Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - April 20, 1999~ ! .k 11 ~. CITY OF CENTRAL PO[NT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA April 20, 1999, - 7:00 p.m. f:~ f:~ Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 446 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 April 6, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Page 1 - 10 A. Continuation of a request by the Meadows Community Homeowners Association to vary from the fence requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code in order to retain adequate security for a Recreational Vehicle Storage facility. The subject property is located at 555 Freeman Road in the R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district. QeSc~ ~(t~lo 11- 20 B. Consideration of a request by Larry Denn Construction to assign a Class A designation to a nonconforming structure located in the special street setback Res. at 285 Pine Street in the R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district. `~y`i 21 C. Continuation of a public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by 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 property is located on the northeast side of South Front Street in the C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. C o~ I n u P~ 22- 49 D. Public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by Flununelt Development Company to construct a 13,328 square foot Rite Aid Drug Store. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of East Piue and North Tenth Streets in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. ~on~l ~rt~ ~ VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF CENTRAL PO[N"t Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1999 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, and Paul Lunte were present. Jan Dunlap and Karolyne Johnson were absent. Planning Director Tom Humphrey, Public Works Director Lee Brennan and Administrative Secretary Deanna Gregory were also present. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was one letter directed to the Commission by Jackson County Public Works stating that they had no comment regarding business item D. IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of March 2, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Candy Fish made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of March 2, 1999, as presented. Commissioner Don Foster seconded. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Consideration of a request by the Meadows Community Homeowners Association to vary from the fence requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code in order to retain adequate security for a Recreational Vehicle Storage facilitLThe subject property is located at 555 Freeman Road in the R-3 Residential Multiple Family zoning district. Planning Director Tom Humphrey presented the staff report for the Planning Department. He stated that earlier this year City staff were asked to investigate whether barbed or razor wire were approved as part of the security fencing for the Meadows RV storage facility. Building Official Lois DeBenedetti determined that neither barbed nor razor wire were authorized and a letter was sent to the Meadows Homeowners Association advising them to either remove the wire or apply for a fence variance. The Association then applied for a fence variance stating that they would like to keep the security fencing with the barbed and razor wire attached to help discourage vandalism. The variance would allow the additional one foot of height and use of barbed and razor wire as part of a comprehensive security system with a motion detecting security wire woven through the chain link fence. "~~;~ of Central Poin[ ~'lanning Conunission Minutes April 6, 1999, Page 2 Chuck Shinn, 555 Freeman Road # 71. Mr. Shinn spoke on behalf of the Association in favor of the variance. He stated that the barbed wire and the razor wire have been a great deterrent to vandals. Commissioner Gilkey asked about liability to the City if the variance is approved allowing razor wire. City Administrator Jim Bennett explained that if the Commission follows procedures according to CPMC all responsibility will belong to the property owner. Bill Stults, Manager of the Meadows, stated that the Association would be willing to replace the razor wire. There was discussion about extending the barbed wire out away from the corners of the fence and adding additional rows making it more difficult to climb over. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to continue the review of the request by the Meadows Community Homeowners Association to vary from the fence requirements of the CPMC in order to review options to the razor wire. Commissioner Fish seconded. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. B. Public Hearing to consider a site plan introduced by 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 property is located on the northeast side of South Front Street in the C-5 Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. Mr. Humphrey presented the staff report for the Planning Department. The applicant is requesting to vary from the 10 foot minimum setback requirement for the C-5 Zoning District. If approved, the proposed building would be positioned on the property line adjacent to Oak Street, leaving a distance of approximately 16 feet between the two buildings. Along with the Variance the applicant has submitted a Site plan for connecting the two buildings in order to create a showroom. Public Works Director Lee Brennan presented the staff report for Public Works. The Public Works Department is requesting a seven foot dedication for a sidewalk along Front Street, and the removal and replacement of the driveway apron along Oak Street. There was discussion regarding improvements to the alley. Commissioner Piland opened the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. Roger Wimberly, 125 S. Front Street, owner of Hot Bikes. Mr Wimberly agrees to the requirements of the Public Works Staff report. He would like to complete the expansion as soon a possible so that he can increase his business. He stated that he does not plan to take access from the alley so should not be required to make improvements there. Mr. Wimberly asked if they could vary from the clear vision triangle in order to line up the two building providing alignment for the future showroom. ^°'Y of Central Point Manning Commission Minutes April 6, 1999, Page 3 Mr. Brennan explained the reason for the sight triangle, however, if access is not going to be taken fiom the alley then the adjacent property owners could apply for the vacation of the right-of--way. Mr. Brennan stated that if the alley was vacated the sight triangle would not be an issue and the two buildings could be aligned in the front. There were no other public appearances. Chairman Piland suggested that the Commission could follow staff's recommendation to continue the hearing for this item until better justification for the site plan and corresponding variance exists. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to continue the Public Hearing for site plan and variance at 125 South Front Street in order for the applicant to investigate vacating the alley between Oak and Alder Streets eliminating the site vision setback, and to return with a building design for connecting the two buildings prior to approving the site plan. Commissioner Fish seconded. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. C. Public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by Marcia LaVia to add a 6960 square foot building to commercial property at 980 South Front Street. The subject property is on the northeast side of South Front Street in the C-5. Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. Mr. Humphrey presented the staff report for the Planning Department. The applicant is ~.. proposing a 6960 sq. ft. addition to the existing 2960 sq ft. building, parking requirements, landscaping, and a hammerhead turn around for emergency vehicles. Mr. Brennan presented the staff report for the Public Works Department asking for future improvements along Front Street to include sidewalks, gutters, and storm drains. Commissioner Piland opened the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. Fred Phillips, Engineer, 345 Bartlett St. #203, Medford, addressed the Commission explaining the site plan. He stated that the hammerhead turnaround requirement for emergency vehicles will be gravel unless the vacation of the First Street ROW is completed. There was discussion on the ROW and the turnaround requirements. There were no more public appearances. Commissioner Piland closed that portion of the meeting. Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 444, conditionally approving a site plan subject to staff reports for the addition of a 6960 square foot building to commercial property at 980 South Front Street and that the turnaround area be paved. Paul Lunte seconded. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. ' , ~'ity of Cenh~al Point -i'lanning Commission Minutes April 6, 1999, Pnge 4 D. Public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by Michael Sullivan to relocate an existing 5508 square foot apartment building to residential property on Tenth Street The subject property is located in the vicinity of Laurel Street in the R-3 Residential Multiple Famil, zoning district. Mr. Humphrey presented the staff report for the Planning Department. He explained that the relocation of an eight unit apartment complex to the vicinity of Tenth and Laurel Streets is to accommodate the Rite Aid development on East Pine Street. A lot line adjustment will need to be completed prior to the move to ensure set back requirements are met. Mr. Brennan presented the staff report for the Public Works Department. He stated that Jackson County Fire District No. 3 is requesting a hammerhead turnaround or access to another street. They would also like Mr. Sullivan to move the stairs on the South East portion of the building to the south end of the building allowing more room for emergency vehicles to maneuver in the parking area. Commissioner Piland opened the Public Hearing. Michael Sullivan, 4303 Tami Lane, Central Point, addressed the Commission and stated he agreed to the hammerhead turn around. There was discussion of additional landscaping along the Tenth Street access, and parking requirements. Commissioner Lunte made a motion to conditionally approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 445, approving a site plan to relocate an existing apartment building to the vicinity of Tenth and Laurel Streets subject to the conditions of staff reports with amendments to moving one set of stairs to the south end of the building, the additional landscape requirements, and providing a hammerhead turnaround for emergency vehicles or other alternative access. Bob Gilkey seconded. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. E. Public hearing to consider a request by Van Wey Homes and Key West Properties to reconsider a requirement for the construction of a concrete block wall along the Hamrick and Vilas Road frontages of New Haven Estates subdivision The subject property is located in the R-1-8 Residential Single Family zoning district. Mr. Humphrey presented the staff report for the Planning Department stating that initially the Planning Commission approved the Tentative Plan for the New Haven Estates Subdivision in November, 1997. On January 20, 1998, the Commission approved an amendment to the subdivision resulting in additional acreage for Walnut Grove Village allowing space for recreational vehicle storage along Vilas Road. As a requirement to the approval of the storage area an original condition for a masonry wall was kept along the frontage of both developments. In May 1998, additional changes were made to Walnut Grove Village authorizing the relocation of the RV Storage area creating a Clubhouse and park area along Vilas Road and allowing a vinyl fence to replace the masonry wall around .City of Cenh~al Point ;1<vuting Commission Minutes April 6, 1999, Page 5 that area. The applicants are now asking the Commission to amend the Public Works condition for a concrete block wall and allow in its place a vinyl fence along Vilas/Hamrick frontage similar to the one constructed in the Central Point East Subdivision. Mr. Brennan explained that the original requirement for a block wall was to create a sound barrier and provide protection from increasing traffic on Vilas Road. Herb Farber, Farber Surveying, 120 Mistletoe, Medford OR, explained that a sound barrier wall would not be practical for the amount of wall that is now required along lots 9 and 53. He stated that it would look more uniform if they could match the other vinyl fencing along Vilas and Hamrick Roads. Mr. Brennan clarified the frontage in question and stated that there were other lots beside lots 9 and 53 that were part of the development. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to extend beyond 10:00 p.m. Paul Lunte seconded. All said aye. Tim Whitten, 164 %2 West Vilas Road, Central Point, inquired about the fencing along the east property line of New Haven Estates. Chuck Francis, 164 West Vilas Road, Central Point, also inquired about the fencing along the East property line. He is concerned with animals going under a vinyl fence. Commissioner Piland explained that the fence along the east would be at the discretion of the new property owners. Closure of the Public Hearing portion. Commissioner Lunte stated that the original reasons for sound and safety are still viable reasons for requiring a block wall. He also stated that when the attached lots begin to develop the commission could require block walls along those to secure the area with a sound barrier. Bob Gilkey made a motion to deny the request by Van Wey Homes and Key West Properties to reconsider a requirement for the construction of a concrete block wall along the Hamrick and Vilas Road frontages of New Haven Estates subdivision. The subject property is located in the R-1-8 Residential Single Family zoning district. Candy Fish seconded. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Update on Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project City of Cenh~al Point finning Commission Minutes April 6, 1999, Page 6 Dan Moore from the Rogue Valley Council of Govenunents updated the Commission on the Transit Oriented Development Project. Mr. Moore explained a 20 year plan for a transit station to be located in the area of Haskell Street and West Pine, acI•oss from Mae Richardson Elementary School. He explained that they still have a few months until the project will be completed. Representatives will be returning to the Commission with updates. Commissioner Gilkey asked about set backs on two houses recently built on the corners of Wedgewood and Paisley, and Wedgewood and Circle Court. Mr. Gilkey stated that the setbacks looked to be closer than the zoning code allows. Mr. Humphrey explained the situation regarding the two homes was due to frontage being taken on the short side of the lots. These are narrower lots which Ineet the required setback for side yards. Mr. Humphrey stated that if the Commission agrees he would like to schedule a second meeting for Apri120, 1999. He explained that Hummelt Development Company would like to introduce the Rite-Aid project and the two items continued this evening could be discussed. All agreed. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilkey. All said "aye" and the meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m. ', PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: Apri120, 1999 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Continuation of a request by the Meadows Community Homeowners Association for a fence variance. The Commission continued this item from its last meeting to enable the applicant and staff to review alternatives to using razor wire at the corners of the Meadows RV Storage area. Members of the Commission were concerned about the use of razor wire for reasons of safety and overall appearance (refer to Planning Commission minutes dated April 6, 1999). The applicant suggested replacing the razor wire with barbed wire cones at each corner and has investigated the cost of this alternative. A representative from the Meadows will present their findings and an alternative proposal to the Planning Commission at the meeting. Since this public hearing was continued, the Commission may take additional testimony, consider this in light of the findings of fact previously presented and arrive and one of the three actions listed in Attachment A. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Commission Report dated Apri16, 1999 ~, ., ~ 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 6, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Variance from fence requirements at 555 Freeman Road (372W1 IA Tax Lot 3108). licant: Meadows Community Homeowner's Association 555 Freeman Road # 270 Central Point, Oregon 97502 ent: Charles Shinn, Association President 555 Freeman Road # 71 Central Point, Oregon 97502 . ummary: The Homeowner's Association wishes to vary from fence requirements in order to retain adequate security for a recreational vehicle storage facility. The subject parcel is zoned R-3, Residential Multiple-Family. Authority• CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review and decide , without a public hearing, any application for a fence variance. Review is being performed in accordance with CPMC 1.24.050. ~p_plicable Law• CPMC 15.20.040 et seq. -Fence Height on Lots CPMC 15.20.080 et seq. -Fence Variances CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District Discussion• Earlier this year City staff were asked to investigate whether barbed or razor wire were approved as part of the security fencing for the Meadows RV storage facility. The City Building Official determined that neither barbed nor razor wire were authorized and a letter was subsequently sent to the Meadows Homeowners Association advising them to either remove the wire or apply for a fence variance (refer to Attachment B). The Association decided to request this fence variance and has provided their rationale as part of the application and exhibits in Attachment A. CPMC Sections 15.20.040 and 15.20.070 state that no fence be higher that six feet and that barbed wire or matertal creating an unreasonable or unnecessary risk of injury be prohibited Requests for fence variances shall be made by application ...and shall be reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1.24 (which involves Planning Commission consideration without a public hearing). 02 ,, fhe subject Icnce is located at the eastern end of the Meadows subdivision along Inlcrstute-~ and serves to enclose and secure an RV storage area. 1~he fence consists of six Ibol chain link panels with one toot barbed wire extensions, razor wire at the three corners and a Sonitrol security wire that is woven through each of the chain link panels. If findings could be made for approval, the applicant would be allowed to (cave the current fence (including barbed and razor wire) in place. If findings could not be made the applicants would have to remove barbed wire extension and razor wire from the perimeter. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law A variance ntay be granted if findings are made as follows: (.The strict application of the provisions would result in unnecessary hardship; or The applicant states drat the Meadows has been victim to burglaries amounting to personal loss of approximately $6,000. This motivated homeowners to invest $13;000 in a security system to safeguard their property. It can be argued drat the strict application of the municipal code in this case could result in the partial loss of a security system investment and further loss in safeguarding personal property. This could become an unnecessary hardship to the Meadows homeowners who store their RV's in an area designated for that purpose. 2i The following considerations will either result from a granting of the variance or the following; considerations do not apply to the requested application: a. The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city, The additional height of the fence and use of barbed and razor wire is part of a comprehensive security system according to Sonitrol (refer to Attachment C). Reliable on site security reduces the need for more frequent City police patrols and makes the storage area and surrounding neighborhood less attractive to burglars and vandals. b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city, The provision of a secure storage area encourages its use by residents of the Meadows neighborhood and further discourages RV .parking on streets and in driveways. The applicants have stated that the fence cannot be seen from any adjacent neighborhoods and there have not been any complaints from residential property owners regarding the appearance of the fence. On the other hand, the storage area and barbed and razor wire fence is not aesthetically attractive from the freeway and removal of the wire would improve overall appearances. It has been suggested that the appearance of the storage area could be improved if the fence were slatted. The Commission may wish to make this a condition to approval if slatting will not compromise the security system. 03 r. I hr \:u'iancc will ino\•idr salch~ to the nrighhorhoad ur the cih [{omcowners are not allowed to park RV's, boats, etc. on private streets nor is there room on individual lots to do so. The Meadows storage arcs and its corresponding security system create a greater sense of safety for personal property to local area residents. Unnecessary risk of injury is reduced because barbed and razor wire is located six feet above grade at each corner of the storage facility. d. The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city, The fence would provide an additional degree of protection to the applicants wlro make up titc Meadows. The variance will not directly provide protection to the surrounding neighborhood or to the city. e: The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. The City has not received any correspondence opposed to the security fence which has existed for a number of years. What has been questioned is vvhether City approval for a variance had ever been granted. f The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. The construction material of the security fence is consistent with municipal regulations in the Residential Multiple-Family zoning district however the height and material used is not currently allowed in any zoning district. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the fence variance application based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed Variance application; or 3. Continue the review for the Variance application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments: A. Application, exhibits and applicant findings B. Letter to Bill Stults from Jim Bennett dated February 4; 1999 C. Letter to Meadows from Sonitrol dated February 1 1, 1999 G:\PI,ANNMG\99024. W PD O r~ "~~ Attachment ~ APPLICATION FOR FENCE VARIANCE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Meadows Community Homeowners Association, Inc. AddreSS:_555 Freeman Rd. lk270 City: Central Point, OR Telephone: Business: 664-2662 Residence: N/A 2. AGENT INFORMATION Name: Charles F. Shinn - Association President ' Address: 555 Freeman Rrr. Ik71 Cjty; Central Point, OR Telephone: Business: M/a Residence: 664-7314 3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet if More Than One) Name: Meadows Community Homeowners Association, Ilic. Address: sss Fro cmotl--}~d I/'17Q 4. City: Central Point OR Telephone: Business: ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ Residence:. N / a PROJECT DESCRIPTION Township: 3? Range: 2W Zoning District: Total Acreage: Section: I I ~ Tax Lot(s): 3/08 General Description of Variance: Yh~ M~k~~,s Nowreow.~ers ,4,rto~~afoti fedyPb'f.( 7b t/aP.~ f-ly.rl wit ~rti~.o fem~.:,~evl-t ~t~-r o~ cPMc. iS.Laoyoo~.~ /S'7.o 070 ~n orePer'I•o (2'falh otc?e9~n."Fesec.v/'i`~.~ ~ol' `f-~t~ ~2G/~a.~on~ (/.e.b~cfe S'InPaQv2 ira ill f l~ 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS [ This Application Forrn ] Application Fee ($200.00) Plot Plan & ElevaBons Drawn to Scale (10 Sets) -~] One Copy of a Reduced Plot Pian & -{-} Elevations (81/2" x 11'7 Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process Findings (Addressing Criteria in SecBon 16.20.080 of the Central Point Municipal Code) Legal Description bf the Property 6. I HEREBY STATE THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. -• I certify that I am the : [ ]Property Owner or ['] Authorized Agent of the Owner of the proposed .("1 n r~ orolect site / / ~ 5 h P a ~~ ' P rn ' ^1 H I 1 •.q N M ~y I ' tl m N ' 1 .~~i -Mi M M ti '1 I N N .-1 .1 ry N n •~_ ' Y b N N N im-1 b O N ' ~`OO N ^I •1 1 O Onl ~ Z O ~ ~~ I ', (~~ ~ I LL -.I ~' ,~ ~~ ' d~~ fin` b ti ~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ b r,l N /~ N 1 n ~ P n ~ .N n m P M `O 1 N N N N .-I p N 1 N N N 1 1h N m I N H P b 1 N N P N N N 'N N 1 N N N N I 1 ~-, m J ~ 1 N O ^ ' •'• M O N b n m P O H N ~ N .y P '~ h 1'• rn YI M h< O tl '-1 N N N N N N N N N ~ tl N P O N N O P m n b YI P h Y• r• N N N N N N N O m "'1 N N N N N N N N N 1 b N /• Q b n m P O N N N N N N N N N N N '~ N M `Y y "1 P m n b tl tl ~ N H N O O O N N N P C P O N N n '' O r P O O O O O O .~1 '~ ~1 "1 N N N N N N OVOH NVW~jtld n ~ 1 Q 0 Z a O - 06 ~ 0~ FINDINGS: Reference Central Point Municipal Code 15.20.080, C. 2.: a. The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city. Does not apply. b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city. Does not apply. c. The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the city. Does not apply. d. The variance will provide protection and security to the neighborhood. The portion of the fence that runs along I-5 is located approximately 12 inches from a parallel freeway fence that is also made of barbed wire. The posts of the freeway fence are about 4' high which would provide an easy step to use to climb our fence, if we didn't have the added protection of our barbed wire. We have been victim to 5 burglaries in the past 8 years. After the secend burglary, which amounted to lasses of approximately $6000. We then installed a Sonitrol security system at a cost of $13,000. The security system relies on being able to detect noise caused by either climbing or cutting our fence. The barbed and razor wire make it very difficult to climb the fence without making enough noise to be detceted by the security system. The razor wire is needed on the corners because corner posts can be climbed without vibrating the fence. Wrth our security system and the outstanding police work, from our Central Point Police, we have been successful in apprehending 2 different would-be burglars. Our south boundary fence is approximately 8' inside our property line. As development occurred along the North side of Columbine Way and fences were built along the rear property line, a gap has resulted between the fences. Without the razor wire, the gap would be open to the freeway which would give transients easy access to the backyards of Meadows and Columbine Way residences. Our Manager has spoken with Chief of Police Mike Sweeny and Sgt. Tony McPherson and they have both indicated to him that the need for the barbed and razor wire, to protect our residents and their personal property, outweighed the possible safety hazard. e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Since the fence cannot be seen from any adjacent residential neighborhood it does not detract from the beautification of the residential zone. The fence in question has been in place for approximately 10 years and there have been no complaints from any owners of adjacent properties. f. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. Does not apply. f~8 Attachment B 155 SO. SECOND ST. CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 97502 664- THE HEART OF THE ROGUE RIVER VALLEY February 4, 1999 Bill Stalls, Manger The Meadows 555 Freeman Road #187 Central Point, OR 97502 Re: Security Fence for The Meadows RV Storage Facility Dear Bill: City staffhave completed their review ofthe security fencing for The Meadows RV storage facility. We canrrotfind any specific approval forsecurity fencingthatincludedbarbed orrazorwirethatmayhave been given by either city staff, the Planning Commission or the City Council. We do have plans. that show security fencing proposed for the RV storage facility, but they do not describe the nature ofthe fencing. Itis notunreasonableto assumethatthesecurity fencingthatwasproposedcontemplatedthe useofbarbed wireorsomethingsimilar. However, thecityordinanceprolribitingtheuseofsuchmaterialswasineffect at the time of the approval of The Meadows PUD. So regardless, the city did not have the authority to allow the use of barbed wire for the security fencing. Accordingly, this leaves The Meadows withtwo choices. The board may removethe barbed wire from the security fencing or they may apply for a fence variance to allow the barbed wire to remain. A fence varianceapplicationwouldbeheardbytheCityPlanningCommission Ifadecisionisreachedtoapply forthevariance, I would suggestthatyoutalkto Ken Gerschler inthe Planning Department and he can provide youwiththe necessary applicationform Please letme knowoftheboard's decisionatyourearliest convenience. Sincerely, i Bennett City Administrator ~- 09 Attachment C ..._SONITROI. Sonitrol of Southern Oregon Inc. 546 Business Park Dr. Medford, Oregon 97504 (541) 779-5611 February 11, 1999 The Meadows Home Owners Association To whom it may concern: This letter is to help explain the practical and necessary uses that have lead both Sonitrol, and The Meadows management to install babbed wire around the perimeter, and razor wire in the comer areas of the fenced parking area. Detection of illegal entry into a fenced area relies on a few basic principles of outdoor security. To gain entry, the assailants must either cut the fence and crawl through, or they must climb over the fence. A fence security system relies on this for it's apprehension ability. A perimeter security system of this nature can be defeated however, if the assailants gain entry without cutting or climbing the fence. This is wherethe barbed and razor wire play an important part in The Meadow's fenced pazking area security. Withoutthe protective wire, it was found that assailants could use surrounding structures to jump over the fence and enter the area undetected. With the addition of the protective wire, it made the act much hazder, and encouraged cutting and climbing of the fence instead of jumping over. Over the many years we have served to secure The Meadows, the deterrent of potential criminals can be directly linked to the use of the protective wire. In my opinion, the barbed wire perimeter, and the razor wire in the comers create an integral part of the overall security of The Meadows. CTu~is Duncan Technical Services Manager Sonitrol of Southern Oregon M Independent Sonftroi Franchise ®Listed Installation and Monitoring - ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: Apri120, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Request for Class Adesignation of anon-conforming structure located at 285 Pine Street. Applicant/ Larry A. Denn Construction Owner: 1459 Highcrest Drive Medford, OR 97504 Pro er Description/ 37 2W l OAB Tax Lot 7000, 0.2 acres onin R-3, Residential Multiple Family District Summary While applying for a building permit to remodel his four-plex on West Pine Street; the applicant discovered that his building was in an area of special setback for a major arterial street (West Pine). The proposed improvements are not substantial but cannot be made to a Class B nonconforming structure which is what the building is currently designated;, Auth r' CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review and render a decision, without public hearing any application for nonconforming use designation. Applicable Law CPMC 17.44.010 et seq. R-3, Residential Multiple Family District CPMC 17.56.010 et seq. Nonconforming Uses CPMC 17.60.090 Special Setback Requirements Discussion The Municipal Code states that all nonconforming uses and structures within the City shall be classified as either Class A or Class B nonconforming uses. If a use or structure has not been previously identified, it is given the Class B designation by default. This is the more restrictive of the two designations permitting routine maintenance and upkeep but not li allowing alteration or enlargement In the process of updating and remodeling afour-plex on West Pine Street, it was found that the building falls within a 70 foot setback (from centerline). The actual right-of--way necessary to widen West Pine and improve it with curb, gutter and sidewalk is approximately 44 feet from centerline. This would involve obtaining another 14 feet from the applicant. His building currently sets back 22 feet 5 inches from the property line. Once improvements are made the apartment building will set back 8 feet 5 inches from the property line/edge of right-of--way or about 11 feet from the back of the back of the sidewalk. Further complicating the issue is Mr. Denn's wish to replace balconies (which extend 4 feet into the set back area now) with covered porches of the same depth. He is also proposing to add storage compartments at the back of each of the four units (refer to Attachment A). The modifications that Mr. Denn is proposing, although not significant, go beyond routine maintenance and upkeep and would not be permitted under Class B Nonconforming use designation. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law The Planning Commission may designate a nonconforming use or structure as Class A upon findings that all of the following criteria apply: 1. Continuance of the existing use or structure would not be contrary to the public health, safety or welfare, or to the spirit of this title; ^ Improvements to West Pine Street could be made without affecting the building itself (only the length of the front setback). The construction of covered porches would place portions of the apartment building within 4 feet 5 inches of the property line/edge ofright-of--way and 7 feet from the back of the sidewalk once public improvements are complete. The applicant has agreed to eliminate one driveway access on to West Pine Street. 2. The continued maintenance and use of the nonconforming property in not likely to depress the values of adjacent or nearby properties, nor adversely affect their development potential in conformance with present zoning; ^ The applicant's apartment building is located on the southeast corner of Glenn Way and West Pine Street and is surrounded on two sides by other apartments in the City's R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district. It is unlikely that the continued maintenance of the property will depress the values of adjacent property but will instead improve values. li ° 3~~ I , . 3. The use or structure was lawful at the time of its inception and no useful purpose would be served by strict application of the provisions or requirements of this chapter with which the use or structure does not conform; ^ The apartment building was constructed in 1978 in a high density residential zoning district and, at the time, satisfied the setback requirements. Special setback requirements for arterial streets were adopted after the building was constructed. Strict application of requirements for a Class B nonconforming structure would discourage the improvement of a property which is visible to the traveling public and across the street from Mae Richardson Elementary. 4. The property is not predominantly surrounded by conforming uses or structures and, considering current growth and development trends, is not reasonably expected to come under development pressures during the next five years; ^ Building setbacks vary on adjoining parcels but it generally follows that those of older construction would not meet front set backs once street improvements are made while those built more recently would. It is uncertain whether the City/County would undertake improvements to West Pine Street during the next five years. 5. The property is structurally sound, well-maintained, and occupied and used for the purpose for which it was designed; ^ The apartment building is structurally sound, has been maintained and is being used for the purpose was built. The proposed improvements would make the property more attractive and desirable to rent. 6. Continuance of this nonconforming use will not in any way delay or obstruct the development or establishment of conforming uses on the subject property or on any adjacent or nearby properties in accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance; ^ Under the City's current zoning the existing structure could be replaced with other residences of similar or lesser density. It is unlikely that, given special setback limitations that the building could be replaced with another four Alex. Adjoining properties are all fully developed. Furthermore, the Commission may grant an application for change of use, filed in accordance with Chapter 17.76 if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the following findings are made; 13 a. 'T'hat the proposed use will not more adversely affect the character of the district or neighborhood in which it would be located than did the existing or preexisting use; ^ The proposed building modifications will improve the overall appearance and desirability of the property to renters. However, once street improvements are made, some occupants may not wish to have their doorways located as close to the sidewalk as they will become. It can be argued that the close proximity of doorway to sidewalk is fashionable in some urban settings. b. That a nonconforming use of a building may be extended throughout those parts of a building which were designed or arranged for such use prior to the date when such use became nonconforming; provided, that no structural alterations are made other than those required by law; ^ The pre-existing presence of the balconies on this building (which extend into the front setback) may be considered when evaluating their replacement with covered front porches. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: Adopt Resolution No.~ designating the apartment building at 285 West Pine Street (37 2W lOABTax Lot 7000) a Class A nonconforming structure subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment B); or 2. Deny the proposed nonconforming use reclassification; or 3. Continue the review of the nonconforming use reclassification at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Plot Plan, Building Elevations and Assessor's Plat B. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval 14 i z. " ~~" .~' .~ ' ~ ~ Attachment A 9`~yG ~ 6 D~41AC ~~~~ ' 0.02A .,C `~~ ~ ~~~~ sW~r coa " 900 ~ ~ •~~ ~ V W, P52B i 700 ,5 i~ ,~ ~* . 0434c ,.r° / ~. . vs es, cP a~a l~. ri J` 7 AMY & HARBAUGH'S ADDITION BDO~AC s ELKS !, 3, 4, 5, & 6 ' ~U ~~ (INCLUDING STREETS 0 ALLEYS) 1000 ~ s VACATED V 14'. ~ 'R4 4 024Ac \ 4 ~O ,Q 1100 s° ~ 0.12Ac 5 `w ~ s Q 5° Q y (P-2277) Lo l~1 - y ~ 1 u8 \ 'C. f~ `7 "``~~~ ~ 28Ac BLK , 2~~~ 5° 7o.23r~c ~ a• ~IDLCE'SLL3 COR 1iC'~. ,r O 7032 AC \ ~ ~ I\ 7° .ENE COR 0 Ac ~' 4 K sssw•~--^: DLC 52 ~y01 ~'• 5 ~J!'H+f ',~~f'tf - inm y~.iui n~u~ ~~~ 13/ S 7600 V - ~ %~ Subject Proper y lP-p39) ~,ti<~y~ ~ y, I ~ o.oaac I2 .~ 7701 ,,~r~.~~c ~ , Za , ` e ~~ w ~. ~~ '''ee 7~hi ~ ~ ni, \ b°~,~ 0.22 Ac , es~~ 2 /~ 6900 1°° ~ ~ ' w ' "~ . , 17 CS 15341 ..7700 . Q. ~~(f . /, x800 F2 6801 o.71ac ~y9,~ ,•'`,~ (P-9672) 4s Q\ f5 ~ I I o.18Ac 11 , ~.S Lam,' ~ 1~0 ti cam, 003Ac / °Y Y ~~. _ r ,, ~ ~ oo ~,~ ~ 2 O~Ac 154;19 ~6 a soon '~`(\/\ ~ ~ 570 0.18Ac Y (P-BO;S,4) 1.13Ac ~s.~" ~ 6600 as ~ 0 ~g ~ ~ .18Ac Ise. tYw' • ~' ~ •• T Y (P-3581 3 (P-4778) O,~AC ~-K ~. 1 ~ g~ 154 y 7 •- vQ 6200 4 ~° ~` ,. 0.27Ac d" ~ .141 ei 0.2 ~.. I. .~~ _ _ _ .. I ~ \ yY .. l ~ \^ :- i'7 18 r i V ~ ( V ~1 C V J ~ \ `~ W "~ ~J U U Q W ~ C __ ____.. ~ 4 i_ I ~' i ~ I I it i .1 ~;, ~~ . 1 1~ ~~' I i 1;l,ll I; I 1 1 I ~ ;1;~~ ,,i , ;. /;-: ,` r 11 i ,I.i e ~ii 11 lil 11 i ~ ~:~ 1 1~1 C ';j1 '1~ 1 1 ~i~-il ~~ ,. i; :, I`, /~ ~;, ; , w .~I i II-il-~~ Il') ~ il~'~ t~~I~~~il ~ I f i...l ' ~, ..1 i j...~~.i I lei ~ ' 1 it ~11 i :I. ~~' ~ fill I I~~ I 'li I I'.i iii 1 I !~ 1 ( ~.. -'i illlli~l / ~ I1~~• Il::ll il.li: /, ~ .. 19 a ffi ENT B PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations including, but not limited to, building codes and public works standards and specifications. 2. The applicant/property owner shall eliminate one ingress/egress point on to West Pine Street as depicted on the plot plan. 3. The applicandproperty owner shall submit final parking, landscaping, and lighting plans to the Planning, Public Works and Building Departments for approval prior to'obtaining final building permits. ~~ y .. PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: Apri120, 1999 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Continuation of a public hearing to consider a site plan and zone variance for Southern Oregon Hot Bikes. The Commission continued this item from its last meeting enabling the applicant to investigate the possibility of vacating a portion of the alley behind his shop and to come up with a better building elevation and architectural solution. Members of the Commission were concerned with the overall appearance of joining two separate buildings together without a clear plan (refer to Planning Commission minutes dated April 6, 1999). The site is located in the area of the Downtown Revitalization Project. The applicant has stated since the last meeting that he is not yet ready to proceed and would like to wait until May to proceed. Since this public hearing was continued, the Commission may take additional testimony, consider this in light of the findings of fact previously presented and arrive and one of the three actions listed in Attachment A. ATTACHMENTS None 21 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: April 20, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: PublicHearing-Site Plan Review for Rite Aid Drug Store, 37 2W 02CC Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000 & 4001 - Hummelt Development Company Apnlicant/ Hummelt Development Company Owner: 29911 SW Boones Ferry Road, Suite 3 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Agent: Jon Hummelt ro er Description/ 37 2W 02CC Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000 & 4001, 1.46 acres ± Zonine:. C-4; Tourist and Office Professional District Summary 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 Man~anita 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 Office Professional zoning 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 may afford the Commission an opportunity to ask questions and take public testimony. 22 ~~ Authority CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Plamring 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 Law CPMC 17.44.010 et seq. C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District CPMC 17.60.010 et seq.- General Regulations CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking CPMC 17.72.010 eY seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval Discussion This proposal is significant to the City of Central Point in that it involves redev8loping an area that was zoned 15 years ago for commercial activity but has been occupied by mostly nonconforming residential uses. The nonconforming 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 findings 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. 23 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 mere specific plans as a condition to approval. The site plan depicts numerous planters in the parking lots and around the new buildings. The landscaping plan will 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 this. proposal 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 all-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. - 24 1 r ~ 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 property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; ^ 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. 25 ,, Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the review of the Site Plan and public hearing to its next regularly scheduled meeting on May 4, 1999. Attachments A. Notice of Public Hearing B. Letter from Jon Hummelt dated January 14, 1999 and Building Elevations C. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) from Kittelson & Associates D. Comments from Other Agencies 2b City of Central Point Atta°`1tl1etrrA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, A1CP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: April 9, 1999 Meeting Date(s): April 20, 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 Apri120, 1999 at the above time and place, 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, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000 and 4001 of Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W 02CC. CRITERIA FOR DECISION 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 Parking. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance with the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the second 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. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about I55 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 n ~y the decisions described above will aced 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, I55 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same aze available at 15 cents per page. For additional information, the public may contact Tom Humphrey, Planning Director at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the request, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicants, proponents, opponents, and hear azguments 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. .~~ 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 nn 1-1 January 14, 1999 Hummelt Development Company Real Estate 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 ~'V ~ Jo Hutnmelt Attachment B 29911 S. W. Booties Ferry Road • Suite 3 • Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 • (503) 682-7100 • FAX (503) 682-4949 29 We are proposing to develop a freestanding 13,328 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 Manzanita Street. hz 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. 30 ©o©o E$e~i~E~ ~ ~~~b~~~ ~ ';~€ 8~ 'I y g R ~R x C~ Ir D z~ ~ ~ ~~te ~1Id SM.GYN90NtwPin t! ONetP~YYP0. ~ ~u~ieioflfla+ertoaPNrr EKA'"" 1 I I~ ~ POfl11 ON wuaoNVwe,axeaoc+ kn ~n.+..•Y.c 0 u m~~ x.. ww~ wr wo. v.~rt w f ~,,-:- ~ WCI0LL00.~'YA,tOH4 _~ <,0~; :,~ ~ ;;`"„;°. °'»~,w-n.. -- 31 Attachrraent C KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 SW ALDER, SUITE 700 PORTLAND, OR 97205 (503) 228-5230 FAx (503) 273-8169 MEMORANDUM To: Tom Humphrey, AICP, Planning Director, City of Central Point cc: From: Paul Ryus, P.E. & Lee Rodegerdts, P.E., Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Date: April 5, 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. EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Conditions and Adjacent Land Uses The 1.46-acre site is bounded by East Pine Street, lOs' Street, Manzanita Street, and 9`h 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, IOs' Street, Freeman Road, and Manzanita Street. The block of 9's 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 9'h 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. FlLENAME: N1pNJfJC~358Sfe(ror,4eport],tloc J v NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) 5 ~o Ty sf Z~ ~~P ti ~p~ ~ N 2 F ~~ ~ Q\~~ 2 Q SITE VICINITY MAP ~~ 33 RITE-Alb FIGURE p CENTRAL POINT OREGON 1 ~a APRIL 1999 iwwwcnm ~, NORTH_ E.l. GEND ~- - STOP SIGN i -TRAFFIC SIGNAL J J 3 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND INTERSECTION CONTROL DEVICES RITE-AID CENTRAL POINT OREGON FIGURE 2 K APRIL 1999 ~` Central Point Rite Aid Meriiorandum ~ °~ '' April S, /999 Transportation Lnpnct Analysis Table 1. Existing Roadway Facilities Street Classification Lanes Posted Speed (m h) Sidewalks Bicycle Lanes On- Street Parkin East Pine Street Ma'or Arterial 4-5 25 Yes Yes No 10 Street Seconda Arterial 2 35* Paztial No No Freeman Road Second Arterial 2 35 Partial Partial No 9 Street Local Sueet 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 corning 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: l0a' Street-Freeman Road/East Pine Street; l0a' Street/ManzanitaSueet; and 9a' Street/East 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 count sheets. Level of Service Analysis The 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board (Reference 1), is the standard 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 standard 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 standazd 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 HCM. 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. Kittelson & Associates, /nc. Page 4 35 '! NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) 5 ~o sy S~, s ~o s *1~ ryy/ y5rr ti~~ ~pAO Z~ m Q`~,~, st Z w s'~~" ''~~"y ~os~ w1~~ryo i i fi" e tih .ss e ,yo ,~ o 0 1999 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR -- 36 RITE-AID CENTRAL POINT OREGON FIGURE 7 APRIL 1999 J K 35BSF003 Cennnl Point Rite Aid Memorandum ~ `' April S, 1999 Trnnspormrion lmpacr 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, avenge 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 (sec/veh) LOS 10 St: Freeman Rd./ 45 0 21 0 a~~~ Y t i ~~~~zy ai',~~ $ ~ C East Pine SL . . ? t ; «~r~K};~.~~X ~'~. ~ a.,~,..~~ ¢ ~ ,. *r~,''~'~~:}va ~, 10 St./Manzanita St. „~#,, ~ ~ "~~~~i';~4~~,i~~ EB 0.11 4.6 A 9 S[./East Pine St. ~~s i~~t '',~ ~'~t,,^a os f ,i~„tf; SB 0.09 24.6 D EB:eas[bound,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. Trafftc Safety Accident records for the study azea were obtained from the City of Central Point, covering the years of 1996-98; however, data were not available for the last three months of 1997 and 1998. Therefore, a total of 2r/z years of data were analyzed. The data reveal a total of 18 reported accidents at the 10ih Street-Freeman Road/East 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 thumb, an accident rate of more than 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles indicates the need for further investigation. The accident rate at the 1'0's Street-Freeman Road/East Pine Street intersection was 0.90, which does not suggest that a safety problem exists. The most common accident types were northbound reaz- 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 - 3'7 , ~, Certtra( Poin( Rife Aid Mcrnoranduur April S, 1999 Trnnsportntion Lnpnc(Analysis ~~ , BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Planned Transportation Improvements No roadway improvement projects were identified for the study area in the near term. In-Process Development Three developments were identified that have been approved, but not yet constructed, that will directly influence traffic volumes in the study area: • Central Point Commercial Center, located south of the study area near the intersection of Freeman Road and Oak Street; • Bluebird Heights, a 27-lot residential subdivision north of the study azea neaz the intersection of 10`h Street and Cherry Street; and • Summerfield, a 63-lot residential subdivision north of the study area near the intersection of 10`h 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-square-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 a part of) the center, that would take access through the center. Two i00-room motels were used as a conservative assumption for the land use on that site. Traffic increases on 10`" 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 lOd' Street was compazed to the existing population estimate for this area to estimate the increase in existing traffic on l0ei Street that will occur when the new subdivisions aze completed. This increase is estimated to be 19%. Background Traffic Development Background traffic consists of the traffic volumes unrelated to the site that will exist within the study azea at the time the development is fully completed. The analysis year 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 10's Street were increased by 19% to account for the new subdivisions. • Existing traffic volumes in other azeas 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 aze shown in Figure 4. Again, all volumes have been rounded to the nearest five vehicles. Kitte(san & Associates, Inc. Page 7 -- 38 ~ .~ V i ( .~ ~ NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) 5 ~o ~ ~ o~`~ ~ 1 0" ' S 65ti ~~ ~o`~s P~ ~ !~p~ N rn ~~ Q~~~ ~ z `s' w w o: w 1~~ ~r,~ is s~~~ ~;ry~o 1 ~~ R ~ .,- e J 5 O~ 6 ~-- 1~ ` ` 6 ti5 h Aso s ,~o ~s~s h~ o 2000 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR RITE-AID CENTRAL POINT OREGON FIGS E fir// ~ RIL 1999 '+ 3585F004 °. Cenhnl Paint Rite Aid Mrinormidiun ~~ April S, 1999 77nn.rpormtian /mpact Analysis ,i Level 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`h Street/East Pine Street intersection operates at LOS "E" for southbound traffic, below Jackson County's standard. However, only about 20 southbound vehicles are 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 S[.-Freeman Rd./ East Pine St. 0.63 26.2 ;V f \ 1~ ziag+x ~G + ''~' ~ zy ~~3~ 4~&~t ~ ` °~ `~~ 4yt~ Y S N'~ Yd.+,~c ~.. ~`a>x (' ~~~,sr,'~„a.~~ D 10 St./Manzanita St. ,,, f „~~ ,'~a)z~rt~~;~rt~,ra'~'Y~). EB 0.17 6.5 B 9 St./East Pine St. 'r~'i'ti ~b~'f'rt~~s~F~ 'd'tc' SB 0.15 35.8 E EB: 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, 10's Street; Manzanita Street, and 9'" Street, to be replaced by a 13,328-square-foot Rite Aid pharmacy. Under the proposed site plan, 9'h 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 9`h 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/9o' 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 similar developments. These observations are summarized in the standazd reference manual, Trip Generation, 60' 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 turning movements at site driveways. Kittetson & Associates, /nc. ~ O Page 9 ~.., 0 R ~ ~A/.{NZA N/TA 3l. r ... ' - ~ ~, - - ~ _ i r1-- .__ _, I 1 ; a d6 a ~ * ..tea .. 1"- '~~`~ ~ +' f Q ae ' I , . a9 I I r s ~ ~ arca.,uerl~amccv •1 0 l~: ~ l ~ I ~ ~ C ~ ( ~~r:~ iL ~ T a i ~ m:~ d T 1 ~ I v s 1~. ~ ~ ~- ~ i q~ I A ~ I I L ® I ---""''-~ it -- -- I ~F , L ~~ - , ~ ~ ° ~ a.a a °` b d~ T i f p F 0 - I~ O _ m a - a ~~--yy a •~ I 1 1 1 1~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J a ~ r/~Vf Sf. ~ "~ y~ ~ I ~ I I ~- I * r I y~ I ~% '~ S ' ~ d!P~ ~ ~g~i Si~i ~Wr1~~¢~a~ r 9rnr~wswus~lrwm•ui- _ QaY ar a•cs.Y1NbRRI~CRS[ nee a¢w[m+na~rw JYNM1W am ru T 1' Ya banabn R' MYP~ 6mv•W.aIIQ L ! ~ ' -Paa-n-rnm-~ ...m ir. n. '~ f N~NiI PROPOSED SITE PLAN RITE-AID CENTRAL POINT OREGON FIGS E APRIL 1999 .J ~ SF00 NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) i 350 , J o Centres( Point Rite Aid Memorandum i April S, /999 Transportntion Lnpact Analysis ~ ' New trips reflect those vehicle trips attracted solely by the development. These are [he 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/DriveThtu 881 13,328 1,175 70 70 140 Pass-b Tri 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 to come from east of I-S, 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. Leve[ of Service Analysis Total traffic volumes for the year 2000 weekday p.m. peak hour were developed by adding the site-generated volumes shown in Figure 7 to the year 2000 background traffic volumes shown in Figure 6. In addition, existing traffic volumes to and from 9"' 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 Ratio Average Total Dela sedveh LOS l0a' St.-Freeman Rd./ East Pine St. 0.64 26.8 D 10 St./Bast Drivewa BB 0.03 3.9 A 10 St./Manzanita St. SB 0.23 8.1 B 9 St./East Pine St. SB LT 0.14 59.0 F EB: eastbound. SB LT: southbound left-tum Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Page /1 ~_ 42 ,~ , NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) 5 ~o ~f ~~g 0 1 RP S ~~ ~. ~ N m S~ O~~ ~ .J w w ESTIMATED SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION RITE-AID CENTRAL POINT OREGON FIGURE gyp/ APRIL 1999 A ~ A a 1~ n ~1 NORTH NOTf: NEGATIVE VOLUMES RESULT FROM PASS-BY TRIPS SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES WF_F_KDAY PM PEAK HOUR RITE-AID FIGURE p CENTRAL POINT OREGON 7 ~a APRIL 1999 snernm A n ~ '~o ii 4 ~~ e t ~ ~ n NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) s`'o ~~ LS~y 2f O 5 is ~y s~ ~~ 'os •~ .yol 65 ~~O~J` 6'l ~~ 1A~~~P ~` ~P~ x F rn 9t ~ .. Q~~~ z w w r 'm s~~ti ~11y ?m1~~- ~~ti~o 1 I o~ R }l 5~~ \~ 560 ~ \\ 6 rl,~i h I`s0 6 .y0 h SS~S S O NOTE: NEGATIVE VOLUMES RESULT FROM PASS-BY TRIPS 2000 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKnAY PM PEAK HOUR RITE•-AID FIGURE p CENTRAL POINT OREGON 8 K APRIL 7999 ~Fascnnn 45 Centrnl Point Rite AiA Memormrdum Apri( 5, /999 Trmrsportation /ngtact Analysis I ' 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 ")~'. 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-tum 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 10'h Street, and from there can make a protected left-tum 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 10's 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 length probabilities. (In 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 parameters used in the LOS calculations. The queuing analysis found that the 95`s-percentile queue for both the southbound left-turn and through-right lanes on the southbound l0a' Street approach is 225 feet under year 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 (50's-percentile queue) would extend 125 feet. The location proposed on the site plan for the right-in, right-out access on 10"' 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 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. If left turns into the site were allowed at this driveway, the left turns could also be blocked frequently by southbound queues, which in turn could cause northbound queues to spill back into the IOs' Street-Freeman Road/East Pine Street intersection. For this reason, left-tum access into the site from northbound 10'" Street is not recommended at this location. Kittelson & Associates, fnc. Page 1 S - 46 q ~n ia- ~ ,. E ,. .Y CenU~al Roie! Rile Aid Mernornndum .a ~,,. Ap+~il5,1999 TrmrsportnlionlnymctAnalysis Right-Turn Lane Analysis The long-term need for a southbound right-turn 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 1,0'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 10'h Street will be 26% higher than present, resulting in about 25 peak-hour southbound right-turning vehicles. Rite Aid traffic will not add significantly to these right-turn 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 aeea's street system. t "' • 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-turn • ~ from Rite Aid onto East Pine Street at 9s' Street will operate at LOS "F", but: with r sufficient capacity to accommodate demand. As alternative access to'a signal via 10's ` Street will be provided to motorists, this level of service condition should not pose a significant problem. • Aright-in, right-out driveway onto 10's Street will be blocked during portions of 35%o of weekday p.m. peak hour traffic signal cycles. During periods of blockage, queues of exiting vehicles could extend into the Rite Aid pazking lot and block circulation azound the building to the drive-through lane. • Because of vehicle queuing issues, aleft-in access to the site from northbound l0a' Street is not recommended. • Although the accident rate at the 10'" Street-Freeman Road/Bast 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 of red-signal running. We tmst that this memorandum adequately addresses the traffic-related issues related to this site. If you have any questions, please call us at (503) 228-5230. n.: ~; Kittelson & Associates, /nc. ~ ~ Page 16 Cenu'al Poin( Rite Aid Meniornnduni April S, /999 Transportation hnpnc! Analysis i ,, REFERENCES L Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (1994). 2. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Transportation Impact Study for the Centra[ .Point Commercial Center (1998). 3. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Sixth Edition (1997). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ~ ~ ~ Page /7 Attachment D .~ ' .•"! ~~ ,. -b e d BEAR CREEK VALL'YEY``SANITARY AUTHORITY ~ <.~~, 4::;~ ~,~ ,.~ '.ic!* 3915 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFORD, OREGON 97501.9099 • (541) 779-4144 • FA%(541) 635-5278 p~~~C~~~~~~)~ March 25, 1999 ~ MAR 2 9 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, 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 confirmed the 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 . - 4~