Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - December 1, 1998i;~ , ,. ~l~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA December 1, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 435 Chuck Piland -Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, and Karolyne Johnson III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of November 17, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Page 1-29 A. Continued PublicHearingtoconsiderarequestbyTed Branch to develop Griffin Creek Estates, a Tentative Plan fora 151ot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine Street and Corcoran Lane in the R-1-8 zoning district. 30 - 34 B. Withdrawal of Schwichtenberg property (1.025 acres) from Jackson County Fire Protection District No. 3 following its Annexation to the City of Central Point. 35 - 44 C. Historic Review Board consideration of a request by Deana Sims to locally recognize the house located at 434 Manzanita Street as historically significant. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT ,r CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17, 1998 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, and Karolyne Johnson. Angela Curtis was absent. Candy Fish arrived at 7:05 p.m. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, Sue Meyers, Public Works Technician, City Councilmen Bill Walton and John LeGros, and Councilman Elect, Dr. David Gilmour. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of September 15,1998. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes; Fish, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. 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. Planning Director Tom Humphrey recommended that this item be continued to the next meeting on December 1, 1998. Chairman Chuck Piland asked for comments on the issue for the record. A member of the audience, who preferred not to come forward, stated that this item has been continued three times and she felt that there were too many delays. There was also some discussion on what portion of this property would be in the flood zone. Commissioner Bob Gilkey made a motion to continue the 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 (i ~~ .~ City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1998, Page 2 Lane in the R-1-8 zoning district, to the December 1,1998 meeting. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the motion passed. B. Introduce draft Transportation Svstem Plan (TSPI Technical Memorandum #1 prepared by the Rogue Valley COG. Tom Humphrey reviewed the draft Transportation System Plan (TSP) Technical Memorandum #1, prepazed by the Rogue Valley Council of Governments. He explained that changes to our plan could change the regional plan. He also pointed out various sections of the Plan that we may want to concentrate on as we develop our plan. Mr. Humphrey introduced Michelle Fuller, of the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, who will be working with the City as we develop our TSP. Ms. Fuller pointed out that this Technical Memorandum is only a compilation of existing information that we need to become familiar with in order to proceed with the drafting of our TSP. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, reviewed the planned street, intersection and signal improvements. Various suggestions were made regarding locations for "Park and Ride". VII. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Humphrey stated that we have received three proposals on the downtown revitalization. Commissioner Johnson announced that the next Town Hall Meeting is scheduled for February 10, 1999, at the Crater Student Center. Commissioner Fish informed the commission members that she will be unable to attend the December 1, Planning Commission meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. } III ' ~ PLANNING" DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT "' MEETING DATE: December 1, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Hump}1rey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing -' To consider a Tentative Plan fora 161ot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine Street and Corcoran Lane in the R-1-8 zoning • district (372WlOAB Tax Lot 5200; 372WlOBA Tax Lot 9900; 372W10BDTax Lots 100; 300 &'600). A lic Owner:. Ted Branch P.O. Box 884 Rogue River, Oregon 97537 Agent: umma Authorit~i f~nnlicable Law: Discussion: Herb Farber, Farber Surveying 120 Mistletoe Street Medford, Oregon 97501 The applicant has submitted an infill development proposal similar to one considered and approved by the City in January 1994 but never developed. The applicant has experimented with numerous subdivision designs over the course of several months and is now proposing the development of 16 residential lots and a 33 foot wide through road. A zone variance was previously approved by the City to relocate an existing dwelling. The subject parcels are zoned R-1-8,'Residential Single-Family. 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 Tentative Plan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. CPMC 16.10.010 et seq'-Tentative Plans CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. -R-1, Residential Single-Family District This item was previously before the Planning Commissionin September and was continued to the present meeting to resolve issues raised by area residents and effected agencies. Issues include, but are not limited to; extending C}ty infrastructure, eliminating through lots; introducing a new roadway standard and respecting the layout and proximity of adjacenflots. 1 The subdivision design attached to this report has been reviewed for. completeness by City staff and is the one the applicant would like the Commission to consider as the most desirable plan. An attempt has been made with this proposal to mitigate the concerns raised by area residents, City staff and effected agencies. The Planning Department has reviewed the tentative plan for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the City's zoning code. The area is designated for low density residential development and is zoned R-1-8, which is an 8,000. square footresidential lot minimum. This infill development will result in a more efficient use of residentially zoned land and improve the overall appearance and value. of this neighborhood. The Public Works Department has reviewed the tentative plan for compliance with the City's water, sewer, storm drain and transportation standards.. Public Works staff have summarized department requirements in the staff report included as Attachment B. The applicant was not able to come up with a fu1134 foot right-of--way but has instead created a 33 foot right-of--way which Public Works will evaluate and comment on at the meeting. The curb radius and sight. distance triangle as they relate to Tax Lot # 400 are not within the applicants ability to control and the Commission will need to determine whether or not to make compliance a condition of approval. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Staff suggests the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as applicable to the project and necessary for its approval. 1. The project site is located in the R-1-8, ResidentiatSfngle-Family Zoning District and increases residential land use efficiency in this area. The proposed,tentative plan for single family residential. development is a permitted use in the R-1-8 zoning district. The zoning in turn inconsistent with the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan map designation. The Comp Plan encourages innovative residential planning and development techniques that would help to increaseland use efficiency and reduce costs of utilities and services (Comp Plan, page XII-12). Infill projects of this sort are consistent with this city policy. , 2. The project consists of a tentative plan application for the subdivision of approximately 4.9 acres for the purpose of developing asingle-family residential subdivision,: Griffin Creek Estates.. The total number of lots proposed for the subdivision is 16. The average density for the subdivision is 3.3 units per acre. The proposed single-family subdivision meets the density requirement for the R-1-8 residential zone which is a maximum of 4.5 units:per acre.: Each lot within the subdivision meets the requirements of the City's. subdivision and zoning codes for residential lots as well as the specific requirements of he R-1-8 zone. The tentative plan includes all information required by CPMC 16.10.010 et.: seq. 2 '. 3. The Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the tentative plan for the proposed subdivision and the findings of fact and determined that the projecEmeets all City standards and requirements subject to the recommended conditions of the Planning Department (Attachment E) and the Public Works Department (Attachment B). Recommendation:. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the tentative subdivision subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment E) or 2. Deny the tentative subdivision; or 3. Continue the review of the tentative subdivision at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments: A. Notice of Public Hearing and Location Map B. Public Works Staff Report dated November 23, 1998 C. Correspondence Received from Affected Agencies D: Correspondence. Received from Area Property Owners E. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval G:\PLANNING\98047. W PD 3 City of Central Point Attu dent PLANNXNG DEPARTMENT ' Tom Humphrey, ATCP - Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: October 28, 1998 Meeting Date: Time: Place: -November•17, 1998 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon B eginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a Tentative Plan application fora 151ot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine and Corcoran Lane. The proposed development islocated in anR-1, Residential Single-Family Zoning district on Tax Lots 100, 300, and 600 ofthe Jackson County Assessment Plat Map 372 W l OBD, Tax Lot 5200 of Plat Map 372W 10 AB and Tax Lot 9900 of Plat Map 372W IOBA. NATURE OF MEETING CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Plans are set forth in Chapter 16 of the Central Point Municipal Code. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Anypersoninterestedincommentingontheabove-mentionedlandusedecisionmaysubmitwritten comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 17, 1998. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155 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 expirationofthecommentperiodnotedabove. Any testimonyandwrittencommentsaboutthe decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6354 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 may be purchased for (5 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 Platming Commission will review the application 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 Tentative Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all. Planning Comrission decisions. Subject Property 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 .. . _ cJ r a Z O {u 1.. c ~+ v O a] C~ a ~ ~ ~~ t 1 t \ to ~ ~ 8 ~ 3~ ~~t ~4 ~ ~ ~ , ~~~ a-I-b auoZ ~~~ \ ~ V ~~ ~ O~ 8~ ~~ !~`~'y~ ~~ ~ ~°; ~ J ~ I ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ is ~ q ar ~ °b ~ 'f \'~ a as ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \s ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ '\ t s ~ 2 ~ //J/ _ / ~\~ a H 10 \ / / ~ /// '/ f q aG O /// ''^ ~ ~ \\~~ ~\ {2]O F / // p. %/ ~~ 6 Qg ,?, ~~ ~ ~ R ~o ~p \~ Mt ` Qn \ r e ,~ f ,~ ~ a^ A U\ ~ ~a \\ \ N ~ f b-:,, srn y'j ~ Y \`IIOI R..~. 1~ / v \ry / ~~ L 1 \ \ B-t-b. auoZ ""~E'Z \ 6 ° Attachment B 'i. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REVISED STAFF REPORT for GRIFFIN CREEK ESTATES PW#98047 Date: November 23, 1998 Applicant: Nadine and Ted Branch, Bob Bauman, P.O. Box 884, Rogue River, Oregon 97537 Agent: Herb Farber, Farber Surveying, 120. Mistletoe St., Medford, Oregon 97501 Project: Griffin Creek Estates- Location: North of Pine Street, north of the Intersection of Pine Street and Corcoran Lane Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 10A6, tax lot 5200; Section 10 BA, tax lot 990; and Section 106D, tax lots 100, 300, and 600. Zoning: R-1-8 Area: 4.9 Acres. Units: 161ots Plans: 1 faxed page from Herb Farber, dated 11/12/98, prepared by Farber and Sons, Inc. Report By: .Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director Purpose Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developed') regarding City Public Works. Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed residential subdivision. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. This report is based on the faxed page from Mr. Farber, and the meeting with Mr. Farber and Mr. Branch, held on November 19, 1998. 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 oh 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 additiohal 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. Resldentlal Lane:. The Developer is proposing the use of a modified (28-foot curb-to-curb width [34 foot right-of-way width] with parking allowed on one side) residential lane wfth a cut-de- sac bulb (37-foot radius to curb face, 40-foot right-of-way radius. The PWD has proposed that in revision of the City PWD standards, that a residential lane standard be established, and that this standard would specify that residential lanes be designed to serve a maximum of 12 lots. The proposed. layout will serve 16 lots. However, a possible allowance of a variance of the proposed standard may be granted, due to the odd configuration of the tax lots. The Developer .also discussed some off-street parking. in the Park Area identified north of lots 12 and tti. Grrjjin ('reek h:avmca ,Suhdlviclon 7inrarive Plan PWD,SraljReparr Novemhrr 3. I JIN Page ? We would suggest that if this subdivision is approved, that Nadine Lane be conditioned with tha following: A. Parking not be allowed in front of lots 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16, on the South side of Nadine Lane, nor in the cui-de-sac. Allow parking of sedans and pick-up trucks on the street only. No recreational vehicles, large trucks, or other similar ' vehicles (coveredin CC&Rs) should be allowed to park on Nadine Lane. B. A minimum street right-of-way width of thirty-four (34); a minimum curb-to-curb width of twenty-eight feet. C. Provide visitor parking areas in the northwestern portion of the "park". 3. Connection to Pine Street. Need 30-foot radii on right-of-way as it connects to Pine Street right-of-way (including a radius on tax lot 400). May also need to construct tapered acceleration/deceleration lane improvements on Pine Street, to meet County requirements. 4. Sidewalks and Sidewalk Easement The residential lane does not provide for sidewalks. The CityPWD is recommending that a 5-footwide public sidewalk section (with a suitable public ingress and egress easement requirement) be provided adjoining the right-of-way on the north side of Nadine Lane and on the cul-de-sac. The 10-foot-wide public utilities easement would be moved to the outside of the sidewalk easement to mitigate interference with public utility installation and facility placement (i.e transformers, risers; pedestals, etc.). AsYequired on recentdevelopments utilizing the .residential lane street standard, the sidewalk would be installed at the Developer's expense as part of the development and will be maintained by the property owner, similar to the City's current sidewalk ordinance requirements. 5. Utility Easements: If storm drain and sanitary sewer lines are to be aligned on north side of lot 16, than these lines will need to be placed in an easement that is dedicated to the City and BCVSA, and not just a P.U.E. If additional utilities are to be located in this easement, then additional width will be required. Need driveable, all weather access to manholes, cleanouts, etc:lhat are located outside the City's rights-of-way, A 10-foot wide P.U.E. will also be required on the north of the sidewalk easement, and to the south of the right-of-way on Nadine Lane; to the North of the sidewalk easement on the cui-de-sac bulb; and on the north side of the Pine Street right-of-way on Lots t; 14, and 15. 6. Pine Street R~ht-of-Wav: Pine Street is identified as a major arterial. Comprehensive plan specifies right-of--way width required is 100-110 feet. Current right-of-way width: 80 feet. Not likely to be able to obtain 100-110 foot wide necessary right-of-way from existing development on Pine Street, except by condemnation. Would suggest minimum right-of-way of 88 feet (44- feet from centerline) This will require 4 additional feet of right-way dedication from lots 1, 14, and 15 for future improvements on Pine Street. ..Sight Triangles: Field review of this property's access to Pine Street indicates that the sight- triangles are currently blocked by topography, trees, structures and other obstructions that do not afford the propersight triangles for a local street that connects to a majorarterial. Thistype of street intersection requires a 55-foot sight triangle. A carport on tax lot 400 is located well within the sight triangle in the northwest corner of the connection of Nadine Lane with Pine 8 (l.~yJin CrceA lt'.rtater S7,bdiwslon Tentative Plan PWD.tiraJjKepan Navemhrr 3. II9N Page 3 Street. The Developer should be required to make arrangements with the adjacent property owners to obtain the proper sight triangles; clear of obstructions, or to adjust the alignment and location of the streets that connect to Pine Street to afford the proper sight triahgles; prior to the construction of improvements within the proposed development: The Developer has indicated thatthis may not be possible. 8. Water Distribution System: Reinforced loop water system (8-inch-diameter line) with connection to 12-inch-diameter pipe on south side of Pine Street required. Hydrant locations as determined by Fire District No. 3 and city staff. Need blow-off or hydrant at end of line in cul-de- sac. 9. Griffin Creek Setback; The Developer should address the requirements of CPMG Chapter 17.60 pertaining to setbacks from floodways and creek bahks; and CPMC Chapter 8:24 pertaining to flood damage preventioh and hazard mitigation associated with Griffin Greek. Should require maintenance access easement and a 20-foot maintenance access road as indicated in the creekaetback requirements of the City's municipal code, bn the west side of Griffin Creek with a suitable connection and bollards at Pine Street. 10. Flood Siudv ofGriff/n Greek: The proposed development places improvements and structures within or alters the 100-year floodzone associated with Griffin Creek.' The Developer should be required to have a 100=year flood study analysis performed or to provide other =~ "> acceptable documentation that there will be no additional impacts to adjacent or upstream "" improvements as the result of the proposed development: The flood study should 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 study should also include finish floor elevations of all existing structures that may be affected by any changes in the floodplain. 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 for a 100-year "base flood" storm event associated with Griffin 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 occurfiollowing the completion of any development within the identified floodzone (also referredto as the "Area of Special Flood Hazard"), including any affected sidegradient or upgradient areas. The information determined in this study will also be used to determine miriimum finished floor elevations for any structures that will be placed within the area of special flood hazard. 11. Improvements to Pine StreeC Improvements to Pine Street including, but not limited to, street .section widening, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bikeways; street lights, storm drainage, and traffic control and delineation, shall be coordinated and approved by the JC Roads and the City PWD. The improvements should be constructed atthe expense of the Developer and as part of the development of the proposed subdivision. Acceleration and deceleration-lanes meeting JC Roads standards may need to be provided at the proposed development's intersections with .Pine Street: As approved by the City Administrator, the Developer may request or be required to defer any or all of the required improvements along Pine Street until a cater date. If any or all of the ._ g (~ri%/in ('reek li.alrucs ,\'uhJrvr.crnn ~l'eninbve Ylnn l'Wl).Slr{(1 Report Naveniher 3, l4JN 1'nAe a .improvements are to be deferred to a later,date, then the Developer will be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreementwith the City/County for the develdpment/improvement of the street section and appurtenances (i.e. sidewalks, curb, gutter, street, lights, storm drainage, etc.) along the development's frontages with Pine Street, as required and approved by the JC Roads and City PWD. The Developer has requested that if the improvements are deferred, that they would be assessed on Lots 1, 14, and 15 only. General , 1. 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.maybe 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 Division of State Lands (DSL), U.S: Army Corpsof Engineers. (ALOE), affected irrigation districts, and JC Roads. 3. Prior (o approval and acceptance of the projectrthe Developer's engineer. or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. if feasible; the Developer's engineer or urveyor should:provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form (produced on ,.Mylari°) 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 Ilmited 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'ID), 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 wnstruction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shah 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 r@quirements of the DEQ. ~~ (/ri/fin CreeA [!.rraler b'uhrlivision Tenialive Plan - PWU.tiral~kepnrr November 3. lJ98 Page S 6. Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable]) should be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.E. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five (5) feet from the edge of the easement. If two or more City owned utilities are located within an easement, then a minimum of 20-foot width should be required. Easement dedications in final deeds. or CC&Rs need a statement which should clearly indicate that easements must be maintained with suitable, driveable vehicular access to City public infrastructure facilities, as determined by the City PWD. 7. Prior to the City PWD final approval of the construction plans for the proposed improvements, the following should be submitted: °D A copy of written approvatf~om Fire District 3 of the fiinal street and driveway layout, site access, fire hydrant placement, and water system improvement plans for the proposed development. The plans relating to the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the appropriate signatureblocks should be completedon theplans _: ^ A copy of written approval from JC Roads regarding Pine Street improvements (as applicable) and street connections to Pine Street. 8. -Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, -stop 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 Overhead power lines. If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US West, and TCI Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities within the proposed development to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer. 10. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) on the construction plans and as-built drawings. 11. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a drawing of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Mylar®and in an acceptable electronic form in AutoCAD® fomtat: The Finat Plat shall be tied to a legal Government comer 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. ~1 ririJfln ('reek 1srares S'ubdivieinn Tenrarire Plan ~ . , PWDS'raJj~Repnrr Noremher 3, /99g Page 6 Streets/Traftlc Existing Improvements - Pine Street -Major Arterial, Current ROW 80' wide, varying street width, Right-of Way required: 100-1,10 foot width. Right-of-way requested 88-foot width; 44-foot on either. side of centerline: Jurisdiction -Jackson County, 1. .Construction drawings for this Tentative Plan shall include a Street Lighting Plan and Traffic Delineation Plan in accordance wfth the requirements of the City PWD. Street lights shall be placed in a "zig-zag" pattern along the streets and at maximum 200-foot spacing (as measured ..from. light post to light post) to afford better lighting of the public rights-of-way. The Street Lighting Plan shall include placing street lights on the residential lane and the cul-de-sac, and be of a design and at locations as approved by the City PWD and Pacific Power. Street lights will also need to be installed or possibly modified along Pine Street to afford proper lighting of the street Intersections. 2. The City PWD, at the cost of the Developer, shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the:. street section.designs in accordance with the City PWD Standards. The City's engineering staff or selected engineering consultant (at Developer's expense), shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the street section designs in accordance with the City PWD. Standards.. Wlinimumstreet section shall be as follows; - 3-inches Class "B" A.C. - &-inches of 1"-0"crushed rock - 8-inches of 4"-0" crushed rock (City of Medford specifications), - Woven geotextile fabric over compacted subgrade. Street section (excluding the asphalt concrete portion) shall be extended underneath and a minimum. of two feet beyond the curb and gutter section. 3. As applicable, stpp signs and traffic delineation (i.e. "stop bars").shall be required and installed by the City PWD (at the Developer's expense) at the proposed. development's intersections with Pine Street. - Storm Drainage, Imgation Improvements Existing Improvements Griffin Creek across the eastern boundary of proposed development. - Rogue River.Valley Ircigation District potentially controls Irrigation rights within the project area including conveyance of water in Griffin Creek. 1. During the design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system (SD System), which provides for storm waterrun-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (either surtace 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 i2 (iri~n Cre'eA [istaies Suhdevieian 7eniatlve Plon PWD SraJjRepart Novemhcr 3. /99R !'age 7 completion of development) do not exceed predevelopment flows; or that existing capacity, 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. The SD system must be designed to adequately drain the 10-year storm event without surcharging or must be provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to not impact existing public storm drainage facilities. Any private stone drain system exceeding 3-inches in diameter shall be designed to directly connect to the public storm drain system (at a manhole or curb inlet only), and shall not be designed to discharge to the street surfaces. 3. Roof drains and underdrains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain lines, and shall drain either to an on-site private. storm drain system or discharge at the curb face. 4. .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 associated with Griffin Creek; and that mitigate the „ "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these types of facilities: Developer's engineer shall detennine how SD system will work during 10-year and 100 year flood events associated with Griffin Creek. ,Identify the HGL in Griffin 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 Griffin Creek up into SD system during storm events. 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 rainfall/intensity curve, and City approved run- off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, pipe roughness coefficients, etc., that are used in the engineering calculations. 6. Stone drain pipe materials shall be PVC, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with water-tight joints meeting the requirements of ASTM D3212, F477, and C-443M, as applicable. Provide concrete (in areas within the rights-of-way) orsand-cement slurry (in areas outside the rights-of-way) encasement where required in areas of minimum cover. 7. If inlets/catch basins are to exceed 4.5 feet in depth from the lip of the inlet, then the inlets and catch basins shall be designed to afford suitable "man" entry into the inlets/cetch 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 cleansing velocity (minimum 2.0 feet per second) and have adequate capacities without surcharging during the design storm. 13 Grim ('reek L'states Suhdivision Tentative Plan 1'WU.StajjReport Navemher 3, 1998 Page 8 9. The Developer may wish to incorporate the use of a perforated SD system. If so, then the perforated storm drain system shall be designed to have adequate capacities tae R Convey the collected groundwater and stone water with the minimum cleaning velocities - and wfthout 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: ruh-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 stone 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 isother than relativelydirect horizontal alignment between the inlet and outlet pipes; then a minimum of a 0.1-footdrop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts ih 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<enhanceflow through the manhole or curb irtlet. 11. -Sheet flow surface'drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way o~ onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. 12. ° Plans which propose to include the discharge to GriffirrCreek and any construction or modification within the floodway of Griffin Creek or in the road ditches of Pine Street, shall be in wmpliance with DSL, ACOE, ODFW, DEO, JC Roads, and/or City PWD (as applicable) guidelines and requirements and any applicable conditions and or approvals, of these regulatory agencies. Sanitary Sewer All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design, construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEO, 1990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals. 3. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review acid 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 bythe 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. Z4 Cori/rn ('reek fsrntra~.l7rhdrvi.cron 7kntnn ve P(an /'rr7.) Sta(/Report ,Novemhcr 3. 1998 pnKc 9 4. All testing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be'done in accordance with BCVSA requirements, at Developer's expi3nse: 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. Slte work, Grading, and Utility Plans 1. Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade wntour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour ;4 ~ 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: Rights of WayslEasements 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. 15 Attachment C . ,~ .. ~.. 08/03/98 10:35 $1 531 830 8907 JC ROADS & PARKS ~. •_ ~ -- _ JACKSON COUNTY, QRECON 200 ANTELOPE ROAD • WHRE CITY, OREGON 97503 9pq ~' + ~° °nnKS s~~ July 23, 1998 Attention: Jim Bennett City of Central Point Planning 115 South Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Planning File 98047; 15-lot residential subdivision Dear Mr. Bennett: C{JJ 0 O 1 ROADS & PARi(8 SERVICES JOSEPH L STRAHL, DIRECTOR (5di)926.3122 0(641)776->268 FAX:(541)930.5g07 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the application for Grlffln Creek 'Estate, a 15-lot residential subdivision located on the north side of West Pine Street; across from Corcoran Lane. Roads and Parks Services has the following comments: 1. The applicant shall submit construction drawings to Jackson County Roads and Parks Services and obtain county permits if required. 2 We recommend that half-street frontage improvements to West Pine Street be required to urban standards. Improvements shall include road widening, curb, gutter, drainage facilities, sidewalk and hike lane. 3. If additional right-of-way is required for the improvements, dedication should be required hefore 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 a road approach permits from Roads and. Parks Services for the new Nadine Court road approaches to West Pine Street. The paved approaches shall have 30' approach radii and a 30' minimum width. 5. We recommend no direct parcel access to West Pine Street. 6. Jackson County Roads and Parks Services would like to review and comment on the hydraulic report including the calculations and drainage plan. Capacity improvements or on site detention, if necessary, shall be installed at the expense of the applicant. If yvu have any questions or need further Information feel free to call me at 830-6400 extension #230. Sincerely, ~. 1~"rlc Niemeyer Traffic & Development Section f BIAR piICK iiI~PNWAYE/CNfiINPPAWG~%7~PTDMANIIOPMPM / ApT011 POOL / PMKS / /IO/{DAWNTINANCE / VPOPTATION M4I+AGPMPM T76.7B6B B26J1YL J36.3133 776.7330 7767001 dB6.3138 B36J733 BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTH'OR~~TY~ 3916 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFORD, OREGON 97601.9099 • (641)7794144 • FAX (641) 636.6275 - July 22, 1998 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Poirtt, Oregon 97502 Subject: 98047 - TP Griffin Creek Estates Subdivision Dear Ken, We have reviewed the subject planning action with regard to providing sanitary sewer service to the project location. While we would like to have the proposed development connect to the West Pine line, the existing grade differential'appearslimiting: Itwas anticipated thatthe proposed development would require an extension of affsite'sewer line through the existing subdivision to the North. A Grant of sanitary sewer easement has been made across lot 2S in the adjacent development. The width of said Easement does not conform to our Standard requirements, its location will result in an inaccessible manhole,:a sevyer mainline will$ave to be constructed outside the proposed PUE in lot 13 placing the manhole even further outinto lot 13, and an extensive streetcut and manhole installation in Palo Verde will have to be made. However unlikely another routing to Palo Verde should be attempted. The East side of lot 27 being the most beneficial access with resultant manhole being placed in Nadine Court Right-of- way, aconnection to the existing manhole in Palo Verde, and possibly no street cut in Palo Verde. Dependent upon direction of service to those lots adjacent to West Pine sewer construction could be minimized. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this planning action. Sincere , James May, Jr. P.E. District Engineef :. 18 • NETLAND LAND USE NOTIFICATION FORM ''•, DIVISION OF STATE LANDS DIVISION OF STATE LANDS WETLANDS PROGRAM REC=~:~r,~ 775 Summer Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 (503/378-3805 1~1n r. ~ iz °' Local Case File No.: 98o'F7-T 1. ~oun'ty: ~icKs~~' City: ~f PoMt DSL File No.: W ~ cj Responsible Jurisdiction: City ^ -County 2. APPLICANT: TED •t?R~4NcH name Po l3 ox gs~ mailing address RoGuG RIVER O R 97SS7 city state zip ( ) /- e88-2g7- r 22I phone LANDOWNER: SArKr name mailing address city state zip phone 3. LOCATION: T 3 7 R 2w S /0 1 /4 ~_ Tax NWI quad map name Attached: / NWI map Parcel map Lot(s) SZo" ~520o is s„~je~~/-on CFc~eK, (attach copy with site indicated) Site plan _ Other 4. SITE INFORMATION: NWI Wetland Classification Code(s) R 2 U$ N - Adjacent Waterway <if any) GQrFFr/v cR~K In Floodplain? Y _ N _ Current Land Use V~~T' Zoning R~/-8 Rao;~e»i:/s,.y/p~u,,,;y 5. PROPOSED ACTIVITY: ~, •, site plan approval / subdivision _ .,grading permit planned unit development u, _ `conditional use permit building permit (new structures) _ other 1{ ~ `Project Description: ThP cQe~elop/ne~o~c~ !S/eT' ('.e~;~fr~/ s~6d1i//(io, ,1; Completed by/Contact: Ken s~l~I Date 8-/o-9g Address /ss s Sac ~d> Sfle-et Ce.,flu/ oi~Y' oR~ N~so2_ Phone /SVi) 66Y 33L1 (This form is to be completed only by planning department staff for mapped wetlands) DSL RESPONSE ^ A removal-fill permit is required from the Division of State Lands. ^ A removal-fill permit will be required when the development project proceeds. ^' A removal-fill permit maybe required. A permit may be required by the Corps of Engineers (326-6995) 0 Information needed-includes: ~ A wetlanr~d determination/delineatilon repo1rt. 1rcoasnltant list available from DSL) ~L S~~~tt CGL ~.LLCt~ a[Ll Dpl-Sl~+e- 1,A1 ~T~0.LlC ~T~~I.~l7 UCl'Y~~O cI ~l•t (2~ ~ ^ State permit ~ ^ was issued ^ has been applied for. ^ No removal-fill permit is required for the described project if/because: * Comments: ~o'ts I~a~id I~ t~~ ~~ die Qya~uc~~~ ~-o Q~°~We ~>~i~«e~n-~ v1o~n w~~1a~~ ~zvi~da~lQ avzc~. 1 MM Response completed by: ~~~~`~ ~ ~~`-~ Date "l ~~ ~~' * If the project is changed to involve fill or removal from the wetlan s area, a state removal-fill permit will be required. .. ~g Correspondence Received from Area Property Owners 20 FIIY.ST PRFSBYTEIZL~IN CHURCH 486 West Pine Street Central Point, Oregon 97802 Phone (641) 664-iS28 E-mail: fpccpC~juno.com November 17, 1998` City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 Dear Planning Department Members: This. letter is for the purpose of putting on the record three issues as they. relate to the proposed 151ot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine and Corcoran Lane. First, we wish to state there cannot be any access to the proposed subdivision through the Central Point Presbyterian property, driveway or'parking lot:--..,,. Second, we are requesting that the d construction to separate the proposed subdi~ Church property, to run along lots 2, 4, 5, 6 privacy. Third, we wish to go on the recordr`s on West Pine Street those additional homes sidewalks, but many grade school age ch~ld~ increases, these children will be ptit"aY-more ~. ~veloper be required to build a fence prior to ~isiorf property from the CF Presbyterian` aid 7. This is both for safety aswell as -~ N~-~ tating our concern with the increased traffic will create. This part of West Pine has. no •en walk to school along its edge. As traffic risk until sidewalks are installed. ~ - ` ~~ - , ~~ ~ We appreciate your consideration to these issues. 1 ~ ,~ r f I er~1y, ,~~ $~ ~ ,~`~ ~ ~ 1 -""pI ~ffy~~a . 2 , ., ,' November 17 1998 Central Point Planning Commission Re: Griffin Creek Subdivision. Our concerns are: Griffin Creek access, Are lots numbered thirteen and fourteen far enough away from the creek as to keep it clear of debris at all times? As we see the proposal, all rain water, car washing and house washing water will come directly down Griffin Creek. How is this going%to keep Griffih Creek clear and"in good condition? Dtilities: .The" proposed.sanita~y sewer is to come to Palo Verde Way. How does this effect our utilities (water, electricity, gas,-and telephone. not to mention .the .cable TV circuits that are all on our side of the street) Will the proposed, sewer line be large enough, to handle all the effluent., Schools--fourteen houses with 2.5 children per home. Does the school district have enough class rooms to accommodate a .proposed influx of school children. Roy and Arline Loberg -549 Palo Verde Way. .664-7586 ~~~ 22 RECEIVED City of Central Point Planning Commission AUG 191998' August 19,1998 CITY QF CENTl~AL PAINT TIME ...._.....~._...,..,.....~...~..,..... To The Board: Once again our quite neighborhood is in chaos due to learning that Nadine and Ted Branch have once again presented a subdivision plan for the property behind our homes on Palo Verde Way. ;, 'Twice since I have lived at 507 Palo Verde Way, Central Point -legal description being Lot 31, Block 2, Flagstone Subdivision, in the- City of Central"Point, Jackson County, Oregon -- Ted and Nadine Branch have put proposals for subdivisions behind our home and both- times it has not taken place. The frst proposal was almost identicaZto the proposal which has come before the Board at present. It was denied then for a reason which was not only very sound, but to our understanding city law, that there would be no Yhrough lots in a subdivision in the City of Central Point. The new plan I have seen has at least three of these through lots.' Il is-not thatl object toprogress, as eventually somewhere down the line, there will be a subdivision built on this property --but it should not be one that is going to lower the value of existing property which-this plan before the Board would do without a doubt. Who in their right mind would want to purchase a home that had a city street not only running in front of their home, but also behind their home?? When Mr. Branch made his first proposal it was loudly objected to by the people of this neighborhood. The second one he proposed we didn't mind as it was two small cul--de-sacs and would have ingress and egress lanes off of Pine Street to enter the new subdivision. But apparently Mr. Branch did not wish to put these turn lanes in on Pine Street and the subdivision was never developed. I have dealt with Mr. Branch on both a personal and professional level and I find his approach to be very distasteful. Each year we must approach the City Enforcement Manager to have the field cut, as Mr. Branch pushes it to the limit and must be notified to cut the field or the city will. This year it was mid July, last year it was close to the first part of August. In my opinion, Mr. Branch does -y 23 not care about rules and regulations or the people whose home exist now in the City of Central Point. When my husband and I were approached Mr. Branch about the second subdivision proposal we agreed to support him in his endeavor, we also ask that once the subdivision was in and going that we have first option on the lot at the back of our, property to purchase so that we-could build a second home for our parents to live in, and of course we were refused that option. The plan that is before the Board at this time is one we object to once again for the same reasons as we did last time -- we do not want a u shaped street running behind the subdivision which will make a nice speedway for kids, etc. to run through one end and out the. other. We have heard through rumor that this. subdivision would allow no parking on the. street -- and tell me, who pray is going to oversee this rule? Our. overworked police department of Central Point. No, we as residence of a quite neighborhood object to this subdivision as it is .presented to the Board... Try.again and come up with a better plan. that will be to the. beauty, of our town,. not to get as many lots as possible to make that almighty buck for your pocket, Mr. Branch!! We do not wish for at least three, possible four: of the.homes in our:neighborhood to have "through lots" which will allow anyone.and everyone to jump:a fence, drive through a fence, or have access to there homes with a street in front and back of their homes. I ask you; who sit on the Board, would you like to have your home with a city street in front and behind it? I would not, I'd feel like I was sitting between two freeways, and that it would not increase the value of my home, but very definitely decrease the value.. We, as residents on Palo-Verde Way, Central Point, Flagston Subdivision do hearby request that you. turndown the. proposal for this. subdivision until Nadine and Ted Branch can come up with a plan that is more realistic and acceptable to the residences that are living here now. Sincerely, ~~- Sharon K. Tift (t 24 v ~E~EI~BE~ August 18, 1998 Planning Commission City of Central Point Planning Department AUG 171998' CITY OF CENTf3g1 f~OINT TIME __..___v_._.~.~.-__ Re: 15 lot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine and Corcoran Lane Tax Lots 100, 300, apd 600 ofthe-Jackson County Assessment Plat Map 37 2W I OBD, Tax Lot 5200 of Plat Map 37 2W l OAB and Tax Lot 9900 of Plat. Map. 37 2W lOBA. ,. ,t. a Dear Planning Commission: I am asking that you do not, approve plans to subdivide the above-mentioned property that includes a street behind the homes on Palo Verde Way. VJe have a road in front of our property and to have one behind our property would° 1. Reduce our privacy 2. Be a safety hazard for our children and pets in their own back yard 3. Cause more dirtto settle on our property 4. Be noisy (Palo Verde is noisy as it is) 5. Lower the property value and resale opportunities. I don't have any objections to subdividing the property with single family homes but it is unfair to put a street behind our property when we already have one in front of our property. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Sheri Miles 501 Palo Verde Way Central Point, Oregon 97502 (54.i )664-6070 25 August 17, 1998 City of Central Point Planning Department Regarding; Gxiffin Creek Fstates We are writing in regazds'to the tentative subdivision, Griffin Creek Estates. We are opposed to this subdivision for the following 'reasons: 1. We are against a road behind our back fence.. We have always felt safe in our neighborhood, but feel this security will no longer exist with a road behind our home, We also feel that by having this road it will depreciate the value of our home. We have consulted with many, people regarding whether they; would buy a home with a road in front and road behind, the answer was always the same "no'"! 2. We feel that before another subdivision is built in this. area that some- thing definitely needs to be done to alleviate the existng'traffic problem on West Pine. We appreciate your.consideratiom in our objections to this tentative subdivision, Griffin Creek Estates. Thank you, RE~ENE® David & Lynnette Wittkopf ~ AUG 1$ 199$' 513 Palo Verde way CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Central Point, OR. 97501 TIM E ~~ ~ ;~. 26 STEVEN W.KEPHART 531 PALO VERDE WAY CENTRAL POINT, OR 6647128 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE •~ C T~~ ' pLi3-A/N/ NG. C~~y,~-r~1S~0 a I HAVE JUST BEEN INFORMED THAT THERE IS ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO PUT HOUSING BEHIND MY PROPERTY AT 531 PALO VERDE WAY. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO HAVING NEW NEIGHBORS. HOWEVER DURING A PLANNING COMMLSSION MEETING IT WAS ESTABLLSHED THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT ALLOW PROPERTY TO BE LOCKED BETWEEN TWO ROADS. THLS'NEW PLAN' IS NOT NEW.1T WOULD PLACE A ROAD DII2ECTLY BEHDdD MY PROPERTY AND ,.., ~~ ~ WITHIN A FEW FEET OF MY SWB1'Il1~IING POOL. THE ONGOING LII{ELIHOOD OF DAMAGE IN THE FORM OF CRACKS TO THE SWBVBVHNG POOL LS SEVERE. THE LOSS TO ME AND MY FAMILY IN PROPERTY VALUES LS GREAT AND THE VIOLATION OF A CFI'Y ORDINANCE FOR THE GREED OF A FEW IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. THERE MUST BE OTHER WAYS TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY WffiCH DOES NOT HARM OTHERS. THEREFOR I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO'NOT' ACCEPT THIS PLAN. RE~E~vE® AUG 111998' THAI.. P01NT CITY OF GEN T1M~ Y TRULY .,~ --~ TEVEN W. KEP T -;. . ~ 2~7 ~; ~~e.. RECEIVED q'8o~-~~ -TP City of CENTRAL POINT City Staff & Planning Department` ~,u~ 3998• 155 So. 2nd St. CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 c~ Ph, 664-3321 CITY pF CENTFIAL PAUlgust 3, 1998 TIME Attn; TOM HUMPHREY, PLANNING DIRECTOR Re; Subject, TENTATIVE PLAN APPLICATION for a 15 LOT SUBDIVISION, in the vicinity of WEST PINE STREET, & CORCORAN LANE.---As per your notice of MEETING to be f6u.~ 2U', 1998. a.r; - / Thank you for the NOTICE of this PUBLIC HEARING. As a property owner at 454 WEST PINE ST.,adjacent to the proposed SUBDIVISION, we would respectfully remind you of our letters, dated several years. ago, MAY 12 1992, and JULY 13, of 1992. In fact, when a similar APPLICATION came before the CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEF T, the thrust of the letters to you, were the same as we have TODAY. #1 Gaining ACCESS to the Property by-THE CONTRACTORS, br SUB CONTRACTORS...We have already experienced"this, by a previous set of Contractors several. years ago,--when they wanted access to the back of the property on PALO VERDE WAY. Please note'thatthe;PRESBYTERTAN'CHURCH DRIVEWAY/PARKING LOT, and. the tip of our property, is at the WEST END of the PROPOSED 'SUBDIVISION .: WE DO N9T.want this to be a "CONVENIENCE" ENTRY for the DEVELOPERS, or any SUB-CONTRACTORS! We are aware of :the proposed roadway „but still has a hous e at the entry, (in 1992 was to be named NADINE WAY) We would respectfully submit 2 (tW0)_CONTINGENCIES to the consideration of the approval of the APPLICATION.. #1THE HOUSE ON NADINE WAY ENTRY WILL BE MOVED or changed, in such a manner so as to let all traffic in & out of the PROPOSED SUBDIVISION to gain access without looking for alternate entry. ---THIS WILL BE at the BEGINNING, or PRIOR to any DEVELOPMENT of the PROPERTY IN QUESTION.... --ALSO, PRIOR to DEVELOPEMENT - #2 The DEVELOPER WILI~BUILD a PRIVACY FEN~E along the WEST-`" END OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION... WITH NO GATES.at least 6 FT HIGH, (72inches) from the north end to the southern tip of the WESTERN BOUNDERY of the PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. ( A good example can be seen at the subdivision on the NORTH end of 10th ST, now in progress) Thank you for the opportunity you have given us, as property owners, to respond with our concerns. If there are any quest- ions, please feel free to call, 664-2012.... RESPECTFULLY, L~'~' %~ w ART & RUTH FRIESEN 454 WEST PINE ST. CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 ~~ ATTACHMENT E PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit to the City a copy of the proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the Griffin Creek Subdivision. 2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the development of the Griffin Creek Estates subdivision. Evidence of such compliance shall be submitted to the City prior to final plat approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the development and construction of the Griffin Creek Estates subdivision. 4. The applicant shall construct a fence, suitable to the City, along the common boundaries of Griffin Creek Estates and the First Presbyterian Church prior to property development. .~ ._ ,. _,. °,~ . `~ G:\PLANNING\98047. W PD 29 .. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: December 1, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM:. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Withdrawal of Annexation Territory from Jackson County Rural .Fire. Protection District #3 (Schwichtenberg Annexation). Summarv- On November, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 838 ordering the annexation of 1.025 acres located on the southwest corner of Pine Street (Biddle) and Hamrick Road. Although this-area is presently being used. as a small homesite, it is designated by the r Comprehensive Plan for commercial uses and the applicants would like to develop it as such. Authority The Central Point Municipal Code (Section 1.24.020) vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review and make recommendations to the City Council on withdrawals from special districts. Discussion Upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed withdrawal and consider adopting an ordinance declaring that the territory within the annexation area be withdrawn from Jackson County Rural Fire Protection District No. 3. Coincidentally, Fire District No. 3 is now providing fire protection to the annexed territory under its current contract for services with the City. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council withdraw the subject annexation area from Jackson County Rural Fire Protection District No. 3. Attachments A. City Council Resolution No. 838, Zoning and Annexation Area Maps 30 RESOLUTION NO. ~3 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE ANNEXATION OF A 1.025-ACRE PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BIDDLE AND HAMRICK ROADS INTO THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON (Applicant: Tom & Jean Schwichtenberg) (37 2W O1C Tax Lot 3100) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: ion Application has been made by the agent of the'owner of certain real property for annexation into the City of Central Point, Oregon. The property consists of 1.025 acres located south and west of the City limits, on the southwest corner of Biddle and Hamrick Roads. The property to be annexed is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. The property to be annexed is not within the City of Central Point's current corporate boundaries, but is contiguous to the City's existing corporate boundary on its eastern boundary and is within the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary. ,.. . Section 2. The owners of the properly proposed for annexation are Tom & Jean Schwichtenberg, who have submitted a written consent to the annexation by way of their agent, The Richard Stevens Company, LLC so designated in writing by the owner. There are no electors residing on the property. The written consent is on file at Central Point City Hall, 155 S. Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. e tion ORS 222.125 provides that when all of the owners of land in the territory proposed for annexation and not less than 50% of the electors residing in such territory have consented in writing to the annexation of the land in the territory and file such written consent with the City Council, the property may be annexed without the requirement for an election or a public hearing. e i n 4. Annexation of the described property is consistent with the City's ability to provide facilities and "services to the real property, as required by the City's Comprehensive Plan. Applicant's written "Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" are hereby adopted and incorporated herein. e n Pursuant to ORS 222.125, the property described in Section 1 above, shall be and hereby is, annexed to and made a part of the City of Central Point, Oregon. 31 ,; Section 6. The City Administrator, or his designee, shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the Oregon Secretary of State, and this annexation shall be effective when filed with the Oregon Secretary'of State pursuant to ORS 222.180. Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this ~~ day of f~ouenlra~ , 1998. Mayor Rusty McGrath ATTF~,ST: ` City Representative Approved by me thisab day of n° ~~, 1998. Mayor Rusty McGrath 32 ., Commencing at the Southeast corner of Donation Land Claim (D.L.C.) No. 55 in Township 37 South, Range 2 West of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 89° 52' 30" West along the Northerly boundary of D.L.C. No. 56 a distance of 30.32 feet; thence South 00° 52' 40"'East 329.04 feet to the Southeast corner of the tract described in Instrument No. 98-37677 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon; thence along the boundary of said tract, South 89° 52' 30" West 10.54 feet to a point on the current City of Central Point limits and the Westerly right-of--way line of Hamrick Road for the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said City limits and said right-of--way and continuing along the boundary of said tract, South 89 ° 52' 30" West 158.71 feet; thence North 00° 07' 30" West 69.00 feet; thence North 89° 52' 30" East, a distance of .91 feet; thence North 00° 07' 30" West 178.36 feet to a point on the Southerly right-of--way line of Biddle Road; thence continue North 00 ° 07' 30" West 50.00 feet to a point on the centerline of said Biddle Road; thence North 89° 54' 43" East along said centerline, a distance of 137.70 feet to a point on the current City of Central Point limits; thence leaving the boundary of said tract, along,said City limits, South 00° OS' 17" East 62.48 feet to a point on the Westerly right-of--way line of Hamrick Road; thence South 11 ° 41' O1" East along said right-of--way line and said City limits, a distance of 92.94 feet; thence South 00° 43' 46" East 143.75 feet to the Point of Beginning. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR , OREGON JULY 14, 1998 RANDY L. FITCH EXPIRCS' /2~2~ Randy L. Fitch L.S. 2867 -Oregon Expires 12/31/99 Hoflbuhr & Associates, Inc. Schwichtenberg 98-183 October 15, 1998 (schwtbrg.rlf) 33 ~; t;~1, .Biddle Koad r ~ ~ ~89°~3"E :137.'70' ~. -I o ~ Ng~ I ~ o . ~_ ~ ~ ~' ~I _. ~,~ N89°54'43"E I I 127.27 ~~.~° ~ ., !6 S~ 1 '1 1 I ~ .1 1 I 'NO ~ 1 1 A O . o TOTAL AREA TO BE ANNEXED = 1.025 AC ti11 N ~a l ~,In~ J , W 4j I . ~1 'I ~ O I I O° I WI M L °I ~ I NR9°52'30"F. I I 0.91' I _.. Z I ~ wl ~ C v U p ( I q y~ 4 © THOMAS 1. t JP.AN A: SQIiVICHf'@IBERC I TAXlATI100 I f72W Olt IO1956t•1 ~ ' L.°°°g~2F ._. ._._. 158.71' S89°52'30"W 34 N o CS3 o N O ~, x v ..-, i Uh 1U.54' ~V PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: December 1, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission/Historic Review Board FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Consideration of a request by Deana Sims to locally recognize a house located at 434 Manzanita Street as historically significant Summary The City has received a request to locally recognize an historic dwelling located at 434 Manzauita Street. Historic designation would allow the house (located in the C-2 zone) to be completely rebuilt in the event of a fire and enable Ms. Sims to obtain a loan to purchase the property (refer to Attachment B). Authori The Central Point Municipal Code (Section 1.24.020) vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review and make recommendations to the City Council on matters of historic designation. CPMC Section 17.70.030 further designates the Planning Commission to act in the capacity of Historic Review Board until such time as the Ciry Council determines that a separate body is needed for this purpose. Upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council may designate a new historic building or site and direct that it be included on the historic inventory map (which is part of the Comprehensive Plan). Discussion The Municipal Code (Section 17.70.040.B.3) directs the Historic Review Board to consider requests for historic designation based upon five criteria listed as purposes under Section 17.70.010. These criteria and a staff response are listed in the following section of this report. The City has received limited information to establish the historical significance of the house in question. According to county assessor's records, the house is at least 78 years old (built or remodeled in 1920). The applicant has stated that newspaper, used in the walls as insulation, dates to the turn of the century. Staff expects to receive additional information from the applicant by the time of the Planning Commission meeting. The Historic Review Board may then consider whether the five criteria can be met. 35 r !s n Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law In making a recommendation to the City Council, the Historic Review Board must base its decision on the following criteria: A. Provide for the preservation and protection of sites and improvements within the community of Central Point that reflect or represent elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history; The applicant believes that the house in question was probably built. around the turn of the century and represents an important part of Central Point's historic .past. No definitive information has yet been received to substantiate the cultural, social, economic or architectural value of the site. B. Safeguard the City's historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as embodied and reflected in such improvements and areas; There is a house across the street from the one at 434 Manzanita that has been recognized locally (the Gilmore home) and has also been added to the State and National Historic Registers. There are other buildings in the vicinity of this dwelling that have been recognized as historic structures. The applicant intends to bring the home up to its former appearance if it can be acquired. G Complement the ,efforts of the Southern Oregon. Historical Society, State of Oregon and other organizations or individual efforts aimed at historical preservation; Central Point's Historic Inventory Map and corresponding documentation is complementary to the efforts of the Southern Oregon Historical Society. Several of the sites identified locally have subsequently been listed with the state. D. Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of Central Point's past; The applicant has stated that she has information to support the historic significance of the Manzanita residence and associate it with accomplishments of citizens who have occupied the dwelling. City staff have not yet received this information. E. Carry out the provisions of LCDC Goal No. 5. The intent of Goal 5 is to conserveopen space and protect natural and scenic resources including historic areas,. sites, structures and objects. Historic areas are lands with sites, structures and objects that have local, regional, statewide or national historic significance. 36 ,~ ~, The City has not yet established the local significance of this site and is awaiting supporting documentation from the applicant. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Recommend local historic designation of the house at 434 Manzanita Street based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed historic designation; or 3. Continue the review and public hearing for the historic designation at the discretion ' of the Commission. Attachments A. Letter to Tom Humphrey from Deana Sims datedNovember 2, 1998. B. Letter to Deana Sims from the Planning: Department dated November 3, 1998. ' C. Notice of Meeting for Historic Review Board D. Inventory of Historical Buildings & Sites from Comprehensive Plan 37 November 2, 1998 Deana Sims 1060 Crater Lake Ave., Ste. C Medford, Oregon 97504 Tom Humphrey Planning Department 155 So. 2nd Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Mr. Humphrey: r~~ ~~-~ Q~ I am writing in regards to 434 Manzanita Street. The property is zoned C-2 but is a residential home. The county shows that this house was built in 1920 but everyone who has looked at it believes it was actually built around the turn of the century. The house has been remodeled inside and I have had a Whole House Inspection done on it. The inspection was incredible. The understructure is completely clean and there were only 2 or 3 very minor things throughout the whole report. This house, and many others on this street are representative of our past and.I'm'hoping that if a few people take the time to tiring them up to their former:appearance then others'will do the same. Dr. David Gilmour owns .the property adjacent to this home and he has done a wonderful job of restoring it. He has had it put on the Historical Register in Central Point as well as the State of Oregon. His house alone has improved the look of that area and I'm hoping to continue what he has started. I am purchasing the home and it is scheduled to close on November 20, 1998. My lender has informed me that since it is zoned C-2 and will not be rebuilt as a home if a fire claims more than 50% of it they will not loan on the property. In talking to Dr. Gilmour and a gentleman from the City of Central Point I found that if it was stated to be a historical property by the Historical Review Board then it could be rebuilt and therefore I could get a loan on it. With all of the new growth of Central Point I think it's important to preserve the old. These are beautiful homes that just need some TLC and if a few people will take the time and effort to fix them up it could do nothing but enhance the City of Central Point. I ask you to please consider putting this house on the historical register of Central Point. I feel you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. It will still keep it's C-2 zoning which would mean that it could be used for a business, yet for the present time it can be used as a home that will hopefully continue the trend that Dr. Gilmour started, making one of Central Point's older streets into a part of this town's history. 38 °, I'm not sure of your process or how long this type of thing can take but I'm hoping to get this matter dealt with as soon as possible. I'm still aiming for my closing date of November 20. If that isn't possible then some idea of a time frame from the review board would be greatly appreciated. The sooner I can move in-and start enjoying my new home the better. I, or Jeff Leever, my agent can be reached at (541) 773-5391. I appreciate your time and hope to~hear from you soon. Thank you, ~~ ~~-' Deana Sims .~; f;:. :.. .~~ 39 11-2d-1998 d:38PM FROM November 24, 1998 P. 2 , ~, ii ~; Tom Humphrey Historical Committee Central Point re: 434 Manzanita Street, Central Point In starting our research on-the property located at 434 Manzanita in Centi•al`Point we have discovered that it was owned by William T. Leever and his wife Elizabeth who was a daughter to the Constant family who were original pioneers of Central Point. We believe the property was initially bought by William T. Leever from M.H. Field in July of 1882. A structure Is believed to have been built around 1898. Newspapers found in the walls for insulation are dated 1898/99. William and Elizabeth's son, William C. Leever was mayor of Central Point for a number of years and also owned the Central Point hardware store. The Leevers and Constants were an, integral part of the development of Central Point. There handprint is on a majority of early C.P. development. Their names can be found on documents throughout the archives. This home has been standing for approximately 100 years. It is very much a part of Central Point's past and to preserve it on the historical register would recognize and promote Central Point's unique historic legacy. if we can encourage other people to maintain and improve historical properties to enhance the downtown area it can only help to keep the small town feel alive while providing for safe, clean and attractive residential neighborhoods. Being a commercial property and having it also on the historical register will, in the long run, make Central Point unique. Business will grow and by having this type of property available for the small business in a neighborhood type setting can only encourage business's to locate there, yet families only a street away will still feel they are in a residential setting. We are still researching the property and would be happy to provide you with additional information that we discover. If there is anything further that you wish us to provide you please fet us know. hank you f ou~e, /° -~/ Deana Sims 40 ., ~, ~, \,L[„~ '\ l ~ Ken Gerschler Technician i g nna Gregory ing Secretary November 3, 1998 Deana Sims 1060 Crater Lake Avenue, Suite C Medford, Oregon 97504 Dear Ms. Sims: I have received your letter requesting local historic recognition of the house located at 434 Manzanita Street. As you've stated, historic designation would 1) allow the house. (located in a commercial zoning district) to be completely rebuilt in the event of a fire and 2) enable you to subsequently obtain a loan to purchase. the property, According to our municipal code (see Chapter 17.70, attached), the City Council may, after ~ ~, recommendation by the Historic Review Board, designate new historic buildings and include ,,; them on the historic inventory map. The City's Historic Review Board consists of the members-of the Planning Commission. As part of the historic designation procedure (17.70.040.B) the Board/Commission will need to schedule a public hearing to entertain your proposal. The soonest that we can do this is at a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on December 1st since the City is required to notice a hearing 21 days in advance. The City Council must also review your proposal before a final decision is made. If you are interested in proceeding with your proposal, please contact me and confirm this as soon as possible. There are five criteria (17.70.010) upon which the Board/Commission will base its decision and you may wish to submit additional supporting information to assist the City in arriving at a conclusion. I can be reached at 664-3321 ext. 231 should you have any questions once you receive this correspondence. Sincerely, 11 Thomas F. H prey, AICP Enclosure c: Jim Bennett, City Administrator City of Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT 41 k umphrey, AICP ~vV/`~ inning Director 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, Or 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ,p I t ~~~ ~' City of Central Point ~, .f PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~~u-.V~~^A^~~: ey, AICP G Director erschler _hnician NOTICE OF MEETING Date of Notice: November l2, I998 Meeting Date: Tuesday, December 1, 1998 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Deanna Gregory Planning Secretary Beginning at the above place and time, the Central PointPlanning Commission which serves as the Historic Preservation Board will review.a request.to include a residence at 434 Manzanita Street on the historic review map for the City of Central Point. The parcel is identified on the records of the Jackson County Assessor as 37 2W 02CC, Tax Lot 1700. CRITERIA. FOR DECISION Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 17.70.010 requires that applicants requesting designation to the historic inventory map meet review criteria that include the identification of cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history. 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, December 1, 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 42 ~~ ~, 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City 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 Historic Review Board will review the application, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, and opponents and hear arguments on the application. At the conclusion of the review, the Historic Review Board may recommend to the City Council that the residence be included on the historic inventory map. ..~3 -:n, ~* ~ ._ ,. i N v y ~° ~~~ ~n ;'~i ~~ ,:~r. 43 J Fig. VI-10 Central Point A,l~i(~~'~'c INVENTORY OF HISTORICAL BUIliDINGS Y OREGON IN4 HISTORIC P. .L OTHER UNDOCUMENTED BUILDINGS, T OF HISTORIC INTEREST IN CITY I f 3 _ _ ~ 9__ _ _ (See photos & related documentation "~ ~~ ~°a;~7 _~-~_ -~ for specific locations & addresses.) ,g6 w I ~F i ~ zw I WILLOW(SPINGS ROAD 1{ 19 o •t R ~ tt I ~o ~ sF I I ua ~c II I . ~ i ,,~-~--t - -- 7 Y JJ ~I N 'S LuK I 41\ >. yx~ SCENIC I AVENUE I V I , y~l ~ I \ 9J. i ~ - ~ ZJ I i ~ p -I Central I ~ .KS, I .,~., ~ P i 9~ o ~ TAYLOfl I zxo ROAD ztco ~ xxxnTAYLOR x}~ I s I ` ~ ~ n I fY A $ i F V[11.IM $ - ~ x I .< ~` .,W.., ~ f . } I WftLS I f PGO PO I MFPR14C 11 ~T I Y.CA I x[w S IYW~M ~ c Y ~ s E ~ E ~ WWn.z•w"w . REAL L~ f ~z. IAN I x. lx x )0o I I ~ - ~ ~ ~ 13 I I ~ i I o <I j O I Y WILSON c ~ ROAD xu x .«,--L--- -----8+-- ----- ~ a I ~k5 xl -- LIPTON ROAD i 4~ ~~° i ~ro v i I I" ~ W VIUS RD EI A S Cpunt~ ~ xw L: xo :.~~y'y Fairgrounds m j ~, o V p~ ..f s ~~ '°~ De~e1o ~ $ ~k2 Ig~~ Ib I xro E TTT_'7, 44