Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - July 6, 1999,, >, Y. ~ i 40 - 43 D. Consideration of a request by USF Reddaway to vary from the Pence requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code in order to insure adequate on-site security. "fhe subject property is located east and north of Hamrick Road. 44 E. Preseutation of Bear Creek Water Quality Management Plan by DEQ Representative Brad Prior. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT / ~ " ~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ,TUNE 1, 1999 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Paul Lunte, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Karolyn Johnson. Jan Dunlap was absent and Bob Gilkey has taken a position on the City Council. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, Mayor Bill Walton, Bob Gilkey, City Councilman, and Sue Meyers, Office Technician. III. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Bret Moore regarding Bohnert Estates. IV MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes for the May 4, 1999 meeting as presented. Paul Lunte seconded the motion, noting a typing error on page 11. ROLL CALL: Lunte, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Johnson, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VL BUSINESS A. Public hearine to consider a planned unit (pad lotl development and tentative plan introduced by Parkwood Terrace Estates. LLC to subdivide 4.4 acres of land into 42 residential lots. The subject property is located south of Beebe Lane 125 feet east of Hamrick Road in the R-2. Two-Family Residential zonine district There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The applicants have submitted a preliminary development plan for a Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of 45 single family dwellings, both attached and detached. These will be incorporated into the Central Point East Development. The preliminary development plan depicts two pocket parks and landscaping at the various entrances. Landscaping and the open space areas will be maintained by the property owner and/or a homeowners , J 1. ~ City of Central Point Plaiwing Commission Minutes June L, 1999 -Page 2 association. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, presented the Public Works Department Staff Report. Public Works will allow for parking on alternate sides of the sheet, but recommends that no parking be allowed in the first 100 feet of Parkwood Terrace from Meadowbrook Drive. They also recommend that no parking be allowed on the cul-de-sac. The 55-foot minimum sight triangle cannot be met on Meadowbrook, and may be reduced to 25 feet. Public Works recommends that when the cost reimbursement methodologies are established, and the area of benefit determined, that the Development be required to pay the apportioned share of costs for the new master water meter and transmission line installations. Kevin Neering, developer, and Bob Neathamer, agent, addressed the Planning Commission. They requested a front setback variance of 18' instead of 20'. They are willing to work with staff on sight triangles, etc. Curt Johnson, 1225 Crater Lake Avenue, Medford, spoke in opposition to the project. He spoke on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Woods, 4460 Hamrick Road. They requested a site and sound buffer between the existing properties. They also requested an extension of Parkview Avenue to the south, in order to continue progress to the south of the development. They would like to see a signal installed on Hamrick Road. Mr. Johnson asked how this property qualif ed for a PUD. Mr. Neering and Mr. Neathamer stated that Cyprus trees already exist as a sight/sound barrier between the properties, and they will be building fences. They also stated that Oak View will provide access to the Woods' property. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution 451 approving a planned unit (pad lot) development and tentative plan introduced by Parkwood Terrace Estates, LLC to subdivide 4.4 acres of land into 45 residential lots, to include pedestrian access and sight/sound buffer (fencing and landscaping) on the south side of the development, and all staff report requirements. The subject property is located south of Beebe Lane 125 feet east of Hamrick Road in the R-2, Two-Family Residential zoning district. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Fish. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. ,, City of Central Point Planning Commission Mitttttes .lmie 1, 1999 -Page 3 B. Public hearing to consider a tentative plan introduced by Lou Mahar and Pacific Trend Building Company to subdivide 13.3 acres of land into 48 residential lots known as Brookfield Estates. The subject property is located on the south side of Taylor Road and east of Grant Road in the R-1. Single Patnily Residential zoning district. There were no ex parte communications or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. He stated that due to the amount of traffic on Taylor and Haskell Roads, Lou Mahar, applicant for Broookfield Estates, the LDS Church and W.L Moore Construction have all agreed to participate in a traffic study and abide by its subsequent recommendations. In order to encourage alternative modes of transportation in Brookfield Estates, a 12 foot wide pedestrian access way is proposed between lots 39 and 40 for the purpose of connecting this development to the Mitchell's Landing and Country Meadows Subdivisions. The proposed subdivision, located in the vicinity of Horn and Jackson Creeks would be subject to, the special setback requirements as they pertain to flood protection. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that they could only continue this item with the consent of the applicants because state land use law obligates the City to act within 120 days. The commission's alternatives are to deny the application for cause or to conditionally approve it. Lee Brennan reviewed the Public Works Staff Report. The City will require a Minimum of 88 feet for right-of--way on Taylor Road as it is a secondary arterial type street. This requirement may be increased or decreased pending recommendations provided in the traffic study. Depending on the conclusions reached by the traffic study, the street layout presented in the tentative plan may have to be modified. The Developer will be responsible for all "half street" improvements to Taylor Road along the property frontage. No permanent access should be allowed onto Taylor Road from the development. A suitable fence should be installed along Taylor Road. The Developer should be required to have a 100-year flood study analysis performed. The developer will be responsible for• sharing the costs associated with the construction of a water line along Taylor Road. Dennis Hofibuhr spoke on behalf of applicant, Lou Mahar. I-Ie pointed out that they had been working on this project since last fall and they would like to begin the first phase of construction this season and continue on with the second phase ~, r 1 1~ ~ City of Central Point Planning Conunission Minutes June 1, 1999 -Page 4 in the year 2000. He said it would be easy to delete lots if they become un- buildable after the flood and traffic studies are complete. They are willing to work with City Staff. Mr. Bob White, 410 Brad was opposed to the project, due to the traffic on Taylor Road. Mr. Charles Hewitt, 200 Donna Way, was also opposed and was concerned about additional traffic on Donna Way. Mr. Wayne Chipman, 205 Donna Way, suggested abreak-away barrier, so that Donna Way would be connected, but not a through street. Kent DeYarman, 3775 Old Military Road, suggested bike paths and sidewalks to alleviate some of the traffic. Myrl Jacobsen, 211 Donna Way stated that all the additional traffic would come out onto Rachel, increasing the problem there. Bob Gilkey, 1165 Gatepark, who had attended a meeting of the residents as a park commissioner, stated that no one had promised that Donna Way would be blocked off, as had been suggested. Commissioner Fish asked if the residents on Donna Way could forrn a local improvement district to put in sidewalks. Lee Brennan said that would be possible. Commission Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution 452 to approve a tentative plan introduced by Lou Mahar and Pacific Trend Building Company to subdivide 13.3 acres of land into 48 residential lots known as Brookfield Estates, subject to staff reports, flood and traffic studies and to include a south side pedestrian way to connect to Brad Way. The subject property is located on the south side of Taylor Road and east of Grant Road in the R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district. The Commission would also like to encourage the developer to use any unbuildable land For a pocket park. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. C. Public hearing to consider a tentative clan introduced by W.L. Moore Construction to subdivide 8.7 acres of land into 24 residential lots known as Bohnert Estates. The subject property is located on the north side of Tabor Road and west of Haskell Road in the R-2. Two-Family Residential zoning district. There were no ex parte communications or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The applicant ,, ., City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes ]uue 1, 1999 -Page 5 has submitted a proposal to subdivide 12.7 acres of land into 24 residential lots. The tentative plan actually depicts 48 lots, but the Moores will complete the development in two phases, the second (future) phase pending the Transit Oriented Development master planning. As in the other development, the City has initiated a h•affic impact study which the applicants will participate in with Lou Mahar and the LDS Church. Because the construction season is iinininent, the Developers would like to proceed pending the outcotne of the traffic study. The subdivision is adjacent to Griffin Creek and would be subject to the setback requirements as they pertain to flood protection. Public Works is requiring the applicant to perform a special flood analysis. This site is located in the R-2, Residential Two-Family Zoning District, but the applicant has chosen to plan for single family residences, with large lots to accommodate an exceptionally wide flood plain. Commissioner Fish made a motion to proceed beyond 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Lunte seconded. All said "aye" and the meeting continued. Lee Brennan presented the Public Works Staff Report. The Public Works Department and Planing Department are working on revising street-section requirements to possibly include the incorporation of a planter strip between the curb and the sidewalk. This strip would be a minimum of 3 feet wide and provide a space for placing trees and other decorative plantings and allow for a safety buffer for pedestrians. Public Works is recommending that no permanent access be allowed onto Taylor road. This will require that lots 1 and 2 will need to have access from Otto Boulevard. A suitable fence should be installed on Taylor Road. The Developer should be required to have a supplemental 100- year flood study analysis performed. Herb Farber, agent for W.L. Moore, stated that they started work on this project in January 1996. They are willing to move the sidewalks back as far as necessary to accommodate fire hydrants and water meters. They would still maintain a 20' setback from the sidewalk so that cars could be kept in the driveway, and off of the sidewalk. The Moores felt that the existing flood study that has been done by FEMA should be used, rather than requiring a complete new flood study. Bill Evans, 2061 Taylor Road, spoke in opposition to the development. He suggested that traffic on Taylor needs to be controlled and possibly another main arterial should be established to accommodate the area's traffic. Bob City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1999 -Page 6 White, 410 Brad Way, suggested that another railroad crossing or widening of Taylor may ease the problem. I Ierb Farber suggested that the traffic problem may be one of enforcement. He also pointed out that the Master Plan shows an additional railroad crossing. There was some discussion regarding responsibility for sidewalk repair if the sidewalks were outside of the easement. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 453 approving the tentative plan introduced by W.L. Moore Construction to subdivide 8.7 acres of land into 24 residential lots known at Bohnert Estates, including staff report recommendations, Mr. Farber's narration and submittals, a bikeway, and a mutual agreement (to be resolved) on sidewalk repairs. The garages on Otto Blvd. shall have a 20' setback from the sidewalk and the City and the Developer shall reach an agreement regarding the flood plain. The utilities shall remain above ground until the completion of the Taylor Road improvements. The subject property is located on the north side of Taylor Road and west of Haskell Road in the R-2, Two-Family Residential .zoning district. Commissioner Foster seconded. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. D. Review of Title 15 and Title 17 as theLpply to fence heights on lots within adopted zoning setbacks. Mr. Humphrey submitted the existing regulation as follows and suggested inserting "setback" in place of "corner of the main structure". The maximum height for fences on or along the side Tines from the front property line to a point opposite the nearest front corner of the main structure (to be replaced by "setback") shall be three and one-half feet, and from the nearest front corner of the main structure (to be replaced by "setback") to the back line of the lot, the maximum height shall be six feet. Mr. Brennan suggested adding "as long as the requirements of the Public Works Department regarding sight-vision triangles are maintained". Paul Lunte made a motion to modify the wording of Title 15 and Title 17, as they apply to fence heights on lots within adopted zoning setbacks, as ,. City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1999 -Page 7 stated. Don Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. VII. MISCELLANEOUS There was no miscellaneous business. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Foster seconded. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 11:20. ~~, PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: July 7, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Tentative Minor Partition for 37 2W 02D Tax Lot 2900 -Larne Development, LLC. Apalicant/ Larne Development, LLC, Frank Pulver ET. AL. Owner: 1060 Crater Lake Avenue, Suite C Medford, OR 97504 Agent: Hoflbuhr and Associates 1062 East Jackson Street Medford, OR 97504 Pro e Description/ 37 2W 02D Tax Lot 2900, 4.92 acres Zonine: C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District Summary The applicant, Larne Development L.L.C. is proposing the minor partition ofa 4.52 acre parcel into three parcels. The property is located near the intersection ofI,arue Drive and South Peninger Road in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional Zoning District. Authority CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a tentative plan 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 16.36.010 et seq. Major and Minor Land Partitions .a Discussion The project azea consists of a single 4.52 acre pazcel located south of the Pilot Travel Center and west of Interstate 5 near the intersection of Lazue Drive and South Peninger Road. The minor partition would create a total of three parcels of 0.61,1.18 and 2.47 acres respectively with the remaining 0.26 acres committed to dedicated street right of way north and east of parcel 2. The Planning Department has located the master plan originally submitted as a part ofthe Pilot Travel Center (refer to Attachment "A"). The map depicted a looped access between Lazue Drive and South Peninger Road that could provide future access to parcels south of the property proposed for partition. Dave Minecci ofHoffbuhr and Associates was to check into the status of the original master plan with the property owner. This land partition affects the road connectivity as a link eastward across Bear Creek to Hamrick Road appears unlikely in the future due to the financial constraints associated with a bridge crossing. The Planning and Public Works Department have reviewed the site plan and the tentative plan for theproposed minor land partition and have concluded thatthey complywith cityrequirements if all conditions ofapproval pertaining to site development, minimum lot size, public works standards and specifications and access to public roadways can be 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 information to satisfy standard specification requirements. CPMC 17.28.050 establishes minimum area, width and access requirements for the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional district. ^ Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed partition meet the area, width and access requirements for the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District. 2 4 ~ Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: I . Adopt ResolutionNo._,apprnving the Tentative Minor Land Partition of 37 2W 02D Tax Lot 2900 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. Recommended Conditions of Approval D. Public Works Staff Report 11 ~~~~~~ / ~ ~~E ~g / ~~ / ` s! /~ ~/~~ #~ ~ / ~~~k f ' y / / ~ ~ / ~ / ~ / ~ ~ ~~ -- :_ acy or central Point Eh:HII~I'T t'A ~t Planning Department R <. ~ ~ .D ~ ~~ II ~~~~ ~° ~s :w ~m ~s N ~~~ m. ' 1 i Penkgar Roed ~, rw.w.. .. - - - ~ ~ w.-c r' t ~4ii ~ ~~i ~^tl ~ i 3 S O : '~~{- d~-~~ r ~ -~° ~ ~ z ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~,~~~ ~ ~~~: ~ ~ ~ s ~~~ ~~ ~~€~ .~.. 4 ~~ ~ ~ t _-111-<L~~>~ ~:iV ,~. 5 City of Central 1 pint PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, A[CP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory AdministrativelPlanning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: June 15, 1999 Meeting Date: Time: Place: July 6, 1999 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING CYty of Central Point EXHIBIT ttB tf Planning Department Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Tentative Partition on a parcel of property located between South Peninger Road and Interstate Five. The subject parcel islocated in a C-4, Tourist and Office-Professional Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W02D, Tax Lot 2900, The Central Point Planning Commission will initially review the application ofTentative Partition to deternune ifthe proposed split of the existing 4.52 acre tax lot meets the requirements of law. If approved, the partition would create three parcels. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Partitions are set forth in Chapter 16 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Anypensoninterested incommentingon theabove-mentioned land use decisionmay submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 6, 1999. Written comments may be sent in advance ofthe meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 6 1 ly ~ 3. Issues which ntay provide the basis for an appeal ott the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration ofthc 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. Copies ofall evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies ofthe same are available at 15 cents per page. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the 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 Tentative Subdivision Plan and Site Plan Review. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONllITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Tentative Plan shall expire in one year on July 6, 2000 unless an application for final plat or extension has been received by the City. 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 subsequent approval by the respective service provider. ary or central PuiriE E~:HI~I`T «C» Planning Department ... _ 8 ! , City of Central Point EXHIBIT "D" CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Department DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - - STAFF REPORT -..~..- for LaRue Development TENTATIVE LAND PARTITION PLAN REVIEW PW#99033 Date: June 29, 1999 Applicant: LaRue Development, L.L.C. Agent: Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc., 1062 E. Jackson, Medford, Oregon 97504 Property Owner: Frank Pulver, et. al . 1060 Crater Lake Ave., Suite C, Medford, Oregon 97504 Project: LaRue Partition Location: South end of Peninger Road, at intersection with LaRue Drive. Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 2D, tax lot 2900. Zoning: C-4 Area: 4.5 Acres (approximately). Parcels: 3 Plans: 1 page entitled "Land Partition Tentative Plat", dated April 6, 1999 prepared by Hoffbuhr & Associates. 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 development of the proposed land partition. This staff report provides general requirements, and is not intended to provide a thorough review of any development on these properties. Amore thorough staff report will be prepared when tentative site plans are presented to the City for consideration by the Planning Commission for development on the proposed parcels. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed partition. Special Requirements Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure, or will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as approved by (as applicable), the regulatory agency, utility owner, and/or property owner involved. 2. Traffic Impact Studv: Because of the large volume of truck traffic in this area, a traffic impact study may be warranted that evaluates the effects on the neighboring intersections and freeway interchange as the result of development on these parcels. Based on the current truck and vehicle traffic on this portion of Peninger Road, it is expected that any development on these parcels would be development that typically has few expected traffic movements during "peak" hours. ._. 9 LnRue Uevelopmeru Tenrarive Pavilran Plan, 7hx lot 2900 P II~U SraJf Repay June 28, /999 Pnge 2 3. Rights-of-Way and Easements: Suitable right-of-way dedication will need to be provided for the extension of LaRue Drive and Peninger Road. Additional right-of-way dedication may also be warranted on the existing streets that are adjacent to or within the proposed partition, depending on the type of development that will occur. The Developer should provide suitable and acceptable easements (minimum 15-foot in width) for any existing public works infrastructure, or public works infrastructure required for the development, that are located outside the public rights-of-way. A separate 10-foot minimum width public utilities easement (P.U.E.) should also be dedicated by the Developer for utility installation outside the LaRue Drive and Peninger Road right-of-way along the property's exterior frontage with these streets. 4. Street Layout. The proposed street layout may need to be modified to provide proper ingress and egress into the proposed development and for future development of tax lot 2600 (which is currently "landlocked") and possibly for tax lot 2700. Tax lot 2700 is a flag lot with access off of Pine Street. Any commercial development on Tax lot 2700 with access to Pine Street would require a separation of 200 feet from any intersection for development of a commercial driveway on Pine Street. Currently there is not enough distance from the I-5 off-ramp/on-ramp intersection to the access. point on Pine Street for a commercial driveway access for tax lot 2700, without a variance. Thus access for tax lot 2700 off of LaRue Drive may be preferred. 5, Erosion Control Plan: To meet current DEQ requirements, and pending federal mandated Phase II Storm Water Quality requirements, a suitable erosion control plan, utilizing best management practices and procedures, must be prepared and submitted to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the City PWD for review and approval for the construction of any improvements associated with this development. The construction plans associated with this development will not be approved by the City PWD until the City PWD receives a copy of the written approval of the erosion control plan by the DEQ. The approved erosion control plan must then be implemented to control and mitigate construction site storm water run-off, erosion control, silt and sand migration, nuisance dust generation and migration, and pollution prevention. 6. Master Plans: In association with City PWD staff, the Developer shall prepare master plans for the storm drain collection, retention, and conveyance system, the sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system, and the water distribution system for this area of the City. The master plans should take into account the flows or demands of the proposed development, any future development on neighboring portions of the subject tax lot, on neighboring properties, and any areas deemed by the City that will need to connect-into the proposed development's or existing neighboring infrastructure. The prepared master plans should take into account any previous master plans that have been prepared and approved by the City, Jackson County, ODOT, and BCVSA, as applicable. Water Distribution System: Any development on these parcels will be connecting into the 12- inch-diameter water line that is aligned in Peninger Road. This would result in a "single-feed" non-reinforced water distribution system. City PWD would suggest that the designed system be of reinforced ("looped") design, with a second connection to the City's water distribution system ~~ LaRue Uereh~pnire~ l.aa~l Pai~66un /i•nm~(rr Plow P I PU S/y)/ Rrpnrl .lone _'9. 1999 Page 3 (preferably with a second connection to the water main on Pine Street). Required fire flows for development on these parcels, and projected development on adjoining parcels will likely dictate line sizes. The water mains will be of such diameter that facilitate water demands for projected future development in the surrounding areas, and for completion of the City's water main distribution system in this portion of the City. On other recent development projects, the City has or is proposing to reimburse the developer for a portion of the costs for up-sizing of water lines above the minimum water line diameter of 8-inches. The proposed water line reimbursement is only for projects where the required up-sizing was not the result of the flow demands of the development, but is the direct result of providing additional capacity for the supplemental demands that may be placed on the water distribution system caused by additional surrounding future development. The proposed reimbursement methodology for water line up-sizing includes payment of the estimated material cost differences for the 8-inch-diameter versus 12-inch- diameterpipe and appurtenances. This reimbursement methodology is similar to the methodology used by the Medford Water Commission for this same type of water-line up-sizing. We would propose this same type of reimbursement methodology for development on the proposed partition. 8. Storm Drainage Svstem: The storm drain system shall be designed to accommodate the storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (either surface run-on or culvert or ' creek/ditch conveyance); any future development on adjacent properties; conveyed storm ~` `" drainage or surface water flow, and any flows from areas deemed by the City that will need to ` corinect-into the proposed development's SD System. It appears that drainage from tax lots 2600 and tax lot 2700 will need to drain to and be conveyed through the designed storm drainage conveyance system associated with the development on tax lot 2900. Thus City PWD is '- recommending that the Developer(s) of these parcels be required to design the storm drainage collection and conveyance system to accommodate projected post-development flows from these adjoining tax lots. 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 water run-off from the applicable tax lots (i.e. "Area of Benefit"). If the storm drain lines are needed to be up-sized from the size necessary to accommodate the development on tax lot 2900 and the storm water flows from the existing development of the tax lots (i.e. "Area of Benefit") in the vicinity 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 the methodology approved by the City Council. 9. Off-Site Storm Drainage Infrastructure: For any storm drainage infrastructure constructed or improved outside the City's rights-of-way or easements for drainage of surface waters from the subject development, the Developer shall provide a suitable document or documents which contain approvals for the implementation of such connection and/or improvements and which describe: ^ Who is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the infrastructure facilities to maintain the original design parameters associated with the infrastructure. If the City is to operate and maintain the infrastructure, the applicable funding mechanism that will be created (i.e local improvement district) for the associated City expenditures; 1~ LaRue Uerrlupmrm Land l§u~liliou lL•ruarire flan Pll'D S(nJj~2cpar( ./une ?9, 1999 Page J ^ How will access be afforded and maintained indefinitely to maintain and repair the infrastructure facilities; ^ That an easement or other suitable conveyance document has been granted, as necessary, to provide suitable access on private property for the inspection, maintenance, and repair work to be performed on the infrastructure facilities. The easement shall include a statement which allows access by City personnel for inspection and maintenance purposes. 10. Water Rights: If applicable, Developer shall provide a Statement of Water Rights (on a City approved form), for any affected properties of the proposed development that have existing water rights, or which are going to obtain water rights. 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. 11. Sanitary Sewer. All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design, construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEQ, 1990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. ~r ~i PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: July 6, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Variance and Site Plan Review from Front and Side Yard Setback Requirements at 484 Grand Avenue (37 2W 11BD Tax Lot 2201). Apalicant: Michael Gary Mallet 484 Grand Avenue Central Point, OR 97502 Owner• Same Pro e Description/ 37 2W 11BD Tax Lot 2201 - 0.15 acres Zonine: R-1-6, Residential Single Family Summary The applicant, Michael Mallet has requested a Variance and Site Plan Review to construct a second story addition to the existing residence located at 484 Grand Avenue in a R-1-8, Residential Single Family Zoning District. Authority CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Site Plan Review. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Attachment B). Annlicable Law CPMC 17.20.010 et seq.- R-1-8, Residential Single Family District CPMC 17.60.010 et seq.- General Regulations CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval 3.3 Discussion I'he applicant, Michael Mallet of484 Grand Avenue, would like to improve the value and livability ofhis residence with the addition of square footage and a second story. To proceed with the plans, Michael has asked that the Conunission review the Site Plan and consider g~~anting a variance from the minimum 20 foot front yard setback and minmum 10 foot (2 story) side yard setback requirements ofthe R-1-8, Residential Single Family zoning district. If the variances were to be approved, the applicant would constntct the two story structure within 4 Feet oftlte westerly property line and 5 feet oftlte easterly property line. "fhe face of the house would be located within 19 feet of the front property line. Planned improvements to the existing single story structure originally constructed in 1949 include the addition of656 square feet to the ground floor for larger family and utility areas. The second story addition with dormers facing Grand Avenue would gain a master bedroom and bath .The total height for the renovated structure will be 21 %: feet. Improvements to the exterior would include decorative lighting, a new chimney, 8 inch lap siding and a covered porch. No additional landscaping is proposed in the application packet. The parking requirements of CPMC 17.64.040 will be met by the applicant's proposal of a single car carport incorporated into the house with a second detached unit in the rearyard with alley access. The maximum permitted aggregate building coverage for the R-1-8 district is 40 percent (2629.60 square feet). The total square footage for the building footprint is 2322 square feet. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Site Plan Review 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 of walls 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 ofexisting plants or the installation ofnew ones for purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ There is no additional landscaping proposed for this project. City staffwould like to work with the applicant to design a suitable plan and implementation schedule. B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The house is served by Grand Avenue to the north and an alley located at the rear of the property. 1 ~ t: C. "fo provide oft=street parking and loading facilities and pedesd•ian acid 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 aird avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; The site plan depicts two covered off streef spaces, one as a part of the house and a second unit is accessed from the alley. D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traffic control signs or devices and that they are compatible with the design oftheir buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ Jackson County Fire District Number Three will require that the house address be prominently placed on the front of the house facing Grand Avenue. E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety oflife; limb and properly, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; y,. ^ An approval of thisprojectwouldbesubjecttotherecommendationsoftheFireDistrict and the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; If the variance from the front and side yard setbacks were granted, the project would be in compliance with the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code. 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. Exterior improvements like dormers, lap siding and decorative lighting contribute to the character of the neighborhood. Variance A variance may be granted if findings are made as follows: 1. The Variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City such as beautification or safety. ^ The proposed addition would upgrade the house to a more "liveable" home for the residents and increase the property value. _. 15 4 2. The Variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. The second story building mass could impact the value of adjoining parcels. A second story addition would create a building mass that could dwarf the houses to the east and west but the applicant might reasonably argue that the second story improvements could actually enhance the character and value of the neighborhood. 3. The Variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. ^ The home is located in an appropriately zoned R-1-8, Residential Single Family district. 4. Circumstances affect the property that do not apply to other property in the same zoning district. ^ There are no apparent differences between this and surrounding parcels. 5. The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed through the applicants' own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. ^ .The Grandview Addition Subdivision was originally platted in 1911 with standard tot dimensions of 51 feet by 128.90 feet. The lot would not meet the current lot size requirements and would limit the type of home that could be constructed. The applicant has submitted a letter for consideration by the Commission (refer to attachment "A"). Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Site Plan and zone variance subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment D ); or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan and zone variance; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan and zone variance at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Site Plan, Building Elevations, Applicants Findings and Letter of Description B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Correspondence D. Planning Department Conditions E. Public Works Staff Report ~~ 16 pu ' ~` CSity or Centri! Point E~'HISI`T t,A~t __ _ Planning Department O lo' 30 ~ So ~'' 70' 9~, do ~ l30~ sow [Il III ,., , ~ (~1~~ill, ilk, , , , .....icy .uQ[x~u £LEYGiiO' t i0! 0~ ®r..:, _ . ^ !! ~ ~.. ,~ asr eie~e LL£5?. ELEYAI~ ~; .., CgIM ELE Vei1LN 18 ' _,,; ~1 xt, ~~ ~R . Y ~'e ~a a5 a; T^. pp } !~ Y ~~ U3 T i VIII ~~ ~~~° °~ P ' =I f~l I I i I ~g .l.(' ~ ELE VAi!ONS s~. I'or3 _., ,... ~ ~, ., .:' aw ?11 -•-•~ •--a - ~ . 1 1 6 3! ,a IY ~l iT ~`vdit ~ 1 ~ _ ~ II E~`~N4 (y J ~ ~ S 1 E V hG RGQ? __ AirER .e`w`4 I III @EDRCXdJ II IJ\ a ~1459t5 I~. a 11 J ' E_3~LNG ~ _ o a ... J e 4L45EI 4LO6Ei ~ 34~u Ex a rG -.. a .S~ 17 II \ ..._ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~~ E~.i~r~~ryg~ CLO6Ei : s ~ P Eh1'zESa OLnir~ / 1~2e¢EFR v EYJSJ[KV.W.4 6 Ymo ws. w- ar. yy 1 xl it l ~ ...~~R cttn ~ ~~4 a it 5 -a €xiy+AG K1i5uEN ~ Eh~I!HeSLE~!Ed § .. Y ~. g n ~1 1 yy~ ,~ ,~ ` ~ ~_ ~ W - ~ i-F A yg~8^ f~f~l ' ICI I D'J ~ 1 Ei+ ie ~ f 1 '. J -g t ja ~~ yp m c L i ti ~ _.__ ».. . .~ ~ ._ __ "f r gg E~ ~~j ~ . , w ! I t 7 1 g i =t ~ xev. iw F ~ lfi ~t x rw el ~ }miav ~.eaosx-.! - II I l 1 ... Pl;>~E24f4R rx.w I ~.1 1' li[./ ~ EXI5I TING a PRO P05ED FLOOR PLANS sH Z o~ 3 19 j' ...~ ~ e. . . ~~-~I`~j~ ~ ~i~~ I[ Qr'~~t ~.~' `' s~ n n 9 - -- f 1 ' .z. .a. sfio m.~ ~.'e W-..J. a a ~ ' ,' 4' ~ 1 a _. _,. ~Q'45E0 >~e i iLrou m e.a ~4 e 7A 'Ip :e. (.j, My ~S 5P! ~' 8 a" §~ 3 ::e \\ n ~Y F ~~ II~Li I ~~~'W ~ 'i~l b,` i~lf ~ ~~&Y a tilt ~~ his Ski R 1 ru a, li~tt~i / ' Plr ~ •~, i.~ Pnd FL %-LOOR e RGOF, TRJ55, PLAN su 3 or 3 20 To City of Cenh•al Point P-atming Department: May 2nd, 1999 To Whom it may concern: iV4y wife and I aze applying to the City of Central Point Planning & Building Deparments, And to any one else to whom this proposal may concern; for perntission , and pet•tnits to build on, improve, and update oru home. Our home was built in 1949, and remodeled in the 1960's, I believe 1965. Part of their remodel was closing in their single car gazage to add on one bed room plus another very small room off of this same room. This duped this house from a one bedroom one badu•oom house to a trvo bed room ,one bathroom house. This remodel also required that the ~vasher and dryer would now be out in the open in the kitchen. Originally in our home the bed room was where the dining room is and the kitchen was where the bedroom is. Door ways were filled in and walls cut out. This gives it an appeazance of a remodel that looks like a cobbled up mess. Our heating system is atr old boiler system which , I believe was put in, in 1949 and no longer works. Our electricity is still hooked up to a fuse box on the outside of our house. It still has the old 1949 wirirtg, and new wiring mixed in when remolded in the 1960's. We are undertaking to come up with plans which would update ,improve, beautify, and transform our home, from looking like a closed in, add on ,cobbled up house, to a Home that is an atd•active, and a look of a one design home. About a year ago now when my wife and I started undertaking this project of remodeling our home, we contacted the City of Central Point. Tom Humpries, and Lois ; Of the City Planning & Building Departments, offered a few hours of their valuable time to share of their expertise of what we could and could not do. At drat time my wife and I carne to them with a rough idea of what we would like to do. Basically at that time we wanted to extend our roof line out over our walk way in front of our house, the full width of our home. Tlris would help change the appearance of our house, also this would create a carport kdricfr is greatly needed. We felt this would make our home more attractive to us and our neighborhood . We also discussed changing the pitch of our roof and building it in all one direction, instead of the "s" shape it is in now. This would allow us to have more attic space for storage which is greatly needed. Also we felt if we put dormers on the front of our home, which is facing the street ,that this would make our home more attractive to us and to our neighborhood. The other add on which we discussed with Tom & Loie was extending our back porch and closing it is this would give us a little more room which we would like and feel is greatly needed. This was our original rough first draft which we presented to Tom & Lois. Tom pointed out that some codes have changed concerning our car port. Originally our single car garage which was closed in and converted to a small bed room, no longer meets the codes of today. Irr 1949 it was ok. The other problems which we ran into are the east side of our home is only four feet from our property line, and the front of the house sits about 1 to 1 '/z feet closer to the road than it should be. After talking to Tom for a while he said drat this might be able to be done by applying for special variances. Even though there was no guaranties, the time we spent with Tom and Lois greatly encouraged us to prusue the remodeling, updating and beautification of our home. My wife and I left there Drat day with more hope than we have had for along time, concerning the updating of our house. We had talked to someone from the City of Central Point 2 years Prior (by phone), and the person speaking flatly said "No nothing could be done". Tom and Lois was shocked when they heard this. Tlrey told ua that the city always listened and tried to help whenever possible. Our next step was to contact a home designer to help us with the planning and design of our house. The first designer we contacted was helping us, and it was at this time my wife and I N 1 ,~ , Ihotl~u that ifvve could take our up stairs attic room smd msil:e it into a living area .this would u ork extrrmelc ~arll for us. Our one concern with buildigc an attic livit>fi to as up stairs ~cas could or ~e~alls and foundation suppot't art up stairs attic licigg su'ea. It was at this time that «r contacted a Strttchu'al Eq~inaer uanred Scott Priggle. Hr esune out atul exatnined our place and said that with some foundation moditictttions that a second door could br added salah< SateR was ow' main concern. e'w'e sue including a copy ofhis report. - "Ilte tirst n; sister was a fl'iend tiront out of toatt and cce decided that tce reallc Headed some one closer. At this time ~t: hied North~est i:~esisnt (David I'issrl to do our pl~m~. H: sq~gested that cc~ put the attic uussr iu a diHar: nt die; ction than that of ~+hich our t7t'.~t ikai~ter had susgested. As yon can see by our plants that this worked out eery veeil. ~•~`, vain be contactin Scott Pt'insle to come back out to reevaluate smd tell ns if:unlhia~ would b needed. ~•Ve are applying for all vari<mcas that wa wilt need to update om' hone and to complete this project. Arty sgggestions will be welcomed artd appreciated. Some of the special variatrces neeclecl era: 1. East side of ow• home where vve adcl on to the back of our house, for need a ate foot variance to hr able to keep our ast side wall and roof line in a straieJtt line instead of art uneven ziszao_ line. 2. ltie also need a special variance for the Jiont (street side} of our home, so that we would be able to extend our roof lim: over our walk way the fill length of ow' house. 11tis will create a covered vvalk ~vay and a cat•ltort. If there v'e ant otitervarisutces need.cl, please include vsu'i<utces with this tt{~plicalion. Thank You very much for your comicleratiom, surd stigslastiom. bfichs>x I G. ~" l3etsv It~I, ivlallat 484 Grsutd Ave i`entral Point Oc 9750'' (541)664-1900 r1 ~ N •J City of Central Point PLf1NNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary ~. Notice of Meetin amity orcentral Point g Exxr~rT ttB ,f Date of Notice: June 15, 1999 planning Department Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING July 6, 1999 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review applications for a Variance and a Site Plan that would allow the existing residence at 484 Grand Avenue to be increased in size. In order to add a second story to the existing house, the applicant has requested to vary from the minimum front and side yard setback requirements for the district. The parcel is located in a R-1-6, Residential Single-Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W I I BD, Tax Lot 2201. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Variances and 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 incommenting ontheabove-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 6, 1999. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance ofthe meeting to Central Point City Hall, I55 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 23 Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal shall be raised prior to the expiration of the conunent 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 Hal1,155 - South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staffreports, heartestimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and heaz azguments on the applications. 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 denythe Variance and Site Plan. Ciry regulations provide thatthe Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. r- i N Y SUBJECT PROPERTY ,.. I55 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~n BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY 3915 SOUTH PACIFIC NWY. • MEDFDRD, OREGON 97601.9099 • (541)779.4144 • FA%(541) 635.6278 June 18,1999 Tom Humphrey Planning Department City of Central Point 155 South Second Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: 99037 Site Plan Review & Variance -Mallet T37S R2W Section 2B t12900 Dear Tom, City Oj CCIILYlI L#!QIIIC E~iHI~I'T «C" ) Planning Department The site has a 42 inch diameter Interceptor sewer running through it as shown on the site plan. The Interceptor line flows Northerly and Easterly. Future connections to the Interceptor line for collection main construction would be limited to one of the existing manholes or construction of a structure similar to the existing manhole structures. Please have the applicant contact BCVSA regarding connection permit requirements and additional systems development charges for the proposed expansion. If you have any additional questions please call me at 779-4144. Sincerel ,~//~~ / ames May, Jr. P.E. District Engineer 25 ,i, ATTACHMENT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on July 6, 2000 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. 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. The applicant shall meet with the Planning Department to design a suitable landscape plan that complies with the zoning requirements of the R-I-B zoning district. 26 Attachment E To: Honorable Planning Commission Chairman and Members From: Lee Brennan, Public Works Director Subject: Public Works Department Comments Regarding the Request for Setback Variances for the Proposed Residential Site Plan for 484 Grand Avenue submitted by the Mallets. Date: June 29, 1999 The Public Works Department has the following comments regarding the proposed subject development and request for variance from the required front setback. Front Setback from Crand Avenue: As illustrated in the applicant's map, and as verified in the field, the existing dwelling structure is located approximately 24 feet from the face of the existing southern street curb of Grand Avenue. Grand Avenue has aright-of way width of 50 feet, 25 feet from center line. Thus the existing residential structure is located ("setback") approximately 17 feet from the City's right-of--way. The applicants are proposing to further reduce the setback by an additional 5 feet, which would result in a final set-back of 12 feet. This set-back is significantly shorter than the City's current front set-back requirement of 20 feet for this type of residential development. The required clear-vision triangle of 15-feet for residential access to a residential street cannot be afforded with the proposed set- back. The existing structure and location of the proposed car-port would only provide for a maximum length of driveway from the structure to the right-of--way of 34 feet, which only provides for the accommodation of off-street parking for one vehicle. The alley way to the south of the property provides driveable access to the southern portion of the property. There is suitable vacant property on the southern portion of the property to accommodate construction and utilization of atwo-car garage or car-port in this area, with access from the alley. N f ~ i ~j PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: July 6, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Final Development Plan- Cedar Shadows P.U.D. Owner: W.G. Beard 1570 Angel Crest Drive Medford, Oregon 97504 Aeent: Dallas Page 900 Windemar Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 Pro e Description/ 37 2W11A Tax Lot 301 Zonine: R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District Summarv The applicant, Dallas Pagexequests that the Commission review and recommend an approval to the City Council concerning the Final Development Plan for the Cedar Shadows Planned Unit Development. The site iszoned R-3, Residential Multiple-Family and is located in the vicinity of Cedar Street and Freeman Road. Authori 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. `~ 8 N ,. ,, Applicable Law CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. Planned Unit Development CPMC 17.28.010 et seq. R-3, Residential Multiple Family District 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. Ifthe plan is approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant is allowed a period of six months to provide the City with a copy ofthe Final Development Plan demonstrating that all of the conditions and requirements ofthe PreliminaryDevelopmentPlanhave beenmet. The Planning Commissionthen reviews the Final Plan and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the ultimate decision to approve or deny the Final Development Plan. The preliminary development plan and a Conditional Use Permit for the Cedar Shadows P.U.D. was approved by the Commission on June 2, 1998 subject to certain conditions of approval described in Resolution425 (Attachment "B").The applicant is confidentthatthe projecthas met the assigned conditions of approval and has submitted a Final Development Plan for the Commission to review. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission may take one ofthe following actions in regazd to the final development plan for the Cedar Shadows Planned Unit Development. 1. Recommend approval of the final development plan, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in Resolution 425; or 2. Recommend denial of the final development plan based on findings of fact articulated by the Commission. 3. Continue the review of the final development plan at the discretion of the Commission. "9 N ~~ , ,. r, Exhibits A. Final Development Plan- Cedar Shadows B. Planning Commission Resolution 425 C. Public Works Memorandum Dated June 29, 1999 ~~ ,~ ~ ~- , , d F L xx 5 6 cti u ~oz 0 ..a } J~ ~ a a~ 1 1JbN 4 J r' uo~ _,yn/~~\ ~2 a T., .yt .. ti e 0 r u ' ary or central Point ~~xrgr~r ttA tt Planning Department s U a~~ Iq tt ~ o m o. ~ m Er o~s° ~a ~~ a ~ ~ ; = n' o n Y oa €q ~~ Y~ G ^ of ea vs a$ v~ ya ~o ~I r _ ® ~ v ~~~ ~ ~ F~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~d mmR ~ o~ :_~ ~ _ - - ~ A' _ = s ~ eeg { RZ~ N~ ~~p Sm ~~ m L c (D N 9 n c m 0 a D D m r m ne R"' .Ge:.. ....._.::'.i ii Z ~ ~~ .. ,...ve-n ~@iIF ..~ m ~o~._ o .~ ~... .: :K,KYgK9 Y,x aeC .^, C ••%S '•I 1IL~ e { y E, EIv ~L YSB6~B,YSL~bI~:Y ;~: ~P; ~ 3 SD rn ~° d c+- 3 Q ~ /~ 3 ' 2 r, D 0 1i ~ - O y ~ i O ~ ~ O n 9ooN n ~ Zr^ N - _I_VI ~ +~C ~ c~u Q1 o c lP 3 , cr K/ tC ~ ,~n O ~ N ~s ~ 0 5 Z i PARTH~NO~j CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR CEDAR SHADOWS AFTER APPROVAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION WITH ANY CONDITIONS. FIRST 35 DAYS -- WORKING DRAWINGS BY ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR 35 - 60 DAYS -- REVIEWED BY CITY AND APPROVED 60 - 90 DAYS -- EXCAVATION AND INSTALLATION OF SEWER, WATER AND STORM DRAIN LINES. 90 - 120 GAYS -- INSTALL CURBS, STORM DRAINS AND PAVING. START CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST MODEL UNIT. 120 - 150 DAYS -- LANDSCAPING OF OPEN SPACE AND CONSTRUCTION OF TOT LOT AREA PERIMETER FENCING AND GATES PROPOSE TO COMPLETE PROJECT WITHIN 2 YEARS OF BREAKING GROUND. 32 r ) (.~~ V~ 900 WINDEMAK ASHLAND, OREGON 9760 ~e03) X88-476 ~~r ~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 425 ~1 o A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR t7 ~ -, ~ A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT b ! (Applicant: W.G. Beard) 1+~ ~ (37 2W 11A Tax Lot 301) ~ ~ 4 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF • CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: This matter came before the City on applicant's Planned^UnitV4 Development (°PUD" hereafter) application and Conditional Use Permit application for a 26-unit padlot development located in the vicinity of Freeman Road and Cedar Street in an R-3 district of the City. PUDs are a conditional use in the R-3 district. On June 2, 1998, the Central Point Planning Commission held a duly-advertised public hearing wherein it considered the application, the City staff reports, and written comments and testimony from all interested persons in favor of and opposed to the application. 2. Criteria Applicable to Decision. The following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code apply to this application: A. Chapter 1.24, B. Chapter 17.28, District; C. Chapter 17.60, D. Chapter 17.64, E. Chapter 17.68, F. Chapter 17.76, Public Hearings Procedures; R-3, Residential Multiple-Family General Regulations; Off-Street Parking and Loading; Planned Unit Developments (PUD); and Conditional Use Permits. 3. Findings and Conclusions. The Planning Commission hereby adopts by reference all findings of fact set forth in the City staff reports, and concludes that, except where addressed in the conditions to approval, the application and proposal comply with the requirements of the following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code: A. Chapter 17.28, relating R-3 zoning district; B. Chapter 17.60, relating requirements; C. Chapter 17.64, relating loading facilities; D. Chapter 17.68, relating and E. Chapter 17.76, relating to allowed uses in the to paving and landscaping to off-street parking and to Planned Unit Developments; to Conditional Use Permits. 1 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 425 (102098) 33 ~ 7 .~~ ~ ~ ~fi 4. Conditional Approval. The within applications for a Preliminary Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development and a Conditional Use Permit are hereby conditionally approved, subject to the conditions set forth on Exhibit °A", which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this ~~ day of ~,~c~~, , 1998. Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST: Ci y Representati Approved by me this ~ day of \TL)n.~ 1998. ~c.~i~. Planning Commission Chairman 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 425 (102098) 3 ~~ I1AY~08-98 FRl 06 10 PM W P NATURAL GRS FAK N0. 541 858 4790 ~I;, ,. ,. 5-8-98 FAX MEMO TO Central Point Planning Department Ken Gcrschler, Planning Technician 664-3321 Fax 664-6384 FROM WP Naturnl Gas David McFadden 858-4740 Fax 858-4790 1ZE: Comments on Planning Action Applications 98-037-TY Mock Partitton WP Natural Gas recommends drat 10-foot Public 'Utility Easement be created along all street frontages. 98-038-TP Cedar Shadows Subdivision E WP Natural Gas recommends that 10-foot Public Utility Easement be created along all street frontages. If the roadways are to be private, both the road right of way and the adjoining 10 feet should be establishccl as a Public Utility Easement. WPNG recommends that the developer hold a utility pre-design meeting with all utilities before doveloptnent of any lot. Call Before You Dig! I-800-332-2344 Tt's The Law! P. Ol 3 "l ~~~ , .1 I N T E R ___ _:_-_-_ MEMO __ O F F I C E To: Honorable Planning Commission Chairman and Members From: Lee Brennan, Public Works Director Subject: Public Works Department Comments Regarding Final Development Plan Approval for Cedar Shadows, a Planned Unit Development. Date: June 29, 1999 The Public Works Department has the following comments regarding the proposed approval of the Final Development Plan for Cedaz Shadows. Public Works Infrastructure: The public works infrastructure associated with this development have not been completed. In particulaz, the "looped" water distribution line serving the development has not been completed. The Developer, (Dallas Page), has indicated difficulty in obtaining the required easements for construction and maintenance of the required water lines. City PWD is recommending that Mr. Page provide evidence that all necessary easements for installation of the improvements can be obtained prior to final development plan approval. As required in CPMC 16.12.070 and 16.12,080; prior to final plat approval, the Developer shall .complete all required public improvements and repair any public facilities damaged as result of the development, or shall execute and file with the City an agreement (Development Agreement) that assures completion of the required improvements. The development agreement requires a "bond" to be provided which is sufficient to cover the costs of the improvements and repairs, including related engineering and incidental expenses, administrative expenses, inflationary costs, and the costs of City inspection. The bond amount should also cover an estimated cost for easement acquisition for completion of the water line, or for rerouting the water line, as applicable. As described in CPMC 15.04.050, no building or structure shall be used or occupied until all public works improvements aze completed and approved. As described in CPMC 16.12.070.B.4.a, the Developer shall be required to advise a purchaser or prospective purchaser that no certificate of occupancy will be issued until the City until completion and acceptance of all public improvements. CY"ty of Certiral i~aint I•;~iHI~IT «C» Planning Departmentt 38 ~ U ~ ~I l\ ~1 EXHIBI"t F~' RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall submit an open space management plan to the Planning Department indicating the manner and schedule by which open space areas within the subdivision will be developed. This shall include any proposed landscaping, irrigation, azchitectural features and play equipment. All landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy, growing condition and shall be served by an automatic irrigation system. 2. The applicant shall include within the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the subdivision provisions governing the use, maintenance and improvement of common open space areas and authorizing the city to enforce these provisions. A copy of the recorded CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 3. The applicant shall. submit a fencing plan to the Planning Department specifying the type and location of all fencing for the subdivision. 4. A homeowners' association shall be established for the proposed subdivision for the _ ... purpose of permanently maintaining all of the subject property, including common open space areas, individual residences and accessory structures. A copy of the recorded bylaws - ~,~ . -- of the homeowners' association shall be submitted to the Planning Department. ° 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Division of State Lands for `the project as indicated by it's response to the Wetland Land Use Notification Form. 6. The approval of the preliminary development plan shall become void six months following the date of such approval unless an application for a final development has been submitted to the city containing in final form the information required in the preliminary plan. 7. The development of each residential lot within the planned unit development shall be limited to single-family attached dwellings with allowed accessory uses. 8. The PUD shall be developed in accordance with the preliminary development plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Modifications to the preliminary development shall be subject to further review and approval by the Planning Commission. - 35 O I yP t. ~li BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY 3915 SOUTN PACIFIC HWY. • MEOFOflD, ONEGON 97601-8099 • (541) 779-4144 • FA%(641) 535.5278 RECEIVED May 8, 1998 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: Cedar Shadows Subdivision - 98038TP Dear Ken, MAY 12 1998" CITY OF CEN"fi~AL POINT TIME .....~...-..-. We have reviewed the subject planning action with regard to providing sanitary sewer service to the project location. It appears the proposed use will require a sewer extension of the existing offsite sewer line and lines in proposed Shadow Way. Grants of sanitary sewer easement will be necessary for these lines unless the streets are dedicated rights-of--way. Additional information will be necessary to determine. the location of the main and service routing and; easement needs the line serving lots 16 through 24. Sincerel , ames May, Jr. P. District Engineer 36 ~ ~. ;n, , ~ , I N T E R C: ity of Central Point EXI IIBIT "D" Planning Department MEMO _____ O F F I C E To: Honorable Planning Commission Chairman and Members From: Lee Brennan, Public Works Director Subject: Public Works Department Comments Regarding Final Development Plan Approval for Cedar Shadows, a Planned Unit Development. Date: June 29, 1999 The Public Works Department has the following comments regarding the proposed approval of the Final Development Plan for Cedar Shadows. Public Works Infrastructure: The public works infrastructure associated with this development have not been completed. In particular, the "looped" water distribution line serving the development has not been completed.. The Developer, (Dallas Page), has indicated difficulty in obtaining the required easements for construction and maintenance of the required water lines. City PWD is recommending that Mr. Page provide evidence that all necessary easements for installation of the improvements can be -: ~,:.-; obtained prior to final development plan approval. As required in CPMC 16.12.070 and 16.12.080, prior to final plat approval, the Developer shall a ,+: complete all-required public improvements and repair any public facilities damaged as result of the _ > development, or shall execute and file with the City an agreement (Development Agreement) that assures completion of the required improvements. The development agreement requires a "bond" to be provided which is sufficient to cover the costs of the improvements and repairs, including related engineering and incidental expenses, administrative expenses, inflationary costs, and the costs of City inspection. The bond amount should also cover an estimated cost for easement acquisition for completion of the water line, or for rerouting the water line, as applicable. As described in CPMC 15.04.050, no building or structure shall be used or occupied until all public works improvements are completed and approved. As described in CPMC 16.12.070.B.4.a, the Developer shall be required to advise a purchaser or prospective purchaser that no certificate of occupancy will be issued until the City until completion and acceptance of all public improvements. _ 3J n ~. ~ !,~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 6, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Variance from fence requirements on Hamrick Road (372WOIC Tax Lot 800). Ap~rlicant: USF Reddaway, Incorporated 2890 Nansen Drive Medford, Oregon 97504 Summary: The applicant wishes to vary from fence height and material requirements in order to add three strands of barbed wire and retain adequate security for an industrially oriented freight forwarding facility. The subject parcel is zoned M-1, Light Industrial. Authority: CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review and decide , without a public hearing, any application for a fence variance. Review is being performed in accordance with CPMC 1.24.050. AQplicable Law: CPMC 15.20.040 et seq. -Fence Height on Lots CPMC 15.20.080 et seq. -Fence Variances Discussion• As USF Reddaway neared the completion of its new construction and site improvements, both the applicants and City staff realized that neither fence height nor fence materials had been discussed. The applicant assumed that they could install a seven foot security fence and City staff assumed that local standards would be followed. A subsequent review of the site plan approved by the Commission revealed that the specifics of this subject were not discussed. The applicants believe that, given the nature and location of their business, a taller barbed-wired fence would offer better security and so they are pursuing this request for variance from municipal code requirements.. CPMC Sections 15.20.040 and 15.20.070 state that no fence be higher that six feet and that barbed wire or material creating an unreasonable or unnecessary risk of injury be prohibited. Requests for fence variances shall be made by application ...and shall be reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1.24 (which involves Planning Commission consideration without a public hearing). 40 ~, ~,. 11 ~, planning Departmen! StajjReporv USF Reddaway Fence Variance page 2 The subject fence has already started to be constructed around the perimeter of the new freight forwarding facility on Hamrick Road. The facility will occupy roughly 20 acres of a 34 acre parcel therefore the fence's northern perimeter boundary will be set back substantially from East Pine Street. The fence will also be set back from the road frontages on the north-south and east- west of Hamrick Road. The fence would consist of six foot chain link panels with one foot barbed wire extensions. If findings could be made for approval, the applicant would be allowed to continue construction of the current fence with a barbed wire extension. If findings could not be made the applicants would have to finish construction of the fence without the barbed wire extension. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law A variance may be granted if findings are made as follows: 1. The strict application of the provisions would result in unnecessary hardship; or The applicant states that due to the industrial nature, parcel size and the remote location of their new facility there will greater security risks to their business. It ~~ can be argued that the strict application of the municipal code in this case could result in the vandalism and potential l loss of personal property. 2. The following considerations will either result from a granting of the variance or the following considerations do not apply to the requested application: a. The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city, The additional height of the fence and use of barbed wire is part of Reddaway's overall security system. Reliable on site security reduces the need for more frequent City police patrols and makes the storage area and surrounding neighborhood less attractive to burglars and vandals. b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city, The fence will be screened along its Hamrick Road frontages by landscaping and visibility is reduced to adjacent property owners. 41 R } ,, Ire "~' o Planning Departmen( S[afjRepor•( USF Reddaway Fence Variance Pngc 3 a The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the city, The truck storage area and its corresponding security system create a greater se~rse of safety for personal property to a new local business. Unnecessary risk of injury to the general public is reduced because of the fence setbacks and its more remote location within the City. d. The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city, The fence would provide an additional degree of protection to the applicants who will operate the new facility. The variance will not directly provide protection to the surrounding neighborhood or to the city. e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. The City has not received any correspondence opposed to the security fence at this time and adjoining properties such as LTM and the ODOT maintenance yard use similar security fences. f The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. The construction material of the security fence inconsistent with municipal regulations in the Manufacturing zoning district however the height and material used is not currently allowed in any zoning district. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: Approve the fence variance application based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed Variance application; or 3. Continue the review for the Variance application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments• A. Site Plan G:\PLANN ING\2cddway. var.wpd 42 ..~....,., ~~.,~.. ,.. ~ .. ... ......... .. .. ..y .. ..r~ ~ ,. ~. .... .,~ .»,. ..... ..,~. ~..., ...~~....,.. .. ...,..., .~.... ~...~.~ .~ r) ~~ J ~ ` 1 OAS ~- ~.i 1 ~: "'~ } ~~ f a ~ A Attachment A ~~__ ~ i ~~I O v v r m s 0 O ~I .~„~ --- - .. .pp -:-- .m wnn mrrs is. m~... .~ E loo a i~iEli~ii r~~ ~~ ~~8~ $ ~ ~ ~~~ •o 1 ~ ~ a p E L ,Qy USF REDDAWAY ~ ~ COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN ~;a ~,,:~ 43 (f i PLANNING DEPARTMENT' MEMORANDUM DATE: July 6, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Presentation of the Bear Creek Water Quality Management Plan by DEQ Representative Brad Prior. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) contacted City staff in June and asked that they be given an opportunity to present the Bear Creek Water Quality Management Plan to the Planning Commission. Consequently, they have been added to the business agenda as Item E. DEQ's Rogue Basin Specialist, Brad Prior will be present to talk about regional water quality problems, the Clean Water Act and stream monitoring that the Department is doing in the area. Various components of a Water Quality Management Plan will be discussed including; I) storm water management; 2) riparian zone preservation and restoration and; 3) erosion control at construction sites. Central Point has already initiated some of these practices. However the presentation may allow us to see how we're doing on a regional basis and introduce Commissioners and staff to model ordinances and management practices followed by other cities. No action will be required of the Planning Commission relative to this business item. 44