HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - September 21, 1999y
~ K
CITY OF CF,NTI2AL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
September 21, 1999, - 7:00 p.m.
~ ~ ~
Next Planning Conunission
Resolution No. 463
L MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
IL ROLL CALL
City Planning
Chuck Piland -Candy Fish, Don Foster, Karolyne Johnson, John LeGros,
Paul Lunte and Wayne Riggs
C11. COI2RESPONDF.NCE
IV. MINUTES
A. Review and approval oPSeptember 7, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI; BUSINESS
Page 1 - 21 A. Continuation ofa public hearingtoconsidera site plan introduced by Dr. Curtis
L. Tyerman P.C. to construct a 2250 square foot dental office building at 348
Oak Street. The subject prope~•ly is located in the G2 Commercial Professional
zoning district.
22 - 33 B. Public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by Tom and John Hamlin to add
about 840square feet to an existing restaurant building at 507 Front Street. The
subject property islocated inthe C-5 Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district.
V[L M[SCELLAN000S
~- V[IL
Iii ' ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
September 7, 1999
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Karolyne Johnson, Candy Fish, John LeGros, Paul Lunte, Don
Foster, and Wayne Riggs. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; Ken
Gerschler, Community Planner; Matt Samitore, Planning Technician; and Lee Brennan, Public
Works Director.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
There was no correspondence.
IV. MINUTES
Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes for the August
3, 1999 meeting as presented. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish,
yes; Johnson, yes; LeGros, yes; Lunte, yes; Foster, yes; and Riggs, yes.
V. BUSINESS
A. Public hearin¢ to consider a tentative plan introduced by C A Galpin to partition a 7 94
acre parcel into two parcels. The subject property is located east of the intersection for
Freeman Road and Oak Street in the C-4 Tourist and Office Professional zoning district
Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The
applicants are requesting a partition of parcel 1 of the Mountain View Plaza Commercial
Center, into two new parcels of 6.10 acres and 1.76 acres. The minor partition creates two
commercial parcels with access from Freeman Road using Reciprocal easement Agreements
(also referred to as Cross Access Easements) on the privately owned Plaza Boulevard.
Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, presented a Public Works Memo with recommendations
that the conditions and requirements of the Public Works Department that were applicable to
parcel 1 of Mountain View Plaza Commercial Center, would continue to be applicable to the
two separate parcels. Mr. Brennan also recommended that the final plat of this partition reflect
the additional Freeman Road right-of--way dedication that was required for the Mountain View
Plaza development and has been disclosed as part of the improvement plans.
The Applicant, was not in attendance.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 7, 1999
Page 2
Commissioner Fish made a motion to Hass Resolution number 461 conditional
approving the Tentative Minor Land Partition of a 7.94 acre parcel into two parcels.
The property is located east of the intersection of Freeman Road and Oak Street in
the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. The approval is subject to the
condition that the final plat shall reflect the additional Freeman Road right-of-way
dedication that was required for the Mountain View Plaza development, and has been
negotiated between the Developer's Engineer and Architect, and the City Public
Works Department. Commissioner LeGros seconded the motion. ROLL CALL:
Motion passed unanimously
B. Public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by Dr. Curtis L. Tverman P.C. to construct
a 2250 square foot dental office building at 348 Oak Street (introduction only). The subject
property is located in the C-2 Commercial Professional zoning district.
Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The
Applicant has requested a Site Plan Review for the construction of a 2250 square foot dental
building to be constructed at the southwest corner of Oak and Fourth Streets. Confusion about
the address/location of the building site by both the applicant's agent and City staff resulted in
incorrect noticing. Both parties are also trying to formulate a solution to satisfy the parking
requirements for the project.
Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, explained the problems with the noticing and with the
parking requirements for this type of business. Mr. Humphrey suggested to the council that the
Planning Commission continue the meeting until September 21, 1999.
Commissioner Fish made a motion to continue the public hearing and review of the site
plan to a second meeting on September 21, 1999. Commissioner Lunte seconded the
motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously
C. Review of the Final Development Plan for Parkwood Terrace Estates. a Planned Unit
Development introduced by Parkwood Terrace Estates. LLC which includes subdividing 4.4
acres into 45 residential pad lots. The subject propert~is located south of Beebe Lane 125
feet east of Hamrick Road in the R-2, Two Family Residential "Coning District.
Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The
Tentative Plan depicted a side yard minimum setback for many of the two story units. Two
pocket parks have been proposed to compensate from the increased building mass that has
been created by the second story portion of each unit within five feet of the side yard setback.
A final plat application with the required attachments has been received by the Planning
Planning Conunission Minutes
September 7, 1999
Page 3
Department. The submitted documentation appears to be in substantial compliance with the
approved tentative development plan with the exception of the improvement plans which will be
reviewed by the Public Works Department. Mr. Gerschler also presented a memo from the
Building Department requesting a geotechnical report showing soil classification and design-
bearing capacity.
Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, presented the Public Works Staff Report. Mr. Brennan
indicated that he has not had a chance to thoroughly inspect the second set of improvement
plans, and will get in contact with the applicants when he is done reviewing them. Mr. Brennan
also asked the applicants about the street lights that will be used at this development and
requested rate information.
The Applicants agent, Bob Neathamer 145 S. Grape St. Medford, OR 97501, indicated to
Mr. Brennan that the lights were being discussed with Pacific Power and that they would come
in and talk with the Public Works Department. Mr. Neathamer also requested that they be
able to build a unit to show as a model. He also stated that he would have a Civil Engineer do
the Geotechnical report for the Building Department.
Mr. Brennan and Mr. Humphrey indicated that the unit could be built, only if it served as a
model until the Final Plat is recorded.
Commissioner LeGros made a motion to pass Resolution 462, approving the final
development plan for the Parkwood Terrace Estates Planned Unit Development. The
site is zoned R-2, Residential Two-Family and is located in the vicinity of Beebe Lane
and Vilas Road. The motion was made subject to staff recommendations, coming into
compliance with Public Works requirements for Street Lights, conducting an expansive
soils, fill, and geotechnical reports for the building department, and allowing for the
construction of one model unit until the final plat is recorded. Commissioner Foster
seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion nassed unanimously
VI. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAEE REPORT
HHARING DATE: September 21, 1999
TO: ' Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director t
SUBJECT: PublieHearing-Site Plan Reviewof372W IIBB,TaxLot400-TyermanDentalClinic
Building:
Owner/ Curtis L. Tyerman P.C.
Applicant: ' S7 North Second Street
Central Point; Oregon 97502 "
Agent: Steven G. Sherbourne
29 South Grape Stteef
Medford, Oregon 97501
Property
Description/ 37 2W I iBB, Tax Lot 400 - 0.18 acres
Zoning:, C-2, Commercial Professional District
Summary
The applicant has requested a Site Plan Review for the construction of a 2250 square foot dental building
to be constructed at the southwest corner ofOak and Fourth Streets. The site originally housed an older
dwelling but is now vacant with the exception of severalmature trees (refer to site plan) in the area. The .
Planning Commission continued this issue fiom the September 7~' in order to re-issue notices to surrounding
properly owners while providing additional dine for the applicant and City staffto resolve parking issues.
Aunlicable Law
CPMC 17.36.010 et seq. - C-2, Commercial-Professional District
CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. -Off Street Parking and Loading
CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval
Discussion
The Planning Department re-noticed this item to correct confusion that was caused by a mislabeled
application and the presumption by Citystaffthatanotherparcelwasbeingdeveloped. The introduction
ofthis item atthe last meetingand the provision of an extended comment period have provided neighbors
\\Cppdpdc\Planning\99053a. WPD
1
:Ind all~ctcd a~~rnrir, an adcyuatr opportunity to comntcnt..
l'hc site plan Nlr Shcrhournc has submiucd depicts the placrntcnt ofa 2250 square Ibot sin~~le story
su•ucnu'c onto a I40' by >5' corner IoL'I'hc plan show's finu',parking spaces along Qttk SU•cct (one ofthc
spaces is ADA accessible). An additional live spaces would he accessed from the alley alone the rest'
property litre.
CI'-MC~, 17.64.040 rcquit'es that medical and dental oflices provide not less.th«1n three spaces pet'
practitioner; plus one space per two employees, or one space per each two hundred square feet of Floor
area, whichever is greater. Given this requirement, the project needs to provide I I spaces in order to
comply with the ordinance. Planning and Public Works personnel are meeting with the applicants on
Monday,Septentber20'I'todiscussreasonablesolutionsfoparkingon-site. Citystaffwillalsotalktothe
applicants about the number and type public improvements being recommended by Public Works. The
outcome of our meeting will be presented to the Commission on Tuesday night.
Options toremedy ol'1=sU'eet parking dilemma could include a reconfiguration ofthe site plan, a request for
a variance, or possibly an agreement with a neighboring business to,share parking during peak times. The
Planning and Public Works Depatvnent have been will ing to wa'k with the applicant to move forward with
the project. Two staff alternatives are represented in Attachment A but need to be retined.
The proposed use is permitted in the C-2 zoning district but must meet various criteria. The parcel in
question has adequate area given the size ofthe proposed building. The C-2 zone requires a 5 foot front
and side yard setback for the express propose of landscaping with lawn, Nees, shrubs, and other materials
determined to be suitable by the Planning Commission. According to the code, landscaping must be
maintained in good condition.
The Public Works Departtnen,t has prepared recommendations for on and gffsi~e improvements which are
believed o be reasonably related to the proposed development. These include, but are not limited to;
driveway aprons, sidewalk improvements; site gradinganddrainage; on-site lighting; paving and utility
(water, sewer and storm drain) connections.
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, Jackson County Fire District Number 3, and US West
Communications have submitted. comments that relate to the project (Attachment "C'' ).
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law..
In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases its decision on the.
following standards fi'om Section 17.72.040:
C ppJpac.l'lanning\99U>3a. W'I'U
2
iC l.andseiq~ing'ahd Icnuing and the cimsu'uctioit iil\valls imtliitc iii such a inanncras to ruisr the sank
to not substantially intcrlcrc with thclandscapingschcmc ofllic iicighhorhbod.autil insuch 3 nruutcrto use
the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to c~isting neiehhorhood uses. l he
Commission may require the ntaintenaincc ofcxistingplants ortlie inslallaticin olhewoncs for purposes of
screening adjoining property.
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan for consideration by the Commission.
[;xisting oak and elm h•ees will likely remain in the public right of way as the project
develops....
B. Design, ninnber and location of ingress and egress points so as to irrtprove and to avoid interference
with the h'aftic Flow on public streets;
^ Access is proposed from Oak Sheet and from the alley of the rear of the property.
C. To provide off-streetparking and loading facilities andpedesh•ian rind vehicle flow facilities in such a
manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in
such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets;
^ 9 parking spaces have been proposed fm• this project. The code requires 11 spaces for
dental and medical offices.
b. Signs andotheroutdooradvertisingsd-uchu'estoensurethattheydonotconflictwithordeterfrom
traffic control signs ordevices and that they are compatible with the design oftheirbuildings or uses and
will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearbysigns;
^ No signage has been proposed at this time however the applicant will be required to apply
for a sign permit and submit his plans to the City prior to any sign installation.
E. Accessibility and sufficiency offire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide forthe reasonable
safety oflife, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so
that all buildings on the premises are accessible to ti re apparatus;
^ The project, ifapproved, would need to meet any requirements ofJackson County fire
District 3.
F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations;
^ The proposed consh•uction will meet the minimum setback requirements for the C-2,
Commercial Professional District.
('ppdpdc~Planninp~49U53a. W'PD
V~
G. Compliance with such m•chitecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptabi lity jn relation
to the neighborhood and the. Central Point area and it's environs.
^ .The proposed structure is similar in architecture to other structm•es located within the C-
2, Commercial Professional District.
Recommendation \
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions::,.
1. Adopt Resolution No,_, approving the Site.Plansubject;to the recommended conditions of approval;
or
2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or
3. Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission
Attachments
A. Application and Exhibits
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Planning Department Conditions
p. Public Works Staff Report
E. Correspondence, . .
\\Cppdpdc\Planning\99053x. W 1'D
4
. ~:~;.~,
j ,.
~' ~.~.f.
2.
3.
City: [ ~rj_ /~ State:_~~
Telephone: Business: ~~' (~l~,l ~Z~jD
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residence:
TypeofDevclopment: ~ D G~ D/
Township:=~ Range:,_~~ Section: 1__ f~~ Tax Lot(s): DU
Address: ~~~ D~~
Zoning District: G-~j
Project Acreage: , j7
Number of Dwelling Units: -f~.
Non-Sale Area Sq. Footage Sale Area Sq. Footage =Gross Floor Area;i~~OD
Number of Parking Spaces: 9'
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS /
ti~This Application Porm. ~I egal Description.
Application Fee ($255.00). !~" Letter of Project Description.
Site Plan Drawn to Scale (10 copies).
Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process.
Reduced Copies (8'/z x 11) of the Site Plan, Building Elevations and Landscape Plans (1 copy Ea.).
Landscape and Irrigation Plan (3 copies).
S.~
6. (HEREBY STATE THA"t THE FACTS RELA"fED IN "fHE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS
AND DOCi1iv1ENTS SUBMITTED [-IEREWITH ARE TRIIE, CORRECT, AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE. ~r
I certify that [ am the : ~ Property Owner or -~1 Authorized Agent of the Owner
-~ ~ ~, ~j, / ' of the proposed project site.
SI"I'I? PLAN IZC;~'Il~;~\' Al'l'Ll(';~"PION
City of Central Point Plannino Denartmant
APPLICANT INPORMA"PION
ary or cetrtral Point
E~iHTBY'I' "A't
Planning Deparknent
~l ~~~ <<~; ~s' ~] ~y~ ~s I=l
JUN 3 0 1999 U
~ OIIICG USL' ONLY
Name: _
Address:_ ~
City: Gf~~ 1~6/.~7T" .State: D,~. Zip Code:
Telephone: Business: ~ r~tpGf ~Z~jO Residence: _ _ ___
AGL'NT INFORMATION
Name:, ~f
Address:/~~~,
City:; /'MFj~D~p ' State: Dom.
Telephoner Business: `Z~~ - ~~7,~_ Reside
OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Than One)
Name:... GU.~ll~i ~. ~Yi~~~N ~G.
~' ~E~T bl~z~I~faN
%2~/~;
'fN~ t?-o~~ ~FMAN aFt=1~ ~uI~dIN~ GdN51~
-~~ ~ ~~~~~~ E~T~L= a~~loE, h ~rla~~ WILL
P I~~ ~ 4F. ... ~- I,,j~ W I L L
'f~(-ra MCI t`T1-,b{ N ~X~T1 N~b "T~ ~~ ~11LL ~'I pE
-/~NI~o1~~irY~ ~oN~I~Tr~I~ W tTH Gt'~'~ ~,-~UI ~~M~
Uri ~ ffI E~ ~ ~e PAC-~EI~T' IN- ~.x~T1-1_:- 4~~ ~ ~T~I ~c~j'
Inl e ~o~~~ `)-o ~.I~J I~Fi THE GU ILi~Ii~JS l~l~ ~'~HEf1~
PL~r~~ ~- M ETx~L ~~R~
,~ _ : J~~
,/
~1..-c
s
~ ~
~ ~
-~
m r,
-o
° ~ o
& D a
~ Z
,
,
V
f L "i
F (~1 CI O ~ y
~ I m rn
-, ~ r, r a~
o H 3 ~ ry N
A Z
b b ~ -~ rT'• T n^ D
y
D
Z
9
D
O
A
O
~
T D
AIAI
D ti
N
o A
x a r y
A n ~'
Cl n
TA.
F N
_
T
Z o
G
~ z
W z
P
~
r
D
D -
/ O
o
C
C ~
m
A ~
G
z
A
CURTIS k DEBBIE TYERNAA'
DENTAL OFPICC
ITH AVENUE k OAK STREET
CENTRAL PoINT.OR. 'B>05^ ..
HAK $iRCEi b
g
~m
:ti
m
r
m
< "
n_
0
z
ti
0
~ C
: z
~ m
r
m
a
0
z
~
~
~ '~.
s~
e
,
C
AR
R
8
i
m
a
0
z
5
.s
Z
O
FA
1m
r
m
D
0
z
0
0
r
CURTER k DEBBIE TYERNAN
DENTAL OEFlCE
NTH AVENUE k OAK STREET
CENTRAL PoINT. OR BT602
From: Tom Humphrey
City of Central Point
Alley
b
•~
-1-~
/~
VJ
m~
T
,V
^ak Street
To: Steve Sherbourne
9
Alley
~ 4 W
~• ~ • ~
h
City of Central Poz~~it
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: September 3, 1999
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
NATURE OF MEETING
September 21, 1999
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
"I'om Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
I<en Gerschler
Community Planner
,, Matt Samitore
Planning Technician
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application
for a Site Plan Review that would allow the construction ofa 2300 square foot commercial building at 348
'Oak Street. The parcel is located in a G2 Commercial Professional Zoning District on Jackson County
'Assessment Plat 372W11BB, Tax Lot 400.
',The Central Point Planning Commission will review the Site Plan application to determine that all applicable
provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter 17 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code,
relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans; The
proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
l . Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written
comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 21, 1999.
2. Written comments may be sent in advance ofthe meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South
Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
1
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
City Of Central FQint
EXHI&~IT ttB t~
Planning Department
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
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
the Planning Commission.
4. CopiesofallevidencerelieduponbytheapplicantareavailableforpublicreviewatCityHal1,155
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 l~epartmentat(54l)664-3321 ext.
291.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE
At the meeting, the Planning Commission will 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 and Site Plan. City regulations provide that the Central
Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions.
sn3lsoa
~~~ ~~
~ ~~ ~~ ~
~ ~~
~0 ~~~~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ SUBJECT PROPERTY
~~ ~ ooC~
~~~~
11.
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
- ~ ATTACHMENT C
RECOMMENDED PLANNING CONDITIONS OI+ APPROVAL
1. The approval ofthe Site Plan shall expire in one year on September 2l, 2000 unless an application
for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. The applicant
shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public hearing
within 30 days of Planning Commission approval.
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations .
3. The project must meettheoff-street parking requirements forprofessionaloflices,andtheparking,
accessand maneuvering areas shall be paved with durable materials for all-weather use and
approved by the Publie Works Department.
\\Cppdpdc\Planning\97053a. WPD
~~
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS City of Central Point
STAFF REPORT E~;HIEIT ttD't
for planning Department
Tyerman Dental Clinic
348 Oak Street
Commercial Facility Site Plan
PW#99053
Date: September 14, 1999
Applicant: Curtis L. Tyerman, P.C., 57 North 2n° Street, Central Point, bR 97502
Property Owner: Same as Applicant
Agent: Steven G: Sherbourne, 29 South Grape Street, Medford, OR 97501
Project: Dental Clinic Building
Location: 348 Oak Street (SW comer of Oak and 4'" Streets)
Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 11 BB, Tax Lot 400
Zoning: C-2
Plans: Site Plan w/ building elevations submitted by Pacific Pioneer Design Group,
dated 6/28/99
Report By: Paul W. Worth, Public Works Technician
Purpose
Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer")
regarding Public Works standards and additional standards. and requirements to be included in the
design. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding proposed development.
Special Requirements
OakStreefand Fourth Streetlmprovements:
Sidewalks: It is recommended that the Developer be required to construct new 6-foot wide
curbside sidewalks, wheel chair ramps and driveway aprons meeting City PWD standards
along the Oak Street frontage. Developer should also be required to remove and replace the
existing sidewalk on the 4'" Street frontage with a new 5-foot wide sidewalk, separated by the
existing landscape strip between the curb and sidewalk. The landscaped strip on 4'" Street
and the Right-of-Way (ROW) behind the Oak Street sidewalk shalt be planted and maintained
in compliance with City Ordinances and PWD standards.
2. Allev Improvements: The alley. along the southern boundary of the property is unimproved.
,The plans indicate that there will be parking. movements that will take access off the alley,
which will result in backing and turning movements iri the alley. This is prohibited in the City's
Municipal Code under Section 17.64.100 (E) (3).
If access will be taken from the alley to the property, then it is recommended that the
Developer be required to improve the alley to current PWD standards. Typically this requires
a minimum of a 3-inch thickness of Class B asphalt over 6-inches of 3/4-inch-minus base rock
and 8-inches of 4-inch-minus sub-base rock. Woven geotextile fabric is required to be placed
overlaying the subgrade. The broken concrete alley apron and sidewalk will also require
removal and replacement to current PWD standards. Construction of the alley apron to
current standards will require that the existing catch basinfinlet be relocated to the north:
13
]l•drmim Dcru;d l ~Lrnr
/'IrD Sm/J~Kepor!
SepmmbcrYJ, 1999
l'nge 2
Storm water collection and conveyance facilities shall also be constructed or reconstructed to
provide for storm water conveyance from surface drainage of the alley and adjacent parking
area, so that the surface drainage does not sheet flow across the sidewalk/driveway at the
alley entrance.
Sife Drainape/Storm Drain Plan: It is recommended that the developer design and
implement a site drainage/storm drain' plan that corrects and enhances existing site, drainage
for the entire area noted on the site plan. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto
the public rights-of-way (including the alley) or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable.
The storm drainage infrastructure will be privately operated and maintained. A suitable system
will need to be designed for a minimum 10-year storm event. The discharge point and
potential retention of storm water run-off shall be coordinated with aspects of the proposed
development to provide an aesthetically pleasing, efficient, and low maintenance facility. The
storm water retention facilities shall be designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and
hydrocarbon deposition, and to mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with
these facilities. The developer shall also secure written permission to connect/discharge into
adjoining City storm water conveyance facilities. Catch basins, curb inlets, orifice boxes and
area drains shall be designed for sediment and petroleum hydrocarbon retention. The PWD
will require a copy of the engineers hydrology and hydraulic computations.
4. Driveways, Access Roads, and Parking Areas: It is recommended that the driveways,
access roads, and parking and turning areas on the proposed development be designed and
positioned in a manner that accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO
single unit truck and the Fire District's requirements. All driveways, access roads, and parking
areas should either have asphalt or cement concrete surfaces.
The driveway entrance "throat"off of Oak Street needs to be moved a minimum of 6 feet to the
west to meet the minimum setback of 30 feet from the property lines at the intersection of Oak
and Fourth Streets. Driveway throat is narrow for two way driving. ,
5. Exisfing Infrastructure: The Developer shall provide suitable engineering certification and
justification (i.e. calculations, analyses, plots, etc.,) that all connections to existing
infrastructure (i.e. street; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage
systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide for the significant degradation (in the opinion of
the Public Works Director) 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 the existing
facilities will be improved by and at the expense df the Developer to accommodate the
additional flows and/or demands while maintaining or improving the existing effective level of
service of the affected facility.
6. Utility Easements: A 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) will be required along the
property's. frontage with Oak and 4~' Streets.
7. Water Service: The City has no record of water service to this tax lot. It is not known if a tap to
the water main in Oak street exists.. If no existing service exists then all SDCs and associated
fees for connection will be required. The beveloper shall determirie with the Building
Department what size service line and meter will be required to service the proposed
development.
~~
7i•ermne Uerual (7inir
PI{'D SlafJ~Repon
Sep ember 14, 1999
Page 3
General
1, Development Plans: Developer-shall submit to the City's PWD for review and approval,
engineered, plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or
modifications within the City or public rights-of-way and easements or for connections to City
infrastructure. Plans shall show all existing utilities and City facilities, existing contours,
property lines, benchmarks and other physical site information needed for review. All plans
submitted for PWD review shall be presented in a common engineering scale sized to fit on
24- by 36-inch, D size drawing sheets. PWD requires 3 sets of plans for review purposes.
;Public improvements include, but are not limited to, streets. (including sidewalks, curbs and
gutters and landscape buffers); alleys; storm drainage and sanitary sewer collection and
conveyance systems; water distribution system (up to the service meter and including fire
protection); street lighting; and traffic control devices, street signs, and delineation. All
.construction of public improvements shall conform to the C,ity's PWD Standards, the
conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special
specifications, details, standards, andlor upgrades as may be approved by the City
Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed
development.. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in
writing by the. Developer's engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to installation.
2: Approvals: Fire. District. No. 3 (fire hydrant placement, waterline sizing, and emergency
,vehicle access), Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA, for sanitarysewers), and City
of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (commercial/industrial wastewater discharge
permit) written approval of construction plans shall be submitted to the City PWD prior to final
construction plan review and approval by City PWD.
3. As-Bul/fs: Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or
surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the
Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form
(produced on Myla~) and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD®, or other form as
approved by the City PWD.
As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line",changes to final
approved construction. plans which identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of
actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot
elevations identified on drawings; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer
lateral; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet; street light locations; other
below,grade utility lines, etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on Mylar®), or an approved
.alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD®
compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to
acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development,
or as otherwise approved, by the City Administrator or his designee.
4. Elevations; 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.
~. rJ
frer~m,m lkr,r•il (7uur
NII'U .9glj Report
September lJ, 1999
Page J
5. Existing Infrastructure: As applicable, field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and
locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed
' 'development will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design
and submittal for final approval The accuratelocations of any existing underground and
above ground public infrastructure, and the'location df the associated easements with these
facilities;-shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontallyand vertically) on the construction
plans. '
6. Fill Placement. All fill placed in the development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed
and compacted in accordance with City PWD and Building Department standards, except for
the upper 1:5-feet of fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that ddes not underlie
'building, structures, or traveled vehicular access ways or perking areas.
7. Road/Drivewav/Parking Areas: The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils
and determine the access road, parking, and driveway section designs to handle the expected
loads (including fire equipment) to be traveled on these private driveways; access roads, and
parking areas: Need td provide section for review. The driveways, access roads, and truck
parking and turhing areas on the proposed development must be designed and positioned in a
manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO Single Unit
Truck without crossing into an opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic
8. Ufility Plans: We did not receive any utility'plans for the proposed development. The utility
plans shall be drawn to scale with' accurate horizontal and vertical depiction of utility lines and
appurtenances (transformers, valves, etc.). As built drawings shall reflect all utility
locations; located both above and below ground.
9. Area Lighting Plan: Provide and implement an adequate area lighting plan for parking and
public access. areas, including the driveway entrance from 4'~ Street, and if applicable, the
alley as may be required by the City PWD. Plans should include the mast height, luminosity
" and effective light spread at ground level. Lighting shall be designed so as not to interfere with
Vehicle traffic on city streets.
10. Public Ufility Easements: A minimum 10-foot wide public utilities easement (PUE) shall be
dedicated on the'proposed development for the installation of public utilities and shall be
located outside the public rights-of-way. At a minimum, the PUE should be aligned along the
' exterior boundaries of the property that border 4"' and Oak streets, if a PUE is not currently
present in thie area.'
11. Clear Vision Areas: The site plan indicates that the proposed building is outside the sight-
vision triangle necessary for the alley connection to Oak Street. A 55-foot minimum sight
vision triahgle shall be maintained al the property's comer of Fourth and Oak Streets.
12. Fire Nydranfs: Provide locations of existing grid any new required fire hydrants. Fire
Hydrants need to be connected to 8-inch-diameter and larger lines. If applicable, steamer
ports at hydrants located near the'tiuilding shall face the buildings. Fire hydrants shall be
suitably protected from potential vehicle damage and encroachment.
1. 6
Iirrman !>nua!(7uur
Seprcni6e~ N. /949
'r)`r S
13. Water System Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with Oregon Health
Division (OHD) and City requirements for cross connection control. Need to know projected
activities and water uses for existing and new commercial buildings to determine requirements
for cross connection control and fire protection. Building service will likely require a backflow
prevention assembly to be installed directly behind the City's metes
14. Water System: Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and location of all water
mains, hydrants, valves, service connection, meter, service laterals, and other appurtenance
details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD. '
15. Sanitary Sewer Industrial Discharge Permit: If applicable, obtain industrial discharge permit
from City of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (Medford RWRF). Obtain Medford
RWRF's written approval to connect to the sanitary sewer system.. Copy, of application can be
obtained from City PWD.
16. Roof/Area Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with
positive drainage away from the building. Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the
public storm drain system.
17: Grading Planx Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted
on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lihes 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.
18. Overhead Power Lines: If appljcable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US
West, and TCI Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities
within or adjoining 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.
19. Storm Drain Sysfem Design: Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this
development plan, the Developer's engineer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of
hydrology and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the site storm drain system.
The engineer shall use the rainfall/intensity curve obtained from the City PWD for hydrology
calculations, and the negotiated run-off parameters.
~~
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
3916 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFORD, OREGON 97601.9099 • (641) 779.4144 • FA%(641) 635-6278
City of Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
<~
Subjircti 99053 SPR - Tyernlan Building
Dear Ken,
We have reviewed the proposal with regard to providing sanitary sewer service. Therd is an
existing 8 inch HDPE sanitary sewer in Oak and a IS inch PVC sewer in 4'h Street. A 6 inch
service line is stubbed near the Westerlg property line on Oak Street. The service connection to
theproposed building.should be located and.routed azound the existing tree at thaYlot corner.
Have the applicant contact BCVSA for connectiomandpermitting information
If you need additional information, please call me at 779-4144.
Sin e
James May, Jr. P.
District Engineer'
18
N?; 2Ei'19y1 14:4; 8264566 JC1=D GUS OFC PAGE tl2/02
FIRE DISTRICT No. 3
,JACKSON COUNTY
8333 AGATE ROAD, WFII7'E ~.n•~ pREGON 97503-1075
(541) 826-7100 FAX (541) 826.4566
7-28-99
Ken Gerschler
Community Planner
Re: Tyerman Dental
The Building Department will request a set of blue prints from the
applicant for submittal to Fire Dist. 3 to review. The plans shall include aplot plan
showing placement of building, main access roads and driveways. The Fire
District will apply Uniform Fire Code requirements that may include hydrants for
fire protection, and road acxess prior to construction.
Neil Shaw
Deputy Fire Marshal
iy
l1~ylVEST
COMMUNICATIONS
Tuesday, August 24, 1999
City of Central Point
ISS S. 2"d Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
ATTN: Ken Gerschler
RE: Planning Commission meeting on September 7, 1999
AI~G ~, 0 1999 I U
U S West does not have a problem with the Tyerman building or the Mountain View
Plaza Land Partition as long as a 10 foot P.U.E. is attained for all street frontages for the
Tyerman project. We would like to see a 1 S-foot P.U.E. along all street frontages for
Mountain View Plaza Land Partition.
Any questions can be referred to myself at 132 W. 4`h St. Medford, Oregon 97501,
Tel #1541-776-82.65.
Yours truly,
Mike Shannon
~U
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
STAFF Ii);PORT
APPLICANT:
Name:' CURTIS L. TYERMAN P. C. ~
Address: 57 N. 2ND STREET
City: CENTRAL POINT State: OR Zip code:97502
AGENT:
Name: STEVEN G. SHERBOURNE
Address: 29 S. GRAPE
City: MEDFORD State: OR Zip code: 97501
OWNER OF RECORD:
Name: CURTIS L. TYERMAN P. C.
AddCOSS: 57 N. 2ND STREET
City: CENTRAL POINT State; OR Zip code: 97502
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NEW OFFICE BUILDING
37 2W 11BB TAX LOT 9500
411 OAK STREET, CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
ZONE C-3 .17 ACRES FLOOR AREA 2300 S.F. 9 PARKING SPACES
BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
1': ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE (UBC CHAPTER 11) DOES
NOT COMPLY WITH UBC 1104 ORS - a -
"NOT LESS THAN ONE SPACE MUST BE VAN ACCESSABLE
2. RAMPS/SIGNSq/~AC~CESS TO UBC CHAPTER 11 SPECIFICATIONS
3 'R~ P6 qr' ~.eA'1S7rZOL7'7 o,-r cft Te!'M iH seT' Ba-e.ks 7D PAP ~~~ '4'>~
CENTRAL POINT UILDING DEPARTMENT
By:
Dated: ~'.~ ~~
STAFF RESPORT.wpdC:\Corel\$uite8\Template\Cuslom WP Tempiates\Business Fortns\STAFF REPORT.wpd
`~ i
ti
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: September 21, 1999
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Publicl-Iearing-Site Plan Reviewof372W IIBC,Tax,Lot4700-EIAlbinilRestaurant
Addition
Owner/ Tom and John Hamlin
Aaplicant: P.O. Box 43
Medford, Oregon 97501
Aeent: Vitus Construction Inc.
P.O. Box 1097
Gold Hill, Oregon 97525
Property
Description/ 37 2W I IBC, Tax Lot 4700 - 2.26 acres
Zonine: C-5, Commercial Thoroughfare District
Summary
The applicant has requested a Site Plan Review for a commercial addition at the El Albinil Restaurant: The
facility is located at 507 South Front Streetand shares a common tax lot with the 98 cent store and other
businesses.
Annlicable Law
CPMC 17.46.010 et seq. - C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial District
CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. -Off Street Parking and Loading
CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval
Discussion
1'he restaurant and subsequent 840 square foot addition are permitted inthe L-5 zoning district and meet
the area, width and yard requirements ofthe municipal code. The new single story construction would add
more kitchen and guest seating area. T- I 1 l siding will be applied as shown on the applicant's elevations.
An addition to the EI Albinil restaurant will increase the need for off-street parking spaces. CPMC
17.64.040 (G-6) requires eating and drinking establishments provide "not less than onespacepereach
three.reats, or per one hundred square feet ofgross, floor area, whichever is greater; plus one space
22
prr each rn•u ruyrlu:ra<~.e ern Ihr major shijl "
City staffcalculatcd thaL32 spaces are required for this project and the applicant has provided 35.
Regardingon and ol7•sitc improvements; the Public Works Department has stated concern with the existing
width ofBush Sheet and it's ability to seine additional u•aflic demand. Although theresnuu'ant addition may
not directly intluence a large increase in vehicular h~atlic, the City may wish to address the issue ofobtaining
a wider right of way at this time.
Public Works is preparing a recommendation for on and offsite improvements evhich are believed to be
reasonably related to the proposed development (see Attachment D): These include; but are not limited
to; driveway aprons, sidewalk improvements; site grading and drainage; on-site lighting; paving and utility
(water, sewer and storm drain) connections.
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, Jackson County Fire Disu•ict Number 3, and US West
Communications have submitted commentsthat relate to the project (Attachment "C" ).
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the
following standards from Section 17.72:040:
A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction ofwalls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same
to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme ofthe neighborhood, and in such a manner to use
the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The
Commission may require the maintenance ofexisfing plants orthe installation ofnew ones for purposes of
screening adjoining property.
^ The applicant tras submitted a landscape plan for consideration by the Commission. The,
plan shows a mix of existing/proposed shrubs and trees.
13. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference
with the traffic flow on public streets;
^ Access is proposed from common shared driveway access within the shopping complex
from Bush and Front Streets.
C. "fo provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedesu'ian and vehicle Ilow facilities in such a
manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in
such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets;
^ The35parkingspacesprovidedbytheapplicantmeettheoff-street parking requirements
of the municipal code. _
23
D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from
trattic conU~ol signs ordevices and that they arecompatible with dre design oftheirbuildings onuses and
will no[ interfere with or detract from. the appearance or visibility of nearby signs;
No signage has been proposed at this time however the applicant will be required to apply
for a sign permit and submit his plans to the City prior to any sign installation.
E. Accessibility and sufticiencyoftiretightingfacilitiestosuchastandardastoprovideforthereasonable
safety of life, limb and property, including, but notlimited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so
thatall buildings: on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus;
^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any requirements ofJackson County Fire
District 3.
F. Compliance with al4city.ordinances and regulations;
^ The proposed construction will meet the minimum setback requirements for the C-S,
Commercial Thoroughfare District.
G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation
to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs.
^ The proposed structw•e is similar in architecture to otherstructures located within the C-
S, Commercial Thoroughfare District.
Recommendation
Staff recommend that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No. ,approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions ofapproval
(Attachment D); or
2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or
3. Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission.
Attachments
A. Application and Exhibits
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C:. Correspondence
D. Planning and Public Works Department Recommended Conditions of Approval
24
~ ~'
'W
_ ~
... I ~ i
., ~~Vv+
K
I.Z~
~1
I
I~
ary ar c~,~c>rai Potnc
~~:rrrgr~r ~tA ~f
Planning Departtnen>t
_g u_sry- _sr1R~ T
~~
I~~ ~pq~
I
'. ff', i.
i
\ ~ ~ \~ `
'~ b
rR ~, I ~ .9, f
!I m~
?~~~ ~ '
- - -r-
;,,
!.
IpBI
I;
I
~~
i ~
~~ ~
--. I I
~ i
~ II i
II
. II
.~, Z. III 'F
£ F
• ~ I ~~
'~e~
Ij ~ _ r f
~~y Y l ~
_Trao'-_- ~r~99 r~ M il~
0~ R I iN Y
b ~ ~~ L ,.
Yi
ql
2.J !'r ~ I~
"~~'
--_ 28._a„
~~
~~
•r~l
~~ ~
I ~--
26
~ ,` ~.ic ` oc ~~
o n..
~~ ,~ .~
'~ r.
r
1,
~l-~ '`~~]
1 ~`z
p'Y..
.1J-;
~.
sa'
t'
t,
1.q v M~ ni @A~\
MKR" H EX13T,1,!+~
F~AG1 /t _...
%....
^ ecRGCN " ~ ~~
'~ c:NT
r 'J
.~
~~
~~ -~~ ~
/~ .
.~ yin
.nh;•i .~
t ~ ,..
.,, r;~, ,,,,,,,,,,,,~.~.~~
ti~u~~v v~.~,
-Yn K(o
0
~l
-~I---
~f
~>_
-"F:FLR•
7- ~ i. c .
+e.t •.
~
.
~(-••CCn.\YACTc --~ a •, ~
SHAD-~
\
~ ao R
~~ ~
~I
'.~'4 0_.4 .. loM\L ~ v
~~
11N0\ST~-4R6SD SO~"y
111~~~_"_~x
~lCtJ1 Of ~,C)ltl'Glr 1~Olllt
PLANMNG DEPARTMEN"T
aty or central Poine
EXHI~RIT ttB ,<,!
Planning Department
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: June 15, 1999
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
NATURE OF MEETING
September 21, 1999
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
Tom l lumphrey, AICP
Planning Director
I<en Gcrschlcr
Conununity Planner
Matt Samitorc
Planning Technician
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Plalming Commission will review an
application for a Site Plan that would allow a commercial addition to the El Albinil Restaurant at 507
Front Street. The proposed addition would allow additional seating for restaurant patrons. The parcel
is located in a C-5, Commercial Thoroughfare Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat
372W11BC, Tax Lot 4700.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal
Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction
Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance with 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, September 21,
1999.
Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, I SS
South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
ti~
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal shall be raised prior to the expiration of the
continent period noted above. Any testimony or written comments about the decisions
described above will need to be related directly to the proposal and should be stated clearly
to the Planning Commission.
4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City
Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at
15 cents per page.
5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-
3321 ext. 231.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE
At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear
testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any
testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of
the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Site Plan. City regulations provide
that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions.
5
O ~~~
O y~~
GF'~P~~
~~~
Pti
4 ~`~ ti
~ti~s~4`~~ ~~~~
SUBJECT AREA
29
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
3915 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFORD, OREGON 97601.9099 • (641 779-1114 • FA%(541) 635.6275
August 25, 1999
Ken Gerschler
City of Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Subject: 99060 SP - El Albinal Addition
Deaz Ken;
City of Central L~otdC
EX.H~~I`T «C"'
Planning Department
We have reviewed the proposal with regazd to providing sanitary sewer service. Our records
indicate there is an existing 8 inch sanitary sewer in First Street and an 8 inch PVC sewer in the
property on the North side of Bush Street. The service line records in this azea are not complete,
we therefore can not accurately identify where acid how the existing structure is connected.
Have the applicant contact BCVSA for connection and permitting information.
If you need additional information, please call me at 779-4144.
Since ,
James Ma Jr. P. .
Y~
District Engineer
c~ U
/'/a ,~,~; n J
~~~~
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT
ADDRESS: 501 S. FRONT STREET
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
DATE 7/14/99
APPLICANT:
Name: EL ALBINIL RESTAURANT (ADDITION)
Address: 501 S. FRONT STREET
City: CENTRAL POINT State: OR Zip code: 97502
OWNER OF RECORD:
Name: JOHN & TOM HAMLIN
AArlrrcc• 24 CRATER LAKE AVENUE
Clty: MEDFORD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
OR
Zip code: 97501
ADDITION TO RESTAURANT
501 S. FRONT STREET, CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
COREY VITUS CONST. (773-6136
1. SUBMIT DRAWINGS THAT INDICATE EXISTING FACILITY (3 EACH)
2. SUBMIT DRAWING THAT INDICATES ADDITION AND CHANGES TO
EXISTING STRUCTURE.
3. RESTROOMS MUST BE REMODELED TO COMPLY WITH UBC CHAPTER 11 REQ.
4. EXITING MUST COMPLY WITH CHAPT. 10 (UBC)
5. INCLUDE PLOT PLAN THAT INDICATES PARKING PLAN
(SEE UBC CHAPTER 11 -SECTION 1104)
FURTHER INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED AT PLAN CHECK.
NOTE: COMPLETE PLANS (IN DETAIL) WILL EXPEDITE PLAN CHECK PROCESS.
CENTRAL POINT BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Bye--~-c¢~ `~'~`"~~"'Z~ Dated: ~('tl~~
C:\CorelVSuitc6\Template\Custom WP Templatu\Business FonnsVSPECIALMSP.wpd
06/31/1999 09:27 6264566 JCFD; LiUS OFC PAGE 02Y02„
FIRE DISTRICT' No. 3
,JACKSON COI.iNTY
8333 AGATE ROAD, WFII7T: CITY, OREGOtJ 97503-1075
(541) 826-7100 FAX (541) 826566
August 31, 1999
Ken Gerschler
City of Central Point
Re: 99060-SP
Fire Dist 3 reviewed a set of plans from the city building department on 7-28-99: This
review was sent to the building department, 1'f you need any other review from use please
let me know.
~~~s~~
Neil Shaw
Deputy Fire Marshal
~~
ATTACHMENT D
RECOMMENDED PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
"The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on September 21, 2000 unless an
application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the
City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and
approved at the public hearing within 30 days of Planning Commission approval.
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations .
3. The project must meet the off-street parking requirements for professional offices, and the
parking, access and maneuvering areas shall be paved with durable materials for all-weather
use and approved by the Public Works Department.
e~