C: To provide. off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in
such a manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable
of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public
streets; ,
^ The City has received a new parking plan from the church since the last meeting which
depicts a total of 196 parking spaces. Under CPMC 17.64.040(D) seating capacity for
the sanctuary itself (378 people) would necessitate 95 spaces and as many as 89 spaces
could be required to accommodate classrooms and secondary assembly areas. The
church has exceeded the totaCparking requirement by creating 156 spaces in three
phases and a future parking reserve of 40 spaces. Design requirements in CPMC
17.64.100 call for paved, adequately drained parking areas for all-weather use; painted
striping; lighting and the placement of bumper rails along property lines, sidewalks
and -andscaping areas. Additionally, parking areas should not be erected or
maintained in special setback areas which in this case would be 60 feet from the
centerline of North 10th Street. The applicant is requesting a variance from the special
setback requirement to accommodate their parking need and this is dealt with later.
Some but not all of the 25% compact car adjustment has been used.
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 interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs;
.. 3
^ The applicants presently have a sign and expect to replace it. The specific location will
be identified on a revised site plan and/or landscaping plan. The submission of sign
plans typically occur subsequent to the Commission's approval and in response to
conditions imposed at the time of an approval.
E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the
reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads
and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus;
Jackson'County Fire District Number 3 and the City's Building Department will
enforce State Fire and Building codes. The Fire District has determined that the
church can use two existing fire hydrants and a third (new) hydrant is depicted on the
church property just east of the center driveway.
F: Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations;
^ The proposed construction meets the minimum setback requirements for the R-3
District. There are general regulations governing special setbacks and landscaping
(17.60.090 and 17.60.135 respectively). Special setbacks on secondary arterials are
intended, among other things, to permit eventual widening. The City Public Works
Department has determined that only 44' of the 60' special setback are necessary for
future road widening and other improvements. Engineering Standards and
Specifications also call for adequate parking lot illumination which the applicant will
provide. There are currently street lights"along the Willow Glen access road.
G: Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in
relation to the neighborhood and the Central Poittt area and it's environs.
^ The pitched metal roof proposed for the sanctuary is generally compatible with the
surrounding structures and the building itself presents an attractive appearance. The
.applicants have submitted building elevations as part of their application package.
Site landscaping, full parking improvements and new signs proposed by the applicants
would enhance the aesthetic value of the project.
Variance
CPMC 17.80.010 stipulates that the Planning Commission may grant a variance if findings are made
that the following considerations will either result from the granting of the variance or do not apply
to the requested application. The applicants have also submitted their own reasons why they believe
a variance from the special setback is warranted (refer to Exhibit A).
1. The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the city, such as beautificatiori
or safety.
_~~ 4
~, r '
According to the Public Works Department, City plans for property acquisition are
limited to an additional fourteen feet from the existing right-of--way boundary for a
total of half width of 44 feet.
The applicant has stated that the subsequent variance of 16 feet (60' minus 44') would
accommodate the necessary parking spaces along the entire frontage to build out the
church. Additional benefits include safer access to the property and more and better
landscaped frontage.
2. The Variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood.
Allowing the applicants to park within the special setback area lessens the need to use
on-street parking in this part of town and potentially improves overall circulation on
North 10th as well as ingress and egress to the property. According to the applicant,
granting the variance will improve the on-site circulation of cars and people as well.
3. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zoning district.
The proposed church expansion occurs in an area appropriately zoned for such use.
4.,:Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to property in the same zoning
district; and
The special setback along North 10th have normally applied to building setbacks in the
past. Single family homes are able to satisfy on-site parking within the front setback
whereas the parking demand for a church building is greater and more difficult to
satisfy.
5. The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed through the applicant's
own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members.
The City has determined that not all of the land area within the special setback is
needed for street widening and improvements.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No., approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of
approval (Exhibit D); or
2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or
3. Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission.
~~~ 5
i it
A. Application and Exhibits submitted by Assembly of God Church
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Correspondence
D. Planning Department Conditions
E. Public Works Staff Report
~ ~ s
~, ,_ ~ , ,
,,
~ertrRq SITE Ir i,AN REVIEW APPLICATION
' ° ~,c City of Central Point Planning Department
_ti ~;~,•~ •~_ o
~+M••- v Y/ R ~Y
OREGON
1. APPLICANT
.., .. ~,
Telephone:
2. AGENT INFORMATION
Residence:
I WlllllllE,' /L.1lU1 LLlILaLL
Exhibit A
RECEIVED
MAY 121998'
tC~~~ +p®ih~
(Zev.JetGey ~, . Rn~czcsov~~ ~c~-t'o~ ~- ~4(9~-1- Y'70'~
3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Than One)
Name: Cutka( porh~' ~.uemb/y o F God CGS/cti
Address: 3!o N. /o ~" sfeaof
City: Ceef~( Poi~Pd nR State: ok
Telephone: ,Business: 5Yr- 66 y 3 3 S 3
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Zip Code: 9 ~soL
Residence:
TypeofDevelopment: AcfG~i~on
Township: 3 7 Ranger Sectionp: 02 c$ Tax Lot(s): ~ 93~.~, ~,~.o~
Address:_~ro N. low. sxrref- ('e~1~~a( r-oM~' 47so2
Zoning District: R 3 . R2als[e~,F.a./ /N~/f; a/.e ;=an,%v -
Number of Dwelling Units: Nona,
Non-Safe Area Sq. Footage Sale Area Sq. Footage =Gross Floor Area
NumberofParlting Spaces:
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
This Application Form. j%~. Legal Description.
Application Fee ($200.00). ^ Letter of Project Description.
Site Plan Drawn to Scale (10 copies).
~ Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process.
~ Reduced Copies (8'/s x 11) of the Site Plan, Building Elevations and Landscape Plans (1 copy Ea.).
~ Landscape and Irrigation Plan (3 copies). Cnl«6,.~a wit+l s;t~ P(Lw.
6. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS
AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE; CORRECT, AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
I certify that I am the : ^ Property Owner or Authorized Agent of the Owner
*~ of a proposed project site.
Sianatar L Tlo4a t 1, /~Y~. 1\ I 1 1
~1
~~~
1~
I
1
O ~ ~~
1 i
I '
I ~ Y
1
1 A y Y
1 0
1 O• '~
~'_ I«II~t~YIY~
1
~
f ~
` •\ S
A
~~
~ Y w
{tAYd K' ^ 7iV1Y1
__
~a ~~
~1 ~ ~ f
% I
Y
Y Y
~
f '
Y~~
} .a.
_ _ Y Y f ,,
4]7YdC YLa~ 35NW __
~ , ~
~~ • ~
Y Y f
_ ~
~~ 1
_ f
/
%
`
S fl' 1 ]Sy1y ~ ff
I
d
I I I
-
I I t iIn
N utl~
I
1 1~
li;~
I
1
I~U
~' f~
Ili
s ~,~
1
i i
[i~titili~;~~~et~ r 1i ~ a/
• 11111 ~~}~~~aa~ii ~ ~~
~~~.
8p
i~~~
9
ee~
~~9
~ ~.Y~
I. y
i
I,
I
~,,
~~., 8
~~~
e~
e
~~ ~~
O
N
J`
Telephone: Business: Residence:
3. OWNER OF RE ORD (A~ch Separate Sheet If More Than One)
Name: k a chi ~~d.,~.~r~~h~ h
Address:
City: t~ State: f~_ Zip Code: q ZSCI~
Telephone: Business:,r--,a 1. (mac{ , 33 S~ Residence:__'~{ ~ , (~c_,~ , g-(D~
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Township:. "~1 Range:~Section: pry ,i TaxLot(s):~ Z'~t~~ (fin
Zoning District: '~.',~ P.a,3~cl~a~ `(hJ\~(~ ~QVr~~~1
Total Acreage: 3.3 t{ tAr cz~,C
General Description bf Variance: Y¢ ~ve~c-~ -4-+ V/.~~~v~w~ "flw-- s,~a-a. e-~
~- t0 aed'G'• J\ra.Wlrr.n-'k 7.I N~ L sa-ti>NGS W ~s..n ~ K S'tYO.IjC" 'tom
yll.,..i ~YV ~yv{r~rt,.~ t'MCQ vV~av1NVQ.Y1KOt SN VV a1 ~va~.w~Fv4
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
^ This Application Form.
Application Fee ($200.00).
Site Plan and Elevations Drawn to Scale (10 Sets). C ov+ ~ lc...}
Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process. ~ a ~ ~°~ 1~...~
One copy of a reduced Site Plan and Elevations (8 '/s x 11). ~ o a E, t..:...}
Legal Description of the Property. (~ ~ ~ ~+~..}
^ Findings (Addressing Criteria in Section 17.80 of the Central Point Municipal Code).
Letter of project description.(or 1, t,,.}
6. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS
AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT, AND ACCURATE TO THE
BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
I certify that I am the : ^ Property Owner or Authorized Agent of the Owner
e proposed project site.
2. AGENT INFO TIO
Name: _
Address:
City: e fLt 'n State: (")~ Zip Code: `] C~a
~~
ENTRAL ' :?OINT
.~
..
~ To: Planning Dept./City of Central Point
From: C.P. Assembly of God Church, Rev. Jeff Anderson
Subject: Central Point Assembly of God Project
FINDINGS:
1. Advantages:
-Accommodates the necessary parking spaces to build out the proposed Central
Point Assembly of God Church.
-Will keep people safer as they enter and exit their vehicles from the present
parking spaces.
- Will eventually include more and better landscape frontage property which will
enhance the neighborhood.
2. Disadvantages: none. The granting of the variance will improve the onsite circulation
of cars and people.
3. Will the variance utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district?
_ ' Yes.
4. Circumstances that affect the property that generally do no apply to other property in
the same zoning district:.:
We are a church. The parking lot. and frontage property continue to meet ongoing.
needs that accommodate the flow of cars on and offthe property. It works well riow, and
we anticipate it to wntinue to work well.
5. ~'he City of Central Point has indicated that they will not need all the land area within
-the special set back. area:
~~
310 North 10th Street Central Point; OR 97502 •_(541)664-3353
J~~. it
Planning Department
Gray of Central Point Exhibit B ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
ICen Gerschler
Planning Technician
Deanna Gregory
Administrative/Planning Secretary
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: June 17, 1998
Meeting Date:.
Time:
1?lace;
NATURE OF MEETING
July.7, 1998
7:OO p.m. (Approximate)
Central. Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will resume the
public hearing (continued from June 16) for the Site Plan Review of the Central Point Assembly of
God Church.
At the meeting, the Central Point Planning Commission will also review an application for a
variance from the special setback requirements for the church properties on North Tenth Street. The
subject property is located in an R-3, Residential Single Family district- on Jackson-County
Assessment Plat 37 2W 2CB, Tax Lots 7200, 7300,, and 7302.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for Variances and Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central
Point Municipal Code. Site Plans are evaluated based on 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, July 7, 1998.
2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155
South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
i~
.,~: , . 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the "
expiration of the cornment 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 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.
155
~~~
~~~ 13
08/18/98 18:14 FAb 5418286588 FIRE DISTRICT pJ t'lanning De~artmei}t
Exhibit C
FIRS DISTRICT No. 3 .
COUNTY
8333 AGATE ROAD, WH1TE CITY, OREGON 97503-1075
(541) 826.7100 FAX (541) 826-4566
6-16-98
Tom Humphrey
Planning Director
City of Central Point
RE: Hydrants
Based on the information vve have the Assembly of God Church will
require (3) fire hydrants and have a fire flow of 2760gpm. This is based
on a total square footage of approx 12000.
Fire District #3 will accept the fire hydrant on 10th end Maple asona of
the required hydrants. The other hydrants can, be located with we receive
a scaled site plan of the protect.
If you have any questions please glue me a call.
Neil Shaw
Deputy Fire Marshal
.... ~ 14
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
3916 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFOHD, OREGON 97601.9099 • (641)779.4144 • FAX (641) 636.6276
June 22, 1998
Ken Gerschler
City of Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Subject: Assembly of God Addition - 98041
Dear Ken,
We have reviewed the subject planning action with regard to providing sanitary sewer service to
the project location.
Verification of the existing sewer service line location needs to be made. The proposed
construction could influence that line.
There is an existing 20 inch diameter HDPE sewer trunk line adjacent to the Easterly boundary
that flows to the North.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed planning action.
Sincer i~/%~
ames May, Jr. P.E.
District Engineer
_~ 15
,gECEIVEC.; 7- 1-89, 3:92PN; 541 B39 9008 =~ IAA99UES9 n9~~u; K~
ODOT Fax~541-830-6408
Rogue valley 1?ngineering office
200 Antelopo Road .
White City, OR 97503
541-826-3122
July 1, 1998
C.A. Strom, Pl:
Marquess & Associates, INC.
PO T3orc 490
lviedfard, OR 97501
Re: Cermal Poirrt Assembly of God Church Site Q 31010s` Street
ion
DEPARTMENT pB
'fRANST'ORTATION
xIL6 COD&
laear.Chuck:
I have received your site plan for toe subject project. ODOT concurs with your analysis,
situation and does not see airy problem with allowing the project/site
of tile. drainage ~ ditch to have ad uate
drainage to discharge iirto the I-5 system, as the existing aApears eq
reserve capaoity.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 830-6400 x 386. Thanks for your.
conaiuued cooperation.
Sincx~ely
'~'G
tVii Arneson, PE
Acc~ss)emeud / Developmerrt Review
~G`fi-~~ .
,.>.
Jul 1 '98 1553 P. 01
V ~ ~ :L~ V
EXHIBIT D
RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on July 7, 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. The applicant shall submit final grading, drainage and sign plans to the Planning, Public
Works and Building Departments for approval prior to obtaining any building permits.
4. The applicant shall dedicate an additional 14 feet of road right-of--way to the City along the
North i 0th Street frontage in accordance with the Public Works Staff Report.
5. The applicant shall satisfy the parking design requirements outlined in CPMC Section
17,64.100. Phasing of parking improvements over time may be allowed in the following
manner:
Phase I Resurface and restripe the upper parking lot; pave and stripe the first tier of
the lower parking lotwith anall-weather surface to be determined by the City;
gravel and grade the second tier of the lower parking lot.
Phase IT Pave and stripe the second tier of the lower parking lot with anall-weather
surface to be determined by the City; gravel and grade the third tier of the
lower parking lot.
Phase III Pave and stripe the third tier of the lower parking lot with anall-weather
surface to be determined by the City and construct a driveway access on to
the Willow Glen access road.
City staff and or members of the Planning Commission will periodically review the parking
situation at the church and, unless the circumstances do not clearly dictate, the applicant shall
initiate the parking improvements identified in Phase II within three years of the date of this
approval and improvements identified in Phase III within two years thereafter.
..~ ~(
Planning Department
Exhibit. E
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PRELIMINARY STAFF REPORT
Date:
Applicant:
Project:
Location:
Legal:
Zoning:
Area:
Plans:
Report By:
Purpose
for
CENTRAL POINT ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH EXPANSION
PW#98041
June 16, 1998
Central Point Assembly of God Church
310 N. 10th Street, Central Point, Oregon 97502,
Contact: Rev. Jeffrey A. Anderson, Pastor
New Sanctuary Building, remodel existing buildings.
East of the intersection of Maple and Tenth Streets
T37S, R2W, Section 2C6, Tax Lots 7300, 7302, 7200
R-3
3.24 acres
1 page showing revised new sanctuary location, and 1 sheet entitled "COmerstone
Church Development, Inc., Proposed Site Plan" Dated 3/28/97.
Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director '
Provide preliminary information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter refereed 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 DevelopeNEngineerYegarding proposed development. -This staff report is only preliminary as
only a limited amount of information regarding the proposed developmenfwas available at the time this
staff report was prepared.
Speciat Requirements
1. Exlstfng Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing
infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanftary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems;
etc.,) will not intertere wRh 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
efther 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, asapproved 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 parking lot system to be part of this development.
3. Rlahts-of--Way and Easements: Provide dedication for expansion of the right~f-way along
Tenth Street to a minimum of 88-feet in width (44-feet each side of centerline). Since the
existing right-of--way width for Tenth Street is 60 feet, the. City will require an additional 14-foot.
1, dedication for right-of-way along the Developer's property frontage with Tenth Street.
The Developer shall provide suitable and acceptable easements for any public works
~ J M .if V
Central Poinl Assembly ojGod Church Expansion
Tentative Plan Review
PWD Stajf Report
June !6, 1998
Page 2
infrastructure located outside the public rights-of-way. A separate 10-foot minimum width public
utilities easement (P.U.E.) should also be required for utility installation outside the Tenth Street
right-of-way along the property's exterior frontage with Tenth Street The plan for this portion of
tenth street would be to provide 4 travel lanes (11-feet in width), 1 double tum lane (14-feet in
width) bike lanes (6-foot in width), 6- foot sidewalks, 0.5 foot curbs, and 2.5 feet behind the
sidewalk.
4. 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 (e(ther surface run-on or
.culvert or creek/ditch conveyance); and; conveyed storm drainage or surtace water flow. It
appears that the best outlet will be to connect into the storm drain system associated with the
Willow Glen Apartment Development. The City will work with the Developer to determine if this
connection is feasible.
5. Driveway Connection to Private Drive Associated with Willow Glen Apartment Complex.
The Developer must secure a suitable access easement (if one doesn't already exist) for the
proposed driveway connection to the private street serving the Willow Glen Apartment Complex.
General
~~~`` 1. Ail 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
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 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 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 ff
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.
~- 19
Contra! Point Assembly ojGod Church Expansion
Tentative Plan Review
PWO Sta,/jReport
June lti, 1998
Page 3
4. All elevations used on the 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. Easemenfdedications in final deeds or CC&Rs
need a statemenfwhich should clearly indicate that easements must be maintained with
suitable, driveable vehicular access 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 building and site access, and the fire
hydrant placement for the propo§ed 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 of written approval from JC Roads regarding Tenth Street Improvements (if any)
and driveway connections to Tenth Street.
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. 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.
Streetsffraffic
Existing Improvements - Tenth Street -Current ROW 60' wide, varying street width. Right-
of-Way required: 88-feet width; 44-feet on either side of centeriine.
Jurisdiction -Jackson County.
1. -'the construction drawings shall include clear vision areas (i.e. sight triangles) designed to meet
~Gi V
Cen(ra! Poin( Assembly ojGod Church Expansion
Ten(a(ive Pfan Review
PWD S(ajjRepor(
June !6, 1998
Page 4
the City's PWD requirements at the driveway entrances to the church and parking areas. For
the purposes of sight triangle determination, Tenth Street is considered to be a "secondary
arterial" road.
2. 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 Improvements
Existing Improvements - Site drainage drains to open field area to the east of the existing
sanctuary building.
i. 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 creeWditch 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 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.
'` `` 2. Developer's engineer shall provide a site 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 sediment and
petroleum hydrocarbon retention. The private stone drain system shall be designed to directly
connect to the public storm drain system, and shall not be designed to discharge to the street
surtaces.
3. 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.
4. Any surface 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.
5. 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 rainfallfintensity curve, and City approved run-
off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, pipe roughness coefficients, etc., that are used in
the engineering calculations.
6. Storm drain pipe materials within the public rights-of-way shall be PVC, HDPE, or reinforced
~_. 21
Central Point Assembly ojGod Church Ezparuion
Tentative Plan Review
PWD StajjRepart
June l6, 1998
Page S
concrete, with water-tight joints. Provide concrete or sand-cement slurry encasement where
required in areas of minimum cover.
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 pertorated SD system. If so, then the
pertorated 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 ihlet pipe is in relatively direct (i.e. 180 t 5
degree) horizohtal 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
transitional losses and ehhance flow through the manhole or curb inlet.
11. Sheet flow surtace drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring
properties is unacceptable. The stone drainage system shall include the storm drainage from
the bordering streets (i.e. Tenth Street), as applicable.
Sanitary Sewer
1. All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design, construction and
testing shall conform to the standards and guidelihes 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.
~~ 22
Central Point Assembly ojGod Church Fxpansia~
Tentative Plan Review
PWD StafjRepart -
June l6, /998
Page 6
3. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary approval, will
forvuard 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. As applicable, 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. If applicable, 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.
,r 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.
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,
23
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: July 7, 1998
TO: Central Point Planning Commission.
FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing -Variance to fence height requirements at 1130 Mayfair
Place (372W12CB Tax Lot 7600);
licant
Owner: Michael Burton
1130 Mayfair Place
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Aeent: Bret Moore
1461 E. McAndrews Road
Medford, Oregon 97504
Summary' The Burtons wish to vary from the City's six foot maximum fence height
requirement at the rear of their Mayfair Place property in order fo create a
more private and secure boundary along an easement they are creating to
access a new public park (refer to Exhibits A&C)"The subject parcel is
zoned R-1, Residential Single-Family.
uthori CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold
a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Variance.
Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC
1.24.060.
~lpnlicable Law: CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Single-Family District
CPMC 15.20.080 et seq. -Fence Variances
Discussion•
The Commission may recall its review and approval of Beall Estates III when the development
of a 2 acre park was discussed and approved as part of the subdivision. The following is an
excerpt from the staff report dated May 6, 1997: The applicants (Noel and Bret Moore) will
develop the park to City standards and provide a turn key facility for residents of the area.. The
City will then purchase the developed park from the applicants. The City will also work with
adjacent property owners to provide access to the new park for city residents on the other side of
Elk Creek.
24
The fence variance that the Burtons are applying for creates more privacy for them while
facilitating access to the new City parka CPMC'15.20.040 states that the maximum height for
fences on or along the back lot line shall be six feet. The Burtons would like to vary 2 feet from
this requirement and build an 8 foot cedar fence 86 feet in length. They have stipulated that the
height and material are the only conditions that they can accept and they have authorized Bret
Moore to act on their behalf.
~~~
If approved the fence would serve to buffer their back yard from a 6 teams pedestrian access
easement from Hampton Drive and ultimately to the new park. Without direct access from
Hampton, residents wishing to get to the park would either have to travel south to Beall Road
and then north on Wedgewood Lane or northeast to Glengrove and then south on Wedgewood.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
A variance may be granted if findings are made as follows:
1. The strict application of the provisions would result in unnecessary hardship; or
If the applicants are willing to grant public access across their property via an
easement and the subsequent foot and bicycle traffic could not be buffered (by and
eight foot fence) then this could be considered an invasion of privacy and an
unnecessary hardship.
2. The following considerations will either result from a granting of the variance or the following
considerations do not apply to the requested application:
a. The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city,
If approved, the variance would subsequently provide an access from Hampton
Drive into the proposed southeast park.
b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city,
Access to a park facility is a benefit to property owners and can lead to the
increased desirability of this neighborhood.
c. The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the city,
Residents in the area would be able to access the proposed park on foot or by bicycle
directly instead of traveling south to Beall Lane which is not as safe a route.
d. The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city,
The construction of the eight foot cedar fence would provide privacy and increased
security for the applicant.
25
e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood.
The City has received only one phone call regarding this proposal and that was to
clarify the Burton's request for a variance. There has been no other correspondence
either in favor of or opposed to the proposal
f. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zoning district.
The height and construction material of the proposed fence is consistent with
municipal regulations in the Residential Single-Family zoning district.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Approve the Variance application based on the findings of fact contained in the record
and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or
2. Deny the proposed Variance application; or
3. Continue the review and public hearing for the Variance application at the discretion of
the Commission.
xhibit
A. Location Map
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. .Application Package
D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions
A:\98043. W PD
~~
.I I I 1 ~_ I I I I 1
°m° ' SHELTERWOOD.DR
D'
r
r
r
D
Z
fTl
--I
m
m
NUE
E
CT
-~
-~
D ~
Z7 ~
~ O
fTl
y .. ..
;U
-n
oy
m b
N
---I
c~ O
r
m
z b
o
m
y
City of Ceattral E?utuE
~xxr~r~r «A ~t
Planning DePartmea~
I
City of Cen~~al Point..
PLANNXNG DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
ICen Gerschler
Planning Technician
Deanna Gregory
Administrative/Planning Secretary
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: June 16, 1998
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
July 7,1998
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City HaII
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
NATURE OF MEETING
aty or centrpi Faint
EXHIBIT t'B't
Planning Department
At the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for
a Fence Variance at 1130 Mayfair Place, on Tax Lot 7600 of Jackson County Assessment Plat 37
2W 12CB. The subject parcel is'located in an R-1-6, Residential Single Family caning district.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for fences are set forth in Chapter 15 of the Central Point Municipal Code,
relating to fence height, material requirements, and variance procedures.' 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, Jµly 7; 1998.
2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 '
South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
3. .Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the
expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about
the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated
clearly to the Planning Commission.
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
~~_ ~~
. ~ y
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
1 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 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.
Sttb~ect Property
Second Street ~ Central Point, O]
~ -
29
APPLICATION FOR FENCE VARIANCE Planning Departmew~
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEPARTMENT~,i Exhibit C
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name:
Addre
City:
.2
PO1NT
Telephone: Business:
2. AGENT INFORMATION
Name: ~~'r 1'`f one'
Address: /~// i £ f /~i4,~.o
City: ~ /Y'l~i~z.o 1~2 Residence:
~wr ~rd
~75'a~ _g~% S`Z`J/
Telephone: Business: Residence:
3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet if More Than One)
Name: /~iL~~-~ ~~sz/..~ /~srir7a~,
Address: //~o /~i4y~~iz ~li4cc
~i~t
City:
.
Telephone: Business: Residence: ~Y SZ9/
4. PROJECT'DESCRIPTION
Township: ~ 7 Range: ~ Section: Lol c~ Tax Lot(s): ~ ~~
Zoning District: /P /-/
Total Acreage: 2S At..yc-
General Description of Variance: ,~,FIo/iuwT ,t'.~~,u,rs ir~~j
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
„[~f ~ This Application Form ~, ,[~ Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent
[ j Application Fee ($200.00) ~~ uao~uC, in Application Process
Plot Plan & Elevations Drawn to [ j Findings (Addressing Criteria in Section 15;20.080 of the
`t
"
f
Scale (10 Sets) e~ ~G{y ~ c.P)
°
'
Central Point Municipal Code) we w'
[~ One Copy of a Reduced Plot Plan & [~ Legaf Description of the Property
Elevations (8 1/2" x 11") ~,r yg,~J For~s-F Grua Sv6,Gaixb~~ PF~Se 8
6. I HEREBY STATE THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS
AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT AND ACCURATE TO
THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
~
I certify that I am the : [ j Pro erty Owner or Authorized Agent of the Owner of the proposed
`.j
-~~ project site
D
t
S'S"~ `J~
Signature: /?l r / ~
a
e:
„U, I 11998'
FqY-LB-199BV 13 d4... ~ W L MORE CLI~UT . v... V .. ..
541 776 .74N,i i'.b1 "
Mlc4ad aad $rli~a $artoa 4euetry geatst permirtoa to Stet Mom+t to set as thofr
a6ert !tir tfK pttrpote of appb~u~ for a lreaoe variRaoe at !!39 Muir PMo~
Gatnl ~ t)radron.
G ~/~~~
Mkhad BRrEOr
\~
Erna a
5a S- ~~
....__:11~~f..~...~
Date
PERMISSION IS GRANTED SOLELY ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. ONLY AN EIGHT FOOT
CEDAR FENCE WILL BE, ACCEPTABLE FOR 1130 MAYFAIR PLACE, CENTRAL. POINT, OREGON.
IF THIS.WILL NOT BE NEGOTIATED ON OUR BEHALF, PERMISSION TO BRET MOORE IS
RESCINDED.
TOTAL P.03
31
~, , ,
~ ~ Px.oposso F
D
s
Gn+~c/rE~£
F - t~,e~~s; _
.. ~ .~
Sf3'6
{,
f
` ~J
-.
~a
N
v~a~rrceit t
aaaNspac+s ro
Gt4td
r
1~
~. _ _ /
G G, v i
~T' 2 83
Fa~Fsr GG[iv .~,3Divisio.~ GlxiY Q
//30 /YJ.gyFAiit /°LAe,F'
ScAUF : / ii_ 20 ~
iy~y ~7.~sr~.e ., ~ 32
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The approval of the Variance shall expire in one year omJuly 7, 1999 unless a fence
permit has been issued and construction has commenced and diligently progressed
toward completion.
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
3. In the event that park access across the property is discontinued and the fence is
replaced, it shall be replaced with one of standard height:
33
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: July 7, 1998
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Site Plan Review and Tentative Minor Partition for 37 2W
02 Tax Lots 1100, 1200, 1300 & 1400 -Central Point Towne Center, LLC.
licant/ Central Point Towne Center, LLC
wner• P. O. Box 8271
Medford, OR 97504
ent• Charles Martinez
744 Cardley Avenue, Suite 100
Medford, OR 97504-6124
ro e
Description/ 37 2W 02 Tax Lots 1100-1400, 20.2 acres
onin C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District
umma
The apFlicants are proposing the development of a community shopping center with a major
retail grocery store as the anchor and seven other retail commercial uses including a gas
station and restaurant as co-tenants. The applicants are also requesting a minor partition to
separate the grocery store, its parking area and an associated gas station (7.2 acres) from a
second parcel (8.1 acres) with six other retail uses and a third parcel (4.9 acres). planned for
a hospitality/motel center (refer to Exhibit A). The property is located east of the intersection
of Freeman Road and Oak Street in a C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district.
The parcels resulting from the proposed partition would all take their access from Freeman
Road via Reciprocal Easement Agreements.
hori
CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing
and render a decision on any application for a site plan review and tentative plan for a land
partition. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060.
(Exhibit B).
.. 34
^ The applicants are proposing to submit a sign package to the City which will
identify the types and location of all signs on site including directional ones.
The property owners wish to control the architecture and advertizing
appearance for the properly once it meets with the City's approval. The
submission of sign plans typically occur subsequent to the Commission's
approval and in response to conditions imposed at the time of an approval.
E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for
the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates,
access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire
apparatus;
^ Jackson County Fire District Number 3 and the City's Building Department
will enforce State Fire and Building codes. The Fire District has determined
that there is more than adequate water flow in the vicinity of the site (see
Exhibit C) and will work with the development to ensure hydrants and other
fire suppression meets state and local code.
F: Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations;
^ The'proposed construction meets the minimum setback requirements for the C-
4 District. There are general regulations governing special setbacks and
landscaping (17.60.090 and 17.60.135 respectively). Special setbacks on
secondary arterials are intended, among other things, to permit eventual
widening. The applicant will make full improvements along the entire length
of the property's frontage. Engineering Standards and Specifications also call
for adequate parking lot illumination which the applicant will provide.
G: Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic
acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs.
^ The applicants have submitted an elevation for the grocery store and are willing
to review other building elevations with the Commission as tenants commit to
the site. This can be made a condition to the Commission's approval. Site
landscaping, full parking improvements and new signs proposed by the
applicants would enhance the aesthetic value of the project and will present an
attractive overall appearance.
N v .. V V
adjoining property
^ .The applicant has completed a landscaping plan and a full sized copy will be
presented at the hearing. The plan depicts numerous planters with trees and
shrubs in the parking lots and around the new buildings. There are also !awned
areas along the Mingus Creek right-of--way which is proposed to remain open
and will be aesthetically entranced. The landscaping plan is accompanied by an
irrigation plan.
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;
^ There are presently three driveways accessing Freeman Road and there will be
also be three .points of access with the new development. The applicant is
proposing a main entrance at the Freeman/Oak Street intersection which will
become a boulevard into the shopping center and provide access to a future
motel at the rear of the site. Two other driveways have been introduced on to
Freeman Road, one will be a right out only with a median to prevent incoming
traffic. The other (south of Oak Street) would allow in bound and outbound
traffic. City Public Works is still evaluating this proposal and may require a
raised median in this location as well. The applicant's transportation. consultant
is also expected to comment on these new driveways next week.
C: To provide off-street parking, and loading facilities. and pedestrian and vehicle flow
facilities in suck a manner. as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be
used and capable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the
traffic flow on public streets;
The City has received a parking plan from the applicant as part of the site plan
..which depicts a total of 623 parking spaces. This is actually 79 more spaces
than the municipal code requires but is consistent with shopping center
marketing philosophy. Design requirements in CPMC 17.64.100 call for paved,
adequately drained parking areas for all-weather use; painted striping; lighting
and the placement of bumper rails along property lines, sidewalks and
landscaping areas. Additionally, parking areas should not be erected or
maintained in special setback areas which in this case would be 60 feet from the
centerline of Freeman Road. The 25% compact car adjustment was not used.
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 interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility
of nearby signs;
~~, 37
additional driveways and this information will be presented to the Commission on Tuesday
night. The applicants have followed the City's General Regulations, Off-Street Parking
Requirements and other site plan and construction criteria when preparing this proposal. The
specifics of these applicable laws will be discussed further in the findings of fact and
conclusions which follow.
The minor land partition'creates three residential parcels with access from Freeman Road
using Reciprocal Easement Agreements (also referred to as Cross Access Easements) which
is something the Commission has not worked with before. These are commonly used in large
shopping centers as a means of establishing common access across property where individual
uses (in this case a grocery store) must maintain separate ownership and tax identity. If
approved, the REAs would be recorded in conjunction with the final plat and provide
unlimited access to all of the proposed uses. Utility easements must be defined and granted
by the City and other agencies to maintair water, sewer and storm drain systems (see
BCVSA letter in Exhibit C). Street right-of--way dedication can also be defined and
transferred to the City via the final plat.
Mingus Creek runs through the site across Parcels 1 and 2. In accordance with state law, the
Division of State Lands has been contacted and the developer has been working with them
to` establish crossings and coordinate other creek improvements or enhancements. The
applicant must comply with any conditions proposed by the Division of State Lands. The
applicants have complied with the City's spccia125 foot creek setback in the placement of
their buildings. In the event of another wet winter, the parking lot will be designed to flood
and serve as storage until peak periods have passed.
The`Planning and Public Works Department have reviewed the site plan and the tentative
plan for the proposed minor land partition and have concluded that they comply with city
requirements if all conditions of approval pertaining to site development, minimum lot size,
public works standards and specifications and access to public roadways can be met.
ndings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review
In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's
decision on the following standards from Section 17.72.040:
A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as
to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the
neighborhood, and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as
might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the
maintenance of existing plants or the installation'of new ones for purposes of screening
~~~ 36
Apalicable Law
CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. Tentative Plans
CPMC 17.44.010 et seq. C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District
CPMC 17.60.010 et seq.- General Regulations
CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking
CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval
Discussion
As the Commission is aware this proposal is significant to the City of Central Point and the
developers have been working for quite some time to assemble various commercial uses that
are community rather than regionally oriented. This is due largely to the fact that the
property in question is located along Interstate-5 and in close proximity to an interchange.
ODOT has encouraged and supported the proposed uses as opposed to big-box development
which could adversely impact their facilities.
The developer has developed numerous scenarios for this site (note Site Plan #16) and staff
have seen many of them. The one before you is the most recent. and has actually been
revised after the application was submitted because Alberson executives wanted to re-orient
the grocery store to face Freeman Road. This resulted in other changes that will be discussed
later but also eliminated an earlier need for a variance.
At City staff's request a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was performed (Exhibit E) and
Commissioners should focus their attention on the study findings listed on Page 20. These
findings summarize the consultant's conclusions and recommendations which include the
signalization of the Freeman Road/Oak Street intersection at the entrance to the shopping
center. The applicants have stated that they will pay for transportation related improvements
to Freeman Road including; right-of--way dedication; road widening; the construction of
curb, gutter and sidewalk; bike lanes; a transit stop; raised medians and a traffic signal. They
have also agreed to purchase new stop signs to create afour-way stop at Freeman and
Hopkins Road.
ODOT representative Mike Arneson has written expressing his reluctance to endorse a
signalized intersection (refer to correspondence in Exhibit C). The County Public Works
Department, who currently has jurisdiction for Freeman Road has indicated that they are not
in favor of a signal and have asked that around-a-bout (traffic circle) be considered instead.
This alternative will be discussed further in the findings. Staff believes that the argument
made by the consultant in favor of a signal is compelling and the developer and City both
.agree that it is warranted. It should be noted that the traffic study was completed prior to the
most recent site plan revision which depicts two new points of access to the property. The
consultant is preparing a supplemental memorandum to address the introduction of these
-~ 35
Minor Partition
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 satisfies 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.
CPMC 17.28.050 establishes minimum area, width and and access requirements for the C-4,
Tourist and Office Professional district.
^ Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed partition meet the area, width and access
requirements for the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional district provided
Reciprocal Easement Agreements are secured prior to final plat recording.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Site Plan and Tentative Minor Land
Partition of 37 2W 02 Tax Lots 1100-1400 subject to the recommended conditions
of approval (Exhibit D ); or
2, Deny the proposed Site Plan and Tentative Minor Land Partition; or
3. Continue the review of the Site Plan and Tentative Minor Land Partition at the
discretion of the Commission.
xhibits
A. Application Package, Site Plan, and Tentative Plat
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Comments from Other Agencies
D. Recommended Conditions of Approval
E. Transportation Impact. Study (TIS) from Kittelson & Associates
F. Public Works Staff Report (Pending)
~~
e p~,NTRq~ SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION
.o City of Central Point Planning Department
~ _~~ . o
`o _~., '«
~......,~X°a
OREGON
APPLICANT INFORMATION
~ .u.uu,lb UCpriI'Ullen[
Exhibit A' '
DATE STAMP
OFFICE USE ONLY
Name: Central Point Towne Center, .GLC
Address: P . o . Bo.x ti 2 71
City: Medford State: OR .Zip Code: .97504
Telephone: Business: 5 41) 7 7 9- 5 3 4 6 Residence:
2.
AGENT INFORMATION
Name: Charles Martinez
Address: 794 Cardley Avenue, Suite 1.00
City: Medford State: OR Zip Code: 97504-61 24
Telephone: Business:. (5 41) 7 7 2- 8 5 6 6 Residence:
3.
OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If A9ore Than One)
Name: refer to attached sheet
r~uutc~s:
City: State: Zip Code:
Telephone: Business: Residence:
4.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TypeofDevelopment: retail commercial
Township: 3 7 Range: 2 W Section: 0 2 Tax Lot(s): 1 1 0 0 -1 4 0 0
Address: £37, 127, 143, and 227 Freeman .'Road
Zoning District: C- 4 <.
Project Acreage: 20.11 acres M/-
Number of Dwelling Units: n / a
Non-Sale Area Sq. Footage * Sale Area Sq. Footage * =Gross Floor Area
NumberofParkingSpaces: * refer to attached proposed site plan
5.
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
® This Application Form.
~ Legal Description.
® Application Fee ($200.00). ® Letter of Project Description. ---- Irno.~eca'
® Site Plan Drawn to Scale (10 copies). nEZ,ciPnav oN vnawq,Ie~
® Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process.
® Reduced Copies (8 %: x 11) ofthe Site Plan, Building Elevations and Landscape Plans (1 copy Ea.).
® Landscape and irrigation Plan (3 capiPS).
6. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS
AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT, AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST
OF MY ICNOWL E.
I certify that I //t/h+e ®'/P^roperty Owner or
® Authorized Agent of the Owner
of t>leproposed project site.
JUIV-dl :7~~ 1J•FJl CFIUL= r'UliVl ~HLtti 1 Jt1J tl.~v_ 1JJt. h.YJC l'C
Uwttcrs o£Record:
Name 6c L.L. Rowe, Trustee } Tax Lo[ 1100
Address: 3400 Willow Springs Road } 87 Freamao Road
Central Poitu, OR 97502 }
Name & Janet B. Lamb } Tax Lot 1200
Address: 7132 Old Stage Road } 127 Freeman Road
Central Point, QR 97502 }
Nance & Five Star Properties Wc;st, LLC } Tax Lot 1300
Address: 6600 France Ave., #525 } 143 Freeman Road
tbttnneapulis, MN 55435 }
Namc & Jean K. Komer } '1'ax Lot L400
Address: l'.0. Box 3554 } 227 Freeman Road
Central Point, O17 97502 }
41
T0TF1L P. 02
City of Central ~'oint
1'ldllLLLLl~, VlillcR UUUu
Exhibit B~
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Planning Technician
Deanna Gregoxy
Administrative/Planning Secretary
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: June 17, 1998
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
NATURE OF MEETING
July 7, 1998
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review
applications for Tentative Partition, Variance, and Site Plan Review that would facilitate the
construction of a commercial shopping center east of the Freeman Road/Oak Street intersection. The
subject property is located in a C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district on Tax Lots
1100, 1200, 1300, and 1400 of Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W 2D.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for Tentative Partitions, Variances, and Site Plan Reviews are set forth in
Chapters 16 and 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street
pazking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in
accordance with the City's Public Works Standazds.
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, July 7, 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
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
., .. ~ 42
the decisions descri}•°a above will need to be related to the pr~nosal and should be stated
`" cleazly to the Plannii.p 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.
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, heaz
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.
~•-~ 43
~~oiL4/92i 09:57 FA1.551tlLt15566-
1 ` t
~ ,
Date '"~
FIRE DISTRICT k3
Operator
HYDRANT FLOW WORKSHEET
,ti~02
Planning Department
Exhibit C
N0.~-
LOCATION ~ '' a x0~
PITOT RERDINGS
TUBE ~_
TUBE B 3 (~
GPHI
TUBE A 9'~-O
TUBE B Z Q
TOTAL (QF)
xo, -~L
LOCATION °~~s~._- ~~,
STATIC PRESSURE y 7
RESIDUAL PRESSURE ~L~-
STATIC MINUS 20 (Hr) t ( 7
STATIC MINUS RESIDUAL (Hf) ~1,~
Hr To . 54 POWER - ~`C
Hf To , 54 POWER - -Y- yY
h ~" .
f
Hr VALUE DIVIDED BY Hf VALUE ~ 2,/6'J TIMES (Qf) / P'~/4
(Ar) PREDICTED FLOW AT 20 PSI ~ 39 GPM
yooo
~,. .. .
BEAR CREEK !/ALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
3916 SOUTN PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFOHD, OHERON 97601.9099 • (641) 779.4144 • FAX (641) 636.6278
June 22, 1998
Ken Gerschler
City of Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Subject: Towne Center - 98046
Dear Ken,
We have reviewed the subject planning action with regard to providing sanitary sewer service to
the project location..
Verification of the existing sewer service line location needs to be made. The proposed
development will have to either utilize the existing connection or abandon them at the main.
Have the developers engineer contact BCVSA for design information and sanitary sewer
requirements
There is an existing 8 inch diameter concrete sewer main line adjacent to the Westerly boundary
in Freeman Road that flows to the North.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed planning action.
Sincere /~~ ~, /
James May, Jr. P~
District Engineer '
., 4 5
UDOI Fax:541-830-6408 Jun 2 '98 8:20
F. 02
+'~. ,
Rogue Valley Bngineering Office
200 Antelope Road, White City, OR 97503
541-826-3122
Sent Via Fax 541-664-6384
Date' June 2, 1998
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
To: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director
City of Central Point Fz~e cons:
From: Mike Arneson, PE
ODOT Development Review
Re: Kittelson memo dated June 1, 1998 -possible recommendation of signal
at the intersection of new development and Freeman.
In reviewing the June 1 memo from Lee Rodegerdts and Judith Gray of Kittelson and
Associates, we were not surprised to see the preliminary results indicate the need for a
signal at the site access point on Freeman. A development this lazge will always meet
warrants for a signal.
However, there-.are other factors and information that should be considered in this
situation. For example, the only movement at the intersection that might e7.perience
excessive delay (and it would only be excessive during peak times) if it remained
unsignalized would be the left toms out of the site. All of the other movements,
includ'mg the left turns into the site, would operate adequately. More importantiy,
Freeman Road would continue to operate without delay.
In addition, Freeman Road is a critical and major component of the transportation system
as a whole and for the City of Central Point To install a signal and impede flow for
through traffic, which is by far the majority of the total volume, would be undesirable
from asystem-wide perspective.
Finally, the existing geometry of Freeman Road north of the site access at Oak Street
presents site distance problems for southbound vehicles. From a geometry perspectYVe,
this location is less than desirable for a signal.
For some of the same reasons listed above, ODOT has not permitted signal installations
on state facilities for new developments that also met warrants. Most often the operation
of the through facility, Freeman Road in this case, remains as the highest priority. We
realize this decision rests with the City of Central Point and Jackson County and this
memo is presented for your information. Please contact me with any questions.
Cc: Chuck Martinez, CRA (Fax: 541-773-6314)
Eric Niemeyer, Jackson County
Form734-1834 (9.93) ., _ 4 6
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The applicant/property owner shall submit subsequent building elevations to
the Planning Commission as they become available for architectural review.
2. The approval of the Tentative Plan shall expire in one year on July 7, 1999 unless an
application for final plat or extension has been received by the City. Reciprocal
Easement Agreements shall be obtained and recorded prior to or in conjunction with
the recording of a final plat.
3. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations
including, but not limited to, any requirements of the Division of State Lands for
working within a water way.
4. 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.
5. The applicant/property owner shall be responsible for the payment and/or
construction of recommended transportation improvements including, but not limited
` to, a traffic signal at the Freeman/Oak Street intersection; raised medians as
determined by the City Public Works Department; a transit shelter and four way stop
signage at the intersection of Freeman and Hopkins Roads.
6. .The applicant/property owner shall submit final parking, landscaping, lighting and
sign plans to the Planning, Public Works and Building Departments for approval
prior to obtaining any building permits.
4'7
~ ~'~
CITY'OF CENTRAL POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STAFF REPORT
for
CENTRAL POINT TOWNE CENTER
PW#98033
Date:
Applicant:.
Project:
Location:
Legal:
Zoning:
Area:
Units:
Plans:
Report By:
Purpose
July 6, 1998
Central Point Towne Center, L.L.C., P.O. Box 8271, Medford, Oregon 97504
Agent: Charles Martinez, 744 Cardley Avenue, Suite 100 Medford, Oregon 97504-6124
Owners: Rowe (Trustee) (1100); Lamb (1200); Five Star Properties, West, L.L.C. (1300);
and Korner (1400)
Central Point Towne Center
East of Intersection of Freeman Road and Oak Street
T37S, R2W, Section 2 Tax Lots 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400
C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District
20.2 Acres.
3 Parcels:
Parcel 1:7.2 acres for grocery Store, gas, station, and parking
.Parcel 2: 8.1 acres for six other retail buildings with parking
Parcel 3:.4.9 acres for hospitality/motel center with parking
1 'tentative plat" illustrating division of tax lots into 3 parcels prepared by Hoffbuhr &
Assoc., amended July 2, 1998; and Site Plan - 16, drawing S-101, dated July 2, 1998
prepared by Abeloe & Associates, A.LA.
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.
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 agency„utility owner, and/or property
owner involved.
2. Masfer 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 the subject tax lots and the areas to
the north. and south of the proposed development. 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
v,~.
Cenral Poin(Tou~ne Center
/'WD StnJjlZeport
Mny 27, 1998
Page 2
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.
3. Riahfs-of--Way and Easements' Provide dedication for expansion of the right-of-way alohg
Freeman Road to accommodate necessary improvements to Freeman Road to accommodate
traffic and turning movements associated with shopping center. For the traffic lanes proposed
on the site plan, this would require right-of-way widths ranging frdm 68 feet to 82 feet in width.
Since the western side of Freeman Road has existing residential development, this would likely
necessitate obtaining all the remaihing required right-of-way width from the eastern side of '
Freeman; thus requiring additional right-df-way dedication ranging from 8 to 22 feet from the"
proposed development. Additional right-of-way may need to be obtained from tax lots 1500 and
1600 to construct a northbound deceleration lane.
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
utilities easement (P.tJ.E:) should also be required for utility installation outside the Freeman
Road right-of-way along the property's exterior frontage with Freeman Road, and potentially with
frbntage on Interstate 5.
All construction plans and as-built drawings shall accurately portray (both horizontally and
vertically) utility line and appurtenance locations and the locations of any existing and new
easements on the proposed development..
4. Traffic Sfudv: A draft transportation impact study for the proposed development, prepared by
Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated June 17, 1998, has been submitted to the City. The draft
traffic study analyzed the year 2000 projected traffic flows and intersection levels of service at
the intersections most likely to be impacted from this development; namely:
Freeman and Hopkins Roads
Freeman Road and East Pine Street
Freeman Road and Oak Street.
As summarized in tables 3 ahd 5, and in the Findings section of the report (beginning on
page 20), two of the three affected intersections would be greatly affected (Freeman and
Hopkins Road, and Freeman Road and Oak Street): the level of service of these intersections
would drop to unacceptable levels, based on the estimated traffic flows.
The proposed solution for he intersection of Freeman and Hopkins Roads would be to install a
4-way stop sign. This would result in an estimated level of service (LOS) rating decline from "B'
without development to LOS "C" withthe development, which meets the City's current minimum
LOS requirements.
The, proposed solution for the intersection of Freeman Road and Oak Street is for the installation
of a traffic signal (separate turn lane movements) at this intersection. A signal warrarit study
was performed, and it was determined that based on the projected traffic flows and turning
movement at this intersection that a traffic signal for this intersection is warranted.
y
{ '
Centra! Point Towne Center
PWD Staff Repor[
May 27, J998
Page 3
- City PWD staff concur with the proposed improvements to these intersections, and
5. Landscape Buffers: Provide for City PWD and planning department and JC Roads approved
landscaped buffers (including suitable landscaping and meandering sidewalks) along the
applicable portions of Freeman Road.
6. '-~provemenfs to Freeman Road: Freeman Road along the frontage of the subject
development is a rural road that does not meet current City or County urban standards. The
road will need to be improved, as a minimum, to meet City standards and the traffic flows (both
vehicular and pedestrian) created as a result of the proposed development. Since the traffic
flows created as the result of this development affect both the southbound and northbound
directions of Freeman Road, it is the City PWD's recommendation that the Developer be
responsible for, as a minimum, all necessary improvements to Freeman Road along the
proposed development's property frontage with Freeman 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, landscape buffers, and traffic control and
delineation (includingappropriate traffic signals at the intersection of Freeman Road and Oak
Street), 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 proposed
development.
?: ;.
-- 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 DEO:
8. 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
need to connect-into the proposed development's SD System. It appears that the majority of
surface water flows from the properties south and possibly north of the subject tax lots drain
across the subject tax lots. 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 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 these neighboring properties, as applicable. 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 is
determined, it is proposed that the City would enter into an agreement with the Developer that
calls forpayment of the determined reimbursement amount (which would Jikely be designated as
the "Towne Center storm drainage project fee") as it iscollected from the developers of the
affected properties.
1 ~
~ {
Central Poin! Towne Center
PWD StafjReywT
May 27, 1998
Page 4
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 surface waters from the
subject development, the Developer shall provide a suitable document or documents which
contain approvals for the 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. It
the City is to 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 property for the inspection,
maintenance, and repair work to be performed on the infrastructure facilities. The
easement shall include a statement which allows access by City personnel for inspection
and maintenance purposes; and
10. Creek Setback Requirements: Creek setback requirements of CPMC 17.60.090. E. may affect
some of the proposed developments strucutres (i.e "Outdoor Dining" area". As applicable,
should-require maintenance access easement and 20-foot maintenance access road as
indicated in the this creek setback requirement of the City's municipal code.
11. ' Water Distribution System: The water system should be of "reinforced loop" design: a
minimum of two connections will need to be made to the City's distribution system (12-inch
water line) on Freeman Road. This distribution line, according to recent Fire District 3 tests,
should be able to accomodate a maximum fire demand flow rate of 4,000 gpm. If additional fire
flow demands will. be required by the development, then the Developer will be resonsible for up-
sizing the existing lines to obtain the required flows, as applicable.
12. Flood Study of Mingus Creek: The proposed development places improvements and
structures within or alters the 100-year floodzone associated with Mingus Creek. The Developer
should be required to have a 100-year flood study analysis performed. The flood study must
provide findings which indicate what affect does the placement of the proposed improvements
and structures have on the base flood elevation and floodzone boundary, and what affects will
the modification of the floodplain elevation and floodzone boundary have on the existing facilities
and properties surrounding the proposed development. The Developer's engineer shall
determine the existing base flood flow rates and the base flood elevation contours; and illustrate
the existing boundaries of the floodplain and floodway fora 100-year "base flood" storm event
associated with Mingus Creek through the affected properties. The construction drawings shall
indicate the revised base flood elevation contours and boundaries of the floodplain and floodway
expected to occur following the completion of any development within the identified floodzone
(also referred to as the "Area ofSpecial .Flood Hazard"), including any affected upgradient
areas. The information determined in this study will also be used to determine minimum finished
floor elevations for any structures that will be placed within the area of special. flood hazard.
y ~ .~ e
r
Centra! Point Towne Center
PWD StafjReport
May 27, /998
Page S
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
Wildlife (DFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEO), Oregon Div(sion 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
Myla~) and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD~, 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 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, 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 two permanent benchmarks shall be provided for the proposed development, the
locations 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 noYjust a P.U.E.
Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a miriimum of five (5) feet from the edge of
'the easemeht. 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.
I 1
I~'
Cenh~nl Point Towne Cen(er
PWD SlafjReport
May 27, 1998
Page 6
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 QCVSA, and
the appropriate signature blocks should be completed on the plans.
^ A copy of written approval from JC Roads regarding Freeman Road improvements (as
applicable) and driveway connections to Freeman Road.
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 he City PWD of the
publipimprovementsassociated.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.
11. .The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a drawing
of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Myla~ and in an acceptable electronic form in
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.
StreetslTraffic
Existing Improvements - Freeman Road -Secondary Arterial, Current ROW 60' wide,
varying street width. Right-of Way required: varying width
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, at the cost of the Developer, evaluate the strength of the native
soils and determine the private driveway/street and parking lot section designs to accommodate
,;;
1
Cenern! Paint Towne Cen(er
PWD StafjRepa•t
May 27, 1998
Page 7
the expected loads (including fire equipment and delivery trucks) 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 flows south to north across the western portion of
proposed development.
Rogue River Valley Irrigation District potentially controls irrigation
rights within the project area including conveyance of water in
Mingus Creek.
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 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.
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 floodplaih 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
draihage facilities. Catch basins and area drains.shall be designed for on-site sediment and
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.
~1~ - '~'f
Centra( Point Towne Center
PWU StaJrReport
May 27, 1998
Page 8
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. As applicable, 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. Public 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.
B. 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. In the public storm drain system, maintain a minimum 0.2-foot drop betweerrinlet 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 betweeh 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.
°,. '
Cenh•al Point Tawne Cenler
PWD StaJJReport
May 27, 1998
Page 9
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, DEQ, 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 standardsand guidelines of the Oregon DEQ; 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
ft. 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 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.
All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage
away from the building.
Central Poin[ Towne Center
PWD StaJfReport
May 27, 1998
Page l0
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 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.. ~
I