Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - May 4, 1999F _ l ' \'Y ~ 0. ~` 9 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May 4, 1999, - 7:00 p.m. ~ fl ~ Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 448 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland -Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, Karolyne Johnson and Paul Lunte III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of Apri120, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Page 1 - 37 A. Public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by Hummelt Development Company to construct a 13,328 Square foot Rite Aid Drug Store. The subj ect property is located onthe northwestcorner ofEastPine andNorthTenth Streets in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. 38-47 B. PublichearingtoconsiderarequestbyVictorKozmatkatomodifyacondiflonof tentative plan approval to underground electrical utilities. The subject property is located on the north side of Cheny Street 100 feet east ofNorth Tenth inthe R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district. 48- 54 C. Public hearing to consider a request by the LDS Churchto withdraw 8.2 acres of land, recently annexed to the City, from Jackson County Fire District #3. The subjectproperty is located onthe southeastcornerof Taylor and GrantRoads in the R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district. n 55-74 D. Public hearing to considerasiteplanintroducedbytheLDSChurchtoconstruct a 10,700 square foot temple. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Taylor and Grant Roads in the R-1-10 residential zoning district. 75- 83 E. Public hearing to consider atentative plan introduced by Lou Mahar and Pacific Trend Building Company to subdivide 13.25 acres of land into 48 residential lots know as Brookfield Estates (Introduction Only). The subject property is located on the south side of Taylor Road and west of Grant Road in the R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district. 84- 91 F. Public hearing to consider aplanned unit(pad lot) development and tentative plan introduced by Packwood Terrace Estates, LLC to subdivide 4.4 acres of land into 42 residential lots (Introduction Only). The subject property is located south of Beebe Lane 125 feet east of Hamrick Road inthe R-2, Two Family Residential zoning district. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT U ~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 20, 1999 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:10 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Karolyn Johnson, Paul Lunte. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician, Arlene LaRosa, Public Works Secretary, City Mayor Bill Walton, and City Councilman Dave Gilmour. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence IV. MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of April 6, 1999, as presented. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Lunte, yes; Dunlap, abstain; Fish, yes, Foster, yes, Johnson, abstain. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Continuation of a request by the Meadows Community Homeowners Associa tion to varv from the fence requirements of the Central Point Municip al Code in order to retain adequate s ecurity fora Recreational Vehicle Storage facility The subject Droperty is located at 555 Freeman Road in the R-3. Residential Multiple Family zoning district. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. Commissioner Johnson stated that she talked to Mr. Stultz of the Meadows on the subject regarding insurance coverage; however it was nothing that would affect the decision. Tom Humphrey stated that at issue on this application is the height'of the fence and the material used in the fence around the R.V. enclosure. There was also found to be some razor wire at another corner of the site. The primary concern at the last meeting was the razor wire and an alternative of barbed wire was discussed. Bill Stutz, Manager of the Meadows, stated that they obtained a quote on putting two or three arms with barbed wire at the corners of the fence. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 2 Corners are the most vulnerable areas. The Meadows is willing to take the razor wire down. They have also put up an 8 to 12 foot section of chain link fence between their fence and the neighbor's fence to keep people from going between the two properties. This fence has razor wire which will be replaced with barbed wire. They will also install a gate to gain access to and maintain the area between the two properties. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 446 approving the variance for the height of the fence, with the requirement that the razor wire be removed and barbed wire installed with barbed wire cones at the corners of the fence around the recreational vehicle storage area, and the razor wire be removed and barbed wire be installed on the 8 to 12 foot long chain link section between The Meadows property and the neighbors property. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. B. Consideration of a request by Larry Denn Construction to assion a Class A designation to a nonconforming structure located in the special street setback at 285 Pine Street in the R-3 Residential Multiple Family zoning district. Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. He stated that during the permit process it was discovered that the building was in an area of special set-back. West Pine is an arterial street with a 70 foot setback from center line. The Public Works Director states that the City actually needs only an additional 14 feet for curb, gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Denn has cantilevered balconies on the present building that extend out over the right-of-way. He wants to remodel the building completely, remove the balconies, and put three covered porches on the front the building. The structure is legally non-conforming with a Class B designation by default. The up-grade goes beyond the routine maintenance of Class B non- conforming structures. Mr. Denn would like to change this to a non- conforming Class A designation so he can do the up-grade. The Commission may change the designation to Class A if the project meets certain criteria. The use was lawful at the time of construction and met the set-back requirements. The new set-back requirements came later. Mr. Denn is aware that the porches will come within 7 feet of the right of way if the street is widened in the future. Lee Brennan stated that there are two ways to help solve the current issue: (1) require the dedication of a 14 foot right-of-way right now; or (2) Mr. Denn can enter into an agreement with the City that in the future 1 iY 1~ , 1 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 3 when the road is widened he will agree to dedicate the 14 feet for the widening of the road to the City with no remonstrations and the City will pay him fair market value. Larry Denn stated that he has owned this property 20 years and it has gradually deteriorated. He just wants to up-grade the building so it will look better and attract a better clientele. At this point, he is not willing to give up a piece of his property. When they widen the road and everyone else gives up the additional right-of-way, he will be willing to talk to the City. He stated he would be willing to enter into an agreement as described in option (2) above. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution 447 approving the request by Larry Denn Construction to designate his property at 285 Pine Street as anon-conforming Class A structure. This motion includes approving the request from the Public Works Department for Mr. Denn to enter into an agreement with the City to dedicate the 14 feet to the City when Pine Street is widened and include in that agreement a clause that there will be no remonstration against the City by the property owner. Commissioner Dunlap seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. C. Continuation of a public hearing to consider a site__plan introduced b Southern Oregon Hot Bikes and to vary from a five foot side setback to add a 780 square foot building to commercial property at 125 South Front Street. The subject prooerty is located on the northeast side of south Front Street in the C-5 Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. Tom Humphrey stated that the applicant has requested that this application be continued. Commissioner Fish made a motion to take this application out of the public hearing status, have it renoticed, and the applicant will not bear any additional expense for the renoticing. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. D. Public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by Hummelt Development Comoanv to construct a 13 328 square foot Rite Aid Drua Store The .subject prooerty is located on the northwest corner of East Pine and North Tenth Streets in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey stated that this application was put on the agenda tonight only as an introduction to the application and to allow some possible CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 4 comments. Staff was not given time to prepare Staff Reports. This application will be continued for two weeks. The traffic study was received and, as a result, the access on 10"' Street was changed as well as the access on the 9"' Street side of the building. There will be a common access on 9"' Street for the Liquor Store and the Espresso Store. John Hummelt, 29911 S.W. Boones Ferry Rd., #3, Wilsonville, OR, representative for Rite Aid, stated that they are excited about the project. They have reduced the store size to approximately 13,000 square feet to fit the lot and set-backs required. Commissioner Dunlap stated that the commission would like to keep as many trees as possible on the property. Mr. Hummelt suggested that they may not be able to do that because of the building configuration but they can plant new trees. Mike Sullivan stated that he spoke to Rite Aid about the residences that are designated to be torn down. He suggested that instead of tearing the buildings down, they be given to Habitat for Humanity, and Rite Aid has agreed to do that. Jerry Crusher, Manager of Abbey's Pizza on Pine Street, asked for a copy of the Rite Aid site plan. Staff gave Mr. Crusher a copy of the plan. John Hummelt stated they wanted to be on the agenda tonight to know if the commission saw any glaring errors that could be corrected before the next meeting. Bill Walsh, 815 Manzanita, asked how the delivery trucks will access the store. Mr. Hummelt stated that typically the Rite Aid delivery trucks are smaller, not the large semi trucks. They will come in on Manzanita to the back of the store where the loading dock (which is just a large door) is located. They deliver once a week. Commissioner Dunlap made a motion to continue the public hearing to consider the site plan introduced by Hummelt Development Company to construct a 13,328 sq. ft. Rite Aid Store to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on May 4,1999. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1999 Page 5 VII. MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey reported that persons interested in purchasing property located near the corner of East Pine and Hamrick Road, which includes a single family dwelling and a shop, and is outside the City limit, wanted the commissions comments on whether a concrete cutting business would fit in a C-4 zoning district. They would like to purchase the property and annex into the City, if the commission would approve their business in the C-4 zone. They want to live in the house, put in a beauty shop, and use the shop building in the back for the concrete cutting business and equipment rental. . Tom explained that although the beauty shop is compatible in this zone the concrete cutting business and equipment rental is not usual for a C-4 zone. Michael Bauer, 28 Ashland Ave., Real Estate agent, appeared as agent for the prospective purchasers, Dave and Cindy Szigeti. Tom Humphrey stated that C-5 zones and M-1 zones look like they would probably be more compatible and M-1 has similar uses to concrete cutting. The Commission agreed that they would not want to spot zone for this business. Other miscellaneous business: Commissioner Lunte stated that he would like to have the commission become involved in the long-term planning for the City. Study sessions and planning commission workshops were discussed. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ,,. PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 1999 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Second of Two Public Heazings Associated with Site Plan Review for Rite Aid Drug Store The Commission opened the first of two public hearings on Apri120, 1999 to allow the applicant an opportunity to introduce the development proposal and receive preliminary feed back from City staff and the general public. Since the last meeting, the Public Works Department has formulated a staff report (Attachment B) and a series of recommendations which have been transmitted to Rite Aid for their review and consideration. The City has not received a definitive response from the applicant but is anticipating their comment associated with additional right-of--way dedication and some of the easement requirements which could have implications upon building location, parking, interior traffic circulation and landscaping. One of the recommendations from the Public Works Department is a request for additional right-of- way dedication on Tenth Street to accommodate a second left turn lane. Conclusions in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Kittelson & Associates stated that there would be problems at certain times of the day with vehicles queuing on southbound Tenth Street to turn left onto Pine Street. City staff believe that additional right of waydedication and the creation of an additional southbound left turn lane would mitigate the queuing problems raised in the TIA. The Commission can expect further clazification of this matter at the time of the public hearing. Since this is the second of two public hearings, the Commission may take additional testimony, consider this testimony in light of the findings of fact previously presented and arrive atone of the three actions listed in Attachment A. ATTACHMENTS. A. Planning Commission Report and Attachments dated Apri120, 1999 B. Department of Public Works Staff Report dated Apri127, 1999 ~~~ Attachment ~A ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT CTAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: April 20, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Site Plan Review for Rite Aid Drug Store, 37 2W 02CC Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000 & 4001 - Hummelt Development Company 'cant/ Owner: entr o e Description/ Zonine• 8ummarv Hummelt Development Company 29911 SW Boones Ferry Road, Suite 3 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Jon Hummelt 37 2W 02CC Tax Lots 3500;3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000 & 4001, ' 1.46 acres ± C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District The applicant is proposing-the development of a 13; 328 square foot Rite:-Aid Drug Store with double drive-up window in an area currently .occupied by an assortment of nonconforming single and multi family residences. Earlier this year the applicant requested and subsequently received approval from the City to vacate Ninth Street between Mauzanita and Pine Streets and the alleys between Eighth and Tenth. Streets to better facilitate site development. The subject property encompasses an entire City block in the C-4, Tourist and Offtce Professional caning district. The public hearing for this proposal has been scheduled for two separate meetings (April 20th and May 4th) due to short notice resulting from delays in the receipt of a revised site plan. The completion of a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) necessitated some changes to driveway access on Tenth and Pine Streets and traffic circulation on site. The City Public Works Department is still reviewing the TIA and corresponding site plan and will have a staff report for the Planning Commission prior to the second public hearing. The first hearing should be considered as introductory and mayafford the Commission an opportunity to ask questions and take public testimony. 002 ., ut r' 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 A). Annlicable LawLaw CPMC 17.44.010, et seq. C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District CPMC 17.60.010 et seq: General Regulations CPMC 17.64.Oi0 et seq: Off,Street Parking CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.-Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval piscussion This proposal is significant to the City of Central Point in that it involves redeveloping an area that was zoned 15 years ago for commercial activity but has been occupied by mostly nonconforming residential uses.. The nonconfornng uses have been allowed to deteriorate over time and in some cases have become public health and safety problems. Redevelopment of the site. involves the demolition and/or relocation of buildings and the consolidation of two City blocks which will have an overall positive economic effect on surrounding businesses. During the street vacation process, property owners in both blocks supported the Rite Aid redevelopment proposal. ~ -;; At City staff's request a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was performed (Attachment C) and Commissioners should focus their attention on the conclusions listed on Page 16. These fmdings summarize the consultant's conclusions and recommendations which include a right-in, right-out only driveway onto 10th Street. One of the reasons for street vacation was to create more area on 10th Street for improvements including; right;of--way dedication; road widening; the reconstruction of curb, gutter and sidewalk; bike lanes; a transit stop; and raised medians as necessary. The applicants have followed the City's General Regulations, Off-Street Parking Requirements and other site plan and construction criteria when preparing this proposal. The specifics of these applicable laws will be discussed further in the findings of fact and conclusions which follow. 003 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 of the 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 of existing plants or the installation of new ones for'purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ The applicant has identified landscaping areas on the site plan which will be followed by more specific plans as a condition to approval. The site plan depicts numerous planters in'the parking lots and around the new buildings. The landscapingplanwdl be accompanied by an irrigation plan. 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; ^ There are presently three driveways accessing the new development from Manzanita, Tenth and Pine Streets. The applicant is proposing a main entrance from Pine and alternative access from the east and'at the rear of the site. City Public Works is still evaluating thisproposal but is generally pleased with the limits placed upon the Tenth Street access. C: To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such a manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The City has received a parking plan from the applicant as part of the site plan which depicts a total of 72 parking spaces. This is actually 5 more spaces than the municipal code requires but is consistent with shopping center marketing philosophy. Design requirements in CPMC 17.64.100 call for paved, adequately drained parking areas for alt-weather use; painted striping; lighting and the placement of bumper rails along property lines, sidewalks and landscaping areas. Additionally, parking areas should not be created in special setback areas which in this case would be at the corners of Tenth & Pine Streets and Tenth & Manzanita Streets. The 25% compact car adjustment was not used. OQ~ 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 of their buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ The applicants have identified various locations for signs on the site plan and will be required to take sign permits as a condition to plan approval. The property owners wish to control the architecture and advertizing appearance for the property once it meets with the City's approval. E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety of life, 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 appazatus; ^ Jackson County Fire District Number 3 and the City's Building Department will enforce State Fire and Building codes. The Fire District has determined that there is more than adequate water flow in the vicinity of the site and will work with the development to ensure hydrants and other fire suppression meets state and local code. F: Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The proposed construction meets the minimum setback requirements for the C- 4 District. There are general regulations governing special setbacks and landscaping (17.60.090 and 17.60.135 respectively). Special setbacks on secondary arterials are intended, among other things, to permit eventual widening. The applicant will make full improvements along the entire length of the property's frontage. Engineering Standards and Specifications also call for adequate parking lot illumination which the applicant will provide. G: Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ^ The applicants have submitted building elevations for the drug store which are typical of all their new stores and there may not be a lot of room to vary from this theme. The location of the Rite Aid store is not in the core of the Downtown Revitalization area and therefore the architecture does not necessarily need to be historic in nature. Site landscaping, a garden center, full parking improvements and new signs proposed by the applicants will enhance the project site and will present an attractive overall appearance. 005 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the review of the Site Plan and public hearing to its next regulazly scheduled meeting on May 4, 1999. Attachments A. Notice of Publie Hearing B. Letter from Jon Hummelt dated 7anuary 14, 1999 and Building Elevations C. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) from Kittelson & Associates D. Comments from Other Agencies ~~s City of Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: April 9, 1999 Meeting Date(s): Apri120, 1999& May 4, 1999 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place:. Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING On April 20, 1999 at the above time andplace, the Central Point Planning Commission will begin its initial consideration of a Site Plan for the construction of a 13,328 square foot Rite Aid Drug Store. The second of two meetings will be held on May 4, 1999. Both meetings will be public hearings. The subject property is located in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional Zoning District on Tax Lots 3500, 360Q 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000 and 4001 of Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W 02CC. CRITERIA FOR DE I ION The requirements for Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to Site Plan, Landscaping, Construction Plan approval and Off-Street Packing. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance with the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC CO ENTS Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the sewnd meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 4, 1999. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of each meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 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 I55 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 nn~ the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies.of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, ,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact Tom Humphrey, Planning Director at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARX OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the request, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicants, 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, modify or deny the Site Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ~ Hummelt Development Company ' ' Real. estate January 14, 1999 Mr. Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director City of Central Point 155 South Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Rite Aid NWC Pine & 10th Dear Tom, Enclosed is site plan application with appropriate supporting materials. If you have any questions please call. We look forward to working with you on this project. Since ely, `~~ Jo Hummelt 29911 S. W. Boones Ferry Road • Suite 3 • Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 • (503) 682-7100 • FAX (503) 682.4949 -~ 009 We are proposing to develop a freestanding13,328 square foot Rite Aid Drug Store with double drive-up window. In connection with the development the alley between 10th Street and 9th Street will be vacated as well as 9th Street between Pine Street and Mauzatuta Street. In association with the 9th street vacation there will be joint access between our proposed development and the adjacent retail complex immediately to the west. All existing structures will be demolished and the building and associated common area laid out as shown on the enclosed site plan. 0~~ a FFes' - -0 "' ~ ~E pp E tE~ 3~! ~~ F~ ~~ t ~ FMS ~g; f A fpm G' ~ I ; A m i ~~~ E~ 6 ~ ~ ~ E 1 ~( I E -1 ~ ti ~ ~ } 1 { 4 i1 I ~ y_ y g ~i -0 ~ ~ ~ E~~ \ ~ ~ 70 r-' ! -~ E ell ~ ~: a # r 1 ~ •• ~® ~ ~ ; ---0 !S s -O ~~i ~ ' E~ ~0 ~i! ~ {€ jj i ~ ~ E 7 + 8 tp I ~ e~~ F ~ 3 ` 1 r ~ ~~{ ~ -= I s EfE - , , ~~~ ~ ;sc ~ tag '~ ~ !~ ~~g g~ {il, ~i ~t ~ ~ j~~f~ii ~ E ~ i~ ~ ,~ 0 ` LMG 1®1lY[0. IAI1 Ml/B.TCE9M6RllYlMT M~~ 4~. NJNt IOM W. Mwf ~ ~ EI~/1 'i w ~~ • rt fA i ~ "'~ SII0l0[E9VA11Cf4 ~ q-w w~N xNrmr. wr..~ i w ~ 1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 SW ALDER, SUITE 700 PORTLAND, OR 97205 (503) 228-5230 FAx (503) 273-0169 MEMORANDUM To: Tom Humphrey, AICP, Planning Director, City of Central Point cc: From: Paul Ryus; P.E. & I.ee Rodegerdts, P.E., Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Date: April S, 1999 Project: Central Point Rite Aid Project #: 3585 Subject: Transportation Impact Analysis This memorandum presents the results of a transportation impact analysis conducted for the proposed Rite Aid store in Central Point, Oregon. The following specific issues are discussed: • Existing transportation conditions and land uses in the site vicinity; • Background traffic conditions in the year the site is proposed to open. (2000), not including site-generated traffic; • Total traffic volumes-and conditions in the year 2000, with site-generated traffic; ' . • Site access and circulation; • Off-site improvements, if any, required to serve the site; and • Findings and conclusions. EICISTING Site Conditions and At{%acent Land Uses The 1.46-acre site is bounded by East Pine Street, 10"' Street, Manzanita Street, and 9a' Street. The site vicinity is shown in Figure 1. The site is zoned C4-Commercial, and is currently occupied by six private residences, the Shamrock Apartments, and Central Point Tax Service. All of the existing uses-would be removed from the site under the proposed site plan. Other lots fronting East Pine Street in the site vicinity consist of various commercial uses. The area north of the site is primarily residential, with Jewett Elementary School and Central Assembly Christian School located northeast of the site. TY~ansportation Facilities The primary streets providing access to the site will be East Pine Street, 10`s Street, Freeman Road, and Manzanita Street. The block of 9"' Street between East Pine Street and Manzanita Street is proposed to be vacated and will serve as a driveway access to both Rite Aid and to land uses on the west side of 9s' Street, as well as serving as a portion of the drive-through lane for Rite Aid. Table 1 summarizes transportation facilities within the site vicinity. Figure 2 shows the existing intersection control and lane configurations within the study area. ~„~H~,~,e~=.~ 012 J .~ ~~ NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) 5 'o ~~ x.~. ~ ~P~ ~~~ r-- rn S~ ~ Q~~~ SITE VICINITY MAP J r b FIGURE POINT OREGON CENTRA 1 .~\ APRIL 1999 n~ _ NORTH ,~GEND -~- - STOP SIGN i -TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING LANE INTERSECTION RITE-AID CENTRAL POIN7 `OREGON FIGURE 2 p K RIL 1999 CONFIGURATIONS AND CONTROL DEVICES ni a ,. Central Point Rite Aid Memorandum April S, 1999 Transportation lmpnct Analysis Table 1. Existing Roadway Facilities Street Classification Lanes Posted Speed (m h Sidewalks Bicycle Lanes On- Street Parkin Rant Pine Street Ma'or Arterial 4-5 25 Yes Yes No 10 Street Second Arterial 2 35+' Partial No No Freeman Road Second Arterial 2 35 .Partial Partial No 9 Street Local Street 2 25 Partial No Yes Manzanita Street Local Street 2 25 No No Yes •20 mph school zone north of the site Traffic Volumes and Peak Hour Operations Manual turning movement counts were conducted during the weekday p.m. peak hour (4-6 p.m.) on Tuesday, May 19, 1998, Tuesday, .March 2, 1999, and Wednesday, Mazch 3, 1999, respectively, at the following study intersections: 10`"Street-Freeman Road/East Pine Street; l00' Street/Manzanita Street; and 9s' Street/Rast Pine Street. These intersections were identified for analysis through conversations with City staff. Observed imbalances in traffic volumes between intersections that could not be accounted for by driveway activity were corrected by conservatively increasing the observed volumes until a balance was achieved. Figure 3 presents existing condition traffic volumes, with all volumes rounded to the nearest five vehicles. Section A of the Technical Appendix accompanying this report contains- the traffic countsheets. Level of Service Analysis The 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board (Reference 1), is the standazd reference for calculating "level of service" (LOS), a quantitative measure of the quality of traffic operations as perceived by roadway users.-LOS is measured on an A-F scale, with "A" being the best. Jackson County has established a minimum standazd of LOS "D" for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. At signalized intersections, LOS "D" represents a maximum of 40 seconds of average stopped delay per vehicle. At unsignalized intersections, LOS "D" represents a maximum of 30 seconds of average total delay per vehicle on the worst intersection approach. Jackson County's standard has been assumed for the study intersections. Section B of the Technical Appendix presents a more detailed discussion of LOS and the criteria used in its determination. All LOS analyses described in this memorandum were performed in accordance with the procedures stated in the 1994 FiCM. To ensure this analysis was based upon aworst-case scenario, the peak 15-minute flow rates during the weekday p.m. peak hour were used in the evaluation of all intersection levels of service. Thus, the analysis reflects conditions that are likely to occur for 15 minutes out of each average weekday p.m. peak hour. For this reason, traffic conditions during all other time periods will likely operate better than the conditions described in this memorandum. Klttelson & Associates, lnc. Page 4 .~ X015 NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) 5 io sf is ~o s ~ * y/ ry y5.,. ti~a .o~-o ~~P ~ ~ t1~ rn Q~~~ ~ ~ w O~/ \~4 b0~/ ~~! bi°eOyyl'- ~~ss,0 f°b'y0~ ~~~0 O O 1999 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR .`,, RITE-AID CENTRAL POINT OREGON FIGURE z p a APRIL 1999 J ~ nee ~" ~ ~~ Central Poin( Rite Aid Memorandum April S, 1999 Transportation Impact Analysis Table 2 presents levels of service under existing conditions at the study intersections. For the signalized intersection, this table lists volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio, average vehicle stopped delay, and the corresponding LOS. For the unsignalized intersections, this table lists the critical movement, the v/c ratio of the critical movement, the average total delay for the critical movement, and the corresponding LOS. Table 2. Existing Traffic Conditions-Weekday P.M. Peak Hour ' Si nalized Unsi nalized v/c Average Stopped Critical v/c Average Total Intersection Ratio Dela sedveh) Movement Ratio Dela sedveh) LOS 10 St: Freeman Rd./ Bast Pine St. 0.45 21.0 C 10 St /Manzanita St ~ ` EB 0 11 4 6 A . . t . . 9 St./East Pine St. , „ ~ SB 0.09 24.6 D BB: eastbound, SB: southbound Table 2 shows that all study area intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under existing conditions. Section C of the Technical Appendix contains the existing conditions traffic analysis worksheets.. Traffic Safety ..Accident records for the study area were obtained from the City of Central Point, oovering the years of 1996-98; however, data were not available for the last three months of 1997 and 1998. Therefore, a total of 2t/z years of data were analyzed. The data reveal a total of 18 reported accidents at the l0a'Sueet-Freeman Road/Sast Pine Street intersection during this time. Traffic engineers typically analyze accidents in terms of accident rates (accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection), recognizing that the number of accidents is related not only to potential safety problems, but to traffic volumes. As a rule of thtimb, an accident rate of more than 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles indicates the need for further investigation. The accident rate at the 10's Street-Freeman Road/Eiist Pine Street intersection was 0.90, which does not suggest that a safety problem exists. The most common accident types we're northbound rear- end accidents on the Freeman Road approach and accidents caused by motorists on East Pine Street running the red signal indication (three eastbound and one westbound). A review of the visibility of the eastbound signal heads and/or enhanced police enforcement of red-signal running in the community would be appropriate, as would be a review of the advance signing and intersection visibility on the northbound intersection approach. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6 Dirj Certtrnl Poinf Rite Aid Memorandum April S, /999 Transportation Impact Analysis BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Planned Transportation Improvements No roadway improvement projects were identified for the study area in the neaz term In-Process Development Three developments were identified that have. been approved, but not yet constmcted, that will directly influence traffic volumes in the study area: • Central Point Commercial Center, located south of the study area neaz the intersection of Froeman Road and Oak Street; • Bluebird.Heights, a 27-lot residential subdivision north of the study azea near the intersection of lOd' Street and Cherry Street; and • Summerfield, a 63-lot residential subdivision north of the study area near the intersection of lOd' Street and 3rd Street. Trip generation and distribution for the Central Point Commercial Center was identified from the traffic impact analysis prepared for the development (Reference 2). The center consists of a 57,560-squaze-foot supermarket, 61,800 square feet of other retail, a 3,600-squaze-foot drive-in bank, and a service station with six fueling positions. The center's traffic analysis also accounted for future traffic from afive-acre site adjacent to (but not apart of) the center, that would take access hrough the center. Two 100-room motelg were used as a conservative assumption for the land use on that site. Traffic increases on lOd' Street as a result of the two residential subdivisions were estimated using :updated, population data the City has supplied to the Rogue Valley Council of Governments for use with the region's transportation planning model. Based on information supplied by City staff, future residential subdivisions are being assumed to have 2.7 residents per lot. The number of new people living in the area served by IOd' Street was compared to the existing population estimate for this area to estimate the increase in existing traffic on lOd' Street that will occur when the new subdivisions. are completed. This increase is estimated to be 19%. Background Trgfftc Development Background traffic consists of the traffic volumes unrelated to the site that will exist within the study area at the time the development is fully completed. The analysis yeaz was chosen to be 2000, corresponding to the year that the proposed development will be built out. Background traffic was estimated as follows: • Existing traffic volumes to and from lOd' Street were increased by 19% to account for the new subdivisions. • Existing traffic volumes in other areas were increased by 4%, reflecting a conservative annual growth rate based on the traffic volume increases between 1995 and 1998 on East Pine Street that were reported in Reference 2. • Traffic from the Central Point Commercial Center and the adjacent five-acre site was added to these increased volumes. Weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for year 2000 background conditions are shown in Figure 4. Again, all volumes have been rounded to the neazest five vehicles. Kittc/son do Associates, Inc. Page 7 018 NORTH (NOT TO' SCALE) 5 io ~f .~ ~o~ ~~ ~a1 65~ ` ~0~~ ~P~ ~P~~ `~' m Q~~~ fi ~ w w 1~~ ~~~~ ~~~y ~~ti~° 1~5 l ,oJ~ ~~ ~ J~ ~~ S O 2000 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR RITE-AID FIGURE p CENTRAL POINT OREGON ~ ~a L 1999 X19 Centrnl Poinf Ri(e Aid Memorandum April S, /999 Transportntion Impact Analysis Leve[ of Service Analysis Table 3 presents levels of service under background traffic conditions at the study intersections. The level of service drops at all study area intersections. The 9's Street/East Pine Street intersection operates at LOS "E" for southbound traffic, below Jackson County's standard. However, only about 20 southbound vehicles aze estimated to use this intersection during the weekday p.m. peak hour and sufficient capacity is provided for them. Section D of the Technical Appendix contains the background conditions analysis worksheets. Table 3. Year 2000 Background Traffic Conditions-Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Si nalized Unsi nalized Intersection v/c Ratio Average Stopped Dela sedveh Critical Movement v/c Ratio Average Total Dela sedveh LOS 10 St. Preeman Rd./ Bast Pine St. 0.63 26.2 ~ b D 10 St./Manzanita St. ?` EB 0.17 6.5 B 9 St./East Pine St. , . ,,, _ SB 0.15 35.8 E BB: eastbound, SB: southbound TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Proposed Development Plans The proposed site plan, shown in Figure 5, calls for removing the existing uses in the block bounded by East. Pine Street, lOs' Street, IvIanzanita Street, and 9'~ Street, to be replaced by a 13,328-squaze-foot Rite Aid pharmacy. Under the proposed site plan, 9ei Street is proposed to be vacated in the block between East Pine Street and Manzanita Street. Access to land uses on the west side of 9a' Street that currently use the public street will be granted cross-access easement rights through the Rite Aid site. Access to Rite Aid was evaluated at three locations: • a full access at the East Pine Street/9a' Street intersection; • a full access at the Manzanita Street/9's Street intersection; and • aright-in, right-out access on 10"' Street approximately 150 feet north of East Pine Street. Trip Generation Estimates of weekday p.m. peak hour and daily trip ends for the .proposed Rite Aid were developed from empirical observations at other similaz developments. These observations are summarized in the standard reference manual, Trip Generation, 6s' Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Reference 3). The trips generated by the site can be divided into two groups: • Pass-by trips represent vehicle trips into the site that are already on the adjacent street system (East Pine Street in this case). These trips do not represent added traffic on the street system, but do impact corning movements at site driveways. Kiltelson do Associates, /nc. Page 9 020 ~ 0 ` 1 NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) ~~iN A~ /lA !l. M ~ ~- w a~M N. 1 a~-.. P _~ . .., _L ~~ I /~ ! .~ .I~ ~ _ y ~~~m.en ev w.c ~` gbi'~~u~alryYm~ q artwcwan ~ it ~ pan 9~wrasva~w~rwirta~ 41Y f44~[0u111M ~041Na1P Y~~ PROPOSED SITE PLAN RITE-AID FIG E I ~ I V !1 ~) i Central Point Rite Aid Menwrandum April S, 1999 Transportation /mpact Analysis + New trips reflect those vehicle trips attracted solely by the development. These are the trips that aze added to the system traffic as a result of the development. An overall pass-by rate of 30% was used as a conservative estimate of pass-by trips for a retail use such as this. These trips were taken from East Pine Street and were split in proportion to the existing weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes in each direction on East Pine Street. Table 4 presents the trip generation estimate for this site. Table 4. Estimated Trip Generation ITE Size Daily Weekda P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Code s . ft. Tri s In Out Total Dru store/Pharmac w/DriveThru :881 13,328 1,175 70 70 140 Pass-b Trl s (30% (355) 20 (20) (40) NET NEW TRII'S 820 50 50 100 Trip Distribution The distribution of site-generated trips onto the study area roadway. system was determined through a review of existing traffic patterns, expected market areas,. and discussion with City staff. Figure 6 shows the estimated trip distribution pattern for the site. The pattern indicates that 10% of site trips aze expected o come- from east of I-5, with the. remaining trips split evenly between north, south, and west of the site.'The site-generated trips, were assigned based on this . distribution and are shown in Figure 7. Once again, all volumes have been rounded to the.neazest five vehicles. Level of Service Analysis Total traffic volumes for the yeaz 2000 weekday p.m. peak. hour were developed by adding the site-generated volumes shown in Figure 7 to the yeaz 2000 background traffic volumes shown in Figure 6. In addition, existing traffic volumes to and from 9s' Street at East Pine Street were halved, to reflect the loss of some existing site trips as a result of the redevelopment of the site. The resulting total traffic volumes are shown in Figure 8, with all volumes rounded to the nearest five vehicles. Table 5 presents the level of service results for total traffic conditions. Table 5. Year 2000 Total Traffic Conditions-Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Si nalized Unsi nalized Intersection v/c Ratio Average Stopped Dela sedveh Critical Movement v/c Average Total Ratio Dela sedveh LOS 10'" St: Freeman RdJ East Pine St. 0.64 26.8 D 10 St./East Drivewa BB 0.03 3.9 A 10 St./Manzanita S[. BB 0.23 8.1 B 9 St./Bast Pine St. SB LT 0.14 59.0 F HB: eastbound, SB LT: southbound left-tum Kinelson & Associates, /nc. n n ~ Page 11 J ~ ,J ,G ~, NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) 5 io $~ ~O9 0 1^ P~ i ~P~~~~ rn ~i~ Jlo o Q\~F' ~0 ~ w ESTIMATED SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION RITE-AID CENTRAL. POINT OREGON FIGURE G p K APRIL 1999 CJ uu1 023 NOTE.• NEGATIVE VOLUMES RESULT fROM PASS-BY TRIPS SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR AIO FIGURE L POINT OREGON CENTR 7 ~a APRIL 1999 5R5L~~ n ...__ NORTH .. _. .NORTH NOTf.• NfCA1lVf VOLUMES RESULT FROM PASS-8Y IRIPS 2000 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR RITE•~AID CENTRAL POINT OREGON FIGURE O p a APRIL 1999 CJ ~ J ~ _ ~ J Central Point Rite Aid Memorandum April S, (999 Transportatiai Impact Analysis Table. 5 shows that all study area intersections will meet Jackson County level of service standards under year 2000 total traffic conditions during the weekday p.m, peak hour, except for traffic exiting the site using the driveway opposite 9'h Street. The level of service for this movement drops from "E" to "F". This is not particularly reflective of a worsening of conditions, but rather the fact that the southbound approach is being widened under the proposed site plan to provide separate left-turn and right-through lanes. Under background conditions, with asingle- lane approach, the high-delay left-turn movement is averaged with the low-delay, higher-volume right-turn movement. Under total traffic conditions, the separate left-turn lane becomes the critical movement and the operations appear to significantly worsen. In actuality, left-turn delay increases by only about 5 seconds from background to total traffic conditions and- the movement's capacity actually increases slightly. Since adequate capacity is provided, and motorists have an alternate route to exit the site onto l0ei Street, and from there can make a protected left-turn at the traffic signal at East Pine Street, the LOS "F" condition at the 9's Street driveway should not be considered a problem. Section E of the Technical Appendix contains the traffic analysis worksheets for total traffic conditions. ' Queuing Analysis To determine the left-turn lane storage requirements on the southbound lOs' Street approach to East Pine Street following the development of the site, and to determine whether queues would block aright-in, right-out driveway serving the site on 10'h Street north of East Pine Street, a vehicle queuing analysis was conducted. In the analysis, a Poisson distribution was applied at a 95% confidence interval to determine .vehicle. queue ength probabilities. (Jn other words, vehicles were assumed to arrive randomly and the queues reported will not be exceeded for more than 5% of traffic signal cycles occurring during the weekday p.m. peak hour.) One vehicle was assumed to occupy 25 feet. The assumed length-of-red interval for the signalized intersection was taken from the signal timing pazameters used in the LOS calculations. The queuing analysis found that the 95s'-percentile queue for both the southbound left-turn and through-right lanes on the southbound l0a' Street approach is 225 feet under yeaz 2000 total traffic conditions. To provide sufficient storage to accommodate a `95`"-percentile queue, the southbound left-turn lane would have to be constmcted almost to Manzanita Street. An average (SOa'-percentile queue) would extend 125 feet. The location proposed on the site plan for the right-in, right-out access on l0ei Street would be blocked by queues during portions of 35% of peak-hour traffic signal cycles. Section F of the Technical Appendix contains the queuing worksheets. During the times that the site driveway is blocked, vehicles exiting the site could queue back into the pazking lot, temporarily impairing circulation around the building to the drive-through lane. htcreased conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians within the site could also occur, given the proximity of the Rite Aid store entrance to this driveway location. If left turns into the site were allowed at this driVew~y, the left turns could also be blocked frequently by southbound queues, which in turn could cause northbound queues to spill. back into the l0e' Street-Freeman Road/East Pine Street intersection. For this reason, left-turn access into the site from northbound 10's Street is not recommended at this location. u' o. Kiuelson &Associates, Inc. Page IS - 026 Central. Point Rite Aid Memorandum April S, 1999 Transportatiai tmpactAnalysis Right-Turn Lane Analysis The long-term need for a southbound right-tum lane on 10'h Street at East Pine Street was also investigated. As with the background conditions analysis, population forecasts were used to estimate future growth in the. area served by l0'h Street through the. year 2015. These forecasts indicate that the two residential subdivisions accounted for under background traffic will account for the majority of the growth expected to occur north of the site, and that other undeveloped lands will contribute relatively minor additional amounts of traffic. Based on these forecasts, it is estimated that year 2015 southbound weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes on lOs' Street will be 26% higher than present, resulting in about 25 peak-hour southbound right-fuming vehicles. Rite Aid traffic will not add significantly to these right-tum volumes. The total volumes are too low to warrant a sepazate right-turn lane. CONCLUSIONS This analysis results in the following findings: • The proposed development will generate approximately 1,175 daily trips, of which 820 trips represent new trips on the area's street system. Weekday p.m. peak hour trip generation will be approximately 140 trips, of which 100 trips are new on the azea's street system. • With the proposed development, all intersections other than the 9'h Street/East Pine Street will meet Jackson County's level of service standards. The southbound left-tum from Rite Aid onto East Pine Street at 9ei Street will operate at LOS "F", but with sufficient capacity to accommodate demand. As alternative access to a signal via 10"' Street will be provided to motorists, this level of service condition should not pose a significant problem. • Aright-in, right-out driveway onto l0ei Street will be blocked during portions of 35% of weekday p.m. peak hour traffic signal cycles. During periods. of blockage, queues of exiting vehicles could extend into the Rite Aid parking lot and block circulation around the building to the drive-through lane. • Because of vehicle queuing issues, aleft-in access to the site from northbound l0ei Street is not recommended. • Although the accident rate at the lOs' Street-Freeman Road/East Pine Street intersection is not unusually high, accident patterns suggest a need to review eastbound traffic signal head visibility and northbound intersection advance signing and visibility, and possibly the need to increase police enforcement ofred-signal running. We trust that this memorandum adequately addresses the traffic-related issues related to this site. If you have any questions, please callus at (503) 228-5230. Klttelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16 c~ rt Otit ,J ,1 CentratPain( Rite Aid ~ Memoratdrinr April S, 1999 Transportation /mpdc(Analysis REFERENCES 1. Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (1994). 2: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Transportation Impact Study for tAe Central Point Commercial Center (1998). 3. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Sixth Edition (1997). Kittelson & Associates, lnc. Page /7 n2~ ~' BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY '.` `~~€: ~;~~~ 3915 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFORD, OREGON 97601-9099 • (641) 779-4144 • FA%(641) 635.5278 March 25, 1999 Ken Gerschler Planning Department City of Central Point 155 South Second Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: 99006 Rite Aid Commercial Project -Sewer Service Dear Ken, ~or~~~~~~~y~~ ~IIII MAR 2 9 1999 ~O~ We have reviewed the site proposal with regard to provision of sanitary sewer service. The proposed. structure shall be served off the 8 inch sewer main that flows Northerly in the 9'h Street Right-of--way to be vacated. We have not confinnedthe location of the existing service line connection points for buildings currently located on the site, however all existing service connections shall be properly abandoned as close as possible to the sewer main, and as soon as practicable to removal of the existing structures. The applicant should contact BCVSA for tap and permit information and fees. If you have any additional questions please call me at 779-4144. Sincer , ames may, Jr. P. . District Engineer ~`~~ Attachment, B CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for RITE AID DEVELOPMENT, 10r" AND PINE STREETS SITE PLAN REVIEW PW# 99006 Date:' April 27, 1999 Applicant: Hummelt Development Company 29911 SW Boones Ferry Road, Suite 3, Wilsonville, OR, 97070 Agent: John Hummelt, 29911 SW Boones Ferry Road, Suite 3, Wilsonville, OR, 97070 Property Owners: Morgan (T.L. 3500), Rehmer (T. L. 3600), Mete (T. L. 3700), Saxbury (heirs of estate, T.L. 3800), Blaska (T.L. 3900), Slaven (T.L. 4000), Krueger (T. L: 4001) Project: Rite Aid Store Location: Northwest Corner of 10'" and Pine Streets Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 02CC, Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, 4001 Zoning: C-4 Area:. 1.5 acres. Unit: Pharmacy Store and Garden Center consisting of 13,328 sf building with 1,429 sf garden center. Plans: 1 "Site Plan" dated Aprif 7, 1999 (received 4/14/99) prepared by Hummelt Development Company. 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 store. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. Special Requirements Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not 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. Utility/Public Infrastructure Easements: Suitable easements shall be provided for and dedicated to the respective utility/public infrastructure owners, for all utility and other public/private facility infrastructure within the former right-of-ways of the recently vacated portions of 9'h street and associated alleys that are now incorporated into the proposed development, and the portion of the former alley between 9"' and 81h Streets. 030 Rile Airl Developnu~al, I (Y° nnA Pixie Su'ee(e~ Si(e /'!an Review PN~D S(nfjRepav April 27, 1998 Pnge 2 Utility and Public Infrastructure: Any relocation, modification, removal, and/or upgrading of existing public or private infrastructure/utilities to accommodate the vacation of 9`h Street and the alleys between 8`h and 101h streets required for this proposed development, shall be performed at the expense of the Developer, as approved by the respective utility/infrastructure owner. 4. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access to All Existing Development. Access agreements or similar documents will need to be granted on the proposed Development's property to allow for public .and private vehicular and pedestrian access (ingress and egress) on and/or across the proposed Development's property to afford access to the existing development that is to remain, that normally had access off the vacated. portion of 9'h Street and the alley between 8`h and the former 9'h Street: The Developer will also need to provide an approved traffic circulation plan that indicates how access will be afforded to the neighboring development to the west of the Rite Aid Store location. 5. .Site Access. Rights-of-Wav. and Easements: The City is currently in the process of preparing a downtown revitalization plan (DRP), a transportation system plan (TSP), and a local street network plan (LSNP). One of the key elements of these plans iswhat traffic loads and needs will be required of the City's collector and arterial streets to accommodate the additional traffic loads and impacts that are the resultof the City's current growth rate (averaging 5 percent over the last 10 years) and anticipated future steady growth patterns. Pine Street is classified as a primary arterial type street. Currently the right-of-way is reportedly 100 feet (50-feet each side of centerline). 10'h Street, is currently classified as a secondary arterial street with a current 60 foot right-of-way width. Originally, the City PWD requested that the developer dedicate to the City an additional 14-feet of right-of-way along 10`h Street, to eventually create a total 88-foot right-of-way width. The submitted plan illustrates a proposed 66 to 66.5 foot right-of-way (36 to 36.5 feet from centerline). The Developer,has contracted with Kittelson & Associates, Inc.. (Kittelson) to prepare a traffic impact analysis (hereinafter referred to as the traffic study) which evaluates the total traffic loads and impacts in the year 2000 as the result of the projected traffic volume increases from the growth of the City and from the development of the Mountain View Plaza and proposed Rite Aid development projects. The traffic study, presented in a memorandum dated April 5, 1999, evaluated several key intersections in the vicinity of the proposed development. Results of the traffic study indicated that in the year 2000: ^ The intersection of Pine and 10'h/Freeman will reduce in level of service (LOS) from C to D (LOS D is the lowest level. of service that meets current Jackson County standards). ^ The proposed right-in/right-out driveway entrance onto 10th Street will be blocked by queuing traffic on the southbound portion of 10'h street during 35% of the weekday p.m. peak hour traffic signal cycles. To provide sufficient storage to accommodate a 95'h percentile queue, the southbound left-turn lane would have to constructed almost to Manzanita Street. During the times that the site driveway is blocked, vehicles exiting the site would queue back into the parking lot, temporarily impairing circulation around the building to the drive through lane. Increased conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians within the site could also occur, given the proximity of the Rite Aid store entrance to this driveway location. .. - 031 Xite Aid Uevelopu,ent, I (Y'' ned Pine Stree(s Si(e Plnn Review PNrD Staff 2eport April 27, 1998 Page 3 O The southbound left turn exit from Rite Aid at the former 9`h Street location, will operate at LOS "F", which is two levels below current Jackson County standards. ^ Based on expected traffic flows, a separate right-turn lane on the Southbound portion of the 10~'/Pine Street intersection is notwarranted: Current PWD standards require commercial driveways to be located a minimum of 200 feet from ah intersection (Drawing A-5). The proposed Pine Street entrance driveway is located 200 feet from the intersection of Pine and 10th Streets; the proposed Manzanita Street driveway is located approximately 200 feet from the intersection of Manzanita and 10th Streets; and the proposed 10"' Street driveway is located 135 feet from the intersection of 10`h and Pine Streets and 90 feet from the intersection of 10`h and Manzanita Streets. The Developer has indicated that a driveway access off of 10`h is required for the development. Originally, staff was initially willing to consider aright-in/right-out driveway at a mid block location on 10'" Street between Pine and Manzanita Streets (which would have resulted in distances to the two intersections that were significantly shorter than the minimum PWD standard). However in -light ofthe projected conflicts with queuing problems both internally on the Development, and on 10`".Street, the-PWD. is recommending that if this driveway is to remain, thatthe Developer be required to provide for dedication for expansion of the.right-of-way along 10'h Street to a minimum of 88-feet inwidth{44 feet on either side of centerline)to accommodate additional traffic lanes to >: address the queuing problem in the limited space available, and to provide for better egress from the site. The proposed plan would necessitate the removal of the current RVTD bus stop which is located at the southern end of the intersection of the vacated alley with 10`h Street, in the southbound direction. An additional "pocket" right-of-way dedication may be required from the Development to accommodate replacement' of the bus stop on either Manzanita or Pine Street, and to have the bus stop located outside the lanes (vehicle and bicycle) of traffic. The siting of a new bus stop locatioh shall be as approved by RVTD. ' Without any definition for the needs of Pine Street as the result of the street master planning/downtown revitalization work currently being performed, the determination of whether or not additional Pine Street right-of-way dedication is warranted from the proposed Development cannot be made of this time. However, in light of the existing right-of-way widths available, and the developed condition of the downtown Pine Street downtown corridor, additional right-of-way dedication along Pine Street (with the exception of the area at the intersection with 101h Street. 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 10~', Pine and Manzanita Streets rights-of way along the property's exterior frontage with these streets. 032 Rile Aid Developmen(, l(Yr' nnr( Pine S(ree(s Sile Ylar Review PIVD SmJf Repor( Apri! 27, ! 998 Pnge 4 5. Improvements to Pine Street. Pine Street is currently constructed as an urban road with 6 foot sidewalks along the. property's Pine Street Frontage between 9'h and 10'h Streets: If no additional street widening is warranted to accommodate projected future traffic needs, then the only improvements recommended to be required of the Development are as follows: ^ Installation of a street light (similar to the street lights installed by the City on Pine Street) at the eastern. side of the proposed Pine Street driveway; ^ Installation of a new portion of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway apron to be constructed across the frontage of Pine Street to remove the existing street entrance and curb radiuses at g1h street; ^ Reconstruction of the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and wheelchair access ramps on the northwest corner of the intersection of Pine and 10`h Streets; ^ Restriping of the crosswalks intersecting northeast corner of the intersection of Pine and 10'h Streets to reflect installation of the City's required wheel chair access ramps on this corner; and ^ Relocation of the traffic signal standard to accommodate the curb, gutter, wheelchair ramp ,,,_,, reconstruction work onthe northeast corner of the intersection of Pine and 10`h Streets. 6:c __:-, Improvements to 10'" Street. The Developer should be required to design and construct all necessary improvements to 10th Street prior to issuance. of a certificate of occupancy. These improvements include, but are. not limited to, street section widening and regrading (tq accommodate the additional lanes required), curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveway approaches and aprons, wheelchair ramps, bike lanes/ways, street lighting, storm,drainage, and traffic, control and delineation,. extending from Pine Street to the north side of the intersection with Manzanita Street, which shall be coordinated and approved by the JC Roads and the City PWD, and designed and constructed at the expense of the Developer as part of theproposed Development. ThePWD proposed street section for 10`h Street between Manzanita and-Pine. Streets has acurb-to-curb width of 58 feet. Sidewalks will need to be 6-feet in total width. Improvements to Manzanita Street: The Developer should be required to design and construct all necessary improvements to Manzanita Street... These improvements include, but are not limited to sidewalks, driveway approaches and aprons, curb and gutter reconstruction,. wheelchair ramps, street lighting, storm drainage, and traffic control and delineation, which shall be coordinated and approved by the City PWD, and designed and constructed at the expense of the .:Developer as part of the proposed Development. In light of the relatively poor condition of Manzanita Street, and the lack of current master plans for the development of Manzanita,street (as to be provided in the TSP, LSNP and DRP), the PWD is proposing that the improvements on Manzanita (excluding the driveway removal/ reinstallatign work illustrated on the site plan) be deferred until such time as Manzanita Street is improved. If any or all of the improvements are to be deferred. to a later date, then the Developer will be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement,agreement with the City for the developmenUimprovement of the street appurtenances (i.e. sidewalks, curb, gutter,. street lights, 033 Ri(a Aid Develupmen(, IIY~' aid Pine Sa~ee(s Si(e Plan Review l'IVD S(aJJ~Reporf April 17, 1998 Page 5 storm drainage, etc.) along the development's frontage with Manzanita, as required by the conditional approval of the Development and as approved by the City PWD. 8. Site Drainape/Storm Drain Plan: The developershall design and implement a site drainage/storm drain plan that corrects and enhances existing site drainage for the entire property noted on the site plan. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of- way, or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. The storm drainage infrastructure will be privately operated and maintained. During the'design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system (SD System), which provides for 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, allowances, or provisions have been made (and approval of the applicable properties owners and regulatory agencies has been obtained), which accommodate any additional flow which exceed predevelopment flows. The Developer and the City PWD shall agree on the applicable run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc., to be used in the engineering calculations. Developer's engineer shall provide a site drainage plan with the facilities being designed, at a minimum, to accommodate a 10 year storm event: 'the SD ystem must be designed to adequatelydrain the 10-year storm event withoutsurcharging or must be provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to not impact existing private or public storm drainagefacilities. Anyprivate storm drain system exceeding 3-inches in diametet shall be desighed to'directlycdnnectto the public-storm drain system (at a'manhole or curb inlet only), and shall not be designed to discharge to the street surfaces. The potential retention of storm water run-off shall be coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide arr aesthetically pleasing, efficient, non-hazardous, and low maintenance facility. If applicable; the storm water retentiorrfacilities shall be suitably landscaped; designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and hydrocarbon deposition; and to mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these facilities. Catch basins, curb inlets, and area drains shall be designed for sediment and petroleum hydrocarbon retention. 9. Domestic Water Service and Fire Protection: There is an existing fire hydrant on Manzanita Street. The requirement fior the Developer to install any additional Fire Hydrants or services (including additional water lines and appurtenances) will be at the discretion of Fire District No. 3 and shall be implemented at the expense of the Developer in accordance with City PWD requirements.' The size of thewater meter and service lateral to"the Development will be jointly determined by the"Developer, and the City PWD and Building Department. The costs for the installation of the service lateral and water meter(s) will be at the expense of the Developer, with work to be performed by the City PWD. 10. Aboveground Utilities: If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power, U$ West; and Falcon (TCI) Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities within the proposed development to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the publiaimprovements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by and between the utility owners and 4he Developer. 034 I!i(e;lid Uevelopmeal, I(Y"nnd fine Sn'ee(s Si(e flan Revieo~ P17rD StaJf'Repor( ilpril 27. 1998 Page 6 11: Driveways, Access Roads. and Parking Areas: The driveways, access roads, and parking and turning areas on the proposed development must be designed and positioned in a manner that should accommodate the turning movements and access of any expected delivery trucks which service the store.. The Developer indicated that no "long-haul" (long wheel base) trucks will access the site. AS a minimum the site shall accommodate the turning movements and ingress/egress access of an AASHTO single unit truck and the Fire District's requirements. All driveways, access roads, and parking areas should either have asphalt or cement concrete surfaces. General 4 Development Plans: Developer shall submit to the City's PWD for review and approval, plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or modifications within the City or public rights-of-way and easements or for connections to City infrastructure. Public improvements include, but are not limited to, streets (including sidewalks, curbs and gutters and landscape buffers); storm drainage and sanitary sewer collection and conveyance systems; water distribution system (up to the service meter and including fire protection); street lighting; and traffic control devices, street signs, and delineation. All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for,the proposed developmeht. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to installation. 2, Approvals: Fire District No. 3 (fire hydrant placement, waterline sizing, and emergency vehicle access), Bear. Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA, for sanitary sewers), City of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (commercial/industrial wastewater discharge permit) and Jackson County Roads and Park Services (Grant and Taylor Road improvements and driveway/access road connections) written approval of construction plans shall be submitted to the City PWD prior to final construction plan review and approval by City PWD. 3. As-Builts: Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the Developer's engineer or surveyor should.provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form (produced on Myla~) and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD®, or other form as approved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet; street light locations; other below grade utility lines; etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy (oh Mylar®), or• an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD® compatible drawing electronic file 035 Rite rl id Developnien(, l(Y'' and Pine Streets Site Plnn Review l'WD SmfjRepor( ~Ipril 27, 1998 Page 7 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 orhis designee. 4. Elevations: All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. Af least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer's surveyor. 5. Existing Infrastructure: As applicable, field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed development will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submittal for final approval. The 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. 6. Fill P/acement: All fill placed ih the development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in accordance with City PWD and Building Department standards, except for the upper 1.5-feet of fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does not underlie building, structures; or traveled vehicular access ways or parking areas. 7. Road/Driveway/Parkinu Areas: The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine'the access road, parking, and driveway section designs to handle the expected .Toads (including fire equipment) to be 4raveledronthese private driveways, access roads, and parking areas. Need to provide section for review. The driveways, access roads, and truck parking and turning areas on the proposed development must be designed and positioned in a masher that will accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO Single Unit Truck, without crossing into an opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic. 8. Utility Plans: The utility plans shall be drawn to scale with accurate horizontal and vertical depiction of utility lines and appurtenances (transformers, valves, etc.). 9. Area Lighting Plan: Need to provide and implement an adequate area lighting plan for parking and public access areas, including the driveway entrances. 10. ClearVision Areas: Sight vision triangles, meeting the City PWD's standards, shall be maintained at the driveway entrances and road intersections associated with the subject property. The construction drawings shall include clear vision areas (i.e. sight triangles) at driveway entrances and at the intersection of Pine and Tenth Streets and Manzanita and 10~' Streets, designed to meet the City's PWD requirements. 11. Fire Hydrants: Provide locations of existing and any new required fire hydrants. Fire Hydrants need to be connected to 8-inch-diameter and larger lines, with the supply lines being "looped" as feasible. if applicable, steamer ports at hydrants located near the building shall face the buildings. Fire hydrants shall be suitably protected from potential vehicle damage and encroachment. 036 Rilc Aid Uevelopuu•n(, f (Y" and Pine SU•eels Si(e Plmr Revieir PWD StnjJReport April 27, 1998 Page 8 12. Water Svstem Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for cross connection control. If a pressurized irrigation system and/or domestic water wells exist on the property, the Developer will be required to install the required backflow prevention assemblies directly behind the City's water meters. 13. Water System: Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and location of all water mains, hydrants, valves, service connection, meter, service laterals, and other appurtenance details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD. 14. Storm Drain Svstem Desic,,Ln: Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this development plan, the Developer's engineer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the site storm drain system. The engineer shall use the rainfall/intensity curve obtained from the City PWD for hydrologic calculations, and the negotiated run-off parameters. 15. Roof/Area Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the public storm drain system. 16... Grading Plans: 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. 17: " Overhead Power Lines: If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US West, and TCI Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities within or adjoining the proposed development to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer. 18. Street Section: The City's engineering staff or selected engineering consultant (at Developer's expense), shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the minimum street section designs for 10"', Manzanita, and Pine Streets, as applicable, in accordance with the City PWD Standards. 0 3'7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: May 4, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Request to modify conditions of approval for East Cherry Estates pad lot subdivision, specifically arequin:mentto convert overhead electrical powerto underground facilities. Applicant/ Victor & Daniel Kosmatka Owner: 3094 Wells Fargo Road Central Point, OR 97502 Pro er Description/ 37 2W 02BC Tax Lot 603 - 0.82 acres Zoning: R-3, Residential Multiple-Family Summary The applicants have requested that the City reconsider the public works special requirement to convert any overhead electrical power . .within the proposed development (as a minimum, the infrastructure on PPL pole no. B31544 and B31545) to underground facilities ... The conversion ofthepole closestto an existinghome (1105 Cherry Street) would necessitate rewiringthathome's service panel to receive electrical power from below rather than from the existing service drop. Authority CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any request for an amendment to a previously approved condition of approval. Notice ofthe public hearing was given in accordance with-CPMC 1.24.060. (Attachment'B). Applicable Law CPMC 16.10.090 et seq.- Conditions for Tentative Plan Approval CPMC 17.28.010 et seq.- R-3 Residential Multiple-Family District Central Point Public Works Standards and Specifications 038 lliscussimr The Planning Commission conditionally approved the tentative plan for East Cherry Estates in December 1998 and the developer has been working on improvement plans since then. The feasibility of under grounding all electrical power arose during the applicant's conversations with PP&L. The Commission can consider the below listed findings when considering this request. Since only one issue has been raised and noticed for this public hearing, the applicants will be expected to adhere to all other conditions of approval. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law The specific condition for converting overhead electrical power to underground facilities given under CPMC 16.10.090 are deemed necessary in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare. Furthermore, the improvements are reasonably related to the development and would serve a public purpose such as mitigating negative impacts of the proposed development. The Commission must determine whetherthis finding can be made. According to the Public Works Staff Report (Attachment C), the applicant was to coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light (PPL), US West, and TCI Cable ... to underground facilities and remove. existing power poles prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the pubic improvements associated with the proposed development. Upon further investigationanddiscussionwithPP&Lstaff,the applicant discovered thatthe service drop from one ofthe two electrical power poles supplying power to an existing dwelling would have to be reconfigured at the dwelling ifpower were under grounded. It is staffls understanding that the owner ofthe existing dwelling does notwant his service drop reconfigured which takes the issue out of the control of the Kosmatkas. 2. This request involves the amendment of a condition to East Cherry Estates subdivision tentative plan approval. The request is not limited to East Cherry Estates but involves other property not in the immediate control of the developer. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt ResolutionNo.~ amending Planning Commission ResolutionNo. 436 whichconditionally approved a Tentative Plan for East Cherry Estates, based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the request to amend Tentative Plan conditions; or 3. Continue the review of the requested amendment at the discretion of the Commission. 039 „ d Attachments A. Exhibits submitted by the applicant B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Public Works Staff Report dated December 8, 1998 r:;, .:. 040 'N T a s ~ U o -~ `~ M / g~/ ' / ~ "/ A t~~ * \~ ti / ~ r~ g e r.~~ g ~i F ~ ~IKI-~~ N s ~ '° N + h Vl / A 3~ _ / gi ~+ J s RS ~~~ K 0 ~b ~ K o o y °' ~ E UU ~ N ~- ~ Y K N ~ n /1 ~ v a . €i a° ~ g °' ~- p ~ h'5 6' ~ qo ~Q Z~Y 4lS 2Z~~ ~ J Of n G ~ i ay. fUUET ~~C ~aJ] A + N ~~_ ~ ~~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ / ~ R 4 „* i ' F Vi x ~~ j I " n~` S$ .. i, Attachment A / x ~ y5 5 s \ / ~m~ ~. ~ ~ / / ~~ ~ i «'~' / s„ ~ i N r ~/ g+ ~/ ~ [zz[ sp ~~~0 < QQ 00000 ^d 1 /\ a °d- w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~$ ~~ \~~' \~/ ~ ~ ~4 ~~ ~~ a s r~~\ T ~ \ ~ ~ \~ >r yt4i i 041 City of Central Point Attachment B PLANIVXNG DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director - ' Ken Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory Administrative(Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: Apri116,1999 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NA'1'ilRF OF MEETING May 2, 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 a request to modify a condition of approval for the tentatively approved East Cherry Street Subdivision. The proposed subdivision is located in the vicinity of Cherry and North Tenth Streets in an R-3, Residential Multiple Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W02BC, Tax Lot 603. 'The applicant would like the Planning Commission to consider the modification of a condition that requires all overhead utilities to be undergrounded. The requirements for Tentative Subdivisions are set forth in Chapter 16 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to conditions on tentative plan approval. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works. Standards. PL7BLIC COMMENTS i. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 4, 1999. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 042 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the' expiration ofthe comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies ofall evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will reviewthe applicatior~~ 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 request to modify the conditions of approval for the Tentative Subdivision. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. SUBJECT PROPERTY 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 f14:~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Attachment C DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for East Cherry Estates (A Padlot Development) PW#98073 Date: 12/08/98 Applicant: _ Victor and Daniel Kosmatka c/o ~ctorkosmatka. 3094 Wells Fargo Road, Central Poinf, Oregon 97502 Project: Padlot Subdivision Location: Northeast of Intersectioh of 10"and Cherry Streets. Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 2BC, Tax Lot 603 Zoning: R-3 Lots: 8 total (no phases proposed) Units: 8,Single Family Residential - Padlot Plans: East Cherry Estates (Tentative, A Padlot Development] ifaiser Surveying, revised 8-3-98 Report By: Lee 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 residential subdivision. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. Special Requirements Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that ail connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not intertere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilties, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have eflher 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 byand 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 ihvotved. 2. Cherry Sfreef Imnrovements: In review of City files, there are no as-built drawings reflecting the Improvements installed on Cherry Street. The current alignment of Cherry Street and the location of infrastructure (in particular the sanitary sewer line) may require additional dedication of easements and right-of-way to match the existing conditions and to incorporate the existing infrastructure. We are recommending that the Developer be required to provide construction plans and make any applicable modification to the plat which reflect the as-built conditions. 3. Wafer and Sewer Laterals: There are only two existing water service laterals identified. The remaining six lots will require additional water service lateral connections to the mainline, which will likely require street excavation.. As discussed above, the City does not have any record of the sewer lateral installations. Sewer lateral wnnections to lots 6, 7, and 8 will likely require excavation work in the street. The City PWD is therefore recommending that the Developer be required to provide a suitable asphalt concrete. (Type C mix) overlay of the northern half of Cherry street once all excavation work and street .patching work is completed. 4. Overhead Elec[ricah Telenhone and Cable Lines: Coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US West, and TCI Cable, to con4ett any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities wfthin the 044 Trnl,tlive Ivan T7u//~Keport lhrrmbpr ,C. l99$ /~a•~f , proposed development (as a minimum, the infrastructure on PPL pole no. 631544 and 831545) to underground facilities, and femoval of the existing utility poles prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer. 5. Lot Drainage: The existing topography indicates that the proposed lots have surface drainage which drain the lot from the street to the back of the lots. It also appears that the existing surface water drainage from tax lots 400, 500, and 501 drain to the northern portions of lots 1 through 6, with a general depression in the area of lot 6. The surface drainage from the proposed lots must not drain across another lot, and the existing drainage problem shall be addressed. Any discharge of accumulated waters onto adjoining tax lots must be approved by the affected tax lot owners, prior to construction. A suggestion may include the incorporation of a private storm drain system (i.e french drain) that collects the surface water in these area, and conveys the water via an underground pipe to the City's storm drain system. 6. Ufiiity Easemenfs: A 10-foot wide P.U.E. should be required on the north side of the Cherry Street right-of-way, on Lots 1 through 8. General 1. All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developershall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to implementation. 2. Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals, and conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to (as applicable), Fire District No. 3, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEO), Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), U.S: Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), affected irrigation districts, and JC Roads. 3. Prior to approval and acceptance df 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 Mylarq 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~, oran approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible; an acceptable AutoCAD® compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public,infrastructure facilities completed as part df the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. 4. All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. At .least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of which shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer. 045 ) r ~ /„ ,,, r ,,.,,, , l'rm,lnv,' l'l, u. `I, NI Kr/a,n /'tl~,' . 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. 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 infrastructu~e'shall be aligned a minimum of five (5) feet from the edge of the easement: If two or more City owned utilities are located within ah easement, then a minimum of 20-foot width should be required. Easemenfdedications 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 fiydraht placement, and water system improvementplans forthe proposed development: ' ^ The plans relating to the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the appropriate signature blocks should be completed on the plans. 8. =- Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, top of banks, ditch/channel inverts, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed development's infrastructure will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submittal for final approval. 9. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall be accurately portrayed' (both horizontally and vertically) on the construction plans and as-built drawings. 10. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a drawing of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Myla~ and in an acceptable electronic form in AutoCAD® format. The Final Plat shall be tied to a legal Government corner and the State Plane Coordinate System. The Final Plat shall either reflect or be later modified to reflect any applicable "red-line" changes noted in the construction "as-builts", at the discretion of the City Administrator or his designee. 11. Roof drains and uncierdrains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain lines, and shalt drain either to an on-site private storm drain system or discharge at the curb face. 12. Storm drain pipe materials within the City's rights-of-way or easements shall be PVC, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with water-tight joints meeting the requirements of ASTM D3212, F477, and C-443M, as applicable. Provide concrete (in areas within the rights-of-way) or sand-cement slurry (in areas outside the rights-of-way) encasement where required in areas of minimum cover. 13. As applicable, Developer's engineer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations and flow line plots for private and public storm drains. Plot HGL on profile or provide a separate profile drawing that indicates the HGL on the profile. Pipes should maintain cleansing velocity (minimum 2.0 feet per second) and have adequate capacities without surcharging during the design storm. 14. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. 046 / t-L,vn /.L n,'~ frnl,rnrr l'ldn \htll Ifr/" .u l'ril',' a 15. All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System)., design,,construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEO, 1990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. 16; The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of ester and sanitary sewer service laterals. 17. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary approval, will forward the plans to BCVSA for completion of the review process. Upon completion of the review by BCVSA, completign of final revisions to the plans by the Developer's engineer, and following the final approval and signature on the construction plans by BCVSA, the Public Works Director will approve the plans in final form. 18. All testing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be done in accordance with BCVSA requirements, at Developer's expense. The Developer shall provide BCVSA and the City with test reports, TV reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance. 19. Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for backflow prevention. 20. Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. 21.: All structures shall have roof drains,-area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. 23. Provida Citywith a:utility plan approved by each utility company which reflects all utility line locations, crossings,. transformer locations, valves, etc. 24. Utility locations must be accurately included on the as-built drawings, or as a separate set of drawings attached to the as-built drawings. 0 4'7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 4, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Withdrawal of Annexation Territory from Jackson County Rural Fire Protection District #3 (Church ofJesus Christ ofLatter Day Saints Annexation). Summary On Apri18,1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 848 ordering the annexation of 8.23 acres located on the southeast corner of Taylor and Grant Roads. The azea is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for residential uses, however the LDS Church developed areligious facility on the property several years ago and would like to add a temple to the overall campus development. Authority The Central Point Municipal Code (Section 1.24.020) vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review and make recommendations tothe City Council on withdrawals from special districts. Discussion UpontherecommendationofthePlanning Conunission,the City Council will holdapublichearing on the proposed withdrawal and consider adopting an ordinance declaring that the territory within the annexation azea be withdrawn from Jackson County Rural Fire Protection District No. 3. Coincidentally, Fire DistrictNo. 3 is now providing fire protection to the annexed territory under its current contract for services with the City. As a condition to annexation the church will loop water lines in Taylor Road with those in the Mitchell's Landing subdivision (to the south). Water line looping will aid fire suppression by replacing private wells and adding new fire hydrants. Recommendation Staffrecommends thatthe Planning Commission recommendthatthe City Council withdrawthe subject annexation azea from Jackson County Rural Fire Protection District No. 3. 048 Attachments A. City Council Resolution No. 848, Zoning and Annexation Area Maps 049 RESOLUTION NO B`la A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE ANNEXATION OF AN 8.23-ACRE PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TAYLOR AND GRANT ROADS INTO THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON (Applicant: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) (37 2W l OBB Tax Lot 300) Attachment A BE Tf RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Written and irrevocable consent has been given by the owner of certain real property for annexation into the City of Central Point, Oregon. The property consists of 8.23 acres located north and west of the city limits, on the southeast corner ofTaylor and Grant Roads. The property to be annexed is more particulazly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. Section 2. The property to be annexed in not within the City of Central Point's current corporate boundaries, but is contiguous to the City's existing corporate boundary on its northern and western boundaries and is within the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary. Section 3. The owner ofthe property proposed for annexation is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who has given its written and irrevocable consent to the annexationthrough a Consent to Annexation Agreement dated February 13,1996. This written consent is on file at Central Point City Hall, 155 S. Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. There are no electors residing on the property. Section 4. ORS 222.125 provides that when all of the owners of land in the territory proposed for annexation and not less than 50% of the electors residing in such territory have consented in writing to the annexationofthe land intheterritory andfile suchwrittenconse~twiththe City Council, the territory may be annexed without the requirements for notice, public hearing or election. Section 5. AnnexationofthedescribedpropertyisconsistentwiththeCity'sabilitytoprovide urban facilities and services to the real property, as required by the City's Comprehensive Plan. Section 6. Pursuantto ORS 222.125, the property described in Section 1 above shall be, and hereby is, annexed to and made a part of the City of Central Point, Oregon. Section 7. The City Administrator, or his designee, shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the Oregon Secretary of State, and this annexation shall be effective when filed with the Oregon Secretary of State pursuant to ORS 222.180. ~~~ ,, Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 8~ day of C~c'. ~___, 1999. Mayor Bill Walton ATTES City Representative APPROVED by me this ~~ day of QPc ~ ~ , 1999. Mayor Bill Walton 051 Attachment A Commencing at the north~~~est corner of Donation Land Claim No. 53 in'l~o~anship 37 South, Range West of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon, thence South 004'20" West 495.80 feet (record South 495.72 feet) to the tnie point of beginning; thence continue South 004'20" West 153.00 feet to a point (from which the brass disc found set in concrete for the initial point of WEST PINE VILLA SUBDIVISION (Recorded) beazs South 004'20" West 268.93 feet); thence West along the north boundary of tract described in deed recorded as No. 75-17558 of the Official Records of said County, 691.16 feet to the easterly right-of--way of Grant (County) Road; thence West 30 feet to the centerline of Grant Road; thence along said centerline, North 208' 10" East 647.14 feet to the centerline of Taylor (County) Road; thence along said centerline, North 8949' 15" East 467.70 feet; thence South 30 feet to a 5/8" iron pin found set for the northwest comer of tract described in Volume 570 Page 482 of the Deed Records of said County, thence South 0~ 10'45" East 40.00 feet to the southwest corner of said tract; thence North 8949'15" East 22.00 feet to the southeast corner of said tract; thence North 0~ 10'45" West 40.00 feet to the northeast corner of said tract; thence North 30.00 feet; thence along the said centerline of Taylor (County) Road, North 8949' 15" East 33.61 feet; thence South 30 feet to a 3/4" iron bolt found set for the northwest corner of tract described in Volume 427 Deeds page 130; thence along the west boundary of said tract, South 80.00 feet; thence along the northwesterly boundary of said tract, South 2445' West 80.00 feet; thence along the southwesterly boundary of said tract, South 3342'30" East 375.78 feet (Record 376.90 feet) to the true point of beginning. 0~2 ~ Iroz-aa'-wt urei y ~ ' GRANT .ROAD S ~ r e y ~ _ ~ F-C ~ p ~ ~ a O i ; ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ 1--3 ~ O ~ O ~ ^' ~ H O y ~ ~ ~ y .o' so' ,~-~o-~ O ~$ ~ >too-ir m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ A O ~ ~' l00-OC-tr7 16Y !W-OC-LJ7 ~06A0' ~~ ~~ 053 a~ 0 0 0 N O O O r O O O O c- ~~ VI d ~~ o a~~~ v fT~f~~~1 05~: Qo1NT y ~~~.. ~, ': ~a ~ ~~ U t; F+~ 11~ ~ ~, , PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: May 4, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing-Site Plan for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints located on 37 2W IOBB, Tax Lot 400. Apulicant/ Loren Ritchie; Physical Facilities Representative Owner: 2925 Ross Lane Medford, OR 97501 Agent: Daniel Park, Architect 6180 Shady Brook Drive Central Point, OR 97502 Pro e Description/ 37 2VJ l OBB Tax Lot 400 - 8.23 acres Zonine: 12-1-10, Residential Single-Family Summary The applicants have submitted aprelimitiary site plan for church expansion involving the construction of a 10,700 squarefoottemple. Thetempleandassociatedlandscapingandparltingwouldtaketheplaceof land currently used for parking and church recreation. Authori CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for site plan review: Notice ofthe public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Attachment B). Aonlicable Law CPMC 17.20.010 et seq.- R-1 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 055 r. Discussion The LDS Church has occupied the property on the southeast corner of Taylor and Grant Roads for the past several years. The Mormons originally received planning and development approval from Jackson County for church construction and then for a subsequent building addition. The property was recently annexed to the City in an effort to expedite the church's most recent expansion plans, namely the addition ofa 10,700 square foot mini temple. The temple is the second such building inthe State and will serve LDS members within a geographic area ranging from Roseburg to Redding and Coos Bay to Klamath Falls. Regardless oftheir size temples generate traffic and, given the location oftheCentral Point/Medford facility, it is believed that a series of intersections and local roads will be affected by the new development (refer to Attachment D). The Haskell and Pine Street intersection is particularly congested at various times of the day and this will get worse with each new development in the northwest quadrant. Other developments are being proposed along Taylor Road and staff believes this is a good time for the City to initiate a traffic analysis west ofthe Highway (SR 99) and north of West Pine to evaluate cumulative impacts and propose improvements that can be fairly applied. Therefore, the Public Works Department is recommending that the LDS Church participate financially in the preparation ofan area traffic study and also in a fair share of resulting improvements. The Planning Department supports this recommendation and the City is prepared to proceed immediately without adversely affecting the churches plans,. Other transportation related improvements will include road improvements along the applicant's Taylor and Grant Road frontages. The church is actually interested in making these improvements rather than deferring them and the completion ofatraffic study overthe next fewmonths would enable staff to identify any additional right-of--way dedication and changes to the Grant/Taylor Road intersection. The applicants have followed the City's General Regulations, Off-Street Parking Requirements and other siteplan and constructioncriteriawhenpreparingthis proposal. The specifics of these applicable laws will be discussed further in the findings of fact and conclusions which follow. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Site Plan Review The municipal code provides. specific criteria for the review and conditional approval of site plans for development on appropriately zoned parcels of land within the City. The criteria are as follows:. A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction ofwalls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme ofthe neighborhood, and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the maintenance of existing plants or the iristallation ofnew ones for purposes of screening adjoining property. 056 „~ ,~, ^ The applicant has submitted planting and irrigation plans in addition to their site plan. The planting plan (included as Attachment A) depicts the generous distribution of an extensive list of shrubs, flowers and trees. It appears that the southern property boundary will be well screened. The site plan also depicts numerous planters in the parking lots and around the new building: 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; There are presently four driveways accessing the church property, three from Taylor Road and two from Grant Road. The applicant is proposing to eliminate one Grant Road access and make the other its main entrance to the new temple. The City would-like to see the Taylor Road driveway access nearest the intersection closed off to eliminate any turning movement conflicts and potential safety hazards. C: To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such a manneras is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The City has received a parking plan from the applicant as part of the site plan which depicts a total of 253 parking spaces, 8 ofwhich are handicapped. Design requirements in CPMC 17.64.100 call for paved, adequately drained parking areas for all-weather use; painted striping; lighting and the placement of bumper rails alot-g property lines, sidewalks and landscaping areas. Additionally, parking areas should not be created in special setback areas which in this case would be at the corner of Grant and Taylor Roads. The 25% compact car adjustmentwas not used. 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 of their buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ The applicants have identified various locations for signs on the site plan and will be required to take sign permits as a condition to plan approval. E. Accessibility and sufficiency office fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates,access toads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; ^ Jackson County Fire DistrictNumber3andtheCity'sBuildingDepartmentwillenforce State Fire and Building codes. The Fire District has determined that with the proposed water line improvements, there will be more than adequate water flow on-site and will workwith the development to ensure hydrants and other fire suppression meets state and local code. 057 _. , ,.. ,,.~ F; Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The proposed construction meets the minimum setback requirements for the R-1 District. There are general regulations governing special setbacks and landscaping (17.60.090 and 17.60.135 respectively). Special setbacks on secondary arterials are intended, among - other things, to permit eventual widening. The applicant will make full improvements along the entire length of the property's frontage depending on the outcome of traffic study recommendations. Engineering Standards and Specifications also call for adequate parking lot illumination which the applicant will provide. G: Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ^ The applicants have submitted buildingelevationsforthetemplewhicharetypicalofall their new and smaller temples. Site landscaping, parking improvements and new signs proposed by the applicants will enhance the project site and will present an attractive overall appearance. CPMC 17.60.070 grants general exception to heightlimitations set forth in this residential zoning district (35 feet) for church spires and domes. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take:one of the following actions; , 1. Adopt ResolutionNo.~ approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachments C & D); or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Application and Exhibits submitted by the applicant B. Notice. of Public Hearing C. Planning Department Conditions D. Public Works Staff Report dated Apri127, 1999 -.058 ~~ ® ~' a~ aaao ee~ ~ o o®oa aa® ~ o ® a~a o ® ~ ® _ ®~-- - ® °O°d ~ aa~ aeo a ® ~ a ® ~ Ig a ~ ® ~ ® ® ®® ~ a _ ® ~~ n - ~~ a ®- -° ~"_ - a 8L ~~ ~~7 ©~ o 0 0 ~0 ~ ~a r~ 060 ~~ ' ~ 2 a Y S a a o ~~ .. 061 1. 1'. m a `a 0 °I= `a o <~o ~ ~~ ^< ~6 D~ r_n ~ ~1 ~.~ 062 Clt~7 Of Central Point Attachment B PLANNXNG DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Community Planner Deanna. Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: Apri116,1999 Meeting Date: -Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING May 4, 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 consider the withdrawal of annexed land from Jackson County Fire District # 3 and review a Site Plan application thaf would allow the construction of a 11,000 square. foot temple behind the Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints at 2305 Taylor Road. The 8.23 acre parcel proposed for development is located in an R-1-10, Residential Single Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W10BB, Tax Lot 300, The Central Point Planning Commission will review the Site Plan application to determine whether all applicable provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter 17 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. PiJBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 4, 1999. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 nF~ 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment 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 [o the Planning. , Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For addifional 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 staffraports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear azgurrients 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 CommissionmayapproveordenytheSitePlan. CityregulationsprovidethattheCentralPoint City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. s e SUBJECT PROPERTY 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 nRil ATTACHMENT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on May 4, 1999 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public hearing within 30 days of Planning Commission approval. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Fire Code and Structural Specialty Code. 3. The applicant shall submit final parking, landscaping, lighting and sign plans to the Planning, Public Works and Building Departments for approval prior to obtaining any building permits. 4. The applicant shall participate financially in an area transportation analysis initiated by the City of Central Point to evaluate cumulative development impacts upon Grant and Taylor Roads and City intersections including, but not limitedto; Haskell and West Pine Streets; Grant and Taylor Roads; Grant and Beall Roads; and Grant and Scenic Roads: Furthermore, the applicant shall participate financially in the reasonable and applicable recommendations of a traffic analysis. 5. The applicants shall close the western-most Taylor Road access to the subject property to eliminate any turning movement conflicts and potential safety hazards. 065 Attachment D , CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for MEDFORD TEMPLE, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS PW# 99031 Date: April 27, 1999 Applicant: Loren Ritchie, Church Physical Facilities Representative 2925 Ross Lane, Medford, Oregon Agent: Daniel L Park, Architect, 6180 Shady Brook Drive, Central Point, OR. 97502 Owner: Church.. of Jesus Christ. of Latter-Day Saints 50 East North Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 Project: Medford Temple Location: Southeast Corner of Intersection of Grant and Taylor Roads Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 1066, Tax Lot 400 Zoning: R-1-10 Area: 8.23 acres... Unit: Religious gathering place consisting of 10,700 square feet. Plans: 1 "Site Plan" dated February 23, 1999 (received 4/01/99) prepared by Daniel Park and 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 design,and development of the proposed religious facility. Gather information from the. Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. Special Requirements Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not 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. Riahts-of-Wav and Easements: Grant and Taylor Road are designated as secondary arterial type streets. Developer should provide dedication for expansion of the right-of-way along Grant Road to a minimum of 80-feet in width (40-feet each side of centerline). Since the existing right-of- way width for Grant Road is 60 feet, the City will require a minimum of an additional 10-foot dedication for right-of-way along the Developer's property frontage with Grant Road. The Developer should also provide dedication for expansion of the right-of-way along Taylor Road to a minimum of 88-feet in width (44-feet each side of centerline). Since the existing right-of-way width for Taylor Road is 60 feet, the City will require a minimum of an additional 14-foot dedication for right-of-way along the Developer's property frontage with Taylor Road. 066 P I M14edford Temple, 77re Cluvch of Jesus Clu'is( a(La!(er-Dav Sninls Siie Plnn Review PVVD SmJj'Repav Ap~~il 27, 1998 Page 2 Additional right-of-way width on the proposed development's property may be required in the future in the vicinity of the intersection of Grant and Taylor Roads to accommodate the development of any needed extra turn lanes when this intersection is reconstructed to accommodate the planned development in this area. Buildings and other improvements should be set-back to accommodate this future need. 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 Grant and Taylor Road rights-of-way along the property's exterior frontage with these roads. 3. Traffic Studv: As previously discussed with the Developer's Agent, a traffic impact study will not be required separately for this development at this time. The City is working with the Developer and other developers/landowners in the northwest portion of the City to coordinate and develop a traffic analysis and impact study for the area based on projected development of the properties in this area. Therefore, it is the City PWD recommendation that the Developer should pay an allocated portion of the cost for preparation of this a traffic study and impact report. It is proposed that the allobatiori of cost would be based on the tax lot(s) size in ratio to the total area to be developed. It is anticipated that this report will need to be completed during the master planning '." work associated with the upcoming development planned for the property to the north of the ''subject development. 4. Improvements to Taylor Road: Taylor Road along the frontage of the subject tax lot is a rural road that does not meet City or County urban standards. The road will need to be improved, as a minimum, to meet City standards. The Developer will be responsible for, as a minimum, all "half- . street" improvements to Taylor Road along the proposed development's property frontage with Taylor Road, and anyapplicable taper or end sections. The improvements include, but are not limited to, street section, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bike lanes/ways, street lighting, storm drainage, and traffic control and delineation, which shall be coordinated and approved by the JC Roads and the City PWD, and designed and constructed at the expense of the Developer as part of the development of the proposed religious facility. The planned street section for Taylor Road will have acurb-to-curb width ranging from 60 to 72 feet. The actual paved street width required will be determined by the estimated traffic flows expected for the intersection presented in the traffic-study and impacf report to be completed for this area, and the road design determined by the City PWD. Sidewalks will need to be 6-feet in width. As discussed with the Developer's Agent, and as approved by the City Administrator and/or JC Roads, the City PWD is recommending that the Developer be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement for the required road improvements along Taylor Road, and that the improvements are not constructed at this time. Because of the lack of a traffic master plan for ' the Grant/Taylor Road intersection and adjoining roads, the actual street width and possibly other infrastructure improvement items associated with the improvement of Taylor Road are not known and cannot be effectively designed at this time. Therefore, the City PWD is recommending that the required improvements associated with Taylor Road for this development be deferred until a 0 6'7 MedjorA Temple, 7%re Gmrch ajJesus Cln'is( of Lnlter-0a_v Saiels Sile Plne Review PWD SmJj2epor( April 27, /998 Pnge 3 later date. If any or all of the improvements are to be deferred to a later date, then the Developer will be required. to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement with the City and/or Jackson County for the required road improvements. 5. Improvements to Grant Road: Grant Road along the frontage of the subject tax lot. is a rural road that does not meet City or County urban standards. The road will need to be improved, as a minimum, to meet City standards. The Developer will be responsible for, as a minimum, all "half- street" improvements to Grant Road along the proposed development's property frontage with Grant Road, and any applicable taper or end sections. The improvements include, but are not limited to, street section, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bike lanes/ways, street lighting, storm drainage, and traffic control and delineation, which shall be coordinated and approved by the JC .Roads and the City PWD, and. designed and constructed at the expense of the Developer as part of the development of the proposed religious facility. The planned street section for Grant Road will have acurb-to-curb width ranging from 56 to 62 feet. The actual paved street width required will be determined by the estimated traffic flows expected for the intersection presented in the traffic study traffic study and impact report to be completed for this area,. and the road design determined by the City PWD. Sidewalks will need to be 6-feet in width. As discussed with the Developer's Agent, and as approved by the City Administrator and/or JC Roads, the City PWD is recommending that the Developer not construct the required ..improvements at thistime; but that the Developer be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement for the.required road improvements along Grant Road (excluding some temporary street widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlight, storm drain improvements, and utility relocation work to be constructed from the connection to the Mitchell's Landing Subdivision to the south side of the proposed Development's driveway connection along Grant Road. Because of the lack of a traffic master plan for the Grant/Taylor Road intersection and adjoining roads, the actual street width. and possibly other infrastructure improvement items associated with the improvement of Grant Road are not known and cannot be effectively designed at this time. Therefore, the City PWD is recommending that the required improvements associated with Grant Road (except those improvements noted above) be deferred until a later date. If any or all of the improvements are to be deferred to a later date, then the Developer will be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement with the City and/or Jackson County for the required road improvements. 6. Other l2oadwav Improvements: The Development will likely impact off-site arterial and collector roadways and intersections including, but not limited to, Grant/Taylor, Taylor/Haskell, Haskell/Pine, Pine/Highway 99 and Grant/Beall roads and intersections. The extent of these impacts is unknown at this time, but will be quantified as a part of the pending traffic study (discussed in item 3 above). The Development will be responsible for its cost share of the improvements made to the transportation system to mitigate the impacts to the system. The cost share attributable to the impacts presented by this Development will. be quantified in the traffic study. We anticipate that the Development's cost share will not exceed $66,900. This maximum amount of payment for the Development's cost share (i.e $66,900) should be due to the City at the time of building permit issuance. If the traffic study concludes that the Developments attributable cost share for the transportation system improvements is less than the maximum payment, the balance shall be promptly refunded by the City. - 068 Medfi>rA Temple, i7te Chrn'ch of Jesus Chris( afY.nlter-0ay Sain(s Site Plau Review PWD S(afJReport April 27, 1998 Page 4 Driveway Entrance: The existing western driveway entrance to Taylor Road creates an unacceptable traffic hazard for this intersection regarding ingress and egress movements out of this driveway. The Developer should be required to remove this driveway connection. 8. Erosion Control Plan: If applicable, a suitable erosion control plan must be prepared and submitted to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for the construction of any improvements associated with this development. The construction plans associated with this development will hot 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. 9. Site Drainage/Storm Drain Plan: The developer shall design and implement a site drainage/storm drain plan that corrects and enhances existing site drainage for the entire property noted on the site plan. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of- way, or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. The storm drainage infrastructure will be privately operated and maintained:' The storm drain systems (both on-site and within the City/County right-of-ways), shall be designed to accommodate the storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (either surtace run-on or culvert or creek/ditch conveyance); any future development on adjacent =""? properties; conveyed storm drainage or surtace water flow, and any flows from areas deemed by ''r• the City that will need to connect-into the proposed development's or City's rights-of-way SD System. During the design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system{SD System), which provides for'storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (either surface run-on or culvert orcreek/ditch conveyance), the Developer shall demonstrate thatthe 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, allowances, or provisions have been made (and approval of the applicable properties owners and regulatory agencies has been obtained), which accommodate ahy additional flow which exceed predevelopment flows. The Developer and the City PWD shall agree on the applicable run-off ooefficients, curve numbers, retardahce, etc., to be used in the engineering calculations: Developer's engineer shall provide a site drainage plan with the facilities being designed, at a minimum, to accommodate a 10 year storm event. The SD system must be designed to adequately drain the 10-year storm event without surcharging or must be provided with adequate stdrage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to not impact existing private or public storm drainage facilities. Any private storm drain system exceeding 3-inches in diameter shall be designed to directlyconnect to the public storm drain system (at a manhole or curb inlet only), and shall not be designed to discharge to the street surfaces. The potehtial retention of storm water Yun-off shall be coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide an aesthetically pleasing, efficient, non-hazardous, and low maintenancefacility. If applicable the storm water retehtion facilities shalt be suitably landscaped; designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and hydrocarbon deposition; and to mitigate the "attractive nuisahce" hazards associated with these .facilities. 'Catch basins, curb inlets, and area drains shall be designed for sediment and 'petroleum hydrocarbon retention., 10:' "Off-Site Storm Drainage Infrastructure: As applicable, for any storm drainage infrastructure 069 A9eAJirrd T~n,ple, The Church of Jesus Clu~is! of Lauer-Day Sniers Sile Plmi Review PWD SraJ(Reporr ~Ipril27, /998 Page 5 constructed or improved outside the City's rights-of-way or easements for drainage of surrace 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. tl 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; ^ 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; and 11. Water Distribution Sysfem: The Development will. be cgnnecting the, existing Church facility and the proposed religious facilityto the City's WaterSystem. In orderto facilitate this connection, the Developer should be required to design and construct the 12-inch-diameter extension of the mainlines of the City's water distribution system from the end of the 12-inch water line on Taylor Road. (Igcated approximately 820 feet east of the northeast property corner of the subject property), to the terminus of,the City's water line near the southwest corner of the subject property. 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 or existing capacity shortcomings. The reimbursement methodology for water line up-sizing includes payment of the estimated material cost differences for the 8-inch-diameter versus 12-inch-diameter pipe and appurtenances. This reimbursement methodology is very similar to the methodology used by the Medford Water Commission for this same type of water line up-sizing. The methodology involves the City staff performing a pipe material take-off and determining the quantities of pipe materials needed. City stiff will then obtain price quotes for the materials from two local material vendors. The staff will then average the quoted prices and develop a materials cost sheet for the 8-inch-diameter pipe and appurtenances and the 12-inch diameter pipe. and appurtenances. The difference in the total materials costs obtained for the 8-inch-diameter and the 12-inch-diameter water line and appurtenances would be the amount that was. eligible for reimbursement to the Developer. The reimbursement can be by direct reimbursement to the developer, or by credits issued against collection of City water distribution system development charges (SDC) for the proposed development. Direct reimbursement can only be accomplished if adequate funds are available in ~~~ McAford 7~emple, 77te Cluorh o%./esus C/iris( of lnller-Unix Sai+rLs Site Plnn Reviely PWD SmJf Report April 27, 1998 Page 6 the City's water distribution SDC fund and the funds have been identified and approved for reimbursement to a particular developmerit in the fiscal year in which reimbursement is requested Any connection to the City's water system for fire protection within the Development should be of "reinforced loop" design: a minimum of two connections will need to be made to the City's distribution system. The Developer will be responsible to coordinate and develop any cost sharing agreements with any identified adjacent property owners/developers (i.e: Pacific Trend Building) for the portion of the subject water line along Taylor Road, east of'the northeast corner of the subject property. 12. Fire Protection and Domestic Water Service: Fire Hydrants will need to be installed along the subject property's frontage with Grant and Taylor Roads and along the extension of the water distribution line installed along Taylor Road, in accordance with City PWD standards and as approved by Fire District No. 3. The number and sizes of the water meters and service laterals to the two buildings will be jointly determined by the Developer, and the City PWD and Building Departments. Each building will require a separate service lateral and meter, in accordance with City ordinances. The costs for ' ~ the installation of the service laterals and water meters will be at the expense of the Developer, `-'with work to'be performed by the City PWD. •4... ,~, 13. Morn Creek Floodplain Analyses: The proposed development should not place improvements "~ -- ' ~ and structures within the 100-year floodzone associated with Horn Creek that would raise the height of the floodzone elevations. The developer should be required to remove the excessive vegetative growth along the banks of Horn Creek that are on the subject property. The Developer's engineer shall determine the existing base flood elevation contours; and illustrate the existing ahd post development boundaries of the floodplain and floodway fora 100-year "base flood" storm event associated with Horn Creek through the affected property. The construction drawings shall indicate the revised base flood elevation contours and boundaries of the floodplain ahd floodway expected to occur following the completion of any developmentwithin the identified floodzone (also referred to as the "Area of Special Flood Hazard"), including any affected upgradient areas. The information determined will also be used to determine minimum finished floor elevations for any structures that will be placed within the area of special flood hazard. 14. Driyewavs.'Access Roads. and Parking Areas: The driveways, access roads, and parking and turning areas on the proposed development should be designed and positioned'in a manner that accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO single unit truck and the Fire District's requirements. All driveways, access roads, and parking areas should either have asphalt or cement concrete surface, or other approved "paved" surface. General " Development Plans: Developer shall submit to the City's PWD for review and approval, plans ahd specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or modifications within the City o~r i ,. MeA%or~d Temple. l'he Church oJ./esus Chris( of Lotter-Dq~~.Sain(s Si(e P(ae Review PWD S(aJJ~Repor! dpril 27, 1998 Page 7 or public rights-of-way and easements or for connections to City infrastructure. Public improvements include, but are not limited to, streets (including sidewalks, curbs and gutters and landscape buffers); storm drainage and sanitary sewer collection and conveyance systems; water distribution system (up to the service meter and including fire protection); street lighting; and traffic control devices, street signs, and delineation. All construction of public improvements shall conform td the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to installation. 2. Approvals: Fire District No. 3 (fire hydrant placement, waterline sizing, and emergency vehicle access), Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA, for sanitary sewers),. City of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (commercial/industrial wastewater discharge permit) and Jackson County Roads and Park Services (Grant and Taylor Road improvements and driveway/access road connections) written approval of construction plans shall be submitted to .the City PWD prior to final construction plan review and approval by City PWD. 3. As-Builts: Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor ..shall. provide the Public.Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form (produced on Mylar®) and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD®, or other form as approved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide"red-line",.changes to final approved construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet; street light locations; other below grade utility lines; eta Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on Mylar~), or an approved alternative format, of .construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD® compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. 4. Elevations: All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City. approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. At least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer's surveyor. 5. Existing Infrastructure: As applicable, field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, street elevatiohs, etc.), to which the proposed development will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submittal for final approval. 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. 0'7 2 e ~ ~ ,NeAjorcf Temple, %%u' ClnvcL ojJesus Christ ojLaller-0qv Sniets Site Plnn 2eviee~ l'WD S(aJjRepa~i April 27, /998 Page 8 6. Fill Placement All fill placed in the development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed ahd compacted in accordance with City PWD and Building Department standards, except for the upper 1.5-feet of fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does notunderlie building, structures, or traveled vehicular access ways or parking areas. 7. Road/Driveway/Parking Areas: The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the access road, parking, and driveway section designs to handle the expected loads (including fire equipment) to be traveled on these private driveways, access roads, and parking areas. The Developer will need to provide the necessary sectioh designs for PWD and Fire District 3 review. The driveways, access roads, and truck parking and turning areas on the proposed development must'be designed'and positioned ih a manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of ah AASHTO Single Unit Truck, without crossing into an 'opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic 8. Utility Plans: The utility plans shall be drawn to'scale with accurate horizontal and vertical depiction of utility lines and appurtenances (transformers;'valves, etc.). 9. ' Area Lighting Plan: Need to provide and implement an adequate area lighting plan for parking ' and~+public access areas, including the driveway entrances from Grant and Taylor Roads.' ,4 ~`' ' `10. Clear Vision Areas: Sight vision triangles, meeting the City PWD's standards, shall be maintained at the driveway entrances and road intersections associated with the subject property. ~' - The' construction drawings shall include clear vision areas (i.e. sight triangles) at driveway entrances and at the intersection of Grant and Taylor Roads designed to meet the City's PWD requirements. 11. Fire Hvdrants: Provide locations of existing and any new required fire hydrants. Fire Hydrants need to be connected to 8-inch-diameter and larger lines. If applicable, steamer ports at hydrants located near the building shall face the buildings. Fire hydrants shall be suitably protected from potential vehicle damage and encroachment. 12. Water System Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for cross connection control. A pressurized irrigation system and domestic water wells exist on the property. The Developer will be required to install the required backflow prevention assemblies directly behind the City's water meters. 13. Water System: Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and location of all water mains, hydrants, valves, service connection, meter, service laterals, and other appurtenance details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD. 14. Storm Drain System Design: Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this development plan, the Developer's engineer shall provide the Ciry PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the site storm drain system. The engineer shall use the rainfall/intensity curve obtained from the City PWD for hydrologic 0'7 3 A(ed/a~d Temp(e, The Chm'ch of Je,cus Clrris( oj(,ntter-Uqv Sairt(s Si(e Pfmr Review PWU SmJJ'Repor( Apr~if 27, l99S Pnge 9 calculations, and the negotiated run-off parameters. 15. Roof/Area Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl. spaces with positive drainage away from the. building, Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the public storm drain system. 16. Grading Plans: 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 liries are overlaid on top. of the existing grades and are, in a heavier line width and solid. ..Contour lines should be labeled with. elevations. 17. Overhead Power Lines: If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US West, and TCI Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities within or adjoining the proposed development to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by arid between the utility owners and the Developer. 18. Sfreet Section: The City's engineering staff or selected engineering consultant (at Developer's expense), shall evaluate the strength. of the native soils and determine the minimum street section designs for Grant and Taylor Roads in accordance with the City PWD Standards. ~~~ i ~ MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT May 4, 1999 Central Point Planning Commission Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Heazing - To consider a Tentative Plan fora 48 lot subdivision in the vicinity of the intersection of Taylor Road and Sunland Avenue in the R-1-8 zoning district(372W10BA Tax Lots 6401 and 6501; 372W10BB Tax Lot 100). Applicant/ Owner: Louis F. Mahaz/Pacific Trend Building Company 1014 North Riverside Avenue Medford, Oregon 97501 Agent: Douglas McMahan/Hoffbuhr and Associates, INC 1062 East Jackson Street Medford, Oregon 97504 Summary The applicant has submitted a development proposal to subdivide three existing tax lots totaling 13.2 acres into 48 lots. The subject area is east of the LDS Church, south of Taylor Road and north of the West Pine Villa Subdivision. The applicants aze proposing to extend Donna Way north, connecting it indirectly to Taylor Road via two new streets, Summerlin Drive and Silver Creek Drive. Both Jackson and Horn Creeks cross the property making it more of a challenge to develop. City staff have had a couple of preliminary meetings with the applicants in an effort to resolve questions that have been raised relative to developing in the flood plain and improving street connectivity between Taylor Road and West Pine Street. Other developments are being proposed along Taylor Road and staff believes this is a good time for the.City to initiate a traffic analysis west of the Highway (SR 99) and north of West Pine to evaluate cumulative impacts and propose improvements that can be fairly applied. The results of a traffic analysis may have implications upon the street design of this subdivision and both Planning and Public Works staff recommend that action on this application be continued until an analysis is performed. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public heazing and render a decision on any application for a Tentative Plan. Notice of the Public Heazing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. 0'7 5 ~ ~i Applicable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et segr -Tentative Plans. CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. -R-1, Residential Single-Family District Discussion• The City has received correspondence from Jackson County,. the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority and the Division of State Lands. There are enough unique issues associated with this property that staff believes warrant some additional time to work out. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the review of the tentative subdivision and public hearing to a date and time it determines appropriate. Attachments• A. Reduced Copy of Tentative Plat B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Correspondence Received from Affected Agencies 076 ~ i. nn nn T7 ~ kK aE ~ ~ ~~Zaa r ~s ~F S Y ellll 4 s~ ~ ~~ia'^.~ [~ f .F. {~#_. Iwrcxeu~sunww suswvuaw !@ $ ~ @ ~ ~n. ~n n ~n~ ~n7 ~i$I ~~ I~>i~9~~~~~~\~ ~~~j ~ L_ I jl I 1 ~ _ _ xeev~ \~./ p ~~~g~ g ~ r~ a7 / S a ~,~ ~4 i ~~~/~~ l'~i E_ EA ~w 3¢~Ra5 ;~AR aty or cencrai Faint E~iHIl3IT t'A't Planning Department ~~~~ '~E3 s >' ~ s >a a e e 0 4 ~yl S ~-S g ~ D m a~ N Q € 4s m ~ m x• / I~ I N ~V ~~ u '•n n om€g 666~~3\Aq[ ~ ,~ I i ~ ~ " I `n~ I ~ I °~ 2 D yr p g 6 m Y F i ~. g o ~~ ~, I fTl m"' I fifi I 'J D m Mnp ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I 3 n ~ ~ i L v ~ --~ L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ Y , i i _~ EQ ~ ~~ N A Y V~ °-~-' U ,. ~~ s 5 a~ Z n ~ O ~ r II D f. ~ a~ ~ i v ~~~~ ~ ~ ~„ ~~~~ ~unlo d Avmw E ~~pl ~ S _ m p C7 Z p to ~~ r~ -~f + c n~ y 8 Q t4 ~~ 7 O ~ -1. O ~~~ coo ~~ Z t~ p ~ O ofN ~ =-=n ~ ~' ~ c ~ ~ _ " - - w voa a n ~ m w ~ kl] ~ ~~ ~ in -1 a7 m ] Lx ~k~ `Wv.+.P ~~ U1 ~~ ~N V~ O m ~ , ~6~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~g~~~ ~~~~. ~~ m ~~ ~~ A ~ ~~~ S, s o~~ City of Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT City of Central Point EXHTBI`T ttB tt Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: April l6, 1999 Meeting Date: May 4, 1999 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon OF MEETING Beginning at the above ime"and place, the•Central Point !Planning Commission will review an -application"fora 48 lot Tentative Subdivision(Brookfield Estates) to be located south of Taylor -Road near the intersection of Taylor. Road and'Sunland Avenue. The subject;parcels to be divided are located in a R-1, Residential" Single Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W l OBA and I OBB, Tax Lots 6401, 6501 and 100. The Central Point Planning Commission will review the application of Tentative Subdivision to determine if all of the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. If the Commission determines that the subdivision can be created, a tentative approval could be issued . Once a tentative approval has been issued, the applicant must file for a final plat of the subdivision within one year of the Commission's decision. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Subdivisions are set forth in Chapter 16 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Information, tentative plan approval and conditions on tentative plan approval. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 4, 1999. ~~~~ q e, ~ y Written comments may be sent in advance ofthe meeting to Central Point City I-call, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration ofthe comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. 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 I S cents per page. Foradditional information, thepublic may contactthe Planning Departmentat (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. -. : ~•, as=. s_~: SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE Atthemeeting,thePlanningCommissionwillreviewtheapplication technicalstaffreports,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 ordenytheTentativeSubdivision. City regulations providethatthe Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. SUBJECT PROPERTY 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 n ~y c, ROGUE Rly[R V,ALL[~' IRRIGATION 31 39 MERRIMAN ROAD 6 MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 ~ 1 277 O Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department Central Point, OR 97502 Dear Ken: April 23, 1999 n f rv DISTRICT (541)77&6127 City of Central F!utnE E~;HIL~IT «C" Planning Deparfineat RE: 98069-TP Brookfield Estates Subdivision The District operates its Oakleigh Lateral along the South and East lines of the subject property. The Lateral is enclosed in 18" pipe being in the neighborhood of 30 years old. There is also a section of transte pipe that is very susceptible to damage if it is disturbed at all. The District has aright-of--way with an access road over the length of the pipeline. This will have to stay open with no structures or deep rooted plarits on the right-of--way including fences from the proposedlots. The proposed extension of Donna Way moves across our pipeline. Grades and depth will have to be checked to assure the stability of the crossing. Curb access needs to be installed together with gates at the road to keep traffic from using the canal access road. There are two flumes for this Lateral across Horn Creek and Jackson Creek together with control structures. These structures will need to be fenced and gated to maintain the integrity of the facility and to limit access by the public. The land is currently under irrigation and will need to be excluded through the District exclusion process, unless it is determined that the subject property can be served by a dual system to be installed by the developer. If you have any questions, please contact me at the District office at 773- 6127. Sin rely, Jim Pendleton Districf Manager ~~U (ir .~ JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON OSEPHLPSTRAHL,DIRECTOR 200 ANTELOPE ROAD ' . WHITE CITY, OREGON 97503 (641) 828-3122 or (641) 776-7268 FAX: (641)830-6407 April 8, 1999 Attention: Tom Humphrey City of Central Point Planning 115 South Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Brookfield Estates Subdivision off Taylor Road - a county maintained road. Planning File 98069-TP; 40-lot residential subdivision Dear Mr. Humphrey: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the application for Brookfield Estates, a 40-lot residential subdivision located on the south side of Taylor Road, across from Sunland Avenue. Roads and Parks Services has the following comments: 1. The applicant shall submiYconstructioh drawings to Jackson'County Roads and Parks Services and obtain county permits if required. 2. We recommend that half-street frontage improvements to Taylor Road be required to urban standards. Improvements shall include road widening, curb, gutter, double barrel box culvert extension, drainage facilities, sidewalk and bike lane. 'A 3. If additional right-of-way is required for the improvements, dedication should be ` ' ' required before permits are issued. City of Central Point standards may be `utilized for road improvement if the City agrees, ih writing, to future maintenance of the urban improvements. 4. The applicant shall obtain a road approach permits from Rdads and Parks Services for the new Silver Creek Drive road approach to Taylor Road. The paved approach shall have 30' approach radii and a 30' minimum width. 5. We recommend no direct parcel access to Taylor Road. 6. Jackson County Roads and Parks Services would like to review and comment on the hydraulic-report including the calculations and drainage plan. Capacity improvements or on site detention, if necessary, shall be installed at the expense of the applicant. If you have any questions or need further information feel free to call me at 774-6230. Singere_ly, (/v ~O•~ Eric Niemeyer, PE Traffic & Development Engineer BEAR XFR'ENwA~JE7'~~AtJINeEI~I~~f EW~1NA0EMENr / MOTORPOOL / PARKS / ROAD MAINTENANCE / VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 778.7284 d26J112 426-0122 TTd•733D Q778.7001 d26J12S 826.3122 081. BEAR CREEK. VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY:. 3916 SOUTN PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFORD, OREGON 97601.9099 • (641) 779-4144 • FAX (b41) 635.6279- March 25, 1999 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: 98069 TP -Brookfield Estates Subdivision Dear Ken, D[~C~G~Ll~1L~ MAR 2 9 1999 D We have reviewed the subject planning action with regard to sanitary sewer service to the parcel. The site is within the BCVSA service area.. It is identified on the sewer Master Plan as connecting to the Taylor Road Trunk sewer... The collection system within the proposed subdivision will need to be designed by an Oregon Registered Engineer to BCVSA Standards and processed through'BCVSA for approval The collection system will need to connect to the'24 inch Interceptor in Taylor Road. The connection will be limited to the existing manhole at Sunland Avenue from Donna Way. Have the applicant contact BCVSA regazding Design, permits, and sewerYelated development fees. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed planning action. Sincere , ames ~//s~G May, Jr. P.E. DistricYEngineer osz ., ~, TLAND LAND USE NOTIFICATION FO ' ~° ' ~': N OF STATE LANDS ' DI~~~ION OF STATE LANDS WETLANDS PROGRAM RECEIVED 775 Summer Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 (503/378-3805) 1 . County: ~Ta.~Ks°n local Case Fi 1 e No.: `1Bo69-T/IB ~ b A ~~' ~ 6 City: Cenircf Po;,h DSL file No.: Responsible Jurisdiction: City ^ County ~/ y y - O ~ c, 2. APPLICANT: ~o"u F. name /oW N• R~d~rDF ~~EH~E mailing address MEDho,PD oil 97SD/ city state zip (SYI) 793-y1BS phone LANDOWNER: .SAS At r9+°Puc~i,rT name mailing address city phone state zip 3. LOCATION: T ~_ R 2w S /O 1/4 $fl/~ Tax Lot(s) BA-6'/o l/6So/ $~-/oo NWI quad map name McDFoRD tai (attach copy with site indicated) Attached: / NWI map Parcel map / Site plan_ Other 4. SITE INFORMATION: NWI Wetland Classification Code(s) +lorvi Creek= PEMCX~ rACY.to~ Cr2eK =R2.li$I/X Adjacent Waterway (if any) HornCJ'•ec(Cww.P7~,cllsoa PeeK In Fioodplain? Y _ N Current Land Use Varcwt Zoning Res,de.,fraJS~hjce ,~„•„;1~,, g~ Sc~ ~t• M~~ /o~5/2y 5. PROPOSED ACTIVITY: site plan approval / subdivision _ grading permit planned unit development -:<~ conditional use permit building permit (new structures) _ other Project Description A 7cN~F -f~•ve aAG~lica~.a Fora `/~ ~~~f S~~g/~e ani/)~ Svbd visio/1 Completed by/Contact: Ken ~ersckcEr Date 2'lI`gq Address /ss-s.,,Yx secd.~ sfi^.FC~ .fir r Potn~ 0,2 9~sdz_ Phone lsvr~ bbw-332! 2xtzyl (This foam Ss to be completed only by planning department staff for mapped wetlands) DSL RESPONSE A removal-fill permit is required from the Division of State Lands. A removal-fill permit will be required when the development project proceeds. A removal-fill permit may be required. A permit may be required by the Corps of Engineers (326-6995) Information needed includes: -~ J$' A wetland determination elineation repor rc as tent llst avatlnbla~r~-gam State permit ^ was Issued ^ has been applied for. Comments: nrnieri• if /herai~ee Response completed by: _ * If the project is than state removal-fill perms olve fill or ri required. D.SG s>~,~ Date d from the we rG / ~ ~6/~Jertiiir .~ li ~ 9 , ~"~ i PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: May 4, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing -Tentative Plan for the Packwood Terrace Estates 421ot Planned Unit Development located on 37 2W 3B Tax Lots 500 & 600. Applicant/ Packwood Terrace Estates, LLC Owner: 415 Harvard Place Medford, OR 97504 Agent: Neathamer Surveying; Inc. 145 South Grape Street Medford, OR 97501 :Pro er "'Description/ 3T2W O1B Tax Lot 2500 - 4.4 acres Zonin R-1, Residential Single-Family and R-2, Residential Two-Family Summary The applicants have submitted apreliminary developmentplanforaResidential PlannedUnitDevelopment (PUD) consisting of 42 single family padlots (averaging 4000 square feet); a single residential lane, landscaping and open space. These will be single-family attached (padlot) homes which will be incorporated into the Central Point East Development of larger single-family detached dwellings. As with the other CPE subdivisions, CC& Rs will govern the use and maintenance of the PUD. The PUD is being pursued because it allows the applicants more development flexibility with lot area and roads without the necessity of applying for variances. City staff have not had adequate time to review and formulate a recommendation to the Planning Commission. However, atthe request ofthe applicants, this application has been noticed for public hearing to provide the applicants and opportunity to introduce their project and allow Central Point residents an opportunity to comment. Both the Planning and Public Works Departments recommend that the Commission postpone any action on this application until the City has formulated a recommendation. ~8~ r ~? ;, a~ 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 preliminary development plan for PUDs. Notice ofthe public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Attachment B). AQnlicable Law CPMC 16.10.010 et seq.- Tentative Plans CPMC 17.24.010 et seq.- R-2 Residential Two-Family District CPMC 17.60.010 et seq.- General Regulations CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking CPMC 17.68.010 et seq.- Planned Unit Development Discussion The City has not yet received any correspondence from affected agencies that might have some bearing on this prof ect. The correspondence submitted by the applicant highlights other developments they have sponsored and they general public appeal (see Attachment C). Recommendation: Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission continue the review ofthetentative subdivision/PUD and public hearing to a date and time it determines appropriate. Attachments: A. Reduced Copy of Tentative Plat B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Correspondence 08~ p 1 J lr ~ i.} if REGISTERED 1'RO~RSSIONAL LAND St1RVEYOR ~2~Pu,~d 4 . •'~44'YY RQdEI~i~ `%. ~N~ATlIAMER u~a Attachment A T!.'NTAT/-~P PLAN PARKIPOOD TERRACE ESTATES . Auna~ cataaavir ~L°~°ds~al ~ ~ cKy d ra'" ~~ i M ~~ M ' ~~ 1 7 Owae» M i ~ i PAgieNJ011~~~6fA IlS llnC1V PIme 1 lYdWVI Qwla eiSGV ~, I I i ~~~ IfIffLYI1~ 1 'w`L "y~vr~ ~ ~ I' 'y ~ 1~ ~ i ~ Sti'lCf. ~1~C~t 1 u ru.r ~..r II w ' ~ R+r w,fr i ! m e ey n it !6 ~ ril I I • ~ ~ rr 1 i0 ~ U ~T' ~ 1 IY w IvvlM~eel~y M'v /'1' le •. w~r..alwwy.l.ule~ -e[- NYewwMNy wwMaeMw'w I •1 a ONlermMWtwellelr p~awfal I ~ I ~ -._ 11Yr1.~wtlKanuO aM.p~a. ~+ 1 el 16 y~ • 1~ew~le~uglW've•w 7 ~ V MdMalwWVel'OONa't -~~ l~ewan Mtp MwM ~.. O ~rla. o: e.wv e+ef•w~.alw ~' 1 1 i~~li~ ~1iwYw ~W~ O~WeMM W~q M.YeIYYfM 1 K q )[ MwIMe1MIK~i~ 1 __1 A 1__ moo- Mralw PwaWeewn awr~lasMa ~i ~ tee- wYaM~paVa"4~~Yw Notes HMAtlCK ROM N n~ll+ewt~gYazr Mr'Owv!'^e p/ w soil lot Ydeaew prgaw.d ~~ e~xo~aoeeee.. RI to alw0.aalld laaV oWgA'/~I~wle/M'wisYVr~rra~wv'i.ILa'iUGL~'nM PREPAR® BY: NeetBemer 6urrel/W. lno. !(6'BouUa Cfepe 8freet Pl hme 6i1~y3E-PBOY riz ~1) 9s¢-laex ii01i4T NOIDiR: MOeJ Olf6 11uN M /iei U ~ ~ en.k 1 d 1 pml e~~_~ a b :N tea City of Central Point AttaehmentB~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: Apri116,1999 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING May 4, 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 a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application fora 42 ot, pad lot Tentative Subdivision (Pazkwood Terrace Estates). to be located east of Hamrick Road And south of Beebe Lane. The subj ect pazcel to be divided is located in a R-2, Residential Two Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372WO1B, Tax Lot 2500. The Central Point Planning Commission will review the application of Tentative Subdivision to determine if all of the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. If the Commission determines that the PUD and subdivision can be created, a tentative approval could be issued . Once a tentative approval has been issued, the applicant must file for a fmal development plan of the subdivision within six months of the Commission's decision. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Subdivisions are set forth in Chapters 16 & 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code; .relating to Planned Unit Developments, tentative plan approval and pad lot subdivisions. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 4, 1999. O$~tr i. ~ ~• 2. W riUcn comments may be sent in advance ofthe meeting to Central Point City Flail, I55 South Second Street, Central Point, OK 97502. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration ofthe comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. Copies ofall evidence relied upon by fire applicant are available for public review at City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. ~.. ~, !«: SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE Atthe meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applicafions, technical staffreports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve ordenytheTentativeSubdivision. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. 0 a 0 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 f1~tH 40ti S. Ri~•erside. Medford, Oregon 97501 Telephone (541) 779-361 I FAX (541) 772-2010 Realestaters Better ~ , ~ Homes: October 22, 1998 Kevin Nerii~g, Projects Development Ron Martin, Home Coast. Superintendent IMAC West Coast Projects 1089 Medford Center # 191 Medford, Oregon 97504 . C~1, Re: Southern Oregon projects you are " presently constructing Dear Kevin and Ron, As you know, Realestaters is one of the top producing sales organizations in Southern Oregon uicluding Central Point, Medford, and Ashland. We have had the opportunity to become acquainted with some of your projects in these areas, and you have asked unto give you a letter expressing our opinion of those projects with regard to their viability, pricing, design, "comps" and overall probability of success; which we are more than happy to do. In order to best do this we have attached a written opinion, by project, on separate writings that are attached to this cover letter. Thank you for this opportunity to work with you. Sincerely yours, Lori Hawkins Vice President, Managing Broker 0 ~ `~ m arcs , '1 ~f n b ,,. ASHLAND MEADOW VILLAGE Meadowbrook Park Estates Phases II, III and IV A Planned Community Development Realestaters is not only very familiaz with the Ashland market, but as you know we have visited this project site on numerous occasions and have reviewed the material you have provided to us. This includes your concept booklet entitled "Meadowbrook Park Estates" and the recent home appraisals. We are awaze the eighteen units in Phase I are townhomes that have all sold; but the four units now constructed in the new "Meadowbrook Pazk Estates" upgraded Phase II portion of the project, and those to be constructed in the on-going Phases III and IV of the project are all individual homes, with most (but not all), located on their respective lots placed "zero lot line"; which we agree, affords the home-owners in this Planned Unit Development many practical advantages. Some of the zero-lot-line home placement and design advantages are: 1. ~esig~noeal: Because of the coordinated home design and placement on the lots,. while they are in fact individual homes, many appear to be lazger estates. This causes the overall project to appear to have less home density per acre than if the. homes were placed in the "center" of their lots. What in actuality might be fifty homes, appears to be (as example) only twenty-five lazger homes. This is highly attractive, allowing both side and front loaded gazages, and is the highest and best use of the property. 2. Greater EfficiencX: Because of design and placement on the respective lots, the homes are far more efficient as pertains to heat and air-conditioning, sound, exterior maintenance, and land use. _. The Homeowners Association and protective covenants and CC&Rs are the key to maintaining home value and enjoyable living in this development. The fact that the Meadowbrook Park Estates Homeowners a "'~`~ Association is a product of the law offices of Stark and Hammack is of great benefit to this project. Nof only aze Eric and Dick Stazk well informed and experienced real estate attorneys, they and their work is highly respected in the Southern Oregon community, and the quality of their work is reflected in the Meadowbrook Pazk Estates Homeowners Association which they produced. This greatly adds to the project's appeal and to its value. (Who would want an "un-planned" or "poorly-planned" development9) The site location and design concepts, including the lighted entry, fountain, the creek, landscaped park having the mature trees, rock-lined creek, night lighting and the other site amenities, create a neighborhood at Meadowbrook Park Estates. that is very much like a serene private resort, The ambiance created by the lights located in the common areas and park, at night, is spectaculaz. We understand the Meadowbrook Park Estates section (of the Ashland Meadow Village Project) Phases IT, III and IV will total 59 homes. Ashland has a need for quality residential products in the price range between $200,000 and $250,000. Our office is convinced that the Meadowbrook Pazk Estates development and the home designs are a cut above and priced to sell. The overall project is un-matched as it pertains to quality of construction and livability in the Ashland area. We would be very proud to represent you in the listing and sales of Meadowbrook Park Estates. ~~ ~~f~u~~,~ ~o/z~9~' z 09U ry "/ .g~ l: CENTRAL POINT EAST DEVELOPMENT White Oak Estates Subdivision Realestaters understands that the Central Point East Developmentproject (neighborhood) consists of two sepazate subdivisions, which combined, will total 234 homes. We understand: 1. Yow "White Oak Estates Subdivision" portion of the Central Point East Development will consist of 1151ots/homes that aze in the trees above the easterly ridge line of the project. Which is "East Medford", recreated. Situated olose to Medford's City Limits (one mile west of the Medford-Jackson County International Airport, one mile east of the I-5 freeway interchange) your project is surrounded by new commercial shopping center and other new businesses and community growth. White Oak Estates and the overall Central Point East Development is very centrally located 2. IMAC worked for the property owner Central Point Properties LLC's manager, Don Grove. The group annexed the property into the City of Central Point, created the "Central Point East Development" concept, and in fact master planned the city of Central Point's East Side; which was a great accomplishment. The fact thatDeCarlow Homes (who has been a top home builder in Southern Oregon for about 45 years) became a part of the overall Central Point East Development, substantiates your ability to attract substantial; experienced, and quality home builders who want to join in the Central Point East Development project. Steve DeCazlow is obviously convinced of the viability of this project and its concept, and his presence is a noteworthy accomplishment as well. 3. Pertaining to home pricing and value: White Oak Estates can facilitate and is already amacting home buyers who intend to build high quality lazger homes similar to those located in East Medford's Amblegreen Estates. Having well planned CC&Rs that aze coordinated with DeCazlow's, the privacy berm, perimeter fencing, landscaped and lighted entry-planters and signs, large lots, the various on site lot elevations, etc., and the other amenities described in the writings that have been provided to us, makes this project highly attractive and unique. We believe that White Oak Estates is superior to-West Central Point's Jackson Creek Estates, and will' end up, being much more like Amblegreen Estates, located in East Medford, as it relates to home size, styles, pricing and values. Being located in Central Point East Development, White Oak Estates in our opinion, is not only a well designed and saleable project, but a credit to your group and to DeCazlow Home's efforts; and to the Central Point community. We believe that home pricing in White Oak Estates should range between $179,000 and $279,000 depending on home size, the size of the lot, and location within the subdivision. We would also be veryproud to represent you by listing all or part of the White Oak Estates Subdivision. 3 oyi 1,.~ i Planning Commission Distribution List 1. Plannin--g //Commission Members = 7 (H Deliver) t:f~uck Piland ~dy Fish ~O b Gilkey Karolyne Johnson ~Y Yw ~ 1~~~ C/j Don Foster ^ J~a Dunlap 2. Departme~'Heads = 5 ~ C~'ty Administrator 'Planning Director Q"Public Works Director ~lic Works Secretary ire ChiefBuilding Official (Lois) / ~l Building Secretary 3. ~ Administrative Secretary/File ll 5a,s d~ 4. .a7 J Y n 4. City Attorney (Mail) ~. S. ~CVSA(Mail) ~~ f; ;: ~ 6. 1 st F oor Counter ,' 7. Contr~ors Job Finder =Dennis Nielson 857-9011 (Agenda only) H< erb Farber 8. ^ Agenda Only posted on cork board on 1st floor and one in box by "missing Persons" ~ggtCall Applicants to come pick up a copy from the counter~gt~t Total Copies = 17 AAADA®O~FJflfiDAAFJ®OGQbbb~tc%rrbbb q#1kfJFJAAA~