Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - September 15, 1998i s ~# CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA September 15, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 433 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland -Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, and Karolyne Johnson III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of August 18, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes B. Review and approval of September 1, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Pagel-25 A. PublicHearingtoconsiderarequestbyBradMillertoreviewaTentativePlanfor a 78 unit Planned Unit Development located east ofNorth Pacific Highway (US 99) and south of Scenic Avenue in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. 26-37 B. PublicHearingtoconsiderarequestbyNeilandLindaScheunemantopartition a single parcel located east ofthe intersection of Cedar Street and Freeman Road in the R-3 zoning district, 38 - 48 C. Consideration of a request by Donna Beck to review a Site Plan to construct a new duplex on a residential lot also occupied by a single family dwelling located at 160 Haskell Street in the R-3 zoning district. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT I, A CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1998 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, Karolyn Johnson. Angela Curtis and Jan Dunlap were absent. Also present were Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director and Arlene LaRosa, Public Works Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE Ken Gerschler stated that the correspondence received was related to Item B under Business and would be introduced at that time. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the Minutes of the July 21, 1998 Planning Commission as written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, abstain; Johnson, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Continuati on of Public He aring to c onsider a request by Michael Burton to varv from the maximum fence hgig ht requirements on property located at 1130 May fair Place in th e R-1-6 zo ning district. There was no conflict of interest or ex-parte communcation. Ken Gerschler reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report and the reason for the continuation of the application. The other properties owners have been properly notified. The goal of the city is to create a six to ten foot path to the park with a bridge that crosses the creek to the park. Chairman Piland asked is there was discussion on the type of wall for the neighbors on that path? n ,, 'City of Central Point Planning Commissioner Minutes August 18, 1998 -Page 2 Ken Gerschler stated there had been some discussion and the city is willing to work with the property owners. The City Council will allot the amount of funding available for the fence. However the Planning Commission has the option to recommend the type of fence to the Council. Chairman Piland opened the public hearing. Chairman Piland closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gilkey stated that he felt the property owners deserved to have an adequate structure for the fence. A wooden fence stops only 1 to 2 decibels of sound. If the property owners are going to defer to the City and their neighbors, they deserve a block wall. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 429 approving the variance from the maximum fence height requirements on property located at 1130 Mayfair Place in the R-1-6 zoning district. He also made a motion to recommend to the City Council to construct a block wall along the easement or access way to the park. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes;, Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. B. Pnhlic Hearing to consider a request by Ted Branch for a Tentative Plan for a 15-lot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine Street and Corcoran Lane in the R-1-8 zoning district. Ken Gerschler reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. He observed that this property was approved for 15 residential lots in 1994. The applicant never completed the process. Mr. Branch is resubmitting an application for 15 residential lots. It appears there are some issues that need to be addressed on the infrastructure easements and access for several different adjacent properties that would add a few lots. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this application until the next planning commission meeting but open a public hearing tonight for the people that cannot attend the following meeting. Lee Brennan stated that he has addressed the concerns and will be working with the applicants. Herb Farber, agent for the applicant, 120 Mistletoe, Medford, OR, stated that at this point the applicant will not be making a presentation. Art Friesen, 454 W. Pine Street, Central Point, came forward and read a ~. ; City of Central Point Planning Commissioner Minutes August 18, 1998 -Page 3 letter he submitted and is included in the packet. He stated he was in favor of the application but has several concerns: 11) gaining access to the property by contractors and subcontractors by going across his property; 121 the house on Nadine Street needs to be moved so that there access to the proposed subdivision and this should happen prior to any development of this property, (31 the builder should build some type of privacy fence along the western-most end of the subdivision so that contractors cannot come across through the Presbyterian Church property and onto his property. Ronnie Webster, 525 Palo Verde Way, Central Point, stated his concern was in a letter in the packet. His main concern was the street up against their fence of their back yard and that of their neighbors. This places their properties between two streets. Herb Farber, 120 Mistletoe Lane, Medford, OR, agent for the applicant stated that a fence would be impractical to build at the beginning of the project because of the drainage provisions from the Public Works Department. There will be fencing put up as the homes are constructed. Perhaps something can be put with with posts and ribbon so people will not access other properties. The contractors will be told they have no rights to cross church or Mr. Friesen's property. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to continue the public hearing to consider a request by Ted Branch for a Tentative Plan fora 15 lot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine Street and Corcoran Lane in the R-1- 8 zoning district until September 1, 1998. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Fish. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, yes, Gilkey, yes, Johnson, yes. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Ken Gerschler stated that a couple of churches would like to take a look at using properties for a church in the C-5 area on the easterly side of Front Street. This use is not permitted under the code. Ken asked for some discussion by the commission. There is no history of a church in a C-5 zone. There is a possible problem with the parking. Commissioner Gilkey stated that he is a defender of the commercial zones and is not in favor of traffic problems along major roadways. Perhaps they could offset with C-5 zone somewhere else. He does not want to limit the options. Commissioner Johnson stated that they do not want to put this use in as a ,i"' `r~ City of Central Point Planning Commissioner Minutes August 18, 1998 -Page 4 permitted use but we could entertain individual applications. Ken discussed future agendas. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to rename the Mingus Creek Plaza, formerly the Central Point Towne Center, to Mountain View Plaza. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. Commissioner Gilkey stated several concerns: (1) A street in Greenpark V looks only 30 foot wide at the end; (2) The concrete at the end of Gatepark was busted, 131 there is no bridge on Glen Grove, 14) The detention pond seems to be very deep, (4) One meeting a month; perhaps one night as a public meeting and the other as an overflow to be used as needed. One meeting a month is a good idea. Lee Brennan stated that a bridge cannot be put on Glengove until they have approval from the Army Corps of Engineers. The City also need the plans and the flood study. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. r~ ~'" CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 1, 1998 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey. Angela Curtis and Karolyn Johnson were absent. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician, Arlene LaRosa, Public Works Secretary, Mayor Rusty McGrath, and City Councilmen Bill Walton and John LeGros. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. IV. MINUTES August 18, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes will not be available until the second meeting in September. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Continuation of Public Hearing to consider a request by Ted Branch to develop Griffin Creek Estates, a Tentative Plan fora 15 lot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine Street and Corcoran Lane in the R-1-8 zoning district. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, reported that the applicant has an offer to purchase one lot on the property which would have an affect on Mr. Branch's request to develop. He would withdraw the request if this lot is sold. Mr. Humphrey recommended that the Commission either continue or table this item. Commissioner Fish made a motion to continue the public hearing until the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion. Sharon Tift of 507 Palo Verde Way asked why the residents of Palo Verde Way were not noticed. Tom Humphrey checked the mailing list and Mr. & Mrs. Tift l~~ Ji City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1998 -Page 2 were on the list, as well as the other neighbors on Palo Verde Way. There was further discussion from the neighbors that could be affected by this development and it was decided that the neighbors would be re-noticed if this is again brought before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Fish withdrew her motion to continue and modified it to table the public hearing until further notice. Commissioner Gilkey seconded. All said "aye" and the motion passed. B. Public Hearing to consider a request by the Redha Corporation to subdivide 11 lots within the Snowy Mountain View Subdivision in the vicinity of Mountain View Drive and Columbine Way in the R-3 zoning district. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report and stated that the Building, Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the tentative plan for the proposed replat and have concluded that it is in compliance with all city requirements if all conditions of approval pertaining to minimum lot size, dimensions and access to public roadways are met. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, stated that the Department must confirm that individual water meters exist for each new padlot and are not cross-connected. Ben Zare', representative for Redha Corporation assured the Planning Commission that any extra water meters that exist would be eliminated. He also stated that a 6' chain-link fence with slats would be erected between the subdivision and the Meadows Mobile Home Court. His concern was with the space between the subdivision fence and the Meadows fence. Even though the Meadows has agreed to maintain this area, he felt that it could create a problem with weeds and debris. He also stated that he was aware of the desire of the Meadow's residents for single-story dwellings, but he would like to reserve the right to erect some two-story dwellings if the need arises. Commissioner Fish asked what would prevent Mr. Zare' from selling these lots. Bill Stults, 555 Freeman Road # 187, manager of the Meadows, stated that the space between the fences has been and will be maintained by the Meadows. He felt it was an advantage to the residents of the Meadows to have a buffer zone. Some of the lots in the subdivision have been built up, which decreases the overall height of the Meadow's fence. He requested that the new dwellings be built more toward the front of the property to allow the Meadow's residents a little more City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1998 -Page 3 privacy in their back yards. Chet Ricks, #147, Meadows Mobile Home Park, stated that he was opposed to two story dwellings being built. Commissioner Fish stated that the Planning Commission had no control over that issue, but could request that Mr. Zare' concentrate on one-story dwellings. There were no further questions and the public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 430, to subdivide 11 lots within the Snowy Mountain View Subdivision in the vicinity of Mountain View Drive and Columbine Way in the R-3 zoning district, including City recommendations, and to note that the sub-divider has agreed to try to limit building to single-story dwellings, and to erect a 6' foot chain-link fence along the back. Commissioner Dunlap seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes. C. Public Hearing to consider a request by the CitYPublic Works Department to vary from the side yard setback and review a Site Plan to facilitate the construction of a new building on property located at 399 South 5th Street in the R-1-6 zoning- district. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey and Ken Gerschler reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Requirements for on-site parking and the importance of maintaining specific distances between existing buildings, a water tank and the new building have necessitated an application to vary from the side yard setback of this corner lot. No new signs will be added at this time and no new hydrants are required. The advantage of this variance would be an upgrade of the sight and ADA access. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 431, approving the request by the City Public Works Department to vary from the side yard setback and review a Site Plan to facilitate the construction of a new building on property located at 399 South 5th Street in the R-1-6 zoning district. Commissioner Dunlap seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes. D. Consideration of a request by Monte and Danika Bischoff to vary from the maximum fence he~ht requirements on propert~ocated at 1029 Brandi Way in the R-3 zoning district. ,, City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1998 -Page 4 There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. He reported that Code Enforcement Officer Ron Barnett approached the Planning Department with questions concerning a six foot chain link fence under construction at 1029 Brandi Way. The fence construction did have a building permit on file, but the height of the proposed fence violated the Central Point Municipal Code. The additional height of the proposed fence would provide a safer and more private environment for the applicant's family, as well as a larger useable area. Danika and Monte Bischoff, applicants, presented pictures to the Commission and reiterated the need for a safer, larger and more private back yard that the fence would provide. They also submitted a signed petition from 12 of their neighbors indicating support for the variance. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 432 to vary from the maximum fence height requirements on the property located at 1029 Brandi Way in the R-3 zoning district. Commissioner Dunlap seconded the motion. Roll Call: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes. VII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Municipal Code Chapter 8.04.040 regarding definition, use and placement of privies. Tom Humphrey circulated a copy of Municipal Code Chapter 8.04.040, and asked the Commission if they felt it needed to be amended. He also circulated literature on a "space age ports-potty". This discussion was introduced as a result of the need to remove the existing ports-potty located at the "Human Bean", when construction is completed. At the present time the "Human Bean" uses the porta- potty and also has permission to use facilities at a neighboring business. The Commissioners agreed that they would need further information, some input from the Health Department, and a formal request from the owner to reconsider a code amendment. Tom Humphrey stated that three items have been scheduled for September 15, and then hopefully the commission could go to one meeting a month in October, when things will probably slow down. Commissioner Gilkey commended the Public Works Department for their efforts in organizing the work day for the play equipment installation in Central Park. ,' City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1998, Page 5 Lee Brennan announced that September 19th is scheduled for another work day in Flanagan Park. Tom Humphrey announced Cruise Night scheduled for September 12, and Mayor McGrath told the Commission a little about the planned events. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ji PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: September 15, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Heazing- Tentative Plan for the Miller Estates Planned Unit Development located on 37 2W 3B Tax Lots 500 & 600. lican Brad Miller and Marian Miller ner: 4732 N Pacific Hwy Central Point,. OR 97502 o e Description/ 37 2W 3B Tax Lots 500 and 600- 13.99 acres nin R-1, Residential Single-Family and R-2, Residential Two-Family umma The applicants have submitted a preliminary development plan for a Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of 78 single family lots (averaging 5780 square feet); private streets and walkways; RV storage; landscaping and open space. These willbe manufactured homes, set on foundations and have all the chazacteristics of stick built houses including pitched roofs, eaves, porches, garages, standard sized windows; house siding and landscaped yards. Individual homes will be owned but the land upon which they are placed will be leased from the applicants. CC& Rs will govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the PUD. The PUD is being. pursued because it allows the applicants more development flexibility with lot area and roads without the necessity of applying for variances. 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 preliminary development plan for PUDs. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Attachment B). ®pnlicable Law CPMC i 6.10.010 et seq: Tentative Plans CPMC 17.20.010 et seq: R-1 Residential Single-Family District CPMC 17.24.010 et seq: R-2 Residential Two-Family District ~~~ CPMC 17.60.010 et seq.- General Regulations CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking CPMC 17.68.010 et seq.- Planned Unit Development Discussion The applicants are proposing the development of a manufactured home subdivision in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts which overlap their property. The overall density of this PUD is 5.6 units per gross acre which is less than the 6 units per acre allowed in the R-1-6 zoning district and 12 units per acre allowed in the R-2 zone. Reduced road widths, open space and larger parcels near the highway account for the lower overall density even though the average lot size is closer to 5780 square feet (lots range from 4,915 sq.ft. to 10,238 sq.ft.). Homes will besingle-family dwellings and not duplexes, padlots, apartments or trailers. The applicants have stated that they are targeting a 55 plus market and that Miller Estates will be an adult living community featuring quality factory built housing. (refer to Attachment A, Narrative) Younger families or couples cannot be excluded from the development but would be in the minority (20% of the total). No play areas are proposed by the Millers due to the project's adult orientation however this doesn't prevent the Commission from requiring tot lots if they judge them to be necessary (see CPMC 17.68.130.F) for the 20% who are inthe-minority or visiting relatives. The- property surrounding the site is occupied by single-family dwellings (existing and under construction), the Scenic Middle School recreation field and vacant agricultural land. There are no existing improvements along the applicant's highway frontage but they have proposed an 8 foot open space area on the tentative plan{see AttachmentA). The public works department will specify right- of-way dedication and improvements that are necessary and consistent with other improvements that have been made along North Pacific Highway (i.e. OSP and Labor Temple). The Oregon DepartrXient of Transportation (ODOT) has been working with the applicant and agrees with the single access being proposed. The applicant s intend to construct a private, 24 foot looped road with direct access onto the highway and emergency access (for a fire and maintenance lane) onto Nancy Avenue..;l'he'ertti're jierimet~r bf the property will be' fencec~E' A sidewalk is planned along the interior side of the loop road and beside which parking will be prohibited. Public utilities will be contained within the road and the easements identified on the tentative plan. Various utilities have asked that the entire road area and adjoining 10 feet on both sides be established as a PUE. Pre-design meetings should be held with WP Natural Gas, Fire District No. 3 and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority to work out issues related to easements and the placement of fire hydrants and pipelines. Storm drains and san)tary sewer connections are stubbed out and can be extended from the North Valley Estates subdivision which is under construction. The applicants are proposing to satisfy on site parking requirements by providing two covered spaces per lot, 20 plus spaces on one side of Marian Avenue and Orth Drive and RV parking at the northeast .corner of the development. If acceptable, this arrangement would satisfy the requirements specified in Section 17.64.040. Residential conditions for PUDs may require that boats, trailers and campers ., 2 be stored in designated areas only and this is what the Millers intend to do. According to thd` `municipal code, security "and visual screening of RV storage areas in PUDs maybe assured by the' c`bnstruction of permanent walls not lass than seven feet in'heighf~"Landscaping has not been fully addressed by the applicants other than the statement that they intend to have street trees and create open space areas within the development. For this reason staff is recommending that a condition be added which would require the completion and submission of a landscaping plan with the final development plan that the Commission will review. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Size of the PUD site The municipal code requires that a PUD be on a tract of land five acres or larger unless extenuating circumstances exist to develop a smaller parcel. In this case, the area of the property totals approximately 14 acres. Criteria to Grant or Deny a PUD In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 17.68.040: - A'. That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal ~` requirements of this title; r The applicant's preliminary development plan proposes single family dwellings in the context of an adult manufactured home park similar to others in the community but more consistent with R-1 zoning and compatible with surrounding housing styles. The overall housing density is less than the maximum for the R-1-6 zoning district. B. The proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the City; ^ This proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals to the degree it ensures adequate housing will be provided; contributes to the variety of housing offered and promotes the open and free choice of housing for persons wishing to reside in Central Point. From a City policy standpoint Miller Estates promotes clustered housing and other designs that potentially minimize the need for costly and unnecessary streets, walks and other municipal expenditures. One thing that it may not do however is encourage a "neighborhood concept" because it is "self contained" geographically. Connectivity with other adjoining residential developments has been resisted by neighbors in the past and this is why the Millers are promoting this PUD concept. Zoning code objectives can be meY if recommended planning and public works conditions can be satisfied. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have minimal adverse ~~~ 3 impact on the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area; ^ As has been stated, the preliminary development plan is consistent with R-1 zoning and compatible with surrounding zoning and housing styles. The self-contained nature of the development will have little impact upon the livability of surrounding neighborhoods particularly from the standpoint of generating pass-through automobile or pedestrian traffic Infrastructure will be tied into new and existing systems which have adequate capacity. Property management and covenants will govern the maintenance and overall appearance of the PUD. D. That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they are financially able to carry out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months of the final approval of the project and any necessary district. changes, and intend to complete said construction with a reasonable time as determined by the Commission; Neither an economic feasibility report or market analysis has been performed to staff s knowledge. The applicants have submitted a letter of support from the Bank of Southern Oregon who describes the project as "financially viable". A development schedule has also, been submitted indicating that the applicants intend to complete construction within a reasonable amount of time. 1;. That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking; There is one point of access proposed with this development. for both vehicles and pedestrians. Due to the lack of sidewalks along North Pacific Highway, the development will be predominantly automobile oriented. However the highway has more than adequate capacity, the access has been approved by ODOT, external circulation will not adversely effect neighboring properties and internal circulation will be satisfactory provided parking is limited to one side, sidewalks are installed and roadway widths are increased to 25 feet (per DPW recommendations). F. That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed; ^ There is no commercial development proposed in Miller Estates. G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; ^ There is no industrial development proposed in Miller Estates. H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; J .+ v ^ The preliminary. development plan depicts an open space area of about an acre on either side of Griffin Creek, much of which is intended for a nature area. The public works department is recommending that surface runoff be directed away from the creek and into the storm water system from North Valley Estates. I. The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area; ^ The Miller Estates PUD is compatible with the surrounding area to the extent that it maintains a similar zoning density and architectural style. Connecting this development with residential subdivisions to the north by extending Nancy Avenue and Marys Way has been :discouraged by people who live there. Consequently, the PUD will be self contained but compatible with neighboring properties. J. The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land; ^ Private streets and the open space areas will be maintained by the property owner and/or a homeowners association thereby reducing the need for public services provided by the City. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the PUD Preliminary Development Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment C ); or 2. Deny the proposed Preliminary Development Plan; or 3. Continue the review of the Preliminary Development Plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Application and Exhibits submitted by the applicant B. Notice of Public Hearing C, Correspondence D. Planning Department Conditions ~~~ 5 Attachment( MYN a I pB ' ~ _ OPEC ~~ nr~ ~. - -_ 61g a~ & , it=p ~~ ~ - ~ ~°`e c ~ Rg,l R7~ ° q~ t R ] ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 7i ~ ~m ~ .~\. ~m NANCY AVENUE ~ - ~ `~ ~ ~ g, y~~ oz Qzo. ~ w ° n ax z zoo M A3~ I i R§ N N~ lI ~1 , ~1 ~ Uw0 d.ZKN ~M Sh~l~ ~ w jIVKVv Y ~ I I I Ry~ 0 _ ~ I ~ tN oM ~1 ~~ MON U'xa . U <O 'p' T L____ W' I N 40 C~~ M ~()~ I ~ OT a 3W0^ ~ 3° m~ Z . n1 ~mWO^ . ZI I ~ -~ ~ O I I ~ 4 S p 4~ Y QNwV ^ m'~' ` ~ <O wZY iw U'4NLL~ ~OOWY g ~ ! 1 Ri~ I I Pa~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~ y~ I 11 9 ~L . ~ x.-z i-~___ ~I I ~a ~~ ~I N °j~ I h~ h~ ~ ~ a , . I , L`-= ~ ~E ~s °a ~ I M ~a Arm sAarr~ ~ +~ ~ o 8 e I co~ ~ I + I p3 I F R ! ~ I I ! g p ~ ~ ~ i ~~ I g +' ~~ I ~~ ~ # n i 7 I r +g~ I ^ tl~ I 1 M f I ~ ,_, a~ ~ I ' ) ~~ I ~8 y ~ ~',. ry v M! .~ ~}~ I M'J ~ I i N! i N , c o 3~ ~ b ~ YC+~ I i ~'N > l °, 3 ~ i d'd~'\ v ~~ h; I M ~~ I t0~ V ~~ N c° ~ .- ~ 7 y 'y °J ^ ~Oyfo N ~~ ~° ~ M~ M ~ - ~ ~ Z`~ W 03 JN _~ -~ o N m o y' ~ I j~ ~ I ' f'- ZZQ ' ~.N ~'.. rn M m ' p ~ $' ~' p T~ ~j ~ 1 N 6 Q J ~~ H~ o ~ I ~ ~ N a 9 w I - o o ° m o o K, ~ ~a v / J H Oa oY N o U H n~ I MY 2~ O II N ~ Y ° ' '4 ~ , :' a 3 m R5 ~ pp z. + ~ N ~~ a ~ v L ci7® R ~ / ~ ~- ` . 1fi~&~ ~ / ~' " i' / B9 /P`\f~4 Q ~~ /, ap~ a2 ~. ~~,nn~ ~~~ ~ This document is an addendum to the applications it is attached to. The proposed Miller Estates project is described as follows.: An adult (55 plus) living community featuring quality factory built housing.. This by legal definition is a community wherein no less than 80 percent of the head of households are age 55 or older.'As a result of this classification certain amenities desirable to this demographic (and necessary for the granting of a P.U.D,) are included in the project. They are as follows. I . Limited access to the community for security. Miller Estates shall have only one access in and out to limit solicitation, crime, and noise. The only exception to that is an emergency vehicle lane located at the rear of the property for fire, ambulance, and police vehicles. Except for scheduled maintenance vehicles after the completion of construction a breakaway gate shall be in dace at the south end of Nancy Avenue as it abuts Miller Estates. This gate will prevent access for both ingress and egress except as needed by emergenry vehicles or scheduled traffic. 2. Because of the age of the residents no playground: or recreational area designed for younger lifestyles shall be built inside the community. Instead.. improvements more suitable for the lifestyle of the residents in Miller Estates are proposed to be built and maintained. These include; • Common or green area. One of the conditions of a P.U.D. is that in consideration of an allowance of smaller lot sizes that an "open area" be provided inside the development. This area is intended to make up for. the reduction in lot size by providing open space close by the residents can enjoy. In adult communities their is another reason altogether for smaller Jots, residents may be unwilling or unable to care for larger landscaping chores due to health;,lifestyle, or other reasons. Many residents of adult communities travel throughout the year minimizing the desire or need for large, high maintenance lots. Regardless of the reason Miller Estates has provided an answer, located at the rear' of the property and encompassing over 43,000 square feet of land and waterway Miller Estates will provide and maintain a nature area equipped with gazebo's, picnic tables and other amenities desirable for the residents of the project. Many adult communities feature community centers and other structures for us by residents. Unfortunately the cost of maintaining these is shared equally among the residents regardless whether or not the resident ever uses them. The Meadows (also in Central Point) is a prime example, the cost to residents of maintaining its recreation hall and improvements has risen to close to 1000 dollars a year per resident. It is our intention that all amenities that can be enjoyed by all be available at no additional cost to the residents. ~~.. R \~ A separate 9000+ square foot secured and gated area for recreational vehicles. Boats, campers, motor homes and trailers will notbe allowed to be stored permanently on the residents lots for cosmetic reasons. This area will be locked and access to property allowed by appointment only for security reasons. This will allow better traffic flow and provide a "cleaner" look in the community. • The currentdesign has the average lot size inside Miller Estates at 5782 square feet. Roughly two thirds of the property that will comprise Miller Estates is currently zoned for a single residence on a lot size of 6,000 square feet. The other one third is zoned for two homes on a lot size of 6,000 square feet. We are applying for a P.U.D. because that allows us to utilize slightly smaller lots, and provide other amenities that a site builtsubdivision could not provide for residents only.-Current trends for people in this demographic show the overwhelming majority wanting to downsize. They either have no children left at home (empty nesters) or desire to have less' ground to care for due to a medical or lifestyle choice. Over 40 million people alone in the US have some form of arthritisthat prevents them from pulling weeds or maintaining large lots. Still strict landscaping requirements will be in place, each lot will have a street tree in the front and other requirements will be included in the CC&R's to' insure curb appeal and a desirable living environment. • Miller Estates will be untypical of the current projects offering Manufactured Housing. The majority of projects use stacked blocks and attached skirting for foundation, this creates an artificial elevation to the home requiring steps to be constructed around every entrance in the home. Additionally small single car carports are constructed to the side of the home with a small out building for minimal storage. As a result of this the homeowner scarcely has a place to store a lawnmower, abar-b-que, lawn furniture or anything else. This ends up under the carport causing clutter in the community, as well as an invitation to crime. The standard for stacked block foundations is under review because it offers little safety from earthquakes or other disasters natural or manmade. Every home in Miller Estates will be on a foundation, every home will have an attached two car garage, a full width driveway, parking will only be allowed on one side of the street. Each home will have to conform to a rigid set of standards including roof pitch, color, window size and more. In Oregon and throughout the US 3 out of every 10 new homes is built in a factory, due to the efficiencies of a assembly line you save between 25 to 40 percent in the cost of the finished product. No other consumer base is as sensitive to value as the retired demographic. It's no coincidence then that 7 out of 10 manufactured homes are bought by seniors. ~~~ 9 Synopsis: Central Point is growing, with. a reported 1000 lots approved and coming on the market the strain on,schools and emergency services will be enormous. Statistics claim that for each home sold the schools will be impacted by 1.3 children. Additionally each home will generate 8 trip cycles. per day which will increase wear on the roads, and the need for fire and police services will increase proportionately also. In contrast an adult based community will impact far less. The age of a resident in Miller Estates will all butguarantee little to no impact on overcrowding in the schools. Additionally Bureau of Transportation statistics show a resident of a community like Miller Estates takes only nearjy half as many daily trips as does a resident in a site built development. Crime and fire statistics bear out that a residence with a head of household 55 or older is less than 50, percent likely to require services and with a single entrance and exit into. Miller Estates and being a fenced community crime occurrences inside can logically be projected.to be minimal. Even with the travel patterns that some seniors enjoy the proximity of neighbors and their likelihood of being home in the working hours should act as a deterrent to outside elements preying on them. Miller Estates will allow no solicitation so any vehicle out of place in the community will be obvious. In short the residents .proposed for. Miller. Estates are a perfect citizen for Central Point in the coming years of growth. Minimal impact on schools and. emergency services and maximum benefit on the businesses who operate and pay taxes in Central Point. 1~ 15417795935 BPNfC OF SO OREGON 490 P02/02 .TUL 10 '98 07:23 7uly I0, 1Y98 Mr, Brad Ivtillex 2364 B. McAndrews Rd. Medfbrd, OR 973114 Dear Brad: This Letter is intended to inform you of Bank of Boudum Oregon's interest In working with you on you 74 unit Land Lease t:oromunity at 4732 N. Pacific Highway, iafotmaliy known as "Miller Estates". Tbis prq~eCt appears to bo finaacially viable. This letter, however, should nol he interpreted as a cotnnilwrent. Thank you for the ppponunity, and we arc looking forwnrd to working with you If you have any questions, please feel free to contact ma at 776-7480 8inceroly, Vice Pres[deut 1458 bast McAndrews • Med(brd, oregpn 9i'804 • (803) 7767x80 i1 Development Schedule for Miller Estates 9-10-98 Based upon preliminary approval in September of 98 and subsequent approval of a final plan shortly thereafter the following is the estimated development schedule for Miller Estates. • Two to three model homes will be constructed within a 6 month period following approval. these will be "model homes" and be fully landscaped and hooked up to utilities. • Common or green area will be constructed during theperiod between the installation of the model homes and the first 10 to 15 sold units if not before. • Depending on Interest rates at the time of final approval construction of roads and infrastructure may be done entirely in one phase, this may be dependent upon requirements of the lender and the lending rate and cost efFiciencies at that time. • Preliminary estimates of "fill" have 2 to 3 units a month being sold and installed. Using this estimate the entire projectwould be completed in 2 to 3 years from the date of the first home sale. • The beginning of construction is dependant upon weather. as it is now September and conceivable that final approval could happen in `98 then construction could begin as early as this year. With minor delays and an early rainfall construction may begin in the spring of `99. .~~ 12 PW # 97023 MEMORANDUM To: Tom Humphrey. Lois DeBennedetti From: Public Works Department Prepared By: Lee Brennan -Public Works Director Paul W. Worth -Public Works Technician Subject: Public Works Staff Report for Beall Estates Phase 3 Final Plat Date: September 11, 1998 The Final Plat of Beall Estates Phase 3 has been reviewed according to CPMC 16.12.050, Staff Approval. The property is located in T37S, R2W, Section 12C, Tax Lot 3404. The following items have been verified by the Public Works Department Staff: 1. The Final Plat as shown is substantially the same as it appeared on the Tentative Plan approved by the Planning Commission Resolution 383, May 6, 1997. 2. The developer has not completed all the conditions of the Tentative Plan. These conditions are as follows: (a) Complete construction as shown on the approved construction plans dated May 21, 1998; July 9, 1998, and as described in Planning Commission resolution 383, Public Works conditions as may apply in the Public Works Staff report dated June 24, 1997. This work may also include any re-work as a result of inspection punch lists. (b) Provide a digital, and, mylar "As Built" drawings of the project with all construction changes, elevations and alignments noted in red. (c) Provide permanent benchmark elevation and survey notes based on a closed loop from a City benchmark as required in condition 10 to the Public Works Department. (d) Relocate fire hydrants in accordance with PWD standards at lots 47 and 55 so that furthest most projection is 2-inches behind sidewalk. (e) Provide an engineered solution to resolve asphalt pavement deficiencies. These deficiencies include not meeting the requirements for density, gradation and asphalt content. (f) Pay all City costs and provide surety as noted below: A. Construction Items Provide surety in the amount of $41,000.00 for remaining Public Works Improvements to be completed as noted on the attached estimate, excluding asphalt concrete pavement remediation, sidewalks, and driveway approaches. ~~~ 13 B. City Incurred Costs Pay City incurred costs in the amount of $7073.51 for Public Works services as noted on the attached billing. 3. The Final Plat is not accurately described therefor not in compliance with all ordinances and State laws. The bearing and distance, N 03 04' 08" W, 62.09 feet as shown on the plat map was omitted in the description. Options for Consideration: 1. Approve the Final Plat for the above subdivision, provided that the conditions noted above are completed. Complete Security for Performance Agreements with the City for the sum of $41,000 in a form acceptable to the City and pay all City incurred costs in the amount of $7, 073.51.. 2. Deny the Final Plat based on findings to be developed by the City. 3. Approve the Final Plat, subject to modifications to the Final Plat being completed by signing. cc: file PW#97015 Building Department `Planning'-0epartment i4 Statement of Costs -Beall Estates Phase 3 PW#97015 filling period - 07/01/98 to 09/30/98 C~ Incurred Costs Staff - Utility I - 06/20/98 to 09/04/98- Technicians -06/20/98 to 07/01/98) 07/01/98 to 09/04/98 Secretary Public Works Ditector -( 07/01/98 to 09/04/98) Citv Eouipment - Pick uptruck/car - Materials - Street signs Stop sign Vendors - Thornton Engineering Soils Testing Soils Testing Neilsen Research Special Abandon 2-inch waterline at Beall Lane TOTAL CITY COSTS THIS BILLING PERIOD UNIT QUANTITY UNITS COST TOTAL 6.0 HR $30.28 $181.68 21.8 HR $33.90 $737.33 ' 70.8 HR $36.77 $2,601.48 0.0 HR $28.52 $0.00 6.5 HR $53.02 344.63 Subtotal $3,865:11 28 HR $7.50 210.00 Subtotal $210.00 3 EA $94.60 $283.80 1 EA $40.95 40.95 Subtotal (includes 5%) $340.99 0 INV $0.00 $0.00 1 INV $478.75 $478.75 1 INV $1,712.50 $1,712.50 3 EA $39.50 $118.50 Subtotal (includes 5% overhead) $2,425.24 1 JOB $221.12 221.12 Subtotal (Includes 5% overhead) $232.18 $7,073.51 .- 15 m_y Remaining Protect Costs (Estimated for Surety) Wetland, Creek, Access Road, Grates, Fence Relocate Fire Hydrant(s) away from sidewalk Lot grading including excess removal Replace curb and gutter Complete catch basin finishing /flushing Complete meter box adjustments/airvaive Patch Asphalt, berms Grind asphalt Complete sidewalk Complete driveway aprons Provide permanent benchmark and elevation Provide mylar and digital As Constructed drawings Estimated Public Works Inspection and Admin. Costs SUBTOTAL REMAINING PROJECT COSTS CONTINGENCY @ 10% 1 JOB $20,000.00 20000. 00 2 JOB 500.00 1000. 00 1 JOB 4000.00 4000. 00... 0 LF 15.75 0. 00 0 JOB 2000.00 0. 00 0 JOB 300.00 0. 00 1 JOB 500.00. 500. 00. 100 SF 3.60 360. 00 1305 SF 3.50 4567. 50 270 SF 4.50 1215. 00 1 JOB 500.00 500. 00 1 SET 3000.00 3000. 00. 2000. 00 $ 37,142.50 $ 3,714.25 TOTAL SURETY AMOUNT REQUIRED $ 40,858.75 is Attachment B City of Central 1- oint PLANNING :DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary 'Notice of Hearing Date of Notice: August 26,.1998 Meeting Dater September 15, 1998 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING At the above. time and place, the Cehtral Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of 78 single family residential units and oriented to an adult living community. The proposed development is located east of North Pacific Highway (US 99) and south of Scenic Avenue in R-1 and R-2 Single Family and Two Family Residential zoning districts on Tax Lots 500 and 600. of Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W 3B. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Planned Unit Developments'are set forth in Chapter 17.68 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off=street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS L Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 15, 1998.: 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 I 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 1a 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 may be purchased for 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, and technical staff reports; hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, and opponents; and discuss issues relative to 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 Planned Unit Development (PUD). City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. Subject Property ~\\ T ~--T-, r 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 1.8 19 s ~o~~~ ae ua:az rnn oaiazoasttu FIRE llISIRICI pa AttaClunaritC , FIRS DISTRICT' No. 3 ,JACKSON COUN'1~ 8333 AGATE ROAD, WHITE CITY, ORT:GON 97503-1075 (541) 826-7100 FAX (541) 826-4566 8-20-98 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Re: Miller Estates The applicant will need to provide Fire District #3 with a site plan showing fire hydrant locations,. street width and culdesacs. Ifthe project is connected toothEr,streets that:have. hydrants on them the'plan should show the closest one to this project. ~~'s~ eil Shaw Deputy Fire Marshal AUG-08-98 THU 04 18 PM FAX NO P, O1 ., 8-6-98 FAX MEMO TO Central Point Planning Department Ken Gerschler, Planning'1'echnician 664-3321 Fax 664-6384 FROM WP Natural Gas Uavid McFadden 858-4740 Fax 858-4790 I'm not sure that I will be able to attend the meeting about the following project. Please include these comments in your report. RE: Comments on Planning Action Applications Cilc # Not Given Miller Estates Rogue Valley Ilwy, Central Point w ~ Wp Natural Gas recommends that: ~• :' 1 along all public streets and highways, a 1,0-foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) be created. 2 if the roadways are to be private, the entire road right-of--way and the adjoining 10 feet on both sides be established as a PUE. 3 the proposed fire lane and 10 feet on either side should also be designated as a PUE. 4 the developer hold a utility pre-design meeting with all utilities before development of any lot. 5 the developer should install gas, power, cable and phone services in a common 4' wide utility trench, as approved by the utilities. 6 the PUE areas be landscaped to avoid conflict with the installed utilities. Call Before You Digl I.800.332-2344 It's The Lawl 21 BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY 3915 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEOFORD, OREGON 97fi01.9099 • (541) 779.4144 • FAX (641) 635.6278 RE~EIVE® July 28, 1998 Tom Humphrey AICP City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: Miller Estates Subdivision 98051-PUD Dear Tom, J U L 311998' CIYY QF EENTRAL PO1Nt 71M~ We have reviewed the proposed planning action with regard to providing sanitary sewer service to the project location. It appears the proposed use will require a sewer extension of the existing offsite sewer line from the adjacent North Valley Estates Subdivision through this development to its' Southerly Boundary. Grants of sanitary sewer easement will be necessary for thisline and any other public sewer lines except where they aze in dedicated rights-of--way. The easemenYfor the Interceptor Sewer paralleling the. Easterly boundary of the project will need to be respected in the setbackrequirements.for house locations on lots 23, 24, 55, and 56 fencing is permitted but structures including walls are not. The pedestrian walk and BCVSA Access Easement between lots 24 and 55 could be eliminated as far as BCVSA needs in favor of access from the RV storage area to the Interceptor Manhole. By nature of the public sewer line passing through the project site, this development could be served as a public system with BCVSA providing design review, approval, operation, and maintenance of the system. Additional information will be necessary to determine the location of the main and service routing during design. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this planning action. Since y, James May, Jr. P District Engineer 2z ODOT Fax~541-830-6408 ," ',. ,;~ ` Oregon Department of Transportation 200 Amdope Road White City, OR. 97503 Faac Cover Sheet Sep 4 ' +ti 1J:4b r. U1 DATE: September 4, 1998 TIME: 1:45 PM To: Ken (3ersohter Clty vt Central Pofnt PHONE: PAx: (541) 86q-3321 1~1) ~~~ ~pM; pebble Timms ODOT PHONE: FAX:. (541)774-8393 (541)830408 ~; Comments on the Miller Estates Planned Unit Devefopmertt. Number of pages Including cover sheet:1 Message: Ken: Thank you for giving us the opgoriunrty w comment on the proposed PW. We have been working with the applicant on this proposal, and we agree with the Proposed location of the access to North Pacific F•Tighway. Please pave the applicant contact Mandy Carolan at (541) 774-6394 for an access permit, and Charlie'Ihcker at (541) 774- 6396 for any pernuts drat maybe required for working within. the right-of-way If you have any questions, please call. Thank you 23 Mr. and Mrs. Brad Noyes ~ ~' °, `,~ 1831 Nancy Avenue Central Point, Oregon 97502 Jackson County Home Phone (541) 664-2584 Septeinber 02, 1998 Central Poinl City Hall l55 South Second Street Central Point, OR. 97502 Tom Humphrey, Ken Gerschler, and Deanna Gregory: We the homeowners of 1831 Nancy Avenue are opposed to the approval of the application for a Planned Uni[ Development located east of North Pacific Highway and south of Scenic Avenue related to the intent [o built both single and two family residential units. We are in favor of keeping the surrounding Planned Unit Developments Single Fanuly Residential ONLY. Two Family Residential developements would decrease the property values of those Single Family Residential Developments within close proximity, along with adjoining streets. All of the surrounding residential zoning districts have Single Family Residential Developments, and we would like Tax Lot (500 and 600, Plal 37 2W 3B) to be no different ~c~p~ Sine/erely, 'Brad and Monique Noyes RECEIVE® 8~,p ~ 1998' CITY OF OENTfiAL POINT TIME ---------'_'_ ,_ 24 ATTACHMENT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A final development plan, containing in final form the information required in the preliminary plan shall be submitted to the City within six months of approval or by March 15, 1999. A six month extension may be granted by the City upon the applicant's request and for good cause. 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 parking, landscaping, lighting and sign plans to the City for approval as part of the final development plan. 4. The applicant shall submit a wpy of the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or any comparable agreement governing the use, maintenance and continued protection of the PUD as part of the flinal development plan. 5. The applicant shall schedule-and attend pre-design meetings with WP Natural Gas, Fire District No. 3 and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority to more specifically identify utility easements and the placement of fire. hydrants and pipelines and other utilities. 6. The applicant shall provide a tot lot in addition to adult recreation facilities, the number and location of which to specified by the Commission. ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: September 15, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM:. Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Tentative Plan for the partition of 37 2W 11A, Tax Lot 201 Apulicant/ Neil Scheuneman Owner: 10 Crater Lake Avenue Medford, OR 97504 Aeent:' Douglas McMahan 1062 East Jackson Street Medford, OR 97504 Pro er Description/ 37 2W11A Tax Lot 201 Zonine: `R-3, Residential Multiple'-Family District Summary The applicant, Neil Scheuneman, is proposing atentativeplanto partitiona 0.31 acreparcelinto 6596 sq. ft. and 7066 sq. ft. parcels respectively. The site iszoned R-3, Residential Multiple- Family and is located on Freeman Road. Authori CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on applications for preliminary plats. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B). -- 26 ,' ` Apalicable Law CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. Tentative Plans CPMC 17.28.010 et seq. R-3, Residential Multiple Family District CPMC 17.60.090 et seq. Special Setback Requirements CPMC 17.60.210 Padlot Development CPMC 8.24.010 et seq. Flood Damage Prevention and Hazard Mitigation Discussion Doug Mc Mahan of Hoffbuhr Surveying is working on behalfofNeil Scheunemanto partition an existing parcel near the intersection of Freeman Road and Cedar Street. The 0.31 acre parcel is located in an R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district. The proposed partition would create two (7066 square feet and 6596 square feet) parcels on the easterly right of way of Freeman Road and immediately north ofMingus Creek. Currently, the parent lot is vacant and elevationally positioned above surrounding residences to the south within the Meadows Development. The tentatively approved Mock Partition and the Cedar Shadows Planned Unit Development are 'located to the east and northeast. Freeman Road is classified as a secondary arterial by the Central Point Comprehensive Plan and has a special setback requirement of 60 feet, measured from the centerline. This special setback requirement willlimitthefuturedevelopmentoftheproposed parcels by restrictingtheplacement ofpotential building envelopes. Parcel one has a clear vision triangle distance requirement of fifty five feet at the intersection of Freeman Road and Shadow Drive. Parcel two will have a flood setback of twenty five feet from the top of bank along Mingus Creek. The public works department requires the dedication of a 12 foot strip of property along Freeman Road for right of way purposes. The right of way dedication will reduce the proposed lot sizes to 5,780and6,191 squarefeet,thus fallingshortofthe the minimumlotarearequirementsforthe R-3 zoning district. The R-3, Residential Multiple Family district requires 6,000 square feet for interior lots and 7,000 square feet for corner lots. To proceed with the tentative partition, the applicant could select one ofthe following options for the Commission's consideration: 1. The tentative partition could be processed with the same basic configuration less the 12 feet dedicated for right ofway combined with an adjustmentto the common property line between parcels one and two. An administrative variance could be processed bythe Planning Department to compensate for the reduced area provided parcel one retains at least 6300 square feet and parcel two, 5400 square feet. ~__ 27 ~, ~ , 2. The applicant could approach the owners of a<1 adjoining parcel and acquire additional footage to meet the minimum lot size requirements. 3. The application could be processed at this time as a pad lot development . Various agencies responded with comments concerning the tentative partition (Exhibit U). The Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority believes that both parcels could be served by an 8 inch main sewer line in Freeman Road. Jackson County has requested that the applicant develop half-street frontage improvements to City standards which include road widening, curb, gutter, drainage facilities, sidewalk and bike lane. WP Natural Gas would like a 10 foot Public Utility Easement to be established along the roadways._ Findines 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. ^ Parcel One needs annotation to indicate the location of a proposed easement for Shadow Way. A ten foot wide easement will allow adequate space for roadway and sidewalk improvements. ^ Shadow Way and the proposed building envelopes need to be identified on the plat. CPMC 17.28.050 establishes minimum area, width and yard requirements forthe R-3, Residential Multiple-Family district. ^ The proposed parcels fail to conform to the standard area requirements for lots in the R-3 zoning district. If the project were approved as a padlot, the project would comply. J ~ •- e .y ~. n Plannine Commission Action The Planning Conunissionmaytake one ofthe following actions inregardto the application forthe tentative plan. t. Adopt Resolution No._, appioving the tentative plan'as submitted or as a padlot development, based on the findings of factand conclusions of law contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in the staff reports; or 2. Deny the tentative plan based on findings of fact articulated by the Commission. 3. Continue the review of the subject application at the discretion of the Commission. Exhibits A. Tentative Plain B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Planning Department Recommended Conditions D. Correspondence s 29 ~ .4 EXHIBIT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The approval ofthe Tentative Plan shall expire. in one year on September 15,1999 unless an application for final plat or extension has been received by the City. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. The tentative and final plats shall depict utility and access easements requested by the City, BCVSA and WP Natural Gas. Any changes to utility layout including fire hydrants shall require subsequent approval by the respective service provider. 4. The applicant/owner shall provide dedication for expansion ofthe rights ofway along Freeman Road to 84 feet in width (42 feet each side of centerline). This will require dedication of 12 feet of right of way from the applicant's property that fronts Freeman Road. 30 ,~ _ r _ H a A i iA z O ° 1 , , on~ [• n m ~ ~ ° ~ o o I ,_ n r I ~R~ I Rc~ I $cw I I ~~6~ I 6i I ~~6e I ~~ge E F~e ~~e I - --- - --- -- L--~ ---L---~ P• [ it wua uux ox w[a vx a c[xrt[ [xc[ _- __ ~ FREEMAN R AD_~ _ --~ .- _ - -__ / aeao F _ - _~ ~ 1 _ - - $~6~ $ ~1 ¢. D I ` I # &~~' ~ ~n a I I ' I ~ I I o ',,; I; I ~NI ., ~ ~ I ~ ~ i<::, I~ i . _ ~- ~ I ~ ~ i 1~ ptA E ~ m I I I ~ \ 61 \ E ~ ~ -_ ~ I If ~___ v __1 I yf ~, I ~ A I gg ~~ ~~ I 444 ~ _. I I m ~ G I~ ~ I g -. R ~~ N 6 ~~~~~ ~AVgg~ ~~V~~~? ~~ '~9, ~ ~~ R aU -. ®`--~1 (ary of Cencrx( Fginc i ,, ~~~r~r~ ~tA~t _ Planning Deparhneu't /I~;ei I '~1 `^ ~ I ~k~ I N I ~ I ~~~` I it a use o-- -- ~~ ~ K tn30= ~ m A~~ -[ApAm I ~oQQbA ~~ °-Atria I7J ON A ~g~ mD -~ N Z n ?' \ ~ w o `.~~ ~ ;5 ~4 ~6i ~:° ~g; `~ s ~ £ I I- --- I II I ~~ =« m ~` z o m ~~ m ~ ~ A 0 0 x „~ µ ~ N m rt µ o o o 0 [- ~ m ~~a .-. n w ~~_. ~ _ ~.. o+ ~ o vwVi ~ni = `G .Z1 N O~ l '• m ~C 0 C --I r~ m C~- -I CJ D ~ C rn H 'O ""~ Z ~ z [n36~ ~a~~ ~ e~jm= [,, • A m ~ ~ [ten ~ ~ ~~~ b ~bg'~ a~~ ~ A NDN (1 CZL n 1 ~~ 31 ..;ity of Central P~ ;nt .. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administraflve/PlanninQ Secretary ~~ Notice of Hearing aty or central Point Date of Notice: August 26, 1998 EXHI~'rTT trB't Planning Department Meeting Date: September 15, 1998 Time: 7:00'p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point CityHall 155 SouthSecond Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING At he above time and place, the Central PointFlanning Commission'will review an application for a Minor Land Partitiomeast of the intersection of Cedar Street and Freeman Road. The proposed partition is located in an R-3, ResidentiaLMulti-Family zoning district on Tax Lot 201 of Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W 11A. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Plans aze set forth in Chapter 16.10 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations and Conditions on tentative plan approval. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standazds. 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 hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 15, 199$. 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 ~.._ 32 ~_. ~~ •. ~~,. 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 may be purchased for 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 231. Si1MMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, and technical staff reports; hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, and opponents; and discuss issues relative to the application. Any testimony orwritten 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 for Minor Partition. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. -s~: ~. r~: Subject Property 0' J J 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~~ ~ ~fTl m-I-ITTTI~ CI~~ CI! i{''~ Il ' EXHIBIT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING llGPARTMENT CONDITIONS Or APPROVAL 1. The approval ofthe Tentative Plan shall expire in one year on September 15,1999 unless an application for final plat or extension has been received by the City. 2. The project must comply with. all. applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. 'fhe tentative and final plats shall depict utility and access easements requested by the City, BCVSA and WP Natural Gas. Any changes to utility layout including fire hydrants shall require subsequent approval by the respective service provider. 4. The applicant/ownershallprovidededicationforexpansionoftherightsofwayalong Freeman Road to 84 feet in width (42 feet each side of centerline). This will require dedication of 12 feet of right of way from the applicant's property that fronts Freeman Road. :, : 3 4 BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY 3916 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEOFON0. OPEGON07601.9099 • (641)770.4144 • FAX X641) 696•b279 August 31, 1998 Qty of Central }?binf ~XIIBIT tt~tt Planning Department Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: Scheuneman Partition- 98063 Dear Ken, We have reviewed the subject planning action with regard to providing sanitary sewer service to the project location. To provide sanitary sewer service to this partition the 8'inch main line in Cedar Street that flows Westerly, will have to be designed and constructed to the East side of Freeman Road. The service lines serving the proposed lots may connect to this line provided there is sufficient grade available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed planning action. Sincerel~~ ~~ 4~~-, ~,~ f ,~ l~/ J es May, Jr. P.E. / %' District Engineer cirv c SEP 21998. TIAq~ ~ 7'F~AL POII~Ir 35 .. ~., JACI'CSON COUNTY, OREGON JDSEPHL.SRTRgttL,DIRECTOR 266 ANTELOPE ROAD • WNRE CRY, OREGON 87605 (Sd1) 826.5722 or(547) 778-7366 FAX:(5d1)8308407 August 24, 1998 '~ ~~~~iv~°~ c, ~! Attention: Jim Bennett Tin T y of 3r /9g8, City of Central Point Planning nF ~~FN• 115 South Second Street ~~ ~~~9< Central Point, OR 97502 \ poiivT RE: Partition off Freeman Road - a county maintained road. \~ Planning File 98063; 2-lot resident[al partition Dear Mr. Bennett: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the application for a two lot residential partition located on the east side of Freeman Road, across from Cedar Street. Roads and Parks Services has the following comments: 1. When developed, the applicant shall submit cohstruction drawings to Jackson County Roads and Parks Services and obtain wunty permits if required. 2. We recommend that half-street frontage improvements to Freeman Road be required fo urban standards. Improvements shall include road widening, curb, gutter, drainage facilities, sldewalK and bike lane. 3. If additional right-of--way is required for fhe improvements, dedication should be required before permits are issued. City of Central Point standards may be utilized for road Improvement if the City agrees, In writing, to future maintenance of the urban improvements. 4. The applicant shall obtain road approach permits from Roads and Parks Services for the new road approaches to Freeman Road. If you have any questions or need further information feel free to call me at 774-6230. Sin~cerely~, Eric Niemeyer Traffic & Development Section 36 BEMCAEEICDAEENW~7'EN[7NEEStlN+7 ~Fi~ETA(ANAOFJNFJ? / 1pTORP001 /PARKS / RoAO YtW(/ENANC6 / VEtitTA7~oNIWWAOEMEM 77Wtir f2LZiZ2 fZiS7ZZ 7!47310 7767001 +2fd1t2 lZwlzz