Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - January 5, 1999~ ~~ ,. •a CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA January 5, 1999, - 7:00 p.m. ~ ~ fl Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 437 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland -Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, and Karolyne Johnson III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of December 15, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Page 1 - 15 A. Continuation of public hearing to consider a request by John Addington to partition 0.95 acres into three parcels and vary from the lot size requirements on two of the three parcels. The subj ect property is located 70 feet south of First Street between Cedar and Bush Streets in the C-5 zoning district. ~e°.p c131 VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT ~~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 15, 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 Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician; Lee Brennan, Public Works Director; Sue Meyers, Office Technician; City Councilman/Mayor Elect Bill Walton; Councilman John LeGros; City Administrator Jim Bennett, and Councilman Elect, Dr. David Gilmour. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. Tom Humphrey announced that Angela Curtis resigned from the Planning Commission because of increasing family committments. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of December 1, 1998. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. ROLL CALL: Fish, abstain; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES John Early, a member of the audience, suggested that the City needs to yellow stripe the area from Front Street, down Bush, to the 98¢ Store. The Planning Commission recommended that he make a request to the Public Works Department, who could bring it to the City Council. VI. BUSINESS A. P„hlic Hearing to consider a request by John Addington to partition 0 95 acres into three parcels and varv from the lot size requirements on two of the three parcels The subject property is located 70 feet south of First Street between Cedar and Bush Streets in the C-5 zoning district. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report, which recommended continuance. The Planning Department is meeting with the applicant on December 16. There are some unresolved issues, involving the redistribution of water service and service connections, deeded property boundaries and the need for additional right-of--way dedication. Mr. Howard Misner, 414 So. First Street, had some questions, and was asked to call ~. ~; City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes December I5, 1998, Page 2 Mr. Humphrey after the December 16th meeting with the applicant. Commissioner Fish made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to consider a request by John Addington to partition 0.95 acres into three parcels and vary from the lot size requirements on two of the three parcels. Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the motion passed. B. Public Hearing to consider a request by Victor Kosmatka to develop East Cherry Estates a Tentative Plan for an 81ot (padlo~ subdivision on the north side of Cherry Street west of its intersection with North 10th Street in the R-3 zoning.. district. There were no conflicts of interest or ex-parte communications. Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. The eight padlots satisfy the zoning criteria for the district and the area and frontage requirements have been met. The 3/4 garage does not meet city requirements for two off-street covered parking spots and would need to be dealt with in the future, but should not affect the request for the Tentative Plan for the subdivision. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director reviewed the Public Works Staff Report. The city may require additional dedication of easements and right-of--way to match the existing conditions and to incorporate the existing infrastructure. A 10- foot wide P.U.E. should be required on the north side of the Cherry Street right- of-way, on Lots 1 through 8. Further subdivision will also result in some street excavation to increase the number of service lateral connections. Public Works will require the developer to overlay the northern half of Cherry Street to maintain its structural integrity after excavation. The applicant will also be required to underground the overhead utilities and remove the existing utility poles. He may be required to provide a private storm drain as no lot would be allowed to drain onto another. Victor Kosmatka, applicant, addressed some of the staff concerns, and assured the Commission that he would be able to conform to the requirements Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 436 to develop East Cherry Estates, a Tentative Plan for an 81ot (padlot) subdivision on the north side of Cherry Street west of its intersection with North 10th Street in City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 1998, Page 3 the R-3 zoning district, per staff reports and discussion. He also stated that the applicant should expect to build a minimum 20' wide garage, or provide 2 covered parking spaces, as required by the city. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Fish. ROLL CALL: Candy Fish, yes; Don Foster, yes, Bob Gilkey, yes; Karolyn Johnson, yes. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey invited the Planning Commissioners to attend a Planning Commissioners Workshop in Grants Pass in May, at the City's expense. As Angela Curtis has resigned, the City Administrator will be inviting the public to apply for selection to the Commission. Candy Fish stated that her term is up at the end of this year, and she would be willing to serve another term. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. All said "aye" and the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 5, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing - To consider a minor partition and variance from lot dimensions on property located 70 feet south of First Street between Cedar and Bush Streets in the C-5 zoning district (372W11 Tax Lot 3900). Annlicant/ Owner: John Addington P.O. Box 351 Medford, Oregon 97501 A~*ent: The Richard Stevens Co. LLC P.O. Box 4368 Medford, Oregon 97501 Summary: The applicant has submitted a proposal to partition a 0.95 acre parcel into three parcels and vary from the lot size requirements on two of the three parcels. The single tax lot is currently occupied by an auto shop and six legally non-conforming dwellings. The applicant's goal is to separate the various uses from one another for sale and/or refinancing. u h ri CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for minor partition and variance. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. A~nlicable Law: CPMC 16.36.010 et seq. -Major and Minor Land Partitions CPMC 16.40.010 et seq. -Variances CPMC 17.46.010 et seq. -C-S, Thoroughfare Commercial District Discussion: The minor partition involves redefining boundaries between existing conforming and non- conforming land uses and structures which were built over old vacated public rights-of--way. The land partition 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. The applicant decided to demolish an existing dwelling at 24 Cedar Street to provide better access and use the water service from that address to the Boulder Brothers auto shop at 27 Bush Street. ~~~ 1 The Planning Department has reviewed the tentative plan for compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. The area is designated for thoroughfare commercial development and is zoned C-5. This proposal will result in a more efficient use of commercially zoned land and potentially improve the overall configuration of this property and 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 C. 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 C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial Zoning District and increases commercial land use efficiency in this area. The proposed minor partition is permitted in any district including the C-5 zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan encourages innovative residential planning and development techniques that would help to increase land use efficiency and reduce costs of utilities and services (Comprehensive Plan, page XII-12). 2. The project consists of a tentative plan application for the subdivision of approximately 0.95 acres into three parcels for the purpose of separating commercial land use from non-conforming residential land uses coexisting on a single tax lot. The proposed minor partition meets the requirements of the City's subdivision and zoning codes for commercial lots. A variance is required to satisfy the specific requirements of the C-5 zone (Section 17.46.OSO.C). The tentative plan includes all information required by CPMC 16.38.010 et. seq. 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 project meets all City standards and requirements subject to approval of a zone variance and recommended conditions of the Planning Department (Attachment E) and the Public Works Department (Attachment C). G:\PLANN ING\98044. W PD ~.,,, 2 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. Findings for Variance Submitted by Applicant's Agent C. Public Works Staff Report dated December 8, 1998 D. Correspondence Received from Affected Agencies E. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval G:\PLANNING\98044. W PD ~ ~~ 3 Proposed Partition John Addington i:7La'1:,.. ~~a 4 City of Central ~ oint Attachment A PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: November 16, 1998 Meeting Date: December 15, 1998 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning atthe above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commissionwill review applications for a Variance and a Tentative Partition in the vicinity of Bush, Cedaz and South Front Streets. The subject parcel islocated in a C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W 11BC, Tax Lot 3900. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for V ariances and Tentative Plans aze set forth in Chapters 16 and 17 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street pazking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Anyper;on interested in commenting on the above-menfioned land use decisionmay submitwritten comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 15, 1998. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expirationofthecommentperiodnotedabove. Anytestimonyandwrittencommentsaboutthe 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384_ ., ., , 5 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 HaI1,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE Atthe mceting,the Planning Commissionwillreviewthe applications, technical staffreports, heartestimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning CommissionmayapproveordenylheVarianceandTentativePlan. Cityregulationsprovidethat the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ~~~~~ SUBJECT PROPERTY ~'~~~ 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 J v V Attachment B BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT: IN THE MATTER OF A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 17.46.050 OF THE ) File CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE: ) FINDINGS OF FACT John Addington, Applicant; The Richard ) ) Stevens Company, L.L.C., Agents ) 1 I. INTRODUCTION: In June of 1998, an application for a minor partition for a parcel of land located between Cedar and Bush Streets, just off Pacific Highway, was submitted to the City of Central Point. The parcel under discussion is described as T.37S, Range 2W, Section 11, Tax Lot 3900. The property is developed for a combination of residential and commercial uses (Boulder Brothers shop). The proposal is to segregate the commercial from the residential purposes. The City Planning Staff contacted the agents regarding the tentative plat, and informed them that the tentative plat must also include a Subdivision Variance in order to be deemed complete, since one of the lots created did not meet the minimum requirements for lot depth and width, as provided in CPMC Section 17.46.050. These Findings of Fact are the supporting documents necessary to deem the applications complete, and allow staff to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission on this issue. II. CRITERIA: The criteria for a variance are contained in Chapter 16.40 of the CPMC. Standards for variances are contained in Section 16.40.020, which essentially states that a variance may be approved if: A. That strict application of the provisions of this title would result in an unnecessary hardship which was not self-imposed or created by action of the property owner. V ~ V B. That there are special conditions, such as exceptional or extraordinary physical features of the property such as size, shape, topographical or similar features affecting the property that are not common to all property in the area. C. That the variance is not being sought merely to circumvent the intent of a city requirement, and that the variance, if granted, would be faithful to the spirit and intent of the regulation in question, and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. D. That there would be no adverse impact of any sort upon other properties within the City. E. That there is no practical alternative to achieve the relief sought, and that if granted, the variance allows no more than the minimum amount of relief from the regulation in question necessary to achieve relief from the unnecessary hardship. III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Discussion: A review of this property, its location and orientation, use, and current state of development indicates a history of use as an income property. The site contains a commercial enterprise (Boulder Bros. shop), as well as a number of smaller residential units that were developed in the 1930's and 40's, but all on the same parcel. The property is long and narrow, and is basically the center portion of Block 19 of the Bush Street Subdivision, including a previously vacated alley (Volume 277, -Page 313, Jackson County Records). The purpose of the tentative plat is essentially to divide off the shop facility and a single unit, while retaining the multi-residential units on a separate and distinct lot. When this is accomplished, additional water and sewer hookups will more than likely be required, since the property is served by a minimum amount of service (2 water meters, one serving 24 Cedar, and another serving 36 Cedar, and the five duplex units. However, the application does not comply with the minimum lot sizes contained in the Central Point Municipal Code, which requires 100 foot depth and 50 foot width. The proposal does not meet this standard for the proposed partition, due to the shape, size, and existing level of development on the property. The variance requested for this application is to the standard above, since the size and shape of the property preclude any changes to the partition that was submitted. J V w 8 The following addresses the standards noted above: A. The strict application of the provisions of this title would result in an unnecessary hardship which was not self-imposed or created by action of the property owner. The strict application of this section was intended to provide a minimum standard for lot sizes when the parcels were originally created, generally through a partition or subdivision process. When the standard was created, it was assumed that most properties being divided would be unimproved, vacant lands, and the subdivider could create uniform parcels consistent with the standard. In this case, the property has a unique orientation, since it was originally created as part of the Bush Street Subdivision, which created long, narrow parcels in the first place (see attached map). Secondly, with the vacation of the alley, the property ended up in a strange configuration, essentially anon-conforming parcel that became the center of a block, and not oriented to a street as would be a normal subdivision, and that was ultimately developed with six residences and a commercial business, all under the same ownership. Since the property is already a unique orientation, and developed with a mixture of uses, and abutting parcels are also developed and not available for consolidation, the applicant's desire to partition and sell the commercially oriented portion of the property appears to be reasonable. The applicant (property owner) did not create this unique configuration, but merely purchased the property as an investment. The nonconformity with the lot size requirements is created by the size, shape, development and orientation of the parcel, and is not the result of an action by the property owner. 8. That there are special conditions, such as exceptional or extraordinary physical features, affecting the property, such as size, shape, topography or similar features, affecting the property that are not common to all property in the area. Again, as stressed above, the size, shape, development and configuration of the property is extraordinary. Probably nowhere in Central Point will we.find a block developed in such a manner as to have one large parcel, including a vacated alley, oriented so as to be the center of the block, from north to south, with such minimal street frontage as exists on this site. A review of development on abutting parcels indicates that none of the blocks surcounding this property have developed in such an unconventional manner. C. That the variance is not being sought to circumvent the intent of the city requirement, and that the variance, if granted, is faithful to the spirit and intent of the regulation in question, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. J V ~. 9 As noted above, the intent of the subdivision ordinance, in proscribing a uniform minimum lot configuration, was to provide some degree of uniformity in terms of size and orientation when land was originally developed. It appears clear that the requirement was not generally conceived to apply to developed properties that were developed under older, different regulations. This application for division. of the property is in fact faithful to the spirit and intent of the regulations in general, since it will create two parcels that can be better utilized for their respective uses. Additionally, the action will in fact enhance the public health, safety and welfare by solving along-term problem with water service serving the property. The request is reasonable, given the circumstances, and is not intended to circumvent the intent of the ordinance requirement. D. That there will be no adverse impact of any sort upon other properties in the city. There will be no adverse impact of any sort upon other properties in the city, since none are affected. The application is reasonable, and provides a separation between two disparate uses, resulting in a more reasonable orientation of the land. The application will also result in addressing along-standing issue regarding water service, which is a positive solution to an old problem. E. There is no practical alternative to achieve the relief sought, and if granted, the variance allows no more than the minimum amount of relief from the regulation in question to achieve relief from the unnecessary hardship. The hardship in this case deals with the ability of the property owner to finance the properties. Most lending institutions will not loan, or will restrict loans, on nonconforming parcels. In this case, the divergent uses on this parcel make it very difficult to conform to loan committee ideals on use; is it commercial, ormulti-family? The applicant would like the flexibility to sell the commercially oriented parcel, and keep and refinance the residentially oriented piece. While the division complies with lot depth requirements, the lot width issue on one parcel creates this problem. The average lot width of the one parcel, including the commercial building, is consistent with the requirement of the ordinance. There really is no practical alternative to achieve the relief sought. The variance, to the lot width requirement, is the minimum relief sought, and achieves the goal of both the property owner and the city in addressing an older, developed site that poses some problems in terms of public facilities. ib IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: This application is a reasonable request to divide a large, non-conforming parcel into two parcels that are, generally, more conforming with the district. The partition separates commercial uses from residential ones, and addresses a public facilities issue that has been a thorn in the side of the city for some time. The applicant purchased the property with the intent of selling the commercial building to the lessors, and assumed that it would be a simple application. The size, shape, orientation, and previous development on site create a unique situation that can best be addressed via the variance procedure. With this in mind, the applicant respectfully requests a variance to the lot width criteria, and requests the Planning Commission adopt the above findings in support of that decision. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: THE RICHARD STEVENS COMPANY, L.L.C. J. Michael LaNier 11 Attachment C CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for ADDINGTON PARTITION (Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Block 19) PW# 98044 Date: Applicant: Project: Location: Legal: Zoning: Area: Units: Plans: Report By: Purpose December 29, 1998 John Addington, P.O. Box 351, Medford, Oregon 97501 Richard Stevens Co., LLC, P.O. Box 4368, MedfoM, Oregon 97501 Addington Partition into three Lots of 37-2W-11 BC, Tax Lot 3900 Between Cedar and Bush, and Front and First Streets. T37S, R2W, Section 11 BC, Tax Lot 3900 C-5. Commercial Thoroughfare District 0.62 Acres Proposed three lots consisting of 1) one house with detached garage; 2) 1 auto shop with detached house (house to be demolished); and 3) 5 residential dwelling units. 1 page entitled "Proposed Partition for John Addington", dated 2/27198, prepared by Farber & Sons, Inc. Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the partitioning of the proposed tax lot. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed partitioning. This report is based on the understanding that the Developer is requesting this partition to divide the existing uses of the existing tax lot up into separate parcels, and no major redevelopment plans are being proposed. Special Requirements Bush Street Riaht-of-Wav: Review of County Surveyor's maps indicates that the right-of-way width on Bush Street to the South of the proposed partition is 50.feet. The sections of Bush street to the east have aright-of-way width of 60 feet. The City is in the process of redefining the street network for the Cky. The current thinking is to not make Fourth (4'") Street a collector, but to divert the traffic onto Bush Street and out to Highway 99. This would require that Bush Street become a collector type street. The street already has a 40-foot wide paved width. To accommodate the installation of a 5-foot-wide sidewalk, the needed area behind the sidewalk, and widening of the street as it approaches Front Street, we are requesting the dedication of a five-foot portion of the subject partition on Bush Street (30 feet from centerline). Public Utility Easements: Provide dedication of a separate 10-foot minimum width public utilities easement (P.U.E.) along the subject properties frontage with Bush and Cedar Street, for utility installation. 3. Imarovements to Bush and Cedar Streets: The Developer should be required to complete all remaining infrastructure improvements to Bush and Cedar Streets including, but not limited to sidewalks (Including replacement of existing non-compliant driveway aprons), bikeways, street lights, and storm drainage. As approved by the City Administrator, the Developer may l2 request or be required to defer any or all of the required improvements along Bush and Cedar Streets until a later date. If any or all of the improvements are to be deferred to a later date, then the Developer will be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement with the City for the noted improvements along the development's frontages with Bush and Cedar Streets. 4. Water Service: Currently the property is served by two services: 24 and 36 Cedar Street, which serve the two residential dwelling units fronting Cedar Streets. The connection of domestic water service to the five dwelling units and the Auto Repair shop is inferred to be off the two meters that serve the two residential dwelling units on Cedar. With the proposed partition, a separate water service will need to be made to each building. However, it is our understanding that the house located on the proposed parcel no. 2 will be removed. Thus the service at 24 Cedar Street will become the service for the Auto Repair Shop located on Bush Street. The services shalt be provided in accordance with current City standards. 5. Water Well: There is an existing water well on parcel 2. This well shall either be properly abandoned in accordance with Oregon Water Resource Department requirements, or a suitable backflow prevention assembly shall be installed on the water service serving this parcel. 6. Trash Dumpster. Suitable trash receptacles shall be provided for the various parcels. Currently one trash receptacle (dumpster) has been placed within the right-of-way of Bush Street. This dumpster (as well any other trash or recycling receptacle) shall be located in an area that is outside the public rights-of-way and which do not interfere with the required vision sight triangles. The trash receptacles may be temporarily placed within the public rights-of-way for pick-up but shall be promptly removed from the right-of-way after collection has occurced. Storm Drainage 1»fiastructure: The developer shall develop a facility plan for the storm drain collection and conveyance system which provides for run-off from and run-on onto the proposed parcels, and any future development on adjacent properties. Sheet flow storm drainage across the future or existing sidewalk area is not permitted, except as normally permitted with a residential dwelling unit (i.e run-off from a driveway). 8. Sanitary Sewer. The partitioning of the subject tax lot will likely require modifications to the existing sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system on the subject tax lot, and possibly regarding the connections to the sanitary sewer mains. The Developer shall contact and abide by the requirements of BCVSA for any required modifications to the sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system necessitated by the proposed partition. 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. 9. enera/ All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developers engineer to the City PWD (and Building Department (as applicable) for approval prior to implementation. 13 BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY 3916 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFOXD, OHE~ON 97601.9099 • (641)779.4144 • FAX (841) 696.6279 Attachment ~ June 22, 1998 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: Addington Partition- 98044 Dear Ken, We have reviewed the subject planning action with regard to providing sanitary sewer service to the project location. From previous investigation it appears the proposed use, in order to conform to the Uniform Plumbing Code, will require new sewer service line extensions from parcels 2 and 3 to a public sanitary sewer main line. The system of service lines serving the buildings of parcel 3 will need to be disconnected from the house on parcel 1 and rerouted to the Bush Street sewer main. The Auto shop, on parcel 2, being a commercial use will have to be disconnected from the parcel 3 service line and rerouted in a separate service line to the public sewer main. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed planning action. Since 1 , James May, Jr. P. . District Engineer 14 ,; ,, ATTACHMENT E PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the partition. Evidence of such compliance shall be submitted to the City prior to final plat approval. 2. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the development including, but not limited to, the proper abandonment of a private well on site. 3. The applicant has agreed to demolish an existing dwelling at 24 Cedar Street to provide better access and apply the water service from that address to the Boulder Brothers auto shop at 27 Bush Street. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits from the City and complete access and water service improvements prior to recording the final plat. G:\PLANNING\98044. WPD 15 0 ~ ' CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 1, 1998 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, Karolyn Johnsori. Angela Curtis and Candy Fish were absent. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; Ken Gershler, Planning Technician; Lee Brennan, Public Works Director; Sue Meyers, Public Works Technician; City Councilman/Mayor Elect Bill Walton; Councilman 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 November 17, 1998. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES Allyson Kelley, who is interested in purchasing and developing property at 131 Front Street (the Cook House) appeared before the Commission. Ms. Kelley was looking for direction, as far as possible uses of the facility. The property is currently zoned light industrial. After some discussion of industrial vs. commercial zoning, the Planning Commission recommended pursuit of re-zoning. VI. BUSINESS A. Continued Public Hearing to consider a request by Ted 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. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. The tentative plan has been revised since its original submission, adding one lot (16 lots total); eliminating through lots; redesigning the street to a 33 foot wide right-of--way; and designating some park and open space areas. One of the requirements of the developers would be a fence between the development and the Presbyterian Church. Any decision would be on condition of approval from Fire District #3. a City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1998, Page 2 Lee Brennan reviewed the Public Works Staff Report. Parking is a major concern in the cul-de-sac and on one side of the new street.. Another concern is the sight triangle at each entrance. Commissioner Johnson suggested making the street aone- way street, which would help with the parking problem, as well as the sight triangle. Herb Farber spoke as agent for Ted Branch. He reiterated that Mr. Branch does intend to convey the day use area park to the City, even though it was omitted on the most current map. Mr. Branch stated that most of the letters of objection were submitted before the current plan, and most of the concerns have already been addressed. There are no longer any through lots. He also said that they could accommodate the 2-1/2 foot public utilities right-of--way, and that they would not object to a one way street. Lee Brennan asked that they resolve any issues with BCVSA before continuing with the project. Mr. Farber requested that the Planning Commission approve the plan contingent upon all department's (police, fire, etc.) approval of the one way street. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution 435 per staff reports and discussion, and subject to the approval of all departments, to approve a request by Ted Branch to develop Griffin Creek Estates, a Tentative Plan fora 161ot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine Street and Corcoran Lane in the R-1-8 zoning district, with the understanding that Mr. Branch and Public Works will come to an agreement on parking and sight triangles in the event that all departments are not in favor of a one-way street. Motion was seconded by Bob Gilkey. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. B. Withdrawal of Schwichtenbergpronerty~1.025 acresl from Jackson Count, Protection District No. 3 following its Annexation to the City of Central Point. Planning Technician, Ken Gerschler presented the Planning Department Staff Report. Because the Schwichtenberg property has been annexed, it will now be protected under the City's contract with Fire District No.3, and therefore will no longer need to be covered under Jackson County Rural Fire District No. 3. Commissioner Dunlap made a motion recommending withdrawal of the Schwichtenberg property (1.025 acres) from Jackson County Fire Protection District No. 3. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the motion passed. City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1998, Page 3 C. Historic Review Board consideration of a request by Deana Sims to locally recognize the house located at 434 Manzanita Street as historically significant. Deanna Sims and her real estate agent, Jeff Leever, came before the Historic Review Board to request that the home, located at 434 Manzanita Street and recently purchased by Ms. Sims, be locally recognized as historically significant. She stated that the house was probably built around the turn of the century, as some newspapers of the 1890 vintage were found in the walls of the home, used as insulation. The first actual registration of the home was in 1920, which could be either when it was built or remodeled. Historic designation would allow the house to be completely rebuilt in the event of a fire and enable Ms. Sims to obtain a loan to complete her purchase of the property. Commissioner Dunlap made a motion to recommend the City Council locally recognize the house located at 434 Manzanita Street as historically significant. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the motion passed. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, said that he has received three proposals on the downtown revitalization plan. He will be meeting with some downtown representatives to prepare a recommendation. Mr. Humphrey stated that the TSP will present new material as it is available at future Planning Commission meetings. Ken Gershler, Planning Technician, informed the members of the Commission that Tom Malot, one of our local contractors, had suffered a major stroke. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: December 15, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing - To consider a minor partition and variance from lot dimensions on property located 70 feet south of First Street between Cedar and Bush Streets in the C-5 zoning district (372W11 Tax Lot 3900). nlicant/ Owner: John Addington P.O. Box 351 Medford, Oregon 97501 nt• The Richard Stevens Co. LLC P.O. Box 4368 Medford, Oregon 97501 Summar,~ The applicant has submitted a proposal to partition a 0.95 acre parcel into three parcels and vary from the lot size requirements on two of the three parcels. The single tax lot is currently occupied by an auto shop and six legally non-conforming dwellings. The applicant's goal is to separate the various uses from one another for sale and/or refinancing. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for minor partition and variance. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Annlicable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 16.40.010 et seq. -Variances CPMC 17.46.010 et seq. -C-S, Thoroughfare Commercial District Discussion: The issues associated with this proposal are not quite as clear as they first appeared to City staff. The minor partition involves redefining boundaries between existing conforming and non- conforming land uses and structures which were built over several vacated rights-of--way. The Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the tentative plan and variance for compliance with the City's code requirements and water, sewer, storm drain and transportation v~~ 1 standards. Two issues that have not yet been clarified and are holding up staff recommendations involve the redistribution of water service and service connections, deeded property boundaries and the need for additional right-of--way dedication. It is also unclear why the small house on Cedar should be part of Parcel # 2 instead of Parcel # 1. City staff have scheduled a meeting with the applicant to clarify and resolve these issues. Therefore, it is recommended that the Commission continue the public hearing for this item three weeks to the next regularly scheduled meeting on January 5, 1998. If there are persons present who may not be able to attend the hearing in January, the .Commission may wish to allow testimony or questions from these people and then continue the hearing. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Continue the public hearing for the Tentative Plan and variance applications until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Attachments: A. Notice of Public Hearing and Location Map G:\PLANNING\98044. W PD ~~~ 2 City of Central 1 OZYIt AttachmentA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: November 16, 1998 Meeting Date: December 15, 1998 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning at the above time and place, the Central PointPlanning Commission will review applications for a Variance and a Tentative Partition in the vicinity of Bush, Cedar and South Front Streets. The subject parcel islocated inaC-5, Thoroughfare Commercial Zoning District onJackson CountyAssessmentPlat 372W11BC, Tax Lot 3900. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Variances and Tentative Plans are set forth in Chapters 16 and 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 15, 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. Anytestimonyandwrittencommentsaboutthe ... 3 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated cleazly to the Planning Commission. ~~ 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hal1,155 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 Atthe meeting, the Planning Commission will reviewthe applications, technical staffreports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning CommissionmayapproveordenytheVarianceandTentativePlan. Cityregulationsprovidethat the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ~~~~~ SUBJECT PROPERTY ~~~ 4 1 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: December 15, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Heazing - To consider a Tentative Plan for an 81ot (padlot) subdivision on the north side of Cherry Street west of its intersection with North 10th Street in the R-3 zoning district (372W2BC Tax Lot 603). Ap lin cant/ er: Victor & Daniel Kosmatka 3094 Wells Fargo Road Central Point, Oregon 97502 Summary The applicant has submitted an infill development proposal to subdivide an existing 0.82 acre tax lot along an improved City street into 8 padlots. Authority: 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. Applicable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.28.010 et seq. -R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District CPMC 17.60.130 et seq. -Access CPMC 17.60.210 et seq. -General Provisions, Padlot Developments Discussion: Padlot Developments Padlot developments are a permitted use in all zoning districts in Central Point with the exception of the R-1 district. Development proposals are normally processed as a subdivision application which is how East Cherry Estates is being introduced. Under CPMC 17.60.210, parent lots must comply with the standard requirements for lots, which in the R-3 zone call for a lot area of 6000 square feet. Additionally, CPMC 17.60.130 requires a minimum frontage for padlots of not less than 30 feet. Each of the pazent lots in this subdivision meet both the minimum frontage and lot azea requirements. ~~~ 5 This application for a padlot subdivision is proposed for property that is currently vacant and situated north of a similar subdivision. The majority of infrastructure improvements were installed on East Cherry Street as part of the Bluebird Heights development. The Public Works Department has stated that there are no as-built drawings to reflect earlier improvements and that the City may require additional dedication of easements and right-of--way to match the existing conditions and to incorporate the existing infrastructure (see Attachment C). Further subdivision of the subject tax lot will also result in some street excavation to increase the number of service lateral connections. Public Works will require the developer to overlay the northern half of Cherry Street to maintain its structural integrity after new connections are made. A further requirement is that overhead utilities be undergrounded and existing utility poles removed to match what has been done in Bluebird Heights. Subdivisions 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. The Planning Department has reviewed the tentative plan for compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. The area is designated for high density residential development and is zoned R-3. This infill development will result in a more efficient use of residentially zoned land and improve the overall appearance and value of this property and 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 C. 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-3, Residential Multiple-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-3 zoning district. The zoning in turn is consistent with the Residential Comprehensive Plan map designation. The Comp Plan encourages innovative residential planning and development techniques that would help to increase land 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 0.82 acres for the purpose ofdeveloping asingle-family residential (padlot) subdivision, East Cherry Estates. The total number of lots proposed for the subdivision is 8. The average density for the subdivision is 9.75 units per acre. s The proposed single-family subdivision meets the density requirement for the R-3 residential zone which is a maximum of 25 units per acre. Each parent 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 the R-3 zone. The tentative plan includes all information required by CPMC 16.10.010 et. seq. 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 project meets all City standards and requirements subject to the recommended conditions of the Planning Department (Attachment E) and the Public Works Department (Attachment C). 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. Tentative Plat C. Public Works Staff Report dated December 8, 1998 D. Correspondence Received from Affected Agencies E. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval G:\PLANN ING\98073. W PD J v CZ~y of Central I Jlnt Attachment A PLANNXNG DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: November 16,1998 Meeting Date: December 15, 1998 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application foraTentative Subdivision inthevicinity ofChenyandNorthTenthStreets.The subjectparcel islocated inaR-3, Residential Multiple Family ZoningDistrictonJacksonCountyAssessmentPlat 372W02BC, Tax Lot 603. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Subdivisions are set forth in Chapter 16 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street pazking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Anypersoninterestedincommentingontheabove-mentionedlandusedecisionmaysubmitwritten comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 15, 1998. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance ofthe meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155South 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 ofthe 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 8 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE Atthe meeting, the Planning Commissionwill review the applications, technical staffreports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Tentative Subdivision Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. SUBJECT PROPERTY 9 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 \\ Si 2 ~~~ a ~b ~i K o xs ~s i ~____ ~ ~ 1 $ ~ ~\ i ~ ~~ i ~ ~~ "~ti ~~ 1 4 / P ~ g~; ~.- \ ~{I~/gyp F~~ Y \ / ~ g.~, ~a xa ~ k \/\ ~ 5 R v{ I _ 9 ~ °~ « I a Y n'„{' I R P ~~ 9 ~ ~ ~ i 9$ ~ ~ I ~` ,~ I n4 ~ ~ I ~~ ~ 9~ - ~ v / / 4 So =~« ~ , ~~ ~ ~ sa' / / s ~ / .~ r~ /~ // \\\ ~ o w ~ ~ ~ ~g ~~~' a ~ ~~~~ $ ri Zo ~x ~~ =~de r•Fd~ poC ~~~~ Q 2 ~ J T'~ ~~~ ~~~~ d ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ # ~ C ~f. ze 1 ~ ~ ~g 0 a ~ Attachment B y~ti ~~ / ~~ H '~ / Gd w ,''v ~ \~'u ic\ ~C / ~ ~•b ~ \ / d JLg \ ~ /~ Y / • ~~J \~ P s r~~\ .a C~ ~\ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~\ 9 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Attachment C DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for East Cherry Estates (A Padlot Development) PW#98073 Date: Applicant: Project: Location: Legal: Zoning: Lots: Units: Plans: Report By: Purpose 12/08/98 Victor and Daniel Kosmatka c/o Victor Kosmatka. 3094 Wells Fargo Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502 Padlot Subdivision Northeast of Intersection of 10'" and Cherry Streets. T37S, R2W, Section 2BC, Tax Lot 603 R-3 8 total (no phases proposed) 8 Single Family Residential -Padlot East Cherry Estates (Tentative, A Padlot Development) Kaiser Surveying, revised 8-3-98 Lee Brennan, Public Works Director Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed residential subdivision. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. Special Requirements Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not intertere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result.of the . connection of the proposed development's infrastructure, or will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as approved by (as applicable), the regulatory agency, utility owner, and/or property owner involved. 2. Cherrv Street Improvements: In review of City files, there are no as-built drawings reflecting the improvements installed on Cherry Street. The current alignment of Cherry Street and the location of infrastructure (in particular the sanitary sewer line) may require additional dedication of easements and right-of--way to match the existing conditions and to incorporate the existing infrastructure. We are recommending that the Developer be required to provide construction plans and make any applicable modification to the plat which reflect the as-built conditions. 3. Water and Sewer Laterals: There are only two existing water service laterals identified. The remaining six lots will require additional water service lateral connections to the mainline, which will likely require street excavation. As discussed above, the City does not have any record of the sewer lateral installations. Sewer lateral connections to lots 6, 7, and 8 will likely require excavation work in the street. The City PWD is therefore recommending that the Developerbe required to provide a suitable asphalt concrete (Type C mix) overlay of the northern half of Cherry street once all excavation work and street patching work is completed. 4. Overhead Electrical. Teleahone and Cable Lines: Coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US West, ahd TCI Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities within the ~1 E. Cherry Estates Tentative Plan StaJj'Report December 8, /998 Page 2 proposed development (as a minimum, the infrastructure on PPL pole no. 631544 and 631545) to underground facilities, and removal of the existing utility poles 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. 5. Lot Drainage: The existing topography indicates that the proposed lots have surface drainage which drain the lot from the street to the back of the lots. It also appears that the existing surface water drainage from tax lots 400, 500, and 501 drain to the northern portions of lots 1 through 6, with a general depression in the area of lot 6. The surface drainage from the proposed lots must not drain across another lot, and the existing drainage problem shall be addressed. Any discharge of accumulated waters onto adjoining tax lots must be approved by the affected tax lot owners, prior to construction. A suggestion may include the incorporation of a private storm drain system (i.e french drain) that collects the surface water in these area, and conveys the water via an underground pipe to the City's storm drain system. 6. Utility Easements: A 10-foot wide P.U.E. should be required on the north side of the Cherry Street right-of-way, on Lots 1 through 8. General All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as 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 (as applicable), Fire District No. 3, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEO), Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), affected irrigation districts, and JC Roads. 3. Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form (produced on Mylar®) and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD®, or other form as approved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved construction plans that identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; road alignment; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral stationing; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet locations; street light locations; other below grade utility line locations and depths; etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on Mylar~, or an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD® compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as othervvise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. 4. All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. At least 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. 12 E. Cherry Estntes Tenlalive Plan Stnff Repa7 December 8, 1998 Pnge 3 5. If applicable, all existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures, clear and grub materials, and other deleterious materials shall be removed from the site and either recycled or properly disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the DEQ. 6. Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable]) should be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.E. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five (5) feet from the edge of the easement. If two or more City owned utilities are located within an easement, then a minimum of 20-foot width should be required. Easement dedications in final deeds or CC&Rs need a statement which should clearly indicate that easements must be maintained with suitable, driveable vehicular access to City public infrastructure facilities, as determined by the City PWD. 7. Prior to the City PWD final approval of the construction plans for the proposed improvements, the following should be submitted: ^ A copy of written approval from Fire District 3 of the final street and driveway layout, site access, fire hydrant placement, and water system improvement plans for the proposed development. ^ The plans relating to the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the appropriate signature blocks should be completed on the plans. 8. Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, top of banks, ditch/channel inverts, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed development's infrastructure will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submittal for final approval. 9. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) on the construction plans and as-built drawings. 10. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a drawing of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Myla~' and in an acceptable electronic form in AutoCAD® format. The Final Plat shall be tied to a legal Government corner and the State Plane Coordinate System. The Final Plat shall either reflect or be later modified to reflect any applicable "red-line' changes noted in the construction "as-builts", at the discretion of the City Administrator or his designee. 11. 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. 12. Storm drain pipe materials within the City's rights-of-way or easements 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. 13. As applicable, 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. 14. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. 13 E. Chevy Fsrnres Tenmuve Plnn Sniff Repa•f December 8, 1998 Page d 15. All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design, construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEQ, 1990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. 16. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of ester and sanitary sewer service laterals. 17. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary approval, will forward the plans to BCVSA for completion of the review process. Upon completion of the review by BCVSA, completion of final revisions to the plans by the Developer's engineer, and following the final approval and signature on the construction plans by BCVSA, the Public Works Director will approve the plans in final form. 18. All testing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be done in accordance with BCVSA requirements, at Developer's expense. The Developer shall provide BCVSA and the City with test reports, TV reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance. 19. Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for backflow prevention. 20. Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. 21. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. 23. Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company which reflects all utility line locations, crossings, transformer locations, valves, etc. 24. Utility locations must be accurately included on the as-built drawings, or as a separate set of drawings attached to the as-built drawings. 14 ~:; , JacKson County Fire District No 3 Attachment O 9333 Agate Rd Whtte City, Oregon, 97503 541-92G711x1 Fax: 541826-4596 November 23, 1998 City of Central Point att: Ken Crerschler I55 South Secind Street Central Point, OR 97502 Ken: I have reviewed the East Cherry Estates Subdivision File # 98073-TP. The plat dated August 3, 1998 meets the fire requirements for street access, fire hydrant requirement of 300' spacing and turnaround radius. No other requirements are mandated. Thank y u Lou A. Gugliotta Division Chief/Fire Mazshal 15 ,' 1J i~) 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 East Cherry Estates Subdivision. 2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the development of the East Cherry 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 East Cherry Estates subdivision. G:\PLANN [NG\98073. W PD 16