HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - September 7, 1999;,
~. !,, ~ `
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
l PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
J September 7, 1999, - 7:00 p.m.
~ ~ ffi
Next Planning Commission
Resolution No. 461
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
City Planning
Chuck Piland -Candy Fish, Don Foster, Karolyne Johnson, John LeGros,
Paul Lunte and Wayne Riggs
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES
A. Review and approval of August 3, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
Page 1-12 A. Public hearing to consideratentativeplanintroducedbyC.A.Galpintopartition
a Z.94 acre parcel into.two.parcels. The subjectproperty is located east ofthe
intersection of Freeman Road and Oak Street in the C-4 Tourist and Office
Professional zoning district.
13-23 B. Public hearing toconsider a siteplan introduced by Dr. Curtis L Tyerman P.C. to
construct a 2250 square foot dental. office building at 348.Oak .Street
(Iutroducfion Ouly). The subject property is located in the C-2 Commercial
Professional zoning district.
24-50 C. ReviewoftheFinal.DevelopmentPlanforParkwoodTenaceEstates,aPlanned
Unit Development introduced by Parkwood Terrace Estates, LLC which includes
subdividing 4.4 acres into 45 residential pad lots. The subjectproperty islocated
south of Beebe Lane 125 feet east of Hamrick Road in the R-2, Two Family
Residential zoning district.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
~ r h
`/ ~ i
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 1999
I. 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 Johnson made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes for
July 20, 1999 meeting as presented. Mr. Brennan, the Public Works Director asked the
commission change portions of the minutes to reflect specific Public Works statements as
recommendations. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the Planning
Commission Minutes for July 20, 1999 as changed. Commissioner LeGros seconded the
motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; LeGros, yes; Lunte, yes; and Riggs, yes.
Commissioners Fish and Foster abstained.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
There were no public appearances.
VI. BUSINESS
A. Continued Public Hearing to consider a site nlan introduced by Barbara and Stephen
Brown to modify an existing business at 841 E Pine Street fora drive up window The
subiect nronerty is located in the C-4 Tourist and Office Professional zoning district
Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the Planning Department Staff Report.
The City staff has come up with two options for the Brown's, since the last meeting.
Option one would allow for adrive-up window on the north side of the property. This
would require traffic to flow one way on the alley and would appear to have the lowest
cost for the Brown's. The second option would facilitate the drive.up window on the east
side of the building, midway along the east wall as proposed by the Brown's. Significant
public improvements would have to be made in order for this option to become viable.
_7
',,_~ , ,
Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 1999
Page 2
Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, suggested that in the second option the alley should
also be designated one-way.
The Applicant, Steve Brown, presented his findings and suggestions to the commission.
He stated that the only option that would work for them would be option two. Mr. Brown
also stated that the retaining wall and drainage requirements that the City would require
are fine with him, as well as making the alley one way.
The Applicant, Barbara Brown, stated she did not want to pay for the alley and new
driveway aprons, and that this should be the property owner's responsibility.
Commissioner LeGros made a motion to pass Resolution number 459 conditionally
approving the site plan on property located at 841 E. Pine Street for a drive up
window. The subject is located in the C-4 Tourist and Office Professional district.
The approval is subject to the following recommendations to the City Council; 1.
The Brown's must enter into an agreement with the City for the two feet of public
right of way necessary to complete the project; 2. The direction of traffic flow on
the alley located north of the property should be changed to one way west-bound
traffic; and 3. There should be an agreement with the property owners for a Local
Improvement District on the Alley. The applicants are responsible for
improvements directly associated with the drive through including installation of a
three inch minimum pipe size for drainage, a retaining wall, building permits for
the structure, and paving the drive up window access. The property owner would
be responsible for improving the front drive way apron and sidewalk upgrades.
Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: motion passed
unanimously.
B. A Public Hearin¢ for the consideration of a re ug est by the LDS Church to vary from
the fence reauirements of the Central Point Municipal Code in order to insure ade uate
on-site security and uniform temnle architecture The subject pronerty is located on the
southeast corner of Taylor and Grant Roads
Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department Staff Report.
The LDS church would like a variance from both the height and placement of a new
fence. The variance would allow six foot wrought iron structure to be built in the side
yard setback and to exceed the maximum height at each column. Mr. Gerschler also
stated that the fence is part of the overall architecture of the temple and would increase
security on the property as well as add aesthetically to the temple.
Dan Park represented the LDS Church and stated he was for the project and it would add
to the beauty of the site and would cut down on the vandalism.
t ;
Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 1999
Page 3
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to pass resolution number 460, approving
the fence variance application for the LDS temple located at 3900 Grant Road,
based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the
recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously.
C. Consideration of proposed changes to the Central Point Municipal Code. Section
17.60.030 re ag rding accessory buildings_
Mr. Humphrey presented the Planning Department recommendations. The changes are
due to issues that have arisen in Central Point that either apply directly to the construction
of accessory buildings or have been discussed in the context of garage dimensions or
temporary structures for off street covered parking. The planning staff have attempted to
address-all of these issues through a single code section dealing with accessory structures.
Commissioner Lunte made a motion to recommend the proposed language to the
City Council. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Johnson,
yes; LeGros, yes; Lunte, yes; Foster, yes; Riggs, yes. Commissioner Fish abstained.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Humphrey informed the Commission on the status of last meetings approval of the
Kosmatka development and that it will be presented before the City Council on August 5,
1999. Mr. Humphrey also informed the commission on the status of the Naumes
Development and the Hot Bikes business located on Front Street.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
.. ~ (1: r
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: September 7, 1999
Central Point Planning Commission
Tom Humphrey; AICP, Planning Director
Public Hearing- Tentative Minor Partition for 37 2W 02 Tax Lot 1200:
AQ lin cant/ C.A. Galpin
Own_er:' P. O: Box 8271
Medford, OR 97501
Pro er
Description/ 37 2W 02 Tax Lots `1200, 7.94 acres
Zonine: C-4; Tourist and Office Professional District
Summary
The applicant, C.A. Galpin is proposing the minor partition of a 7.94 acre parcel into two
parcels (refer to Exhibit A). The property is located east ofthe intersection of Freeman Road
and Oak Street in a C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. The parcels resulting
from the proposed partition would all take their access from Freeman Road through Plaza
Boulevard via Reciprocal Easement Agreements.
Authori
CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing
and tender a decision on any application for a tentative plan for a land partition. Notice of
the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B).
APnlicable Law
CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. Tentative Plans
CPMC 17:44.010 et seq. C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District
CPMC 17.60.130 et seq.- Access
`,..
1
-~ ~ .
Discussion
Last year, the applicant C.A. Galpin requested and received an approval to partition a 19.78
acre parcel into three parcels in preparation.. for the. Mountain View Plaza commercial
development. This latest application would further partition parcel 1 into two new parcels
of 6.10 acres and 1.76 acres respectively. The applicant elected not to subdivide his property
into 4 lots in order to stick with the simple minor partition process. Property may be re-
subdivided after one calendar year and, given lot dimensions changed resulting from
Freeman Road right-of--way dedication, the. applicant has now chosen to further divide his
property.
The minor land 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.
The Planning and Public Works Department have reviewed the site plan and the tentative
plan for the proposed minor land partition and have concluded that they comply with city
requirements if all conditions of approval pertaining to site development, minimum lot size
and, public works standards and specifications are met.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
Minor Partition
CPMC 16.10.010 requires that applications for tentative plans be submitted with
improvement plans and other supplementary information as may be needed to indicate the
development plan.
~. The proposed minor partition satisfies the subdivision requirements listed in
CPMC 16.36.030 and CPMC 16.36.040. The Public Works Department may
request, additional informafion to satisfy standard specification requirements.
CPMC 17.28.050 establishes minimum area, width and and access requirements for the C-4,
Tourist and Office Professional district.
Parcels 1 and 2 of the proposed partition. meet the area, width and access
requirements for the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional district. In addition,
the placement of the buildings originally depicted in the Mountain View Plaza
site plan is not affected by this change.
2
1 ~ .~ i t
., l:+, t
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Tentative Minor Land Partition of 37 2 W
02 Tax Lots 1200 subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit D ); or
2. Deny the proposed Tentative Minor Land Partition; or
3. Continue the review of the Tentative Minor Land Partition at the discretion of the
Commission.
Exhibits
A. Tentative Plat
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C.; Comments from Other Agencies
D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval
E. Public Works Department Comments
3
Qty otCentr~t PoLi~
~~ Planning DeParimen't '
~~ ~
w
.... -
25' AYC. PANNC YADRI
NNW'lIT _ FREEMAN_ROAO so' a1cNr a wAr _ _Nel.o~
- - - NOOUTIIT -aOaWN'M xww~lt
asyaa __~WyISN. Tia.T laaa~1
f}n'Ye
~~. ,Q~QQ__~' r _ F'
I11--; id. •I 4It I~~' ~ U
~~11 f ~F. ~~::'
mrG X.. -\ Cg f ~ 1 ~'
~ ~: ;~
~~ sooros liSr w ~ II \\ ~ e ,•~ b~ g 0~.~I
~~ ' 1,'I ~F HOJ & ' al~ ~ ~ Q~Q .~
.i 1~ 'I ~~ 818' F
BI I I I ~ " ~i r' b
a~ I ~~ i I ~{ I ~ ~ , ~ ~
a I e; I_ si x C
R. y
~~ ~~~~ y ~~ ~ ~ ~ g ~~7y
~ ~ya~N 5 ~,, I r. I 5 ~ x a
e ~~ ` Naororux I ~ 44 ~ S tyn
~" rnow' It € i^ C
gIN '~ I naav ~ T
~~gg I . ". SIB I '
I xaanra~•w _..F' I ~ _.
i I ~~~
a.oo I ~I~
I `I I I d
I
a
E
7
9
k
c
N~;
g ~,
I '
e ~ /
E1pp ~ ~ i'e
fi 9 ~~ YI
s K J
,~o
~~'
4 ~~y ~ a
0
y
a, ,,, ~
QV02I A[~L~[~~2I3
~~
.+ ..
~' . r / FREEMAN Co
~; URT
N
of ~~
,.., ~,
NI N
~ ~~y~ •
~ ~
~ ~
O
n
0
C~
c~
A~
'~
0
~~
J~ N
'~G e
_ I
F+
~ IW ~
H
1 (jj
O
0
a
~3y
5
0
H
z
c
r
~ t
F
O
~j
- ~
F~ U
U
~
(
~
r
N
r
0
b
t~
z
y
Notice of Meeting:
Date of Notice: July 27, 1999
Tom. Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Community Planner
Matt Samitore
Planning Technician
City of Central Point
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
NATURE OF MEETING
September 7, 1999
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
..Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
,,,
City of Centi';gl Point
~-I~~TT f~B. t,
Planning Depar(meul`
Begiiming at the ab ove time and place, the Central Point P Tanning Commission will review an application
foraTentativePartitionon apazcel ofproperty.locatedbetweenFreemanRoadandInterstate Five. The
subjectparcelislocatedinaC-4, Tourist and Office-Professional ZoniagDistrictonJacksonCounty
Assessment Plat 372W02D, Tax Lot 1200.
The Central Point Planning Commission will initially review the application of Tentative Partition to
detemvne iftheproposed split ofthe existing 7.94 acre tax lot meets the requirements of law. Ifapproved,
the partition would create two parcels.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION .
The requirements for Tentative Partitions are set forth in Chapter 16 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code,
relatingto GeneralRegulations andConstnzctionPlans. Theproposedplanisalso reviewedinaccordance
to the City's Public Works Standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Anypecsoninterestedincommentingontheabove-mentionedlandusedecisionmaysubmitwritten
comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 1999.
2. Written comments maybesentinadyanceofthemeetingtoCentralPointCityHa11;155South
Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
6
. ,:, ,
3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the
expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the
decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to
the Planning Commission.
4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public reviewatCity I-Ial1,155
South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents Per
Page•
S. Foradditionalinfomra6on,thepublicmaycontactthePlanningDepartmentat(541)664332Yext.
231. Please ask for file 98033-Partition.
UMMARY OF PROCEDURE
Atthe meeting, the Planning Commission will reviewthe applications, technical staffreports, heartestimony
from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the applicatiori: Arty 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 Partition.. City regulations provide that the
Central Point City Council be informed aboutall Planning Commission decisions.
~`
~~
155-South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
~- - ,JACKS ON COUNTY
Roads
August 4, 1999
Attention: Tom Humphrey
City of Central Point Planning
115 South Second Street
Central Point, OR 97502
. i e ~
, N
Joseph 4 Stnhl
Dlrecfar
200 Antelope Road
White Cily, OreBOn 87b03
Fex~)(541) 8830-04077) 778-7268
aty'or cerit~u t~oint
Exxr~r~ «~„
Planning DeP3rt~nea~t
RE: .Partition off Freeman Road - a county maintained road.'
Planning File 98033; Partition and property line adjustment.
Dear Mc'Humphrey: -
Thank you for the opportunity to;comment on the application for a larid partition
and property line adjustment located on the east side of Freemah Road, acrossfirom Oak
Street. Roads and Parks Services has the following comments:
1. Roads and Parks Services recommends that the city request road jurisdiction and
annex the entire road right-of-way. It is our understanding that this process
has already started, if not, we will require the following:
• When developed, the applicant shall submit construction drawings to Jackson
County Roads and Parks Services and obtain county permits if required.
• We recommend that half-street frontage improvements to Freeman Road be
required to urban standards. Improvements shall include road widening,, curb,
gutter, drairiage facilities, sidewalk and bike lane.
If additional right-of--way is required for the improvements, dedicatioh should be
required before. permits are issued. City of. Central Point standards.may be
utilized forroad improvement if the City agrees; in writing, to future maintenance of
the urban improvements.
• The applicant shall obtain road approach permits from Roads and Parks Services
for the new road approaches to Freeman Road.
If you have any questions or need further information feel free to call me at 774-6230.
Sinc/er~e y, ~~
Eric Niemeyer, PE
Traffic & Development Engineer
8
I:DEVELOP\CITIESICNTRLP.'n98033.wpd
BEARCREEKGREENWAY /. ENGINEERING / FlFPTMANAGEMENT /MOTOR POOL /PARKS /ROAD MAINTENANCE /.VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
T70.T200' 076J122 026,,f22~ ' 770.7930 778.7001 e`LBJt2t e26Jf22
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY
3915 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFORD, OREGON 97601.9099 • (641)779.4144 • FAX (541) 635.6778
August 4, 1999
Ken Gerschler
City of Central Point Ptanning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Subject: 99033 TP - Mt View Plaza Partition 37 2W 2C tl 1100
Dear Ken,
We have reviewed the proposal with regard to providing sanitary sewer service. The sanitary .
sewerage system for the subject development requires that buildings "F, G, and H", as identified
on the Site Plan dated 6/28/99, all remain as one parcel. It appears that the proposed partition.
may have conformed to that limitation.
If you need additional information, please call me at 779-4144.
Sincerelyn
~l-•~O"
~a~me~sM~a'y°, J~P~~ ,
~/'
District Engineer
9
~~
Tuesday, August 24, 1999
City of Central Point
155 S. 2"a Street -
Central Point, Oregon 97502.
111.91VE5/"'
COMMUNICATIONS
o~c~~uu~
AUG$01999 D
ATTN: Ken Gerschler
12E: Planning Commission meeting on September 7, 1999:
U S Wgsl does not have a problem with the Tyerman building or the~yMpNutit~ltt;Vie~,
Plaza I;and hafkltxojl~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 15-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°i St. Medford, Oregon 97501,
Tel # 54~-776-8265.
Yours truly,
Mike Shannon
~~
., ,
.a ! IA y
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The approval of the Tentative Plan shall expire in one year on September 7, 2000
unless an application for final plat or extension has been received by the City. Reciprocal
Easement Agreements shall be obtained and recorded prior to or in conjunction with the
recording of a final plat.
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations
3. ~ .The tentative. and final. plats shall depict utility easements requested by the City,
BCVSA and WP Natural Gas. Any changes to utility layout including fire hydrants
shall require subsequept approval by the respective service provider.
11
Citv of Central Poir~t~~ '
N T E R
-- _ _ MEMO
O F F I C E
To Tom Humphrey Planning Director
From:' Lee Brennan, Public Works Director
Subject: Tentative Minor Partition for 37 2W 02 Tax lots 1200
Date: .September 2, 1999
The Public Works Department has reviewed the subject tehtative minor partition, and has
no objections to the partition:' It should be noted that all'the conditions and requirements
of the Public Works Department (i.e requirements for the Mountain View Plaza
development) that were applicable to the one tax lot, would continue to be applicable to
the two separate parcels.
The Public Works Department would also recommend the requirement that the final plat
of this partition should reflect the additional Freeman Road right-of--way dedication that
was required for the Mountain View Plaza development, thathas been negotiated
between the Developer's Engineer and Architect, and the City Public Works Department.
12
., ,
.. „,
.PLANNING DEE•ARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING,DATE: September 7, 1999
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT:
Owner/
Ap I-u cant:.
Agent:
Property
Description/
Zonine:
Summary
Public Hearing-Site Plan Reviewof372W 11BB,TaxLot400-TyermanDentalClinic
Building.
Curtis L. Tyerman P.C.
57 North Second Street
Central Point; Oregori 97502
Steven G. Sherbourne
29 South Grape Street
Medford, Oregon 97501
37 2W 11BB, Tax Lob400 ~ 0,18 acres
C-2, Commercial Professional District
The applicant has requested a Site Plan Review for the construction ofa 2250square foot dental building
to be constructed at the southwest corner of Oak and Fourth Streets. The site originally housed an older
dwelling but is now vacant with the exception ofthree mature trees (refer to site plan). Two issues have
arisen necessitating the continuation ofthis item.: Confusion abouttheaddress/location ofthebuilding site
by both the applicant's agent and City staffresulted in incorrect noticing. Both parties are also trying to
formulate a solution to satisfy the parking requirements for the project.
Applicable Law
CPMC 17.36.010 et seq. - C-2, Commercial-Professional District
CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. -Off Street Parking and Loading
CPMC 17.72.01-0 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval
Discussion
The site plan Mr Sherbourne has submitted depicts the placement of a 2250 square foot single story
structure onto a 140' by 55' corner lot. The plan shows four parking space's along Oak Street (one ofthe
spaces is ADA accessible). An additional five spaces would be accessed from the alley along the rear
property line.
13
CPMC 17.64.040 requires that medical and dental offices provide not less than three spaces per
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 need to provide l l spaces in order to
comply with the ordinance. The Public Works Department has a coneem with the spaces located adjacent
to the alley. Vehicles leaving the parking spaces would "back out" into the alley which is discouraged with
new development..
Options to remedy off-street 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. City
staff is working with Mr. Sherbourne to come up with an acceptable solution .
The proposed use is permitted in the C-2 zoning district but must meetvarious 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 purpose of landscaping with lawn, trees, 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 Department is preparing a recommendation for on and offsite improvements which are
believed to be reasonably related to the proposed development. 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 District Number 3, and US West
Communications have submitted comments that relate to the project (Attachment "C" ).The ten foot
Public UtilityEasementrequested by US-West can not be established as a requirement ofthe Site Plan
Review process
The northeast corner ofOak and Fourth Streets was originally believed to be the new development site
since it is being advertized for sale and the Blaska Tax Service plans have come to a stand still. Public
notices were sent out based upon the property on the northeast corner and a new notice has been mailed
with the corrected information. About fifiypercentoftheeffectedpropertyownerswerenotifiedandthere
may be some in the audience who wish to comment on the proposed project..
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing and review of the site plan
to a second meeting on September 21, 1999.
Attachments
A. Application and Exhibits
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Correspondence
14
. ~ ri
°/ '
U
2
Cary of Ccutra! Point
~c~rr~rT ttA ~t
Plarlniit~ Department
JUN 3 0 1999, D
ly
orricr: uss oNi.v
Name:_t~ ~ : ~Y~i~/~~{7/ l l
Address: tj7 ~!~
City: Gp„2'j~.~4/_ 7J, 6/.LE'T' State: ~~., Zip Code: G77rj~~
Telephone: Business:: ~ ~pGf -,~ZjD ' Residence:
til'I'I~; PLAN lZl?VIEV1' Al'PLICf~"PION - II1
City of Central Point Planning nPnartn,ant I~ ~~~ ~G~ ~~~ tl lY~ ~s
APPLICANT INPORMAI'ION
AGENT INFORMATION
Address: Ly ~ t'Jf'~}~~
City: ~ f~ ' State: D~ Zip Code: g~~
Telephone: Business: -Z~~ _ ~~~,~~ ,Residence:
3
OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Than One)
Name: li(/~J`j ~~~~/ ~li.
Address: ~j7 /Y f1lN/~ -
City: j ~h~~ State: ~~.
Telephone: Businesnes ~G,~ -ZZjL~ Residence:
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Type of Development: ~ ~ G~ D/
Township: '~7 Range: ~ Section:': ff~j~ Tax Lot(s): dU
Address: ~~~ ~~K 7~.~
Zoning District: G., ~j
ProjectAcreage:
Number of Dwelling Units: ~.
Non-Sale Area Sq. Footage Sale Area Sq. Footage =Gross Floor Area 20,5
NumberofParkingSpgces: 9'
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
This Application Form. ~~ egal Description.
Application Fee ($255.00). ud' Letter of Project Description.
rte Plan Drawn to-Scale (10 copies).
II~Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process.
Reduced Copies (8 %z x l l) ofthe Site Plan, Bui (ding Elevations and Landscape Plans (I copy Ea.).
Landscape and Irrigation Plan (3 copies).
6. [ ~-[EREBY STATE THATTHE FACTS RELATED IN "I'HE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS
AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED I{EREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT, AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
I certify that I am the : ~ Property Owner or ~1 ~7 Authorized Agent of the Owner
' ~ . ~ j / 1 Jof the proposed project site.
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
-
~ -o
~
D
A
I
A
y
ti
~ r
m
CI
~ L-~
~ I c
i X m
f•I y (1 Z W N
U y °: Z o N ~ - o" Vl
!'1 ti
. Z "1 O D r 'C n
D
C~
y N
~ 1'1
mi r
V O
m 0 D
]Zt D -
i
V1
A
A
z a
A (
l
In D A
~ t
'1
-I
n n
x v 'e ' C?
°v
~ ti z
c a
x - n
.~ N
~ y
~ f
m
ii ~-
~.
~~
i
~ Nv
..
..
Z
~ 1
`I 0 ~
N C, N v
00
N m N
~ E
pAK $TRECI
m ~ N~
K
O \\
O a'
t
n a
F z
~~'
/
A
I CIIRTl9 k DEBBIE. TVERYAA
I u
t
~ DERTAL OFFICC
I IY I ~ i l NTH AVENUE L OAR STREET
I CERTRAL .POINT. OR. Bi052
R
i
I
a
i
r,
m
.H
.ti
Sm
r
m
a
ti
O
Z
h
0
c
-i
r
m
D
ti
0
z
D
EE
~ ~
~` v
Q
'I. p~..
App
8,
d
m
a
iN
3~
r
D
H
0
z
A
N
5
N
.t
z
a
FA
7m
r
m
a
ti
O
Z
0
°z-
N
h
('
CUR773 k DEBBIE TYERMAN ~
DENTAL OFFIC¢
ITN AVENVE k OAK STREET
CENTRAL POINT. OR YTlNl2 ' J
City of Central' Point ~.,','
PLANNING DEP.A.RTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Community Planner
Matt Samitore
Planning Technician
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: July 27, 1999
Meeting Date:
Time;
Place:
September 7, 1999
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
NATURE OF MEETING
CYty of Central Point
~~I~~~IT ttB:.tf
Planning Department
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application
fora Site PlanReviewthatwouldallowtheconstruction ofa2300square footcommercialbuilding at411
Oak Street. The parcel islocated in a C-2 Commercial Professional Zoning District on Jackson County
Assessment Plat 372W02CC, Tax Lot 9500.
The Central PointPlanning Commissionwillreviewthe SitePlanapplicationto detem~inethatall applicable
provisions of the Central Point lvlunicipal Code cari 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
1. Anypersoninterestedincommentingontheabove-mentionedlandusedecisionmaysubmitwritten
comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 1999.
2. Written comments may be sent in advance ofthe meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South
Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
~.
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 • (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax:1541) 664-6384
'3: Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the
expiration of the comment period noted above. Any to§timony and written comments about the
decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to
the Planning Commission.
4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall,155
- South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per
page.
5. Foradditionalinformation,thepublicmaycontactthePlanningDepartmentat(541)664-3321 ext.
291.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE
Atthemceting, thePlanning Commissionwill reviewthe 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 Commission may approve or deny the and Site Plan. Cityregulationsprnvidethatthe Central
Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions:
~y vs~- ,Y~~l
QaE
0
~~~~~ ^~ a
~OP~~!\\`~ m
v l.~
SUBJECT PROPER cHesn+ur
'vim
19
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
~ . ~ ~ ~ ~
BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTH~~ITY
3916 60UTN PACIFIC NWY. • MEDFORD, OREDON 97601.9099 • (611)779-1114 • FAX (9tl) 636.6379
August 4, 1999
Ken Gerschler
City of Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Subject: 99053 SPR - Tyemian Building
Dear Ken,
aty orc~„c~,,i t~otric
~~xr~r~r «~„
Planning DePartmea~
We have reviewed the proposal with regard to providing sanitary sewer service. TherO is an
existing 8 inch HDPE sanitary sewer in Oak and a 15 inch PVC sewer in 4"' Street. A 6 inch
service line is stubbed near the Westerly property line on Oak Street. The service connection to
the proposed building should be located and routed around the existing tree at that Lot comer.
Have the applicant contact BCVSA for connection and permitting information.
If you need additional information, please call me at 779-4144.
Sin
James May, Jr. P.
District Engineer
20
07/26/1999 14:49
6264566
JCFD3 HUS OFC
FIRE DIST'RICT' No. 3
. ~acKSON couN~-~r
8353 AGATE ROND,IVFU'rE (~Y~ pR~~a0M 97503-1075
(541) 826-7300 FAR (34v 826-¢566
7-28-99
Ken t;erschler
Community Planner
Re: Tyerman Dental
PAGE 02102
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 a plot plan
showing placement of building, main access roads and driveways, The Fire
District will apply Uniform Fire Code requir®ments that may include hydrants for
fire protection, and road acxess prior to constriction.
~/..~.e ~~s~~
Nei{ Shaw
Deputy Fire Marshal
21
Tuesday, August 24, 1999
City of Central Point
155 S. 2"d Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
ATTN: Ken Gerschler
12E: -Planning. Commission meeting on September 7, 1999:
U~ylVEST'
COMMUNICATIONS
~~~c~~u~~n.
AUG$01999 IUI
U S West does not have a problem with the T;y~ixrian build" g or the Mountain View
Plaza Land- Partition as long as a 10 foot P U`.fi.'is attained or all street frontages for the
Tyerman project. We would like to see a 15-foot P.U.E. along all street frontages for
Mountain View Plaza Land Partition.
Any questions can be referred to myself at 132 W. 4s' St. Medford, Oregon97501;
Tel # 541-776-8265.
Yours truly,
Mike Shannon
~~
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
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.
Address: 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 (UBG CHAPTER 11) DOES
- .. MAT' C(1MDT:VLiTTR i1R(!` 11 (1R4 - ~-
"NOT LESS. THAN ONE .SPACE MUST BE VAN ACCESSASLE.
(17' WIDE)
2. RAMPS/SIGNS/ACCESS TO UBC CHAPTER 11 SPECIFICATI
CENTRAL POINT UILDING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT.wpdC:\Corell.SuiteB\Template\Custom WP TempletestBusiness Fortns\STAFF REPORT.wpd
~ P~P~t ~~
2~
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: September 7,1999
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
SUBJECT: Final Development Plan- Parkwood Terrace Estates P.U.D.
Owner: Parkwood Terrace Estates, L.L.C.
415 Harvard Place
Medford, Oregon 97504
Agent: Neathamer Surveying
145 South Grape Street
Medford Oregon 97501
Pro er
Description/ 37 2WO1B Tax Lot 2500
Zonine: R-2, Residential Two-Family District
Summary
The applicants are requesting that the Commission review and approve 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.... ...
Authority
CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review Final
Development Plans for. P.U.D.'s. No, public notice is required in this situation.
Auplicable Law
CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. Planned Unit Development
CPMC 17.24.010 et seq. R-2, Residential Two Family District
Y_ 2
Discussion
CPMC Chapter 16.68 describes the requirement and application processes for Planned Unit
Developments. Initially, the applicant submits a preliminary development plan with maps
describing lot configuration, property boundaries and a schedule of the planned completion
dates. If the plan is approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant is allowed a period
of six months to provide the City with a copy of the Final Development Plan demonstrating
that all of the conditions and requirements of the Preliminary Development Plan have been
met.' The Planning Commission then reviews the Final Plan and makes a decision to City
Council consent.
The preliminary development plan for the Packwood Terrace Estates P.U.D. was approved
by the Commission on June 2, 1998 subject to certain conditions of approval described in
Resolution 451 (Attachment "B").'The applicant is confident that the project has met the
assigned conditions of approval and has submitted a Final Development Plan for the
Commission to review.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
Planned Unit Development
CPMC 17.68.080 permits the Planning Commission to allow exceptions within a P.U.D. for
dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, structure heights, distances between structures and
streetwidths if an applicant can demonstrate that the objectives ofthe zoning and subdivision
code can be met.
• The Tentative Plan depicts a side yard minimum setback for many of the two
story units. Two pocket parks have been proposed to compensate for the
increased building mass that has been created by the second story portion of
each unit within five feet of the side yard setback.
CPMC 17.68.060 requires that applications for Final Development Plans contain in final
form the information required in the preliminary plan (maps, measurements, construction
plans, agreements and updated development plan.
• An application with the required attachments has been received by the Planning
Department. The submitted documentation appears to be in substantial
compliance with the approved tentative development plan with the exception of
the construction plans which will be discussed by the~Works Director.
25
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the final
development plan for the Parkwood. Terrace Estates Planned Unit Development.
1. Approve the final,developmentglan, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law
contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set fprth
in Resolution 451; or
2. Deny the final development plan based on findings of faot articulated by the Commission:
3: Continue the review of the final development plan at the discretion of the Commission.
Exhibits
A. Final Development Plan- Parkwood Terrace Estates
B. Planning Commission Resolution 451
C: Building Department Staff Report and Public Works Comments
~~
f/A:4G Pf/o PG.4N
PARKWOOD TERRACE ESTATES
. Auwwm cwarwvrr
~4%f/~,
City of Cetttral Point
E~iHIBIT t,At~
Planning Department
:~
--~ ~ -
.~ .• _ ea
e ~ ,m ~~
Owaen
r~.vericrovtmawtrawr~~~y`
IaQi'a~"o`"vPruec
nbro,d avOwT af,.o~
acrnmal ~ aG.
a
~ Le[end
o n+uv« a «aiuro v~'v~
a mtae«6. oswy.w.~o.a.wn
-aE- YN4fM~MNNIp MI~W]fuwM
0 Y.Y4M Ol IWMJ 11YTMV i~d
t- hYa1M YlIWIq W11.l MI.(M~iy
• 1AYPIM TMMNq M1Y Mf1M
V MeaW meY4q Mlygva
+- Mttlw C~MUy wY.r Yv
0 1vRatw a ~Mllg 9" Ia^d
-G M[dw mil.e.]y.N
® NYlw muaieg wfay M..w'vMY
-SS- FWMm W.IMJ wfar ww-YV
O M'/4.m~ARh].bw~wwwain4
-m- 1'ACdwmMWy NUr.Mr~r
I[ Mcp1NmMYM]mptgalGWM I~t
-N- IHCaIw PWMb NIby M.Mf MM
~O- IHCiM OIepvM •iA1 M.w wirl~
-v- MtMr pno{wq.isw~wr
® grwvp~MWgzwtatl
653T hYW~aeHmtMmW~'bG M~{bbyl~
e~,ew.~e1T M[!w a'JSfe%un^b.beW Wfl Ybgl~
w.Omr~ • NXrc lGq raw~TL n
Perlnrood Terreoe Lena
Street Beotion
,a m .ra.
otee
N ~ rwm• armor, caw ur+. mly fu rem• aw.
~^e ^~ ~ ^~ ~M d'~+'~'/ ~~ av PR6PAItHD BY: Neethemer Surre
a orR•.bv.e e..nM to w d'ateafM wW cty ~-./1 5~6. lno.
Mc.a roeoy] ~~vgrpr acww:a~R~nt. ~ • !/6 SoutL OrePe bYreet
.~iR ~b ~N fAr AakwHAw~w bev Yedlord Ox.{oa Y760t
~ °i'~o"`^'O~YJ'~~y~q~'h'04~ ~ ^~'~'~ ~ P6oas~~1J 7JE-E8e0
~ ~x~r K H1 q It ~feduH.. PAX (tl 'YdE-l1B.C
•]•t a. a. (p) sro Nva au euw. w 4 loco
fJJ 1a1r0i R-]. PReI[4T elllel[N IY00e Ot7i: Blaftll
9. Project Bidding/Bid Awarded -
This process should be happening between the PJanntng Commission
Hearing and the City Council Hearing and should be completed by
the time the City Council approves the project. 9/08/99
10. City Council Hearing for Approval of Final Development Plan 9/09/99
11. Engineered Plans Completed 9/10/99
12: City of Central Point Pre-consriuction Conference 9/10/99
13. Land Development Completed ~ 11/19/99
14. Home Construction -
Home construction should begin concurrently with the land
development, and the first homes should be completed at the same
time as the land development. 11/19/99
15. Preparation/SubmissionlApproval/Recording of Final Plat 12/15/99
~i 8
Parkwood Terrace Estates
Final PUD Annlication -Development Schedule
Activity Completion Date
1. Submission and Acceptance of Preliminary Development
Package 3/26/99
2. Review and Discussion with City Staff-
Thisprocess could take up to 21 days to complete. During
this time the required noticing of all affecfedpubltc agencies
(BCV,SA, Jackson County, etc.) will be done. At some point
during this 21 day period the city staff and applicant will come
to agreement on the plan that is to be presented to the Plarming
Commission and a hearing date will beset for the next available
Planning Commission Hearing.
3. Planning Commission Hearing -
Assuming the City Staff and the Applicants come to an agreement
on the plan that is to be presented to the 1?Irnming Commission,
about'/s way (10 days) intolhe above review period; the next
available Planning Commission Hearing would be April 20, 1999.
4. 2"" Planning Commission Heating, Approval of Preliminary
Development Plan -
It is reasonable to assume that the project will not gain approval at
the first Planning Commission Hearing andwill be set over to the next
meeting date.
5. Redline Changes by Engineer
6. Resubmission/Review of Redline Changes
7. Submission of Final Development Plan
8. Planning Commission Hearing for Approval of Final Development
Plan
4/16/99
5/04/99
6/01/99
7/21/99
7/25/99
8/01/99
9/07/99
2g
Clty: Medford State: Oregon Zip Code: 97504
Telephone: Business: (541) 779 - 0112 Residence: N/A
2. AGENT INFORMATION
Name: Neathamer Surveying, Inc.
Address: 145 South (Pape Street
City: Medford State: Oregon Zip Code: 97501.
..Telephone: Business: (541.) .732 - 2869 Residence:. N/A
OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Than One)
Name: Parkwood Terrace Estates,LLC
Address: 415 Harvard Place
City: Medford State: Oregon Zip Code: 97504
Telephone: Business: (541) 779 - 0112 Residence: N/A
4.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Township: 37 Range: `2w Section:
Zoning District: R-2 Residential Two-f
Total Acreage: 4.43 Acres
Tax Lot(s): 2500
General Description of PUD: This
development, with two pocket development is
parks, and one a 45-lot
landscape planned. unit
strip. The project
site is Tocated in the vicinity of Beebe-Lane and Vilas Road.
5.
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
C~This Application Form
^ ~ ron
'Preliminary Plan Drawn to Scale
CH" Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process
Reduced copies (8 %x 11) ofthe Preliminary Plan, Building Elevations & Landscape Plans (one copy
each)
O'Legal Description of the Property
Development Schedule
6.
I HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOV E APPLICATION AND THE PLANS
AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT, AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
I certify that I am the : ^ Property Owner or 3 O uthorized Agent of the Owner
of the proposed project site.
., i ~
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.4S 1'
Qity of central Point
EXHTD~IT tB'~
Planning Department
A RESOLUTION GRANTING TENTATIVE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR A LAND PARTITION
(Applicant (s) : Pazkwood Terrace Estates, LLC )
(372WO1B Tax Lot 2500 )
Recitals
1. Applicant(s) has/have submitted an application for tentative plan approval for a PUD land
partition on a 4.4 -acre parcel, located south of Beebe Lane 125 feet east of Hamrick Road in the
City of Central Point, Oregon.
2. On June 1, 1999, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted aduly-noticed public
hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and
comments on the application.
Now, therefore;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL
POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Approval Criteria. The requirements for approval of Planned Unit Development
and tentative plans are set forth in CPMC Title 16 and 17, relating to informational requirements,
zoning, lot dimension, access, and similar requirements.
Section 2. Finding and Conclusions. The Planning Commission finds and determines as
follows:
A. Tentative Plan Requirements. The application and tentative plan are in the correct
form and contain all ofthe information required by CPMC Chapters 16.10 and 17.68.
B. Area and Width of Lot. This Planned Unit Development in an R-2, Two-Family
Residential zone would create the following parcels:
Parcel 1: 4073 feet,
Parcel 2: 3214 feet,
Parcel 3: 3188 feet,
Parcel 4: 3312 feet,
Parcel 5: 2892 feet,
Parcel 6: 2659 feet,
Parcel 7: 2419 feet,
Parcel 8: 2436 feet
Parcel 9: 2453 feet
Planning Commission Resolution No. _420 (051998 )
31 .
ParceL.PO:
Parcel 11:
Parcel 12;
Parcel 13:
Parcel 14:
Parcel 15:
Parcel 16:
Parcel 17:
Parcel 18:
Parcel 19:
Parce120:
Parce121:
Parce122:
Parcel 23:
Parcel 24:
Parcel 25:
Parcel 26:
Parcel 27:
Parcel 28:
Parce129:
Parce130:
Parce131:
Parce132:
Parce133:
Parce134:
Parce135:
Parce136:
Parcel 37:
Parce138:
Parcel 39:
Parce140:
Parce141:
Parce142:
Parce143:
Parce144:
Parce145:
2471 feet,
2488 feet,
2505: feet,
2544 feet,
2614 feet,
2578 feet,
2595 feet,
2612 feet,
2629 feet,
2647, feet,
2605 feet,
5239 feet,
4087 feet,
3169feet,
3636 feet;
4451 feet,
3915. feet,
4234 feet,
3796 feet,
2670 feet,
2687 feet,
2704 feet,
2721 feet,
2739 feet,
3113 feet,
3132 feet,
2821 feet,
2838 feet,
2855 feet,
2,8'73 feet,
2890 feet,
2907 feet,
2924 feet,
3091 feet,
3076 feet,
6379 feet
Planning Commission Resolution No. _420 (051998 )
32
Section 3. Conditional Approval. The application for tentative plan for the Parkwood
Terrace Estates Planned Unit Development herein is hereby approved, subject to the conditions set
forth on Exhibits."A" , "D" and "E", attached hereto by reference incorporated herein, imposed under
authority of CPMC Chapter 16.36.
Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
day of , 1998.
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this
day of , 1998.
Planning Commission Chair
Planning Commission Resolution No: _420_ (051998 )
33
Attachment A ,
7riYTi4T)'12 )wL~4N
urr or c~•::•:. ~.:~r PARI{1POOD TERRACE ESTATES
I•
,~ . nunana a~arca~rr
LcralFd n A5i AU-Nrvwft Gw~6ta'-tw" or 3+etiar l rcwnsbp
DrSxfh Ro~~7~T~Q~A~yd GwdrrN
MAY 211999 ,
s~, _..-.
Tic :, t~''~ ~ ._ o do: k am vm ppR~' ~ plel'~- ~ ''' ~x
h~~ _ ~_ti 1a
i
vtcutrnr >reP
t
~a ~ ~ ` Ownere
~ ~ s i raw xea7~ceesrn» tcc
M 1 I ~rs~Ibro` d~ae.tbewxy ewr+ns•
~~ i ~ I~ HWaYy Angn •xSW
`~ ~ i ~ .,~
~ ~. ,~
\`~ I! e _ 1(1 /bc77wK GYwyn 97501
~i. \ - H I ; ~ ~ LeSend
` i 7 t
1 pt ;
N .
> ..a.a...~.+we w.. pe
I I I e Na.e«a~«wgwwcp.ewta
I.. w..
~ a -wE- IM.a1+...Mxlj ewl.m pw..w
wrsra~WU5 a~Pn"~P'1'~
I a -.- Mt+..a~wtln9NWe.bp~..w
~ ,
I ae • w,aw.~.rug.ebfw
I ~ V tiYdw~wWg MI/b~rt
I ~M~ MOLIIN w1 M111q IYN1'M
y
I ~ O Mcswa wYMgWMwa`I
.. [ 11
I aO ® MGINTIWMbbaM1Y`w]hV
I mow- MYdw01R419 w~elw7 Mw~w
I I
I M
~ I ~ y
~ ® 1114MO111Y1J Np41MM;Ch•I~
kMIl ww~'M
tlMM4MI
W
p
t
~w~
I n wn.a.rna MMf~
1
_I
-w- ~ywprpewewway.www
%1VIAW -w- wwe«pw*»a~wwwr.a~a.
la -x- wea«s.ax«a.uw'w
I ® a~.q+b pwrsa~l
I u l u
I '
I ~ ~
I Street Seottoa ~ .
ao• I ~
~
I o ~a 7 aw E ~ Rn'
x ~
I 1 I 17 Mb Nb
I "` q
I q ID as ae k
Y AGMiri AGNwwt
r-i aY u - u - rw.r
_ 1~~ -
Notes NAMilLK ROAD
"fix ~,,,,w~,.~wl "'^.a„ ~r 3 4
Mw.10 btWT M~aGe VvW~Yb" ~wf/~IICiL~
ty ~~i~dwpapa+~d ~i ~.• nrirl.
~7 ~ l~oeci~N~S,SM~R'
_'"~'_.. ae«o wMwxwrq yy~~cywrerwnaw.ILOrVGIMMT
PReP1R® BYx.NxfB~msr 577+7M~r• Ina
X a~rJO~OreNn ~ ~
Phac~ (eft) 7JE-rA?D
r~r ( t Ise-ISee
voorecrev7um fvaoa sfm xv+7~ flfY
__~~
arcs r - ar
o w xao xa
IReI *IBTS
~g Y
~~
rQ°a
:'
,~
..
'~~. t. 351
~,
~~
XL
~.`
`~
35
fi ~ G~•/^
/\
\
V
.
~
~
~
•y
C
v
.
^
r ~.
L"J
~~
~{'
~'~
s
~'~
~,~
~~
~r_
d~'
r~~
(•
~~~
`L~
r~~
~!~
f ~~N
4~1~
.;.~
I'
z;
9:~
ja .
``_-
i;~
FL
z
O Z N ~
~
~_ ~
~~
~
a
f~ m
n
o
W N
y
"1 'y'i ~ ~
f
e V1
0
r
^ ~
~~ ~ a ~ o ~ -- ° a....i I
tl
~ ~
; ~~ ~ ~ 7 oa ~
n -~
rr eB
j _ ~ ~
~ ~` z a
'" i i R Q. !Q 'm
j
~ ~ ~ i
~ •)
~y
e
~ ~
i
~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~~ y
_ j ~~ ~~~ ~ F
~
~-rr ~~ ;.`~3:. ~
a:v . 3 ~~ 6R
L= g :
~!m
,,,
3......__!
D
m
._.._ ~.
~ o
~ ' ~
"
~
~
~ a ~~
~
(
{ e~9~~ ~ x ~~ ~ f ~ R
e
~ I
~~ l
~
~7.
~ j
Z
~
t
~~~
£
~1
V
g ii . ..
,.
.
~. ~
«~_'
~ ~
i~ '
j ~~
~ " ~
~ ~
ii ~
4
~` ~~
~ ` fi l
:
a
d i
~r _
~
•
~~~
~j~•
"x~
~9I. ~~
36
D
~~
L.1 `~ ~
a
0
9
H
w , w •~1 I
w w w •aw
h,
I
Tm
2 po~
2
,N `
~ w ~ _
~
. 6
T
3'7
C
~~-~~~~---JC
`/
~~~D~~'~'J~ jj
1--+~/
a
Attachment,D, ' ., ""
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STAFF REPORT
for
PARKWOOD TERRACE ESTATES, P.U.D.
TENTATIVE PLAN REVIEW
PW#99032
Date: May 24, .1999
Applicant: Packwood Terrace Estates, LLC, 415 Harvard Place, Medford, Oregon 97504
Agent: ,Dick Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, 145 Grape Street, Medford; Oregon 97501
Property
Owner: ' Same as Applicant with DeCarlow Homes Inc., 814 E. Jackson St., Medford, OR 97504
Project: Packwood Terrace Estates, P.U.D.
Location: South of Beebe Road, East of Hamrick Road, and West of Meadowbrook Drive.
Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 01 B, tax lot 2500, and lot 4S of Central Point East, Phase 2.
Zoning: R-2
Area: 4.4 Acres (approximately).
Units: 48 spaces (45 pad lots, 2 Pocket Parks, and 1 landscape strip).
Plans: 1 page entitled "Tentative Plan Packwood Terrace Estates, a Planned Community", dated
May 21, 1999
Report By: Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director
Purpose
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 planned unit development. Gather information from the
Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development.
Special Requirements
1. Existing /nfrasfructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all.connections to existing .
infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems;
etc.;) will not interfere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service
or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either
adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing
infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure, or will
be improved by and of the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or
demahds; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as
approved by (as applicable), the regulatory agency, utility owner, and/or property owner involved.
2. Resldentlal Lane: The Developer is proposing the use of public streets with a residential lane
with a cul-de-sac end, a street outlet, and a private street outlet. The PWD has approved
development of this residential lane concept on Shelterwood, Griffin Creek Estates, Lindsey
Meadows, and Beall Estates IV subdivisions. Typically residential lanes have been designed to
serve a maximum of 12 lots; The proposed layout will serve 23 lots in one direction; and 22 lots in
the other direction: ,The Developer is proposing a "residential lane" public street with a 23-foot-
wide paved section; with 3-foot-wide rolled curbs on' both skies of the street. This provides for a
driveable'road surface of approximately 27 feet. We would recommend that the paved.-section be
increased 1-foot to 24 feet to provide a driveable road surface that would provide fora 28-foot-
widedriveable surface (2 ten-foot Wide travel lanes and one eight-foot wide parking strip). The
38
-, ,
Parkwood Terrace Es(a(es PUD Tentative Plan Review
PWD SlaJJ'Repor(
Page 1
applicant has also proposed parking on one side of the street, alternating sides of the street at
open spaces between driveways. This spacing of parking areas is too close to provide for
adequate two-way passage of vehicles without severe meandering. Therefore, the PWD is
recommending that parking be limited to one side (preferably the south side of Parkwood Terrace
Drive); with a further restriction that only automobiles and pick-ups be allowed to park on the
street: We would also recommend that no parking be allowed in the first 100 feet of Parkwood
Terrace from Meadowbrook Drive, to facilitate vehicular turning and access movements
associated with this intersection. We would also request that Parkwood Terrace "Drive" be
renamed as Parkwood Terrace "Lane" to coincide with the City's classification of the street as a
"residential lane" and not a "standard residential street". The residential lane standard for this
proposed development with parking permitted on one side, with a rolled curb/gutter section, would
have the following minimum requirements:
^ A 22-foot-wide paved section, with a 2 percent crown
^ A 3-foot-wide rolled curb and gutter section
^ A 5-foot-wide sidewalk section (6-inch thick with strengthened edge) located on both sides
of the street with suitable wheel chair ramps at all intersections.
A 2.5 foot-wide strip of land to be located behind the sidewalk for installation of water
meter service boxes, fire hydrants, eta
^ Requires a 45-foot-wide right-of-way.
^ Street parking allowed on one side only.
3. Private Street: As discussed with the Applicant, this private street is only for access to lots 25, 26,
ahd 27, with access from Parkwood Terrace Lane. There will be no direct vehicular access to
Beebe'ROad: According to the developer, this "half-street" section is intended to be completed to
a "full-street" section when supplemental development of the property (tax lot 2600) located to the
west of the private street occurs. It is recommended that a rolled gutter section (with suitable
corner radii) be installed at the end of the private drive (at a point just to the north of the driveway
of lot 25) with a suitable concrete driveway/pedestrian access installed at the north end of the
private drive, connecting with the sidewalk of Beebe' Road. A suitable breakaway gate or bollards
will need to be installed to prevent non-emergency vehicular access from the private drive to
Beebe Road, but which would allow emergency vehicle egress and pedestrian/bicyclist ingress
and egress from the private drive to Beebe Road.
4. Street Lights: The Oeveloper has requested the use of private street lights in lieu of the standard
street lights required by the City. PWD would concur with the use of private street lights on the
public and private streets, as long as the street lights installed provide the same or better
illumination of the street and sidewalk areas as typically provided by the City's standard 5800
lumen street light, at 200 foot spacings. The street lights would be privately (i.e homeowners
association) owned, operated, and maintained (including power consumption costs).
5. Hamrick Road Right of-Wav. Access. Fencing, and Improvements: Hamrick Road is identified
as a secondary arterial. Current right-of-way width on the eastern half of Hamrick Road ranges
from 30-feet (undeveloped areas) to 50-feet in width (along Central Point East [CPE~). The
existing right-of--way width adjoining the subject development's property is 30-feet-wide from
centerline. The County's current development plans specify a road section that will not be able to
accommodate the' installation of sidewalks and street appurtenances behind the curb, within the
current right-of--way. The County will also be installing a northbound right-turn deceleration lane
on Hamrick Road at the Beebe Road entrance 3 C~PE. These improvements will require
l',v ~~,. ...i it .., r ! a,rh'. l'I 111,-~udmr l'i.m R,-~., u
I'~ r e,
..additional right-of-way dedication to facilitate installation. The City PWD is recommending that the
development be required to dedicate an additional 20 feet of right-of-way along the development's
property frontage with Hamrick Road.
We are .also recommending that no permanent access be allowed onto Hamrick Road from the
Development's property. A suitable fence (preferably constructed with the same types of fencing
materials and construction which matches the other fencing at the entrance to CPE) should be
installed along. the: property's frontage with Hamrick Road, with a provision Ghat no; gates be
allowed to be constructed in the fence which would allow ingress or egress to Hamrick Road. If
the Developer will require temporary construction access to Hamrick Road to facilitate
construction equipment traffic (thus minimizing impacts to the existing paved roads of CPE), then
the City PWD would concur with this temporary access if it is approved and as permitted by the
Jackson County Roads and Parks Serviges (JC Roads).
The PWD is also recommending that the Developer be required to design and construct the
necessary improvements to Hamrick Road along the property's frontage with Hamrick Road that
are not being constructed as part of the County's planned road improvement project with Hamrick
Road. These improvements include, but are not limited to, a deceleration lane, a 6-foot wide
sidewalk (preferably meandering sidewalks set back a minimum of 3-feet from the back of curb),
an irrigated landscape buffer similar to the one required for the CPE development, street lights,
storm drainage, fire hydrants, and traffic control .and delineation. All improvements shall be
constructed in accordance with City standards and shall be coordinated and approved by JC
Roads and the City PWD. As approvedby the City Administrator, the Developer may request or be
required to defer any oral) of the required, improvements along Hamrick Road until a later date
(but no later than when the redevelopment of tax lot 2600 occurs). 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/County for the development improvement
of the noted improvements along the development's frontages with Hamrick Road, as required and
approved by the JC Roads and City PWD...
RRVID Facilities: If the development will require the alteration or modification of existing RRVID
irrigation facilities, then the Developer should be required to coordinate with and perform the
required alterations/modifications to accommodate the proposed development and maintain the
RRVID facilities. It is suggested that the modifications to the RRVID facilities may include
developing a surface water conveyance feature that may be incorporated into the improvements of
Pocket Park No.1.
Utility Easements: A dedication of a 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) should be
required of the Development's property along the adjusted right-of-way on Hamrick Road, and
adjacent to (behind) the City's right-of-way of Parkwood Terrace Lane and Parkview Avenue,
along both sides of the streets. A 10-foot wide PUE should also be dedicated immediately to the
east of the. private street boundaries.
Any City infrastructure installed outside the City's right-of-way will require suitable easement
dedication, meeting current minimum required easement widths for infrastructure installation,
maintenance, and repair.
Sight-Triangles: Field review of the subject property's access to Hamrick Road and
Meadowbrook Drive indicates that the sight-triangles can be developed that afford the proper
40
Packwood Terrace Pstntes PUD Teruative Plan Review
PWD Staff Report
Page 4
sight triangles for a local street connection to the two collector streets. These types of street
intersections require establishment and maintenance of a minimum 55-foot sight triangle.
9. Traffic Control Device (Signal) at the Intersection of Hamrick and Beebe Roads: A traffic
signal has been identified for installation at the noted intersection to afford safe pedestrian and
bicycle access crossing of Hamrick Road by residents of the proposed development and other
residents of CPE and surrounding developments. Similar to what was required of the other
neighboring developments within CPE, it is the PWD's recommendation that the Developer should
be required to abide by the requirements (including the payment of funds for the Development's
'apportioned share of the costs for the traffic signal design and implementation) of a City and
Jackson County approved cost sharing agreement or fee structure which provides the necessary
funding for the design and implementation of the traffic signal
10. ' Hamrick Road Water'Master Mefer and Maln Transmission Lines: The Development of the
nottheast area of the City required the installation of a new water mastermeter connection to the
City of Medford Water Commission facilities and construction of new 12-inch-and 16-inch-
diameter main transmissionlines: Since these projects were not identified in the City's water
system Capital Improvement Program, the CPE, Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park, and
New Haven Estates residential developments were conditionally approved with the requirement
that the master meter and main transmission lines were to be installed by the Developer's at the
developer's expense, and conveyed to the City after construction completion. Any request for cost
reimbursement was to be developed by the Developers and submitted to the City forreview and
consideration. The cost reimbursement methodologies and agreements have not been
established at this time, but it is recommended that if and when these cosfreimbursement
methodologies and agreements are established, and the area of benefit determined, that the
subject Development be required to pay the apportioned share of costs for the new master meter
and transmission line'installations.
11. Pocket Parks and Landscape Buffers: The PWD is encouraged by the proposed development
of the; pocket parks within'the development, due to the limited amount of backyard space available
on the proposed lots. It is the PWD recommendation that these.park facilities be designed,
developed, and constructed by the developers (at the developer's expense) as part of the
development of this project: It is further recommended that an irrigated landscape buffer be
installed along the sides of Parkview Avenue. It is our understanding that these pocket park and
landscape buffer facilities will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association
established with the development.
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 spedfications, details,
standards, and/or upgrades`as maybe approved by the City Administrator orhis designee prior to
the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction,
changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to
the City PWD for approval prior to implementation.
2. Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals, and conditions as may be
required by other agencies, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Department of Fish and
41
P,rrAvuud lbrr,rn' l'..altllC.\ P!'l1 /l•m,tln'r I'Gm Hrr~,'v
I' II'D .~'h r/j~ Kepnrl
/4r,¢p i
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,
as applicable.
3. Priorto approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall
provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the Developer's
engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy' form (produced on Myla~)
and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD®, or other form as approved by the City PWD.
As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved
construction plans. that identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed
items, including, but not limited. to, invert, inlet,. and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified
on drawings; road alignment; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral
stationing; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet locations, street light locations;.
other. below grade utility line locations and depths; etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on
Myla~), or an approved alternative fprmat, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable
AutoCAD® compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to
acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as
..otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. _
4. All elevations used qn the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and. on the permanent
benchmarkshall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted,on the
plans... At least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the
location of which shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer.
5. If applicable,,all existing concrete, pipe; building materials, structures, clear and grub materials,
and other deleterious materials shall be removed from the site and either recycled or properly
disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the DEQ.
6: Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable]) should
be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for public storm drainage,
sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.E. Centerline
of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five (5) feet from the edge of the easement.
If iwo or more City owned utilities are.located within an easement, then a minimum of 20-foot width
for the easement 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.
42
. ,,
Parkwaod Terrace Estates PUD Tentative Plan Review
PWD StaJf'Report
Page 6
^ A copy of written approval from JC Roads regarding Hamrick Road improvements (as
applicable) and temporary construction access connections to Hamrick Road.
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. Overhead power lines. Ifapplicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US West,
andTCl Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, orcable facilities within or
adjoining the proposed development to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City
PWl)' of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and
costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from ovefiead to underground facilities,
shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer.
10.. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and
the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall be accurately portrayed (both
horizontally and vertically) on the construction plans, as-built drawings, and final plat map..
11. The Developers engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a drawing of
the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Mylar° andlrran acceptable electronic form in
" AutoCAD®format. The Final Platshall be tied to a legal Government comer and the State Plane
Coordinate System. The Final Plat shall either reflect or be later modified to reflect any applicable
"red-line" changes noted in the construction "as-builts", at the discretion of the City Administrator
or his designee.
12. Ifapplicable, Developer shall provide a Statement of Water Rights (on a City approved form), for
any affected properties. For properties determined to have water rights, the developer will
coordinate with the State Watermaster the re-allocation of any waters attached to lands no longer
irrigable as a result of the proposed development.
Streetsfl'raffic
Existing Improvements - Hamrick Road -Secondary Arterial. Current ROW 60' wide, varying
street width. Right-of Way required: 50 feet east of centerline.
Beebe Road and Meadow Brook Drive: Varying street widths with
60-foot right-of--way widths.
1. Construction drawings for this Tentative Plan shall include a Street Lighting Plan. Additional
streetlights will also need to be installed or exiting street lights possibly modified along Beebe
Road and/or Meadowbrook Drive to afford proper lighting of the public and private street
intersections with the proposed development.
2. The City PWD, at the cost of the Developer, shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and
determine the street section designs for Packwood Terrace Lane and Parkview Drive in
accordance with the City PWD Standards. Minimum street section for these two streets shall be
' as follows:
~! 3
Parkwood Terrace Estates PUD Tentative P/an Review
PWD Staff'Reporl
Page 7
- 3-inches Class "B" A.C.
- 6-inches of 1"-0" crushed rock
- 8-inches of 4"-0" crushed rock (City of Medford specifications),
- Woven geotextile fabric over compacted subgrade.
Street section (excluding the asphalt concrete portion) shall be extended underneath and a
minimum of two feet beyond the rolled curb and gutter section.
3. As applicable, stop signs and traffic delineation (i.e. "stop bars") shall be required and installed by
the City PWD (at the Developer's expense) at the proposed development's intersections with
Beebe Road and Meadowbrook Drive.
Storm Draihage, Irrigation Improvements
During the design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system (SD System), which shall
provide for and convey storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development
(either surface run-on or culvert or creek/ditch conveyance), the Developer shall demonstrate that
the storm water flows from the completion of the proposed development (and at any time prior to
completion of development) do not exceed predevelopment flows; or that existing capacity,
allowahces; or provisions have been made (and approval of the applicable properties owners and
regulatory agencies has been obtained), which accommodate any additional flow which exceed
predevelopment flows. The Developerand the City PWD shall agree on the applicable run-off
coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc., to be used inthe engineering calculations.
2. 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 development, any future
development on adjacent properties, and any areas deemed by the City that will need to tie-into
the proposed development's storm water collection and conveyance system (I.e tax lots to the
south of.the proposed development). It is our understanding that the storm drainage infrastructure
within the proposed PUD will'be a public system, operated and maintained by the City.
Storm drainage conveyance pipe stub-outs, through suitable easements in the development, will
need to be provided and storm drain conveyance lines may need to be up-sized as necessary to
accommodate existing and future developed property storm waterrun-off from the applicable tax
lots (i.e, "Area of Benefit") located to the south of the proposed development. If the storm drain
lihes are needed to be up-sized from the size necessary to accommodate the proposed
development and the storm water flows from the existing development of the tax lots (i.e. "Area of
Benefit") south of the proposed development, to provide additional capacity to accommodate the
projected future developed flows of the Area of Benefit tax lots, then the PWD would propose to
compensate the Developer for the upsizing above a minimum pipe size of 24-inch-diameter as per
themethodology approved by the City Council
3. Developers engineer shall provide a site drainage plan with the facilities being designed, at a
minimum, to accommodate a 10 year storm event. The SD system must be designed to
adequately drainthe 10-year storm event without surcharging, or must be provided with adequate
storage to preventsurcharging; and be designed to not impact existing public storm drainage
facilities. Any private storm drain system exceeding 3-inches in diameter shall be designed to
directly connect to the public storm drain system (at a manhole or curb inlet only), and shall not be
designed to discharge to the street surfaces.
44
. o r ~. .
Y uAur,„1 /lv,~n'r Ishu,:c P! 7r I-rnl,rn rr lY,m Frrrru
I' I I'I l ,Clr r// hr! a u7
Pair ,\'
4. 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 through a "pop-up drain" located
in the landscape area behind the City's sidewalk.
5. Prior to City PWD construction plan review, the Developer shall provide the City PWD with a
complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the SD system,
which shall incorporate the use of the City PWD's rainfall/intensity curve, and City approved run-
'off coefficients, curve numbers; retardance; pipe roughness coefficients, eta, that are used in the
engineering calculations.
6: Storm drain pipe materials shall be'PVC, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with water-tight)oints
meeting the requirements bf ASTM D3212, F477, and C-443M, as applicable. Provide concrete
(in areas within the rights-of-way) or sand-cement slurry (in areas outside the rights-of-way)
encasement where required in areas of minimum cover.
7. If inlets/catch basins are to exceed 4.5 feet in depth from the lip of the inlet to the bottom of the
catch basin, then the inletsand catch basins shall be designed to afford suitable"man" entry for
maintenance/cleaning purposes:
8. Developer's engineer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations and flow line plots for
private and public storm drains. Plot HGL on profile or provide a separate profile drawing that -
- indicates the HGL on the profile. Pipes should maintain cleansing velocity (minimum 2.0 feet per -
second) and have adequate capacities without surcharging during the design storm.
" 9. The`Developer may wish to incorporate the use of a perforated SD system. If so, then the
- perforated storm drain system shall be designed to have adequate capacities to: '
^ Convey the collected groundwater and storm water with the minimum cleaning velocities
and without surcharging the collection and conveyance. piping; and
^ Minimize silts, sands, gravels, and fines migration from the native soils into th.e SD system.
The plbtted HGL shall include both the groundwater infiltration; and the storm water run-off and
run-on inflows into the SD system.
10. Maintain a minimum 0.2-foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes and curb
inlets, unless flow-through velocities during the design storm event exceed 3.0 feet-per second
(fps}. If flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps and the inlet pipe is in relatively direct (i.e. 180 t 5 degree)
horizontal alignment with the outlet pipe, then as a minimum, the pipe slope shall be maintained
through the base of the manhole or curb inlet. If flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps, and there is other
than relatively direct horizontal alignment between the inlet and outlet pipes, theh a minimum of a
0.1-foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes or curb inlet must be maintained.
A bottom channel shall be formed in the manhole or curb inlet base to mitigate transitional losses
and enhance flow through the manhole or curb inlet.
11. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way orbnto neighboring
properties is unacceptable.
45
. , s , ,
Pnrkwood Terrace Estates PUD Ten(n(ive Plan Review
PWD S(aJf Repor(
Page 9
Sanitary Sewer
1. 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.
2. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of
sewer laterals.
3. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary approval, will forward
the plans to BCVSA for completion of the review process. Upon completion of the review by
BCVSA, completion of final. revisions to the plans by the Developer's engineer, and following the
final approval and signature on the construction plans by BCVSA, the Public Works Director will
approve the plans in final form.
4. All testing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be done in accordance with BCVSA
requirements, at Developer's expense. The Developer shall provide. BCVSA and the City with test
reports, TV reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance.
Water System
- Existing 12-inch-diameter water line installed in Beebe Road and Meadowbrook Drive.
The water system shall be designed to provide the required fire flow demand capacities for the
proposed development, which meet Fire District 3 requirements, with fire hydrant placement as
approved by the City PWD and Fire District 3. Maximum spacing of fire hydrants shall be 300
feet, unless otherwiseapproved by Fire District No. 3 and City PWD. The water system shall be
of reinforced flow ("looped") design, with valved connections (taps) to the existing 12-inch-
diameterwaterlines in Beebe Road and Meadowbrook Drive. Water service lateral connection
stationing and Size shall be provided on construction plans and as-bunt drawings.
2: Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for backflow
prevention.
3. Water service meter boxes shall be City PWD. specified "Christ' brand meter boxes, that
accommodatethe Sensus touch-read equipment. City PWD will pertorm all "hot" connections to
active water lines (including service lateral taps), unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Director.
Site work, Grading, and. Utility Plans
1. 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.
2. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away
from the building. .
46
,' 1 ~ „'
Parkwood Terrace Estates PUD Ten(a(ive Plan Review
PWD Staff Report
Page !0
3. Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company which reflects all utility line
locations, crossings, transformer locations, valves, etc.
4. Utility locations must be accurately included on the as-built drawings, or as a separate set of
drawings attached to the as-built drawings.
5. All fill placed in development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in
accordance with City PWD and current adopted UBC standards, except for the upper 1.5-foot of
fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does not underlie buildings, structures, or
vehicular access ways or parking areas.
4'7
~ .. ~ ~1 l
~ Yl .
ATTACHMENT E
RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Afinaldevelopmentplan, containinginfinalformtheinformafionrequiredinthepreliminaryplan
shall be submitted to the City within six months of approval or by December 1,1999. A six month
extension may be granted by the City upon the applicant's request and for good cause.
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations including,
but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Fire Code and Structural Specialty Code.
3. The applicant shall submit final pazking, landscaping, lighting and signplans to the City for approval
as part of the final development plan.
4. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or any
comparable agreement governing the use, maintenance and continued protection of the PUD
as part of the final development plan.
5.. The applicant shall schedule and attend pre-design meetings with WP Natural Gas, Fire District
No. 3, applicable irrigation districts and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority to more
specifically identify utility easements and the placement of fire hydrants and pipelines and other
utilities.
~~
.,~~:,
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT airy or cenc~u eat~t
STAFF REPORT ~~iI~,T`Z' ccC»
APPLICANT: Planning Deparimen't
Name: NEATHAMER SURVEYINGy INC.
Address: 145.!SOUTH GRAPE STREET
Cityi MEDFORD State: OR Zip code: 97501
AGENT:
Name:_
Address
City:_
Zip code:
OWNER OF RECORD:
Name: PARKWOOD TERRACE ESTATES, LLC
Address: 415 HARVARD PLACE
City: MEDFORD State; OR
Zip code: 97504
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TOWNSHIP: 37 RANGE: 2W SECTION:.. O1B TAX LOT: 2500
ZONING DISTRICT: R-2 RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY DISTRICT.
TOTAL ACREAGE: 4.43 ACRES
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PUD: THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A 45-LOT
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WITH TWO POCKET PARKS, AND E NDSCAPE STRIP. THE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: rRO.IECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF BEEBE
LANE AND VILAS ROAD.
SEE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED.
CENTRAL POINT BUILDING DEPARTMENT Q c~
BY~ Dated: ! ~ ~ ~ / 9
LOI DE BENEDETTI
STAFF REPORT.wpdC:\Corel\SuiteB\Template\Custom WP Templales\Eusiness FonnsVSTAFF REPORT.wpd
NEATHAMER SURVEYING, INC.
Y
~ - ~ 1 1
BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS ~ ~` "
EXPANSIVE SOILS: When expansive soils are present the Building Official will require that
special provisions be made in the foundation design and construction to safeguard against damage
due to this expansiveness. The Building Official will require a special investigation and report to
provide design and construction criteria.
FILLS: Fills to be used to support the foundations of any building or structures shall be placed
in accordance with accepted engineering practice acid compacted to a minimum of95% relative
compaction. A soil investigation report and a report of satisfactory placement of fill (including
special inspections of placement of fill and compaction), acceptable to the Building Official shall
be submitted before building permits will be issued.
GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS: The Building Official may require a suitable geotechnical
report showing soil classification and design-bearing capacity. If required a written report of the
investigation shall be submitted and shall include, but need not be limited to, the following
information:
1. A plot showing the location of all test borings and/or excavations.
2. Descriptions and classifications of the materials encountered.
3: Elevation of the water table, if encountered.
4. Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity,
provisions to mitigate the effects. of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects of
liquefaction and soil strength, and the effects of adjacent loads.
5. Expected total'and differential settlement:
~U
„> i ~~
~.
City of Central Point
MEMO
O F F I C E
To: Tom Humphrey Planning Director
From: Lee Brennan, Public Works Director
Subject: Parkwood Terrace Estates, 37 2WO1B Tax Lot 2500
Date: September 2, 1999
The preliminary. construction plans for Parkwood ;Terrace Estates have been submitted
and reviewed by the Public Works Department. With some minor changes and
corrections, the preliminary plans contained the requirements stipulated in our staff
report regarding the tentative plan forthe subject development. It is also our
understanding that the other applicable regulatory agencies have give their conditional
approval of the construction plans for the subject development.
The Engineer for. the project, Thornton Engineering, has indicated that preliminary final
plans will be submitted to our office and will be able for review at the scheduled
planning commission meeting of September 7, 1999.
We wish to express our appreciation for the cooperation afforded to our department by
the developer, surveyor, and engineer of this unique project.
v1
:, ,• ,
~~ ~\ American
Planning
Association
July 7, 1999
Dear Planning Commission Chair:
122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60603-6107
312.431.9100 Phone
312.431.9985 Fax
Since 1995, the American Planning Association and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy have brought high-
quality, convenient, and cost-effective training to more than 5,000 planning officials across America through
their audio conference training series:
Who's listening? City council members, planning commissioners, parks and recreation staff, consultants, and
planners. From Boston to Kodiak Island, Alaska, officials and staff are learning the newest trends in planning
and participating in balanced discussions of hot issues. And what could be more convenient than having the
program delivered, via,telephone,'togour own office or conference room?
The 1999-2000 program promises to be another thought-provoking and relevant series:
•Liveable Communities and Sustainable Development-October 13, 1999
•Land Use Regulation and the Freedom of Expression-December 1, 1999
•Transfer of Development Rights Revisited-February 9, 2000
•Urban Parks and Green Space-May 25, 2000
Take advantage of the training bargain of the year! In our most recent series, the Northeast Regional
Development Center in Georgia trained 40 officials for $80 per program. Where else could you join an up-to-
the-minute discussion of farmland preservation issues, or hear about suburban redevelopment from author and .
legislator Myron Orfield, for only $2 per person? If you register by September 17,1999 you can save up to
$120! You"11 find complete details in the enclosed brochure.
Past participants have called the program "very interesting and organized," and "very informative," and said,
"I look forward to future presentations." Sojoin in and receive inexpensive, top-notch h~aining for planning
staff and commissioners.
Sincerely,
~~~
Frank So, FAICP
Executive Director
P.S. Tape packages of past programs are also available. Visit the APA web site at www.planning.org/educ/
audio2.html or call Jerieshia Jones at 312-431-9100.
~_ ~~
.~ 1~ ~,
~~ Tightly packed hour
of in~ormation~~
That's what. planning o#'ficials are saying about this series.,
that over 5,000 ofl your colleagues have .attended.
Livable Communities and Sustainable Development
October 13, 1999
Land Uae Regulation and the Freedom of Expression
December 1, 1999
7~ransfer of Development Rights Revisited
February 9, 2000
Urban Parks and Green Space
May 25, 2000
~' ',
53
LINCOLN PCS
oNBTpT~U 1'6
,~ ,
The American Planning
Association and the Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy have
the perfect up-to-the-minute
training that's both low-cost
and .convenient.
Budget tight?
No fee increase; same low price as 1998.
How does it work?
The audio conference is delivered to you live over a speaker telephone: All you do is assemble your group
around the phone and dial the 800 number provided to you when you register.
How many people can attend?
As many can attend as you want. You register for the phone line, not by the person. You can train an
entire council, board, or commission for as little as $80.
I'm really busy, how long does this take?
All programs are one hour in length. All are held on Wednesdays at 4:00 p.m. E.T. Each
program is scripted for an audio format and engages the listener in a lively discussion.
Can I ask questions of the speakers?
Yes. Fax them in ahead of time or ask them via the telephone during the program.
What if I can't make that date?
Simple. You can purchase a tape and transcript of the program (see Option B on the registration form).
You'll get the tape of the live program, plus the transcript to listen to or read at your convenience. The
package can be used for future training as well.
Do I get anything else?
Yes. With your registration you receive reading materials, an agenda, and instructions on joining the pro-
gram and asking questions. Any questions not answered in the audio conference will be answered in The
Commissioner newsletter, mailed free of charge to all registrants.
For copies of agendas of the programs, call APA's 24-hour faxon-demand service at 800$00-1589.
Request documents #3005 (information on how an audio conference works) and #3006 (program agen-
da). This information is also on APA's web site ~t,wJvw.planning.org/educ/audiocon.htm.
Additional questions2
Call Jerieshia Jones at 312-431-9100 or a=mail: jjones@planning.org.
.•, ~ ,.
Livable Couunuuitid;s and
Sustainable Development
Livability is the buzz word of the mmnent-but what does it mean in practical terms?
The goal is fm• communities to achieve the perfect balance of a sound economy, attractiveness, amenities,
social concern, and environmental sensitivity. This program explores the meaning of these Cerms and
examines how livability and sustainability are effectively integrated into community-level planning. rrom
brownfields to clean water and from affordable housing to better h•anspm•tation options, learn what
communities are doing to actually achieve livability and sustainability.
Land Use Regulation and the
Treeclonn of Isauression
This program explores the community's obligation to address issues of freedom of religion and free
expression. Constitutional law on these subjects is ever-changing. While communities may not like their
adult use businesses or big box houses of worship, do they have the right to regulate? As technology
changes and as ethnic and religious populations change, community governance needs to adjust. In this
program, we'll explore the role of planning and the legal obligations of communities in this challenging
environment.
Transfer of Development Rights Revisited
TDR is a tool that has been around for some time. It started as a historic preservation tool in densely
populated urban areas, but has been expanded for use in the conservation of agricultural lands and
critically sensitive areas. Learn where this tool fits in the toolbox of community incentive programs. In
this timely discussion, panelists will assess how well this tool has worked over time, in what situations it's
most useful, and the potential it holds for helping communities preserve valuable resources and grow
intelligently.
Urban Parks and Green Space
Are they a bellwether of community health? How are changing recreational habits, neighborhood
demographics, and city budgets affecting parks? Panelists explore the array of park and green space
planning being conducted in urban areas. Find out what innovative approaches are being used for
consensus building, design, park definition, environmental planning, and sustainable management and
financing. Explore the relationship between parks and the community's economic development. This
program will draw on a current APA research initiative on urban parks.
5 ~:~