Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - April 6, 1999;,, '>r~`~ ,~ `a' i CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Apri16, 1999, - 7:00 p.m. ~ Q fl Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 444 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL G~huck Piland -Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, Karolyne Johnson and Paul Lunte III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of March 2, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Page 1- 9 A. ConsiderationofarequestbytheMeadows Community Homeowners Association to vary from the fence requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code in order to retain adequate security for a Recreafional Vehicle Storage facility. The subject property is located at 555 Freeman Road in the R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district. Conk iwr-~ 10 - 29 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 subjectproperty is located onthe northeast side ofSouthFront Streetinthe C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. ~a,~j , ~~ ~e 30-48 C. PublichearingtoconsiderasiteplanintroducedbyMarciaLaViatoadda6960 square footbuildingto commercialproperty at 980 SouthFront Street.The subject property is on the northeast side of South Front Street inthe C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. Reba ~(t(t~ li ,~ a rr~ , 49 - 68 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 subjectproperty is located in the vicinity of Laurel Street inthe R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district, ii'~> G~-~~,~~~j 50 - 59 E. Public hearing to consider a request by Van Wey Homes and Key West Properties to reconsider a requirement for the construction ofa concrete block wall along the Hamrick and Vilas Road frontages of New Haven Estates subdivision. The subjectpropertyislocatedintheR-l-8 Residential Single Family zoning district. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Update on Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project by RVCOG VIII. ADJOURNMENT ,y ,ti 'r CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 2, 1999 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Paul Lunte, Tan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, Karolyne Johnson. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; Lee Brennan, Public Works Director; and Sue Meyers, Office Technician. III. CORRESPONDENCE 1. Fax from Neil Shaw, Fire District 3 regarding 41 South 4s' Street, the subdivision at 586 Beall Lane, and 3344 Bursell Road. 2. Letter from BCVSA regarding 41 South Fourth. 3. Letter from BCVSA regarding 586 Beall Lane. 4. Letter from BCVSA regarding 3344 Bursell Road. 5. Fax from Farber Surveying regarding Public Works staff report on Beall IV. 6. Letter from Jackson County Roads and Parks regarding subdivision offBeall Lane. IV MINiJTES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 2, 1999. The motionwas seconded by Commissioner Foster. ROLL CALL; Lunte, yes; Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to consider a request by W.L. Moore Construction to subdivide 1.68 acres into nine lots for padlot. single family attached dwellings. The subject property is located north ofBeall Lane 150 feet east of Marilee Street in the R-2. Residential Two Family zoning district. Candy Fish had a conflict of interest and took a seat in the audience. There were no other conflicts of interest or exparte communications. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the staff report for the Planning Department. The applicant, W.L. Moore, has submitted a request to subdivide 1.68 acres into nine lots for padlot, single family attached dwellings. The two homes located at the front of the property on Beall Lane would remain, Documentation has been submitted demonstrating completion ofthe preliminary lot line adjustment ofthe „~, a.~ ,~ „ , City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1999, Page 2 common boundary between parcels 2W 11DD 17000 and 17100, and right of way dedication of a ten foot strip along the Beall Lane frontage of tax lot 17000. Padlot developments are permitted in the R-2 zoning district and, as an infill development, this proposal is a more efficient use of residentially zoned land and will improve the overall appearance and value of this property and neighborhood. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, presented the Public Works Department staff report. The Public Works Department asks that the Developer demonstrate that connections to the exiting infrastructure will not interfere with or degrade the existing effective level of service or be improved by and at the expense of the Developer. They also request that the street name "Benjamin Court" be changed to "Benjamin Lane" to coincide with the City's classification of the street as a "residential lane". Public Works also suggests inclusion of an off-street visitor parking area within the development, as street parking is not allowed on residential lanes. A suitable permanent traffic barricade shall be implemented at the terminus of Benjamin Lane. The driveway connections to Beall Lane will be required to be removed and connectionsshallbemadetoBenjaminLane. Public Works recommendsthata5-foot wide public sidewalk section be placed, at the Developer's expense. A 10-foot wide PUE will be required outside the City's right-ofway onBenjaminLane, on both sides ofthe lane. This will require the structure set back to be increased to 25 feet to afford driveway parking that does not interfere with pedestrian traffic. Improvements to Beall Lane including, but not limited to, street widening, acceleration and deceleration lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bikeway, street lights, storm drainage, and traffic control and delineation, shall be coordinated and approved by the 7C Roads and the City PWD. As approved by the City Administrator, the Developer may request or be required to defer any or all of the required improvements until a later date. Herb Farber, agent for W.L. Moore Construction had some concerns regarding the Public Works staffreport one of which was the fact that the applicant doesn't control property upon which improvements are being required. It was agreed that sidewalks would be placed on the left side of Benjamin Lane only, and the 10-foot wide PUE would be required where feasible. There maybe an existing Deferred Improvement Agreement regardingaportionofthisproperty. Therewassomediscussionregarding the wording of #11 under the "General" section. The sentence in question read "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." It was agreed that the Public Works Director and the Developer's surveyor (Herb Farber) would work out language that is acceptable to all concerned. The proposed language may be inconsistent with state law. . ~... , \ ~ City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1999, Page 3 Robert Johnson, 654 Beall Lane, who owns three parcels adjacent to the project voiced his concern regarding drainage onto his property. He would like to see the elevation of the road lowered to allow the 6" slope required for drainage, rather than creating a 6" rise above his property. He felt that this was a small parcel of property to accommodate eight families. RayBitterling,948Westrop,haspropertybehindMr. Johnson, and also voiced the opinion that eight families "jammed" into 41ots, was a heavy concentration. Mr. Farber pointed out that this property was zoned for this type of use. There was some discussion regarding one story vs. two story dwellings, but that has not been decided by the applicant. Mr. Farber also stated that the drainage would be addressed and would have to be acceptable to the City. He stated that the engineering of the road would depend on the existing infrastructure. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that the zoning for this area has been in place for a long time and does allow this type of housing. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director stated that the developer is well within the density requirements. Chairman Piland asked Mr. Humphrey to explain the concept of infill development which he did. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution #441 to grant a request by W.L. Moore Construction to subdivide 1.68 acres into nine lots for padlot, single family attached dwellings, subject to staff reports with amendments to #6 and #7 ofthe Public Works staff report, special requirements, regarding sidewalks and PilE, and acceptable language on #11 under general, regarding "red-line" changes, and to research the possibility of an existing D>A. The subject property is located north of Beall Lane 150 feet east of Marilee Street inthe R-2, Residential Ttvo Family zoning district. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilkey. ROLL CALL: Paul Lunte, yes; Jan Dunlap, yes; Don Foster, yes; Bob Gilkey, yes; Karolyne Johnson, yes. B. Public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by Joe Self and David Blaska to place a building at 41 South Fourth Street for use as a commercial office. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Oak and Fourth Streets in the C-2. Commercial Professional zoning district. There were no exparte communications or conflicts of interest. Both Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Dunlap had spoken to Mr. Blaska regarding the Department of Environmental Quality. Planning Director Tom Humphrey presented the Planning Department staff report. The Applicant, Dave Blaska has requested a Site Plan Review for the relocation of a tax office building from Pine & 10th Streets to the corner of Oak and Fourth Streets. ( ~'. ~ ~ The City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1999, Page 4 Relocation will involve placing the building on a new foundation and site improvements including, but not limited to; access, parking, landscaping and signage. The proposed use is permitted in the C-2 zoning district. The C-2 zone requires a 5 foot front and side yard setback for the purpose of landscaping. The parking area cannot be in the landscape set back area and the spaces along Oak Street should be reoriented perpendicular to Fourth Street in order to back into the driveway access and not into the public right-of--way. Planning staffhas come up with an alternative site plan to illustrate these points. Approval of this application should be conditioned upon satisfactory compliance with the requirements ofBCVSA and Avista Utilities, as well as Jackson County Fire District 3. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, presented the Public Works staff report. Developer shall remove and replace sidewalk and broken curb and gutter sections along the property's frontage with Fourth Street and Oak Street, as well as a suitable driveway apron on Oak. A wheelchair ramp shall be constructed at the corner of 4'~ and Oak Streets. Applicant shall either make improvements to the alley or enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement (DIA). Developer shall also provide appropriate drainage, site lighting, sight-triangles and meet building setback and parking requirements. David Blaska and Toe Self addressed the Commission. They were amenable to all staff concerns, but requested the City share the cost of replacing the 160' of sidewalk on 4s' Street. The Commission recommended that they submit a request to the City Council, for a possible 50/50 cost split. Commissioner Dunlap made a motion to adopt Resolution #442 to grant a request by David Blaska and Joe Self to place a building at 41 South Fourth Street for use as a commercial office, subject to staff reports with amendments. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Oak and Fourth Streets in the C-2, Commercial Professional zoning district. Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Paul Lunte, yes; Jan Dunlap, yes; Candy Fish, yes; Don Foster, yes; Bob Gilkey, yes. Commissioner Dunlap then made a motion to recommend City Council agree to a 50/50 cost split on the sidewalk on Fourth Street. The motion was seconded by Bob Gilkey. ROLL CALL: Paul Lunte, yes; Jan Dunlap, yes; Candy Fish, yes; Don Foster, yes; Bob Gilkey, yes; Karolyne Johnson, yes. Chairman Piland called fora 10 minute recess at 9:00. Meeting resumed at 9:10. C. Public hearing to consider a re uq est by Betty Beale for a conditional use permit to construct a second sin lg a family dwelling behind an existing residence at 3344 Bursell (Y n City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1999, Page 5 Road. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Greenleaf Lane and Bursell Road in the R-2. Residential Two Family zoning district. Tom Humphrey presented the Planning Department staff report. The Public Works Department is recommending that the applicant create a 5 foot sidewalk easement and construct a sidewalk along the property's Greenleaf frontage and tying into the sidewalk from the Shelterwood subdivision. The sidewalk easement along with a 10 foot public utilities easement, would potentially effect the front yard setback, therefor Public Works is asking that the front setback for this house be increased to 25 feet. Since the municipal code establishes a 20 foot front setback in the residential zone and because building permits issued elsewhere on Greenleaf Lane (where sidewalk easements also exist) have been approved at 20 feet, the Planning Department cannot support a change to the front setback. However, there would be a 25' setback to the garage door, due to the design of the home. Lee Brennan presented the Public Works staff report. A sidewalk should also be installed on the property's frontage with Bursell Road. A 10 foot PiJE will be required outside the City's right-of--way of Greenleaf Lane and along the western boundary adjoining Bursell Road. No street parking is permitted on either Greenleaf Lane or Bursell Road. Appropriate sight triangle and storm drainage shall be provided by the Developer. Improvements to Bursell Road including, but not limited to, street section widening (up to 24 feet from centerline to curb-line), curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bikeways, street lights, storm drainage, and traffic control and delineation, shall be coordinated and approved by the JC Roads and the City PWD. The improvements should be constructed at the expense of the developer and as part of the development of the proposed lot. The developer shall coordinate with the Developer of Shelterwood Subdivision on the completion of improvements of the intersection of Greenleaf Lane and Bursell Rd. Ron Hagemeyer, contractor, 650 E. Fork Road, Williams, spoke on behalf of Betty Beale. He stated that the sidewalks on Greenleaf and Bursell, as well as the improvements to Bursell would be financially impossible for the applicant. He requested that all sidewalks and other improvements be deferred until the parcel is split. Public Works requested the sidewalk on Greenleaf be required, and a payment plan with the City could be arranged. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution #443 to approve a conditional use permit to construct a second single family dwelling behind an existing residence at 3344 Bursell Road, according to staff reports, and to include a deferment of improvements on Bursell Road and a payment plan with the City for the sidewalk on Greenleaf Lane. The motion was seconded by CommissionerDunlap. ROLL CALL:PaulLunte,yes;JanDunlap,yes;Candy Fish, yes; Don Foster, yes; Bob Gilkey, yes; Karolyne Johnson, yes. .;, City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1999, Page 6 VII. MISCELLANEOUS Discussion of Gloria Dei Lutheran Directional signs. The church would like to erect signs at various places around town to direct people to their church. The directional signs would be placed on private property. Applicant would be required to obtain a permit for sign placement, as well as permission from the property owner to place the, signs. The site distance triangle would have to be considered. The Commission agreed that they would probably allow placement of these type of signs for churches, and may consider expanding use if there are other requests in the future. Presentation of a residential infill proposal by Brad Miller for Commission consideration and input. Brad Miller presented a preliminary plan for a residential infill on a narrow piece of property located between Royal Heights subdivision and Scenic Middle School. He is interested in getting tentative approval for a padlot development but would have to change the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning to R-2 or R-3. Mr. Miller was looking for direction from the Commission. Their primary recommendation was to go to the neighbors and see if they would be receptive to a zone change. Without the approval of the neighbors, it would be very difficult to obtain the change in zoning. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Dunlap made a motion to adjourn. Motions was seconded by Commissioner Fish. All said "aye" and the meeting was adjourned at 10:25. . „ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: Apri16, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Variance from fence requirements at 555 Freeman Road (372W11A Tax Lot 3108). Applicant: Meadows Community Homeowner's Association 555 Freeman Road # 270 Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Charles Shinn, Association President 555 Freeman Road # 71 Central Point, Oregon 97502 Summary: 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. Apnlicable 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 material creating an unreasonable or unnecessary risk of injury be prohibited Requests for fence variances shall be made by application ...and shall be reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1.24 (which involves Planning Commission consideration without a public hearing. 1 The subject fence is located at the eastern end of the Meadows subdivision along Interstate-5 and serves to enclose and secure an RV storage area. The fence consists of six foot chain link panels with one foot 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 leave 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 may be granted if findings are made as follows: I. The strict application of the provisions would result in unnecessary hardship; or The applicant states that 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 that 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. 2. The following considerations will either result from a granting of the variance or the following considerations do not apply to the requested application: a. The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city, The additional height of the fence and use of barbed 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. 2 c. The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the city, Homeowners 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 area 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 who make up the 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 whether City approval for a variance had ever been granted. £ 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: 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 11, 1999 G:\PLANN W G\99024. W PD 3 Attachment -q " ' APPLICATION FOR FENCE VARIANCE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Meadows Community Homeowners Association, Inc. Address: sss Freeman Rd. 11270 (;jty; Central Point, OR Telephone: Business: 664-2662 Residence: N/A 2.. AGENT INFORMATION Name: Charles F. Shinn - Association President ' Address: 555 Freeman R~i_ Jk71 Clty: Central Point, OR Telephone: Business: N/A Residence: 664-7314 3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet if More Than One) Name: Meadows Community Homeowners Association, IMc. Address: sss Freeman Rd 11270 Clty: Central Point, OR Telephone: Business: 61~ _ ~ ~ ~, Residence:.. ni i n 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Township: 37 Range: 2w Section: I1 ~ Tax Lot(s): 3108 Zoning District: Total Acreage: General Description of Variance: 'the /YIe.~Jt~s Nowleow~ers ,4Jro~i~.'tro~ fed~v~-F? ~ r/al.( ~~o~ ~~ ~eH .a r2~,i,~eyLi eit'~r o>` cpMc. /S•Lo.oyoa,,,,d1 /S•Lo, 070 ~n a~cQ¢~ 'I'o (2~aiti otc~2a~e.'F2 Secv/'i'F.~ ~o/' `('/ice ~2C1Pa.~iOnn~ (/~tiirrl~ S~nfac~p ~aci(t~~. 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS [ This Appiication Form ] Application Fee ($200.00) Plot Plan & Elevations Drawn to [ Scale (10 Sets) -{-] One Copy of a Reduced Piot Pian & -[-]~ Elevations (81/2" x 11") Written Authority from Properly Owner if Agent in Application Process Findings (Addressing Criteria in Section 15.20.080 of the Central Point Municipal Code) Legal Description bf the Properly 6. 1 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 cert(fy that I am the : [ ]Property Owner or ~] Authorized Agent ofthe Owner of the proposed 4 _(1 ~ .. ~ protect site / / a~~ ~` b ro `~. i i M i i P M 1 n M N ~•~ O n ~~ ~ ~ O ` Z , ~ Z W O 1 s a u~ ag ', ~ ~ ~U . V ~---~~ ~ ~~ 1.... m ti I m N NJ N~ ~~ N . b i O N 1 1 ^~ y N n V N I 1 ;d N N n N m M a M ~ P m 1 1 1 J~ N y N M N "1 O M M P ' ' P ~ N 1 1 M N M N M M N N N N ~N _/ 1 I ~ m ___ _______ ` - _J ___._____ ~ 1 y N 1 ~~ T .-I M N M M N N M N M N M N M y N N O y 1 N I O N ~ y ' Q O P N M ~-1 O M M P N m N N b M O M N I N ^I N N N ry N N N N N N N N ~ d ' Y ----____ _______ ~ •- ! ,~ . a O _ ' 1 ' O. n ^I .y .i m P O N 1 .1 rl N N N N N N N N N ~ N N ~• y "1 P -~ m 1~ N • ' 1.` b ti N ti N p N O N O N p N _^ m_ P O. P ~0 ~ ~ N M M y N N - O O p N N N ___ aVOFi NVW33tlj --__ 5 I~ . '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 second burglary, which amounted to losses 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 detected by the security system. The razor wire is needed on the corners because corner posts can be climbed without vibrating the fence. With 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 properly within the intent and purpose of the zone district. Does aot apply. ~p .e Attachment i6 - 155 SO. SECOND ST. CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 97502 664-3321 February 4, 1999 Bill Stults, Manger The Meadows 555 Freeman Road #187 Central Point, OR 97502 Re: Security Fence for The Meadows RV Storage Facility Dear Bill: City staffhaue completed their review of the security fencing for The Meadows RV storage facility. We cannot find any sp eci fic approval for security fencing that included barbed or razor wire that may have been given by either city staff, the Planning Commission or the City Council. We do have plans that show securityfencingproposed forthe RV storage facility, butthey do not describe the nature ofthe fencing. It is not unreasonable to assume thatthe security fencing thatwas proposed contemplated the use of barbed wire or something similar. However, the city ordinance prohibiting the use of such materials was in effect 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 with two choices. The board may remove the barbed wire from the security fencing or they may apply for a fence variance to allow the barbed wire to remain. A fence variance application would be heard by the City Planning Commission. If a decision is reached to apply for the variance, I would suggest that you talk to Ken Gerschler in the Planning Department and he can provide youwiththe necessary applicationform.Please letme lmowoftheboard's decisionatyour eazliest convenience. Sincerely, r Bennett City Administrator S' THE HEART OF THE ROGUE RIVER VALLEY ' ~, ~, 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 barbed wire around the perimeter, and razor wire in the corner 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 where the barbed and razor wire play an important part in The Meadow's fenced parking area security. Without the 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 harder, 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 corners create an integral part of the overall security of The Meadows. Chris Duncan Technical Services Manager Sonitrol of Southern Oregon An Independent Sonitrol Franchise ©Listed Installation and Monitoring ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: Apri16, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Variance and Site Plan Review from Front Setback Requirements at 125 South Front Street (37 2W lOAA Tax Lot 4200) licant• Owner Pro e Descri to ion/ Zonine: Summary Roger Wimberly of Southern Oregon Hot Bikes 125 South Front Street Central Point, OR 97502 Colvin Oil 20 South Stage Road Medford, Oregon 97501 37 2W l OAA Tax Lot 4200 - 0.25 acres C-5, Thoroughfare-Commercial District The applicant, Roger Wimberly has requested a Variance and Site Plan Reviewthat would allow abuilding to be permanently positioned adjacent to the existing motorcycle shop located at 125 South Front Street in a C-5, Thoroughfare-Commercial Zoning District. 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 a Site Plan Review. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Attachment B). Ap»licable Law CPMC 17.46.010 et seq.- C-5, Thoroughfare-Commercial 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 ~~ ~~ Discussion Last year, Roger Wimberly visited the Planning Department to discuss the purchase of a piece ofproperty on South Front Street adjacent to the New Holland Tractor store. Roger had felt that his business- SouthemOregon Hot Bikes had succeeded to the point that he needed additional space for the motorcycle repair and sales facility. Planning for the needed expansion, Roger purchased an old garage and stored it temporarily next to the existing motorcycle shop at 125 South Front Street. The sale ofthe new site fell through and Roger chose to stay at his current location. Citing safety concerns, the Building and Fire Deparhnents have requested that the old garage be positioned permanently on the site or removed. Roger would like to keep the 780 square foot building at 125 South Front Street and use it for expanded business operations. His intention is to locate the building between Oak Street and the existing shop with as much distance as possible so that the area between the two buildings can be used in the future for a motorcycle showroom. To maximize the distance between the buildings, 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 ofapproximately sixteen feet between the two buildings. The Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the Site Plan and determined that the building is located out of the fifteen foot sight vision triangle where the alley intersects Oak Street. The proposed use including the new building and showroom area would require a total of ten parking spaces. The Planning Department has calculated that there is adequate room for parking and recommends that the designated parking areas be striped. Jackson County Fire District Number Three and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority have submitted comments for the Commission's consideration. The fire district would like to review final building plans and BCVSA can serve the new structure if necessary. 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 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 ofexisting plants orthe installation ofnew ones for purposes of screening adjoining property. . ^ The applicant has not submitted a landscaping plan and staff is recommending that a plan be prepared and submitted for consideration and approval before any building permits are issued. Landscaping in this case is intended to make the development more aesthetically appealing and to satisfy municipal code requirements. B: Design; number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The proposed structure placement does not create additional access requirements to the parcel. The Public Works Department will require removal of one curb cut and sidewalk installation on Oak Street. 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 ofuse, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ There is adequate room for ten parking spaces, which the code requires. The City will work with the property owners. D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traffic control signs or devices and thatthey are compatible with the design oftheir buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ There are no new signs proposed at this time. E. Accessibility and sufficiency office fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety oflife, limb andproperty, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; ^ ApprovalofthesiteplanwillbesubjecttotherecommendationsofJacksonCountyFire District Number 3 (refer to Attachment "C" ). F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The project meets requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code subject to the recommended conditions of approval. The front setback from Oak Street cannot be met, therefore the applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement. ~~ iz 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 additional building is wood framed with lap siding. Buildings on surrounding parcels are constructed of wood, concrete or cinder block. This parcel is located in an area that has been identified as a portion of the downtown revitalization plan. The new building should be integrated into the site so as to present an attractive appearance overall. This includes, but is not limited to, painting, awnings and structuraUarchitectural tie-ins. variance A variance maybe granted if findings are made as follows: 1. The Variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City such as beautification or safety. The applicant would like to permanently position the garage structure at this time with eventual plans to attach a showroom area.Improvements to this property could enhance the area if they are effectively integrated with the existing building. The site plan and the elevations depict the conceptual future showroom area and show how the buildings would be integrated. 2. The Variance wiltnothave any significantadverse impacts upon the neighborhood. ^ Anadditionalshopbuildingandshowroomwillcreatemoreworkareafortheapplicant and enable him to expand his business. The variance in this area is less pronounced because of the 80 foot right of way on Oak Street. 3. The Variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. ^ The Hot Bikes motorcycle sales and repair business is a conditional use described in CPMC 17.46.030 and a variance from the front lot line would notviolate the intent of the zoning district. 4. Circumstances affect the property that do not apply to other property in the same zoning district. There are no apparent differences between this parcel and others located within the C-5 Zoning District adjacent to Front Street. ~~ 13 . ,, 5. The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed through the applicants' own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. ^ The existing building was formerly used as a gas station repair shop. It was the applicanNs beliefthat the buildingwould be stored upon the lot on a temporary basis until another parcel could be purchased. The applicant has submitted findings for consideration by the Commission (refer to attachment "A"). Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No.~ approving the Site Plan and zonevariance subjectto the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment D ); or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan and zone variance; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan and zone variance at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A,. Site Plan, Building Elevations, Applicants Findings and Letter of Description B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Correspondence D. Planning Department Conditions E. Public Works Staff Report ,_ 14 Oak Street 100' PROPERTY LINE CENTERLINE O CURB O 6' Imi. A7B~CII ~ SUBJECT STRUCTURE 15' -}-~ /h o .--i ~ ~ fi' 1@7. ffi7B6W. 100 SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PROPERTY LINE VARIANCE SOUTHERN OREGON HOT BIKES 125 S. Front Street Zoning C-5 37 2W lOAA - 4200 File ~ 98080-SF,VAR ~~ 15 1 C5ty of Ceittr}(I~fuE " EXHIBT'T "~,~'f Planning Department 20' Vision Area m 27 1D .. ~ O EXISTING ~ BUILDING ,,; -- ~'- --~o,a~oos~D _._., -.{~e ~,~~p~v ~ ~~s~' 6~EV~TioN ' 16 m ~ LETTER OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION BY ADDING ON TO OUR EXISTING BUILDING WE CAN GENERATE MORE BUSINESS WITH MORE ROOM FOR BIKES AND HAVING MORE PARTS INVENTORY. WE WANT TO ADD ATK DIRT BIKES AND AMERICAN EAGLE MOTORCYCLES TO OUR BUSINESS AND WE NEED A SHOWROOM BEFORE THEY WILL GIVE US THE DEALERSHIP. WE ALSO NEED A PLACE FOR A DYNO ROOM. CUSTOMERS WITH HARLEY DAVIDSON'S LIKE A BIG CLEAN SHOP FOR THEIR BIKES TO BE WORKED ON. WE WANT TO SET THE BUILDING DOWN FOR NOW AND EVENTUALLY CONNECT IT WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING. ~~- 1'7 FINDINGS 1. ADDING THE BUILDING TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WILL GIVE THE APPEARANCE A MORE UPDATED LOOK. 2. WE ARE TRYING TO EXPAND OUR BUSINESS ON A LOT AND NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS ALREADY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. 3. BY EXPANDING OUR BUSINESS, IT WILL BRING MORE BUSINESS INTO THE COMMUNITY. 4. DOES NOT APPLY. 5. DOES NOT APPLY. 18 City of Central PLANNING DEPARTII GYty of Centrai Poiu EXHI&~'IT ttB tr Planning Departmeu't Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Pianner Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: March 16,1999 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING April 6, 1999 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Beginnvug at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review applications for a Variance and a Site Plan that would allow a 780 square foot building to be permanently placed adjacent to the existing commercial building located at 125 South Front Street. To position the additional building on the lot, the applicant has requested to vary from the required 5 foot setback. If the variance were approved, the building would be positioned on the property line adjacent to Oak Street. The parcel is located in a C-5 Thoroughfare Commercial Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W lOAA, Tax Lot 4200. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Variances and Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter. l7 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance with the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Anyperson interestedincommentingontheabove-mentioned land use decisionmay submitwritten comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Apri16, 1999.. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. -- .. 19 Y 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 to 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. Foradditior~alinfomiation,thepublicmaycontactthePlanningDepartmentat(541)664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE Atthemeeting, thePlanning Commissionwill reviewtheapplicaHons, technical staffreports, heartestimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the applications. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Variance and Site Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. e\~~~ ~~~~~ `\ SUBJECP PROP&RTY 9 v ~~~~ C~ ~/- O S~ > sr o~~ P~' O O s 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax• (541) 664-6384' nn BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHOR~TY~ 3916 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFON0. ONEQON 07601.909Y • (611) 77YJ114 • FA%(641) 636.6270 U' ~ l'1 LS MAR 2 9 1999 March 25, 1999 Ken Gerschler Planning Department City of Central Point 155 South Second Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: 98080 Site Plan Review & Variance -Sewer Service Dear Ken, City of C~ittraI L~oinE E~xr~r~r «C„ ; Planning Deparimeuf We have reviewed the proposed site proposal with regard to provision of sanitary sewer service. The proposed structure could be served off the Oak Street 8" sewer main that flows Easterly. We have not confirmed the location of the existing service line connection point. The applicant should contact BCVSA for tap and permit information and fees. If you have any additional questions please call me at 779-4144. Since i/~ ~ ames may, Jr. P.'E/%~/ District Engineer 21 u3/Y4/98 11:03 FAX 5418284586 FIRR DISTRICT #3 e FIRE DISTRICT No. 3 ,JACKSON COUNTY 8333 AGAPE ROAD, WHITE CTfY, OREGON 9 7503-10 75 (541)826-7100 FAR (541)826-4566 DCG~G~~dL~ 3-24-99 MAR 2 4 1999 D Ken Gerschler ay City of Central Point Re: File 98080 Fire District #3 has no comment on the variance to move the building within the setback at 125 South Front Street. We would like to see the final plans with the city building departments comments on it for fire code review. ~~ ~s~~ Neil Shaw Deputy Fire Marshal. f~105 22 ATTACHMENT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on Apri16, 2000 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public hearing within 30 days of Planning Commission approval. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations including, .but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Fire Code and Structural Specialty Code. 3. The applicant shallmeetwiththePlanningDepartmenttodesignasuitablelandscapeplanthat complies with the zoning requirements of the C-5 zoning district. 4. The applicant must demonstrate that the buildings are integrated into the site so as to present an attractive appearance overall, including but not limited to painting, awnings, and structuraUarchitectural tie-ins. ~~ 23 J CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for Southern Oregon Hot Bikes Addition 125 South Front Street Commercial Facility Site Plan PW#98080 Date: Applicant: Property Owner: Project: Location: Legal: Zoning: Units: ca~ty or central mint EXHI~I`I' ttE't Planning Depariment March 29, 1999 Southern Oregon Hot Bikes, 125 South Front St., Central Point, Oregon 97502 Colvin Oil, 20 South Stage Road, Medford, Oregon 97501 Commercial Building Addition 120 South Front Street (at intersection with Oak Street) T37S, R2W, Section 11AA, Tax Lot 4200 C-5 Existing 1,160 s.f. building; proposed addition adds 780 s.f.; No parking spaces on plot plan. Plans: 1 page of Site Plan prepared by City Planning Department Report By: Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director Purpose Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding Public Works standards and additional standards and requirements to be included in the design. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding proposed development. Special Requirements South Front Street (Highwav 991 Improvements and Riaht-of-Wav Dedication: The City has obtained a grant to install sidewalks along portions of Front Street. City staff has decided that a portion of the grant would be used for installing a 6-foot sidewalk across the frontage of the subjectproperty with South Front Street. To facilitate sidewalk installation, the City will require an additional 7 feet of right-of-way dedication along South Front Street. The City PWD is suggesting that as part of this development, that the Developer be required to dedicate a 7-foot wide section for right-of-way along the property's frontage with South Front Street. Any tie-ins to the existing installed storm drainage system along Highway 99 must be permitted and approved by ODOT. The driveways into the proposed development should be designed and positioned in a manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of a WB-67 truck, without crossing into an opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic. Need to show truck turning movement on construction plans. Acceleration and deceleration lanes meeting ODOT standards may need to be provided at the proposed development's intersections with Front Street. As approved by the City Administrator, the Developer may request or be required to defer any or all of the required improvements along South Front Street 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 24 S.O. Hot Bikes Addition, l20 South Fronl Street PWD StaJfReport March 29, 1998 Page 2 a suitable deferred improvement agreement with the City/ODOT for the development/improvement of the street section and appurtenances (i.e. sidewalks, curb, gutter, street lights, storm drainage, etc.) along the development's frontages with South Front Street, as required and approved by ODOT and City PWD. 2. Oak Street Improvements: Improvements to Oak Street including, but not limited to, removal of driveway apron and replacement with suitable driveway apron and standard curb and gutter; and sidewalk (including wheelchair ramp at the intersection of Oak and South Front Street) shall be coordinated and approved by the City PWD and should be designed and implemented at the expense of the Developer. As approved by the City Administrator, the Developer may request or be required to defer any or all of the required improvements along Oak Street 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/ODOT for the noted required improvements, as approved by the City PWD. 3. Alley Improvements: The Alley along the eastern border of the property is unimproved. The alley is improved with a paved surface from the southern end of the Development to the connection with Alder Street. If the development continues to take access to the alley, then the Developer should be required to improve the alley with a paved (concrete or asphalt) surface, with a suitable base rock course.. Storm water collection and conveyance facilities should also be constructed to provide for storm water conveyance from surface drainage of the alley, so that the drainage does not sheet flow across the sidewalk/driveway at the alley entrance. 4. 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 area .noted on the site plan. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of- way (including the alley) or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. The storm drainage ,:infrastructure will be privately operated and maintained. A suitable system will need to be .designed for a minimum 10-year storm event. The discharge point and potential retention of storm water run-off shall be coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide an aesthetically pleasing, efficient, and low maintenance facility. The storm water retention facilities shall be designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and hydrocarbon deposition, and to mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these facilities. The developer shall also secure written permission to connect/discharge into adjoining storm water conveyance facilities managed by otherjurisdictional agencies. Catch basins, curb inlets, and area drains shall be designed. for sediment and petroleum hydrocarbon retention. 5. 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 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. ~~ 25 S.O. Hot Bikes Addition, 120 South Front Street PWD StafjReport March 29, 1998 Page 3 ,; 6. Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall provide suitable engineering certification and justification (i.e. calculations, analyses, plots, etc.,) that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. street; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide for the significant degradation (in the opinion of the Public Works Director) of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the -flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure; or the existing facilities will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/oc demands while maintaining or improving the existing effective level of service of the affected facility. 7: Utility Easements: A 10-foot wide public utility easement{PUE) should be required along the property's frontage with South Front Street. A P.U.E. along Oak Street will likely not be necessary due to the overall right-of-way width of 80 feet for Oak Street. 8. Water Service: The site is currently serviced with a 5/8-inch meter and a 3/4-inch service lateral for domestic water. If the building addition requires either the meter or the service line to be up- sized to accommodate the building addition, then cost for the upsizing of the lateral and/or meter -- shall be at the expense of the Developer. 9. Zero Setback: The proposed building has a zero setback to the Oak Street right-of-way. The building's foundation should not encroach into the right-of-way. This will likely require that the building will need to have some set-back from the edge of the right-of-way. General 1. 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 sewercollection amd-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 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 Oregon Department of Transportation (storm water discharge into Highway 99 storm drainage ~, ~ 2 6 S.O. Hot Bikes Addition, l20 Sonth Front Street PWD StaJJ'Report March 29, 1998 Page 4 facilities 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; etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on Myla~), 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: Alf elevations used orrthe 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. 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, , a shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) on the construction plans. 6. Fill Placement. All fill placed in the development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in accordance with City PWD and Building Department standards, except for the upper 1.5-feet of fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does not underlie building, structures, or traveled vehicular access ways or parking areas. 7. Road/Driveway/Parkincr Areas: The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the access road, parking, and driveway section designs to handle the expected loads (including fire equipment) to be traveled on these private driveways, access roads, and parking areas. Need 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 manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO Single Unit Truck and/or WB-67 truck.(as appliable), without crossing into an opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic. 2'7 S.O. Hot bikes Addition, !20 South Front Street PWD Stajf Report March 29, 1998 Page 5 8. Utility Plans: We did not receive any utility plans for the proposed development. The utility plans shall be drawn to scale with accurate horizontal and vertical depiction of utility lines and appurtenances (transformers, valves, etc.). 9. Area Licrhtincr Plan: Need to provide and implement an adequate area lighting plan for parking :and public access areas, including the driveway entrance from South Front Street, and if applicable, South Front Street (as may be required by ODOT or City PWD). 10. Public Utility Easements: -A minimum 10-foot wide publiautilities easement (PUE) shall be dedicated on the proposed development for the installation of public utilities and should be located outside the public rights-of-way_ At a minimum, the,PUE should be aligned along the exterior boundaries of the property that border South Front Street, if a PUE is not currently present in this area. 11. Clear Vision Areas: The site plan indicates that the proposed building is outside the sight- vision triangle necessary for the alley connection to Oak Street. A 55-foot minimum sight vision triangle shall be maintained at the property's corner of south Front and Oak Streets...:.. 12. 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. If applicable, steamer ports at hydrants . a~. ~: located near the building shall face the buildings. Fire hydrants shall be suitably protected from potential vehicle damage and encroachment. 13. Water Sysfem Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for cross connection control. Need to know projected activities and water uses for existing and new commercial buildings to determine requirements for cross connection control and fire protection. 14. WaterSvsfem: Construction drawings shall include the size, type,-.and location of all water mains, hydrants, valves, service connection, meter, service laterals, and other appurtenance details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD. 15. Sanitary Sewer Industrial Discharae Permit If applicable, obtain industrial discharge permit from City of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (Medford RWRF). Obtain Medford RWRF's written approval to connect to the sanitary sewer system. Copy of application can be obtained from City PWD. 16. Roof/Area Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the public storm drain system. 17. Grading 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 28 S.O. Hol Bikes Addition, 120 Sonlh Front Street PWD StafjRepor[ March 29, /998 Page 6 contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. 18. Overhead Power Lines: If 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. 19. Storm Drain Sysfem Desicrn: 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. 29 ,, PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: Apri16, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Site Plan Review of 37 2W11CB, Tax Lot 900 - LaVia Building Addition Aonlicant: Marcia LaVia 4223 Old Stage Road Central Point, Oregon 97502 Aeent: Fred Phillips Engineering 345 North Bartlett St. #203 Central Point, Oregon 97502 Pro er Description/ 37 2W 11CB, Tax Lot 900 - 0.57 acres Zoning: C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial District Summary The applicant, Marcia LaVia has requested a Site Plan Review fora 6960 square foot building addition and associated improvements located at 980 South Front Street (refer to Attachment A). There is currently an existing 2960 square foot building on site which was formerly an antique business. The LaVias own Crater Music Company which is relocating from Medford to Central Point. Their intent is to retail coin operated juke boxes and other machines from the existing building and use the new building as a warehouse. Various site improvements are proposed including, but not limited to; parking, landscaping and signage. Authority CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Site Plan Review. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Attachment B). 30 ~gnlicable Law CPMC 17.46.010 et seq.- C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial District CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval. Discussion The site plan and elevations depict the full use of the applicant's property and a warehouse building which will be substantially larger than the retail component. The proposed building addition and use is not inappropriate for the C-5 zoning district. The applicant is counting on the use of the vacated First Street right-of--way as aturn- a- round for larger vehicles. The right-of--way vacation is progressing and there is reason to believe that the City Council will vacate this area. Adequate backing area exists for the automobile parking spaces that are shown. No highway improvements have ever been made to this site and the current driveway apron and parking area is graveled. The Public Works Department is requiring full improvements to South Front Street which could be deferred but may be wise to install at this point. A driveway is proposed down the center of the property which would provide access to both the retail and warehouse facilities. The municipal code requires that all areas used for off street parking and maneuvering be paved with durable materials for all-weather use and adequately drained. This is a Public Works requirement and the applicants engineer, Fred Phillips is currently working on improvement plans which address these requirements.. Landscaping for the project is proposed along South Front Street and the applicants will bring in topsoil and plant shrubs. The landscaping plan provided by the applicant indicates that an irrigation system will be installed. The Central Point Building Department will require a backflow prevention device for the irrigation system and this is shown on the site plan.-; The Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority can serve this site via their 8 inch main line in the First Street right-of--way (Exhibit D). Jackson County Fire District 3 reviewed the site plan during apre-application meeting and recommended a hammerhead turnaround which the applicant has shown on the site plan. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 17.72.040: 31 .' 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 one for purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan for consideration by the Commission. Landscaping is limited to South Front Street but could be extended along the southern property line if the applicant is agreeable to this and the Commission believes it is appropriate. B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The property takes its access from South Front Street using an existing driveway approach. The City is requiring improvements to this access and a turn-a-round (hammer head) will enable two way access to the site which is acceptable to the City and ODOT. 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 proposal exceeds the 22 minimum parking requirements of CPMC 17.64.040.A-2. 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; There is an existing sign on the premises which will come down to make room for two parking spaces (25 & 26). The applicant will need to submit her plans for new signs and their locations to the City. The address for the property will need to be displayed prominently. 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; 32 ._ (t ^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any requirements of Jackson County Fire District 3 who will review the construction plans. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The proposed construction meets the minimum setback requirements for the C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district is a permitted land use, and the applicant has made an effort to satisfy building and public works requirements. G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ^ The proposed structure is similar in architecture to other structures located within the C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. Surrounding uses include mini storage to the north and New Holland Tractor sales to the south. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Site Plan application for the Crater Music Company, based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the .recommended conditions of approval (Exhibits C and E); or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan Review application; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan Review application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Application, Site Plan, Landscaping Plan, and Building Elevations B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Recommended Conditions of Approval D. Comments from Agencies E. Public Works Staff Report dated March 29, 1999 .. 33 Attachment A SITE Pi~-~N REVIEW APPLICA IO _ City of Central Point Planning Department D [~ ~,`' ~ u FEB 1 7 1999 ,~ DATG 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name:d~CC'%c7 A, ,L 7 V ~ Address: 4223 Odd 57f'c79'~° Roa City: ~~n fj-g/ PDI!'Jt State: p~ Zip Code: 97s02 Telephone: Business: 'fr/2. - 5445 Residence: 104 - /Z~_ 2. AGENT INFORMATION Name: ~ ~i S /7 e/^/~'J Address: ~ B $T 20~ City: State: ©,~ Zip Code: 97Sb/ Telephone: Business: 7'73 ' ~~ 96 Residence: 3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Than One) Name: Sl/'~Je 45 C//Jp/irar~~ City: State: Zip Code: - Telephone: Business: Residence: 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ,~ i~ Type of Development: ~DrYI/I')C~/'fi't~ ,r/GIII~/n9 ~~1~/~/) ~i'tl/Tc° ~~ Township: 375 Ranger Section: %/cB Tnax -Lot(s): ~p0 Address: J~30 5'OU~l/~i~i~n7''- Sr C..G~~~/ PDl~ /~'/' 97s7JG Zoning District: G' -s Project Acreage: O, $'7 g~C/c°S Number of Dwelling Units: b Non-Sale Area Sq. Footage ~~p Sale Area Sq. Footage ~ =Gross Floor Area Number of Parking Spaces: ~(2 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ~ This Application Form. ~ Legal Description. ~ Application Fee ($225.00). ~ Letter of Project Description. .~ Site Plan Drawn to Scale (10 copies). Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process. ,~ Reduced Copies (8 %: x 11) ofthe Site Plan, Building Elevations and Landscape Plans (1 copy Ea.). Landscape and Irrigation Plan (3 copies). (yvcG.d«P,n S.~a ~o/an~ 6. I HEREBY STATE THAT 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 project site ~~ 34 Irv 1~... - ///P ~lYG (//O~AV smI-v<e G.mJ~r/ scuee ••~v '//+w' /~YwD & J J^' ~ rolYd 9Mw1~ ~q1I lr' itf f°'~I W^°/' 0qs O ~ ~ `h ~•/A./ ~ w~iMiNY Nivla! t°vJ SAO 7 M %iJ ow. OA 9~ No<H/ ~ •~ i j a lvrn Wq%/T N••^'^H I o%/' ~d ~• r z . r i 3~~ a ~ ~ " ~ F. LL ° C y ~ ~~?~ _.L . e a . ._._V ,.~ ~ ' FMK F~3W G w ~~ y ~ ~ ~~F ~~ ~S e ~ n ~9y• w m x e ~. v~ t8 ;q ~ x k ~~F 9~~i~ ~. gFZ WW a~~ ~ ~~e~Y3 4 ~ N~ p ~ v v w ~; < N v ~~ .i P: 4 I C `„- 1 - i ~~ ' , . li _ i ~ P ~I ., ~ ~ 31 ~ ~ ,; I .~ / ~3 g~~' I ~ I $ bb I ~ ~ ~~pj~ pi t I ~ . `~3 1F ~ ~ ~1 I q,g ~ ~~~ooo • I ~ i v~ 8 C R I 1 I i I ~ § 'g 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 7~~ 0 o I ~ I ~ -= I - -' r..,vr. - i s ~ I A ~~ I .. 1.: I o~ I '4 u I i ~~ 1~~ 1 -~ I ~ @ tp t I ~ ~+~ ~ I 1{. I ~ 1 V l ~ ° •~ I I;. 2 a Y { SPg~ I • ~ I a -b-nom ~.f!.__.:"• -n- ~ ~ -e - _ h~ V 3 I I I r ,~ ~N N 1 1 35 w.mu ....ra ~ p+' • ~ Rit ~pel ~iiSf +N adfb su ~/it) •(/ ]atlb vo6Lb rbiq/ pi/wp Q /^s/b ' wKnp 'NWPHV Ipj fot Y X• %F~eV A' Aif' Iyi ~7 I/.~IFW ^Y 1. l b duit..q lvl .dq/•av v+v~ rAp a~9'1 $(f a u"f•INU G.•p,!•np pecodgy ! 1 ~ i 1 "' . L' ~ - ----- -~ II I I n I n I ~ II I a II I it I ~' I it ; m ~ ~ i ~ r 11 I I' II ~ it 1 i ~~ n I h ~ w I II I II I ~I I o - a '~ S ~ ~ h ~ u 4 W 3 = yE ggg&~ r ~'~ ~p m II 1 M1 ' II I -~ ' !i _ 1 i~ ~ !_i ~ 1 I ~ ~~ `_ n-_ j I L~l~ ~ . ~ qS __I__~ ~ 4 n I~ I I ~.%-~ I `Cy^i'j ~`, ~ ~r~ .~Qy. _ ~~ ~ =.J I V Im' a. a ~` li f"i 1 ~ ~i_/~ W li4 ~J 1 36 i a~n.~. o..>.~ ~ y' /~rl -ee[(iY-0~+'N !Hr•i[[(/rsJ 4d Eo4[b [/n~+~0 T~Ma/ /~f/PiJ T, J'r`•. /.l' /uab/ VFnoy oae m ~ 1 Ig ~i ~•ep+I~rO ypyy Cc[oaeb W N.! r[ Na[rH ^~/ ./ . R ~ Yf r /wiirafr[/.i cdH/~ F~~% 'A D iy! 9'/1 r avy'R°d ~P//nC Icioday ~ y ~ ~ 1~' ~. gg ~« ~~ y ~y i ~p ~~~ s y~]~, s r •a ___ I I 8 I I I I ' ~ 1 ~~ ® a I _ L I I i I I g ,k - - 1 I I $~ x S ffi y ~` ''f, ~ ~~ ~ ~ y3~ \ _ --- I ~ 4 o I I I I I I I -- ~ ~ • ~~ I ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ $ h I ~ I _= ___ _ ~ I I I *.y/ ~I i~ I ~ I I I ~ I I ,v I II II ' i II ~ d ' ~' ' • o ; ~ ~~ x a ~ ~ I I I I ~ I ~ ~ I ' I ~ ~-~ I . , L===rrn_===_____ I .=-p. . . „asr 37 ~; i ty of Cen tea l P.. In ~` Attachment B PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: March 16,1999 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING Apri16, 1999 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Beginning atthe above time andplace, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a Site Plan Review application for aproposed 6960 square foot addition to the existing commercial building located at 980 South Front Street. The parcel islocated in a C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W11CB, Tax Lot 900. The 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 inChapter 17 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance with the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Anypersoninterested incommenting ontheabove-mentioned landusedecisionmaysubmitwritten comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Apri16, 1999. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance ofthe meeting to Central Point City HaI1,155South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 38 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal shall be raised prior to the expiration of the " commentperiodnotedabove. Anytestimonyandwrittencommentsaboutthedecisionsdescribed above will need to be related directly to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at I S 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 Plaruung Commission will review the applications, technical staffrep orts, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments concerning the request for modifications oftheconditionsofapproval. Anytestimonyorwrittencommentsmustberelatedtothecriteriasetforth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the request for modification. City regulations provide thatthe Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (5411664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~~ ATTACHMENT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on April 6, 2000 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. The project must meet the off street parking requirements for retail commercial buildings, and the parking, access and maneuvering areas shall be paved with durable materials for all-weather use and approved by the Public Works department. 4. The applicant shall submit final parking, landscaping, lighting, fencing and sign plans to the Planning, Public Works and Building Departments for approval prior to obtaining any building permits. ~- 40 Attachment D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION CITY OF MEDFORD 411 WEST 8TH STREET MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 TELEPHONE (541) 774-2700 FAX: (541)774-2552 March 2, 1999 City of Central Point Attn: Ken Gerschler 155 S. Sewnd Central Point, Oregon 97502 RE: Jim Lavia Building Permits, 980 S. Front Street Dear Mr. Gershchler: The City is under contract to purchase right-of--way from Mr. Lavia at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and McAndrews Road, pending demolition of the existing building on that site. The City plans to construct a northbound right turn lane on Riverside Avenue and an additional eastbound lane on McAndrews Road from Riverside Avenue to approximately 250' east, using Federal funds through a CMAQ program. The project must be designed, right-of- way obtained, and the building must beremoved by September 30, 1999, or we will lose our funding.. I understand that Mr. Lavia has purchased a building at 980 S. Front Street in Central Point and is currently in the review process with his remodel plans. At this time I would like to request that you make every effort to expedite these permits so that the building remodel at 980 S. Front Street does not delay our acquisition of right-of--way and therefore our forfeiture of Federal funds. If you have any questions, please call me at 774-2100. Sincerely, T~i~' .~~ Robert T. Deuel, P.E. City Engineer RTD:mcc ~~ 4i 03/24/99 11:03 FAX 5418264566 FIRE DISTRICT #3 ,~ FIRE DISTRICT No. 3 ,JACKSON COUNTY 8333 AGATE ROAD, WHITE CITY, OREGON 97503-1075 (541) 826-7100 FAX (541) 826-4566 3-24-99 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Re: File 99015-Lavia Commercial Building 980 South Front Street o~c~~ud~ MAR 2 4 1999 ~, The Building Department will request a set of blue prints from the applicant for ~~submittal to Fire District #3 for review. The plans shall include a plot plan showing placement of buildings, main access roads and driveways. Fire District #3 will apply - Uniform Fire Code requirements which may also include on-site water storage and/or °hydrants for fire protection, and road access prior to construction. tf you- have any questions please contact me. Neil Shaw Deputy Fire Marshal raj 07 ~~ 42 BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHOR'ITY' 3916 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEOFOflD, OHEOON 97601.9099 • (641)779.4144 • FAX (641) 635.67/9 ~~c~~ud~ March 25, 1999 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: I:avia Building Addition - 99015 Dear Ken, MAR 2 9 1999 We have reviewed the subject planning action with regard to providing sanitary sewer service to the project location. To provide sanitary sewer service to this addition a tap will have to be made to the 8 inch main line in the 1S1 Street Right-of--way. This line flows Southeasterly. The existing service line serving the existing building may need to be relocated from under the proposed building provided there is sufficient grade,available or,replace the type of pipe.:.. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed planning action. Sinc y ames May, Jr. .E. DistricY.Engineer .~ 43 Attachment E CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for LaVia Addition 980 South Front Street Commercial Facility Site Plan PW#99015 ..Date: March 29, 1999 Applicant: Marcia A. LaVia, 4223 Old Stage Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Fred Phillips, Fred Phillips Engineering, 345 N. Bartlett St #203, Medford, Oregon 97501 Project: Commercial Building Addition Location: 980 South Front Street (North of New Holland Ford Tractor) Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 11 CB, Tax Lot 900 Zoning: C-5 Units: Existing 2,960 s.f. building; proposed addition adds 6,960 s.f.; parking (26 spaces) Plans: 1 page "Proposed Building Addition & Site Work", dated 2/17/1999, prepared by Fred Phillips Engineering Report By: Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director Purpose >~ .: Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") ti ,,, regarding Public Works standards and additional standards and requirements to be included in the design. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding proposed development. Special Requirements 1. South Front Sfreet (Highwav 991 Improvements: Improvements to South Front Street including, but not limited to, street section widening, acceleration and:deceleration lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks (min. 6-foot width), bikeways, street lights, storm drainage, and traffic control and delineation, shall be coordinated and approved by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the City PWD and should be designed and implemented at the expense of the. Developer. Tie-ins to the existing installed storm drainage system along Highway 99 must be permitted and approved by ODOT. The driveways into the proposed development should be designed and positioned in a manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of a WB-67 truck, without crossing into an opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic. Need to show truck turning movement on construction plans. Acceleration and deceleration lanes meeting ODOT standards may need to be provided at the proposed development's intersections with Front Street. As approved by the City Administrator, the Developer may request or be required to defer any or all of the required improvements along South Front Street 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/ODOT for the development/improvement of the street section and appurtenances (i.e. sidewalks, curb, gutter, street lights, storm drainage, etc.) along the development's frontages with South Front Street, as 44 LaVia Addition, 980 SoutH Front Street PWD Staff Report March 29, 1998 Page 2 required and approved by ODOT and City PWD. 2. 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 area noted on the site plan. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of- way (including the right-of-way of 1b` Street), or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. The storm drainage infrastructure will be privately operated and maintained. A suitable system will need to be designed for a minimum 10-year storm event. The ,discharge point and potential retention of storm water run-off shall be coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to.provide an aesthetically pleasing, efficient, and low maintenance facility. The storm water retention facilities shall be designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and hydrocarbon deposition, and to mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these facilities. The developer shall also secure written permission to connect/discharge into adjoining storm water conveyance facilities managed by other jurisdictional agencies. Catch basins, curb inlets, and area drains shall be designed for sediment and petroleum hydrocarbon retention. 3. Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall provide suitable engineering certification and justification (i.e. calculations, analyses, plots, etc.,) that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. street; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide forthe significant degradation (in the opinion of the Public Works Director} of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have eitheradequate capacities to accommodate the flows-and/oc demands imposed on the existing. infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure; orthe existing facilities 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 effective level of service of the affected facility. 4. Utility Easements: A 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) should be required along the property's frontage with South Front Street. ;::; , 5. Water Service: The site is currently serviced with a 5/8-inch meter and a 3/4-inch service lateral fordomestic water. If the building addition requires either the meter or the service line to be up- sized to accommodate the building addition, then cost for the upsizing of the lateral and/or meter shall be at the expense of the Developer. 6. -Fire Hydrants: Fire Hydrant placement shall be as determined by Fire District No. 3.-There is an existing fire hydrant on South Front Street, located approximately 92 feet to the north of the center of the proposed entrance. Zero Setback: The proposed building has a zero setback to the First Street right-of-way. The building's foundation should not encroach into the right-of-way. This will likely require that the building will need to have some set-back from the edge of the right-of-way. 45 LaVia Addition, 980 South Front Street PWD StaJj'Report March 29, 1998 Page 3 General 1. 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 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 , - Oregon Department of Transportation (storm water discharge into Highway 99 storm drainage :4 - facilities 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. '~ :i '? 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 (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 which shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer's surveyor. 46 LaVia Addition, 980 South Front Street PWD Staff Report March 29, 1998 Page 4 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 Placement:. All fill placed in the development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in accordance with City PWD and Building Department standards, except for the upper 1.5-feet of fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does not underlie building, structures, or traveled vehicular access ways or parking areas. 7. Road/Driveway/Parkincr Areas: The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the access road, parking, and driveway section designs to handle the expected loads (including fire equipment) to be traveled on these private driveways, access roads, and parking areas. Need 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 manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of a WB-67 truck, without crossing into an opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic. 8. .Utility Plans: We did not receive any utility plans for the proposed development. The utility plans shall be drawn to scale with accurate horizontal and vertical depiction of utility lines and appurtenances (transformers, valves, etc.). 9. Area Licrhfinp Plan: Need to provide and implement an adequate area lighting plan for parking and public access areas, including the driveway entrance from South Front Street, and if applicable, South Front Street (as may be required by ODOT or City PWD). 10. Public Utility Easements: A minimum 10-foot wide public utilities easement (PUE) shall be dedicated on the proposed development for the installation of public utilities and should be located outside the public rights-of-way. At a minimum, the PUE should be aligned along the exterior boundaries of the property that border South Front Street, if a PUE is not currently present in this area. 11. Clear Vision Areas: The construction drawings and landscape plans shall include clear vision areas (i.e. sight triangles) at driveway entrances designed to meet the City's PWD requirements. 12. 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. 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. 13. Water System Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for cross connection control. Need to know- projected activities and water uses for commercial building to determine requirements for cross connection 4'7 rn LaVia Addition, 980 South Front Street PWD Sta/jReport March 29, 1998 Page 5 control and fire protection. Water will not be "turned on" by the City until such requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the City's designated inspector (currently the Jackson County plumbing inspector). 14. Water Sysfem: Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and location of all water mains, hydrants, valves, service connection, meter, service laterals, and other appurtenance details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD. 15. Sanitary Sewer Industrial Discharge Permit: If applicable, obtain industrial discharge permit from City of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (Medford RWRF). Obtain Medford RWRF's written approval to connect to the sanitary sewer system: Copy-of application can be obtained from City PWD. 16. Roof/Area Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the public storm drain system. 17. Grading 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. :: 5~:: 'i 18. ;. 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. 19. Storm Drain Svstem Design: Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this development plan, the Developer's engineer shalt provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots forsizing 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. 48 R PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: Apri16, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Site Plan Review of 37 2W02CB, Tax Lots 7303 and 7306 - Sullivan Apartment Relocation. Applicant: Michael Sullivan 4303 Tami Lane Central Point, Oregon 97502 Owner: Eugene Skeen and John Ross 5060 Griffin Lane Medford, Oregon 97501 Pro er Descri to ion/ 37 2W 02CB, Tax Lots 7303 and 7306 Zonine: R-3, Residential Multiple Family District Summary The applicantMichael Sullivanhasrequested areviewoftheSite Planforanapartmentbuilding thatwill be moved from 919 EastPine Streetto avacantlotlocatednearthe intersection ofTenth and Laurel streets. Authori CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authorityto hold apublic hearing and render adecision onany applicationfora SitePlanReview. Notice ofthepublichearingwas given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B). ~~ 49 Applicable Law CPMC 17.28.010 et seq.- R-3, Residential Multiple Family District CPMC 17.60.090 et seq.- Special Setback Requirements CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval Discussion The Cityhas beenworkingwithproperty owners and developers inthe vicinityofNinth, Tenthand East Pine Streets to construct a Rite Aid retail business. Preparations to date have included a street vacationandtheplannedrelocationordemolition ofseveral existingbuildings locatedintheproject area:.The Commission approved a Site Plan for the Blaska Tax Service building relocation last month. Michael Sullivan, the soon-to-be owner of the Shamrock Apartments has requested that the Planning Commissionreview a Site Planthatwould allowarelocationoftheeightunitcomplexto two vacantparcels in the vicinity of Tenth and Laurel Streets. The parcels are identified as Tax Lots 7303 and 7306 on Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W 02CB. A lot line adjustment would need to be completed between Tax Lot 7303 and 7306 to ensure adequate setback requirements for the project. Tenth Street is classified asa SecondaryArterial and has a special setbackrequirement of sixty feetfromcenterline. Theproposedbuildingfootprintismorethansixtysixfeetfromcenterline. The City has been requesting dedication of 14 feet on either side of Tenth Street for capacity improvements. The applicant has factored this into his site plan and is currently proposing landscaping within this 14 foot area. The:Central Point Building Department has performed a special inspection and a structural engineer hasdeternrinedthatthestructure ismoveable. Abuildingmovingpernutisrequiredbythemunicipal code;which the applicant will apply for ifthe site plan is approved. The applicant has stated that he wishes to use aportion but not all of Tax Lot 7306. Therefore a lot line adjustment is proposed pending site plan approval. The apartment building currently is classified as a nonconforming use in the C-4, Tourist and Office-Professional Zoning District. Once relocated to the proposed site, the structure would becomecompliantinthe R-3, Residential MultipleFamilyZoningDistric~t. Thenewlocationforthe complex will likely be convenient for residents since it is adjacent to the Jewett Elementary School and the Rogue Valley Transportation District Bus line. ~~ 50 Once moved, the structw•e would be upgraded and fitted with improvements such as lap siding , new windows, and an enclosed trash area. Landscaping for the project would include trees and shrubs. An irrigation system will be installed to ensure a healthy growing environment for the proposed landscaping. The Central Point Building Department will require a backflowprevention device for the irrigation system. Staffhas determined that the applicant has adequately met the offstreet parking requirements described in CPMC 17.64 which calls for 2 spaces per unit and 2 guest spaces. The site plan indicates that 8 of the 18 spaces will be covered by a carport and the covered spaces will have r "stacked".parking. Parking units will have assigned spaces to avoid potential parking conflicts.. Residents will take access the complex from Tenth Street. The municipal code requires that all areas used for off street parking and maneuvering be paved with durable;material-for all-weather use and adequately drained. The Public Works Department will ensure that this happens. Jackson County Fire DistrictNumber Three and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority have submitted comments for consideration by the Commission (see exhibit "D").The fire district will require a detailed set ofbuilding plans and BCV SA will require a main sewer line extension if necessary. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision -' on the following standards from Section 17.72.040: r 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 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 submitted alandscaping:-plan: for .consideration by the Commission. The plan does not propose a lot of landscape screening but the Commission may require this. B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The relocated apartment structure would access Tenth Street at the top of a southbound curve which is more desireable than at the bottom of the curve. -~ 51 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 ofuse; and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The project meets the minimum parking requirements of CPMC 17.64.040.A-2. Access to and from 10"' Street is satisfactory and the new location of the apartment building is on one of the RVTD bus routes. D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traffic control signs or devices and that they are compatible with the design oftheir buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ There is no signage proposed for this project. Jackson County Fire District Number Three will require the address for the project to be displayed prominently towards Tenth Street. 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; ^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any requirements ofJackson County Fire District 3. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The proposed apartment relocation meets the minimum setback requirements for the R-3, Residential Multiple Family District subject to the completion of a lot line adjustment. The 14.5 foot setback from the easterly property line to the front of the apartment is narrow. Therefore the Commission may wish to have the applicant reconfigure the second story access via the stairway. G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ^ The proposed structure is similar in architecture to other structures located within the R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district. ~~ 52 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt ResolutionNo.~ approving the Site Plan application for the 8 unit apartment complex, based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibits C and E); or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan Review application; or 3. Continue the review ofthe Site Plan Review application atthe discretionof the Commission. Exhibits A. Site Plan, Landscaping Plan, Building Elevations and Letter of Description B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Recommended Conditions of Approval D. Comments from Agencies E. Public Works Staff Report ~~ 53 J oon ~ ° i T ~,,' ---~ ~ . ~ ~ hA / K _--- Qty of Ceiitr}~ ~!oiuC ~~HIBT'I' «A ~~ N Planning Deparimm't y~ ~ j \ ,, ~\ a0 ~ ~ b. y v ~+jy Q V \ ~ ~ ~''^^ V) nl ~I dl J ~ ~ 0 1 y ._ h X 4 h ~~- ]' ` ° ~ o ~n ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ['( r v ~u ti ~_ ~ J ~~ J ~ v .r ~ J .~ `s \D ,~ O ~ h ~ ~ M P ', ,~ o~ a ~? n: , ~ Uo y ~ y ~~ c~ S ~ ~~ S M C1 ~' i 4 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ` C C M .A~( i P I ~_ ~ ~ 0 3 ., m ~~ ,., ,~~ ~~. o~ .~ ~, . ~~ C'e_~r«ar j~ I~~ M6~h~~1 5u/ ~~Q-2 `-f~ 3(~ ~ `Ta,vnL. ~ a 11 e (5~1) 77d -3s/s T ~1 ~ s ro j c ct ~- r, n s +' S -F ~ o '-~ rylo ~~ i n c n e i ~~h-(-- ~Li1~-I- c~ r-Fnle ~ti-~ bcu IcQ ~ ~~~ -+c+ `1-~e~c ~~ f ~t~~-~til~.e r 7,3c~3 c~ n I~-~ .5~+~~~--t i In C,c~ n~ ra.l ~~ i ~1 `l-. ~" l~ e ~ n I ~l'1 cc r~ ~ ~ i i~ CC.~~ e c1,r c~ -1ce o -F -~-(~ e cz ar-tc~e l1 ..~~~~ /~ i n J I.l' i I ~ ~ e` +~ S'~r1 ~ `f ' 11 ~: • zS~, c~c c ~ ~~ i ~ 1 n ~i C~ l'~c~. ~ e lcec ~~. ~ -f-- lu ~ -1~ 1 ct~ ~ ~ ca ~ n~. ~ ll ~_ ~J~-~ .~~'he~t-c. ~v > 56 :it~yy . ,~. 5? (P•109o0) ~!\ rr~ /~ ~ .y \ 1jz s h2'Q WM. : ~. y~~ ~~:. Aq~v f*i~ '±i~ ~~$ G\ ~J/ zl ~ ~..,_ ~... '' 'Y 4 ,,., , N. `4 I , . ,~ f 01 ~V' /!40 f4' y t2VV ~. I, I.. +* t, q ~ I ~i .: \ ~ ~.`1 , _~_ r~o.m u add • o 'fv (~ ~. va-oacae +e•v4 a wl - I -+---` ~' ~ .7307 ,~ . ~ r~ 1~~~' _ _ \- ~. .. _-7202 _._.___ __ ..- I ,~ O J e-i 7~3 p L.. <e~ M ~'~ N. ~~ h e. y o ~. el p4 ~ ~\ Ste. ~ . I ,^ 7~ t I h i e 7101 m b ~ / O h 1 n' ' ,,,! ,~I v°• 7306 ° e~ .• .'. I ~'~a'+~2~~ v'~yy~1 ~1 ...jjj... 5300 7J 'P.76891~~8~. o- ~• 1-ao~ t` '4/ ).32At.y4yc... 7000 oe los~t.a} ~ ~. '~~; 6900 7.~5. o ,~ 7301 0 ~; `~ ~ ' .' t,*. .M :: ..: 8 a = ~ '~ i PiMI i. (P•~e,~, I rnvefi e 2bnL4 j~ LAUREL _STREET ~--'s''",_m,J, rr ~`^'f` M_ ~ r ~ll.G) A W i Wl OLG i}f 9J. I ~ i ,. .s el ea~ ~ I '=''s:7oor 1~ r,~~ 7soo h . ~ ,; ~ eooa, . ~ , , 6600 ~ 7700 .F ~ I z o `, z O z. y,ye> szoo ~ 6500 .r~ ~ 7800 Q q ,-I Au+e,. , , v • ' I _ `__I ~ W' C.O R. tS.L.Ci 35 ~,.<. , S ' ppr/.yTA ~ d. .. 2 200 ~~ ~~ ~ ' ~~ ` ti,~ ~. , ~'..~ . ~;: City of Central ~ oint PLANNING DEPARTMENT City of Central Point ~XHI9?.I'T ttB tt Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory _~ministrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: March 16,1999 Meeting Date: Apri16, 1999 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Site Plan Reviewthat would allow a 5508 square foot building (The ShamrockApartments) to be moved from 919 West Pine Street to a vacant parcel located in the vicinity ofTenth and Laurel Streets. The parcels proposed to receive the building are located in an R-3, Residential Multiple Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W02CB, Tax Lots 7303 and 7306. The Central PointPlanning Commission will reviewthe Site Plan applicationto 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 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance with the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 6, 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. r.~ 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal shall be raised prior to the expiration of the commentperiodnotedabove. Anytestimonyorwrittencommentsaboutthedecisionsdescribed above will need to be related directly to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. Foradditionalinformation,thepublicmaycontactthePlanningDepartmentat(541)664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staffreports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Site Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. \\~ ~~~ h s~ ~~ ~~ ~~\. \ Y^ ~~ JEWETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL c \~~ ~~ 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 c! 9 EXHIBIT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on April 6, 2000 unless an application for a building pernut or an application for extension has been received by the City. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. The projectmustmeettheoffstrcetcoveredparkingrequirementsforeightdwellingunits, and parking, access and maneuvering areas shall be paved with durable materials forall- weatheruse and approved by the public works department. 4. Applicant shall revise and submit landscaping and lighting plans to the City to effectively screentheir use from adjoining properties. Approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a lot line adjustment which adds sufficient area from Tax Lot 7306 to Tax Lot 7303 and satisfy the site plan and setback requirements. Said adjustment shall be initiated within 45 days. of site plan approval. Jackson County Fire DistrictNumber 3 has expressed concerns about emergency vehicle access. The applicant will need to meet with the district and demonstrate compliance with the requirements. ~n ~: ~e ,. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT C-ty of Central L?aiut ~IBYT ttD't BUILDING DEPARTMENT Planning nepartmen't SPECIAL INSPECTIONREPORT ADDRESS: SL-I~CCX~ PSPC~ PIF.L~ APPLICANT: •~~_,~~/~,~Z _~ `5 Name:~h4k~ 5UU1~,~1 Address: City: State: OWNER OF RECORD: rot+ City•vV State; PROJEr'T T1FC('R TPTT(1N• DATE 6Tj Zip code: Zip code:, DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: ~. ~~ry~~~~~~~~4,,,~ 1 ' WW4.IMMW - s ~ . _ L ~~1.tb • ~ ~ ~,R W/ -• St~¢b 1t.11 Plf~c ~~~~ vbl.~c_ W~~ fi~PQov~l._. CENTRAL POINT BUILDING DEPARTMENT .r By: ~,d- Dated: ~ ~ a C:\CoreltSuikB\TempJak\CUSWm WPTempleks\Business FotmsVSPP_CIALMSP.wpd :r; ~~ ~~ cAtk, tG11S ~ ~ g 1 .~.. 'f BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY ' 3916 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFOHD, ONEGON 97601.9099 • (641) 779.4144 • FA%(641) 636.6278 p)C~C~C~~N1~ March 25, 1999 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: 99021 Apt Relocation to 10`h Street Dear Ken, MAR 2 9 1999 We have reviewed the proposal with regard to providing sanitary sewer service. There is a 24 inch diameter trunk sewer located on the opposite side of 10`h Street from the project location. Our records show a sewer main stubbed into the adjacent tax lot 7304. Extension of main line to serve this property may be necessary. Have the applicant contact BCVSA for information on design, construction, permitting, and fees. Sincere es May, Jr. P. . District Engineer 62 03/'24/89 11:03 FAX 5418264566 FIRfi DISTRICT #3 fgJ06 ~ v' 9 ti FIRE DISTRICT' No. 3 ,JACKSON COUNTY 8333 AGAPE ROAD, wHTfE G7rY, OREGON 97503-1075 (541) 826-7100 FAX (541) 826-4566 3-24-99 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Re: 99021 ~~~C~C~Ud~IUII ~l MAR 2 4 1999 I U Fire District #3 has reviewed the plan to move a apartment complex to 10th street. Fire District #3 will require a detailed set of plans to apply the Uniform Fire Code requirements to this project. If you have any question please contact me. Neil Shaw Deputy Fire Marshal 63 City of C'eritiral CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for EXHI~I`~ tTE tt Planning Department Sullivan 10`h Street Apartment Relocation Site Plan Review PW#99021 Date: March 30, 1999 Applicant: Michael Sullivan, 4303 Tami Lane, Central Point, Oregon 97502 Property Owner: Eugene Skeen and John Ross, et al., 5060 Griffin Lane, Medford, Oregon 97501 Project: Apartment Complex Relocation Location:.,. 10 Street (Across from Assembly of God Church) Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 2C6, Tax Lot 7303, with lot line adjustment of Tax Lot 7306 Zoning: R-3 Units: Existing 5,508 s.f., Two Story, 8-unit, Apartment Complex, to be relocated from 919 E. Pine Street to 10th Street. Plans: 1 page of Site Plan prepared by Applicant, dated 2/13/99 Report By: Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director Purpose Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding Public Works. standards and additional standards and requirements to be included in the design. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding proposed development. Special Requirements 10th Street Improvements: Improvements to 10'h Street, including, but not limited to, construction of a new driveway apron meeting current City PWD standards and replacement of anyabroken sidewalk panels, as necessary, shall be coordinated and approved by the City PWD and: should be designed and implemented at the expense of the Developer. The driveways into theproposed development should be designed and positioned in a manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO single-unit truck, without crossing into an opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic. Need to-show truck turning movement on construction plans. 2. Site Drainape/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. 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, Sullivan 10'" Street Apt Relocation, Site Plan Review PWD StaJfReport March 29, 1998 Page 2 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 system must be designed to adequately drain the 10-year storm event without surcharging or must be provided with adequate storage 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 directly connect to the public storm drain system (at a manhole or curb inlet only), and shall not be designed to discharge to the street surfaces. The potential retention of storm water run-off shall be coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide an aesthetically pleasing, efficient, non-hazardous, and low maintenance facility. If applicable, the storm water retention facilities 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. 3. Domestic Water Service and Fire Protection: There is an existing fire hydrant near the proposed entrance of the Development, along Tenth Street. Any additional Fire Hydrants will be "' at the discretion of Fire District No. 3. The number and sizes of the water meters and service lateral to the apartment complex 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. 4. Abovecrround Utilities: If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power, US West, and Falcon 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 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. A power pole (PPL No. 61.1085) and telephone riser are located at the driveway entrance. These facilities must be relocated to afford the required 20-foot wide driveway entrance. Any relocated utility facilities on site should be placed underground, as feasible. 5. 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 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. 6. Rights-of-Way and Easements: Provide dedication for expansion of the right-of-way along Tenth Street to a minimum of 88-feet in width (44 feet each side of centerline). Since the existing right-of-way width on this portion of 10-street is only 30-feet on the proposed development's side of the centerline, the City will require an additional 14-foot dedication for right-of-way along the Developer's property frontage with Tenth Street. ~~ 65 S:~Ilivan /0'^ Street Apt Relocation, Srte Plan Review PWD Staff Report March 29, 1998 Page 3 A separate 10-foot minimum width public utilities easement (P.U.E.) should also be required along the property's frontage with Tenth Street. Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall provide suitable engineering certification and justification (i.e. calculations, analyses, plots, etc.,) that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. street; water; sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide for the significant degradation (in the opinioh of the Public Works Director) of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure; or the existing facilities will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands while maintaining or improving the existing effective level of service of the affected facility. General 1. Development Plans: Developer shall submit to the City's PWD for review and approval, plans and'specificationsfnr all improvements proposed for construction ormodifications within the City orpublic 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 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 Oregon Department of Transportation (storm water discharge into Highway 99 storm drainage facilities 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-Bui/ts: 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. 6fi Sullivan 10'" Street Apt Relocation, Site Plan Review PWD Staff Report March 29, 1998 Page 4 As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet; street light locations; other below grade utility lines; etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on Mylar"®), or an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD® compatible drawing electronic file. to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. 4. Elevations: All elevations used on the construction plans, on emporary 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 elevations, etc.), to which the proposed development will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan;design and '. R 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 Placement All fill placed in the development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in accordance with City PWD and Building Department standards, except for the upper 1.5-feet of fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does not underlie building, structures, or traveled vehicular access ways or parking areas. 7: Road/Driveway/Parking Areas: The Developer shall evaluate.theatrength of the native soils and determine the access road, parking, and driveway section designs to handle the expected loads (including fire equipment) to be traveled on these private driveways, access roads, and parking areas. Need 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 manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO Single Unit -Truck and/or WB-67 truck (as applicable), without crossing into an opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic. 8. Utility Plans: We did not receive any utility plans for the proposed development. The utility plans shall be drawn to scale with accurate horizontal and vertical depiction of utility lines and appurtenances (transformers, valves, etc.). 9. Area Llphtino Plan: Need to provide and implement an adequate area lighting plan for parking and public access areas, including the driveway entrance from 10"' Street. ~7 Sullivan !d^ Street Apt Relocation, Site Plan Review PWD Staff Report March 29, 1998 Page 5 10. Public Utility Easements: A minimum 10-foot wide public utilities easement (PUE) shall be dedicated on the proposed development for the installation of public utilities and should be located outside the public rights-of-way. At a minimum, the PUE should be aligned along the exterior boundaries of the property that border 10'h Street, if a PUE is not currently present in this area. 11. Clear Vision Areas: The construction drawings shall include clear vision areas (i.e. sight .triangles) at driveway entrances designed to meet the City's PWD requirements. 12. 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. 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. 13. Water Svsfem Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for cross connection control. Need to know projected activities and water uses for existing and new commercial buildings to determine requirements for cross connection control and fire protection. 14. WaterSystem:-Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and location of all water mains, hydrants, valves, service connection, meter, service laterals, and other appurtenance details irraccordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD. 15. Storm Drain System Design: Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this development plan, the Developer's engineer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of 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. 16. Roof/Area Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the public storm drain system. 17. Grading 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. 18. 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. ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: Apri16, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Request to Modify Conditions of Approval for the New Haven Estates Subdivision, Specifically a requirement for the construction of a concrete block wall along Hamrick and Vilas Road lot frontages. Annlicant/ Van Wey Homes & Key West Properties ner: 1762 East McAndrews Road Medford, OR 97504 A¢ent(sl: Herb Farber, Farber Surveying P.O. Box 5286 Central Point, OR 97502 er Description/ 37 2W 02 Tax Lots 9 - 53, New Haven Estates, Phase 1 Zonine: R-1, Residential Single-Family District Summary The agent for the applicant, Herb Farber has requested that the City reconsider its requirement for a concrete block wall along the applicable road frontages of the New Haven Estates Subdivision. The City Administrator has directed that since this was: a condition to Planning Commission approval, that any amendments should-be considered and acted. upon by the Commission. ` 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 or revision to subdivision tentative plans. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit C). 69 Applicable Law CPMC 16.10.090 et seq: Conditions for Tentative Plan Approval CPMC 17.20.010 et seq.- R-1, Residential Single-Family District Discussion The Planning Commission initially approved the tentative plan for the New Hauen Estates Subdivision in November 1997. On January 20, 1998, the Commission approved an amendment to the subdivision resulting in the conveyance of an additional 2.5 acres to Walnut Grove Village. The additional acreage was approved as a recreational vehicle storage area for the park. The RV storage area was to be enclosed with a masonry wall that was required as part of the tentative plan approval for the subdivision (See Attachment E). In May 1998 the Planning Commission considered further changes to Walnut Grove Village and authorized the relocation of the RV storage area. The clubhouse and park area (that exists today) were substituted and sight obscuring vinyl fence was permitted to replace the masonry wall. The Commission is now being asked to amend the Public Works condition for a concrete block wall and allow in its place a vinyl fence similar to the one constructed in the Central Point East Subdivision. As the City Administrator has pointed out in Attachment B, conditions for New Hauen Estates differ from CPE in that the Planning Commission gave specific authorization to staff to negotiate a visual barrier for the latter. 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 & Conclusions of Law 1. The specific condition for a concrete block wall attached to tentative plan approval given under CPMC 16.10.090 are deemed necessary in the interests of the public health, safety or welfare. Furthermore, said improvement is reasonably related to the development and would serve a public purpose such as mitigating negative impacts of the proposed development. The Commission must determine whether this finding can be made. According to the Public Works Staff Report (Attachment F), the block wall was intended to provide sound attenuation (for properties bordering Vilas/Hamrick Roads). The intention was to benefit the residents of the new subdivision from noise eminating from a busy secondary arterial road. Unfortunately, the extent of the block wall construction is limited to properties controlled by the developers and there will be `breaks' along the wall until other properties are developed further. Noise attenuation will be incomplete ~~ ~~ v and. may be ineffective until a wall can be constructed along New Haven Estates and. other properties adjacent to it which front Hamrick/Vilas Road. 2. This request involves the amendment of a conditional to New Haven Estates Subdivision tentative plan approval. The request is limited to New Haven Estates and not other property constrolled by the developer. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, amending Planning Commission Resolution No. 403 which conditionally approved a Tentative Plan for New Hauen 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. Attachments , ;; A. Letter from Herb Farber dated February 8, 1999 ~, _ , B. Letter from City Administrator dated March 30, 1999 C. Notice of Public Hearing D. Planning Report and Minutes, dated May 19,1998 amending Conditional Use Permit for Walnut Grove Manufactured Home Park and requirement for block wall E. Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 20, 1998 retaining requirement for block wall F. Public Works Staff Report, dated October 15, 1997 with original requirement for block wall and landscaping ~1 Farber & Sons, Inc. Post Office Box 5286 Central Point, OR 97502 .~~ Office: 120 Mistletoe Street Medford, Oregon (541) 776-0846 • Fax 773-1.656 Registered Oregon Land Surveyor, CWRE Land Use Planning Consultant GPS Surveys Topographical Mapping Land Partitions Forest Boundaries Subdivisions Construction Staking Herbert A. Farber President/Surveyor Susan Morgan Farber Business Manager suRv Attachment s , iEl~ Y 1 N G February 8, 1999 Tom Humphreys, Planning Director City of Central Point 155 So Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: Proposed Fence for New Haven Estates, Phase I along Hamrick/Vilas Roads. Tom, As agent for Van Wey Homes and Key West Properties, a request is submitted for an amendment to the approval for New Haven estates, Phase I. The approval was for a concrete block wall. The request is fora wall similar to the wall presently constructed for Central Point East. The request is for the frontage along Hamrick and Lot 9 and Vilas and Lot 53. This will be more aesthetically .pleasing and be consistent with the pattern of development along the roadways. Respectfully Submitted Herbert A. Farber - 72 C itv of Central Point Attachment B City Administrators Office James H Bwrnetl, AICP City Adnrhristmtor Deanna Gregory Adnrinistralive/Plaaring Secretary March 30, 1999 John Schleining P.O. Box 8271 Medford, OR 97504 Re: Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park and New Maven Estates Dear John: I have completed my review ofthe documents sent to me by either yourselfor your agents regarding the remaining issues to be resolved with respect to both the Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park and New Haven Estates. These documents are as follows: Letter from Farber Surveying dated February 8, 1999. Letter from The Richard Stevens Company, LLC dated February 16, 1999 Letter from The Richard Stevens Company, LLC dated February 19, 1999 Letter from MacDonald Environmental Planning, PC dated February 22, 1999 Letter from New Haven Subdivision dated February 22, 1999 -. Letter from Walnut Grove, LLC dated February 22, 1999 Letter from Van Wey Homes, Ina/Key West Properties, Inc. dated March 2, 1999 Letter from Walnut Grove LLC dated March 2, 1999 (1) Letter from Walnut Grove LLC dated March 2, 1999 (2) Letter from Construction Engineering Consultants dated March 4, 1999 (1) Letter from Construction Engineering Consultants dated March 4, 1999 (2) Letter from Construction Engineering Consultants dated March 4, 1999 (3) Letter from The Richard Stevens Company, LLC dated March 16, 1999 These documents address the VilaslHamrick Road improvements for New Haven Estates, the deferred improvement agreement and bonding requirements for New HavenEstates, the park systems development charges (SDCs) for Walnut Grove Village, the water SDCs for the 6-inch meter for Walnut Grove Village, themethod ofpayment ofSDCs for Walnut Grove Village, water SDC credits claimed for Walnut Grove Village and New Haven Estates and the block wall requirement for New Haven Estates. I will respond to these issues in this order as much as possible. New Haven Estates is responsible for the construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drains, bike lanes and landscape buffers along its frontage on Vilas/Hamrick Road to the extent that these improvements are not constructed by Jackson County as part ofits VilaslHamrick Road improvement 155 South Second Street • Centrat Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax (541)664-0384 ., ~ '7 3 John Schlcining March 30. 1999 Pagc 2 r. project. These requirements are clearly stated in the Public Works Department staff reports for the development. New Haven Estates is also required to construct the improvements recommended in the traffic impact study prepared by Hardy Engineering, specifically the acceleration/deceleration lanes on Vilas/Hamrick Road. No additional participation in the Jackson County Vilas/Hamrick Road improvement project is required. The deferred improvement agreement for New Haven Estates will reflect these requirements and is a necessary document in addition to bonding for improvements to be constructed at a later date. The engineering estimate prepared by CEC must include the above-referenced improvements to Vilas/Hamrick Road to cover any improvements not constructed by Jackson County. City staff will review the engineering estimate and prepare the final estimate which will become the amount of the bonding requirement. Accordingly, your Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit No. 105 issued by People's Bank of Commerce on March 2, 1999, is herewith returned. The City Attorney is reviewing the issue of the park SDC requirement. I will advise you of any changes in the position already articulated by the City on this matter. In any event, your analysis of the remaining park SDC owed to the City is inconsistent with the established park SDC requirement and anyconsideration of payment is inappropriate until our review is completed. Accordingly, you check number 1355 drawn on the Bank of Southern Oregon in the amount of $2,101.22 is herewith returned. The Vilas Road 6-inch master water meter and the associated 16-inch water lines were to be paid for jointly by the developers ofNew Haven; Walnut Grove and Central PointEastthrough acost-sharing arrangement. The City is willing to set up an area ofbenefitand collecbthe fees at the building permit stage for reimbursement to Walnut Grove: As you represent both Walnut Grove and New Haven, you will need to inform the City if you choose this option and wish. fees to be collected from your projects as well as from Central Point East. You may also negotiate directly with Central Point East for payment of their share of the 6-inch master water meter and associated 16-inch water lines. It is the City's policy to reimburse developers for the up sizing of water lines above the minimum water line diameter required to serve a development. In many cases, this is the difference between an eight-inch line and atwelve-inch line. Reimbursement consists of the payment of the estimated material cost differences in the size of the lines. It does not include labor. This is similar to the method used by the Medford Water Commission. Reimbursement can be made either by direct payment from the City if budgeted funds are available or as water distribution SDC credits applied at the building permit stage. The Public Works Department is reviewing your request for reimbursement and will determine the amount due, if any. With respect to the method of payment for SDCs due to the City, the Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC 11.12.090) authorizes the payment of SDCs upon the issuance ofa building pemvt, including any permit for the set-up or installation of any mobile or manufactured home. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax (54.1)664-6384 ;.. ~Q Johp Schleining March,~0, 1999 Page 3 Regarding the block wall requirement for New Haven Estates, as this was a Planning Commission requirement, your request to remove this requirement will need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Your case differs from that of Central Point East in that the Planning Convnission gave specific authorization in its motion to approve Central Point East that allowed staffto negotiate the issue of the block wall proposed for that project. You will remember that when this issue was raised regarding the block wall for Walnut Grove, it was properly referred to the Planning Commission for its review. The Planning Department will schedule this request for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, Apri16, 1999. Respectfully, J es H. Bennett, AICP ity Administrator Enclosures (2) cc: Lee Brennan, Public Works Director Tom Humphrey, Planning Director Pat Havird, Construction Engineering Consultants Herb Farber, Farber Surveying ;Richard Stevens, The Richard Stevens Company, LLC .Wayne Van Wey, Van Wey Homes, Inc. ,• 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664 3321 • Fax (541)664-6ss4 J .. / City of Central Point Attachmeht~C PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: March 16, 1999 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING Apri16, 1999 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Beginning atthe above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commissionwill review arequestto modifythe conditions ofapproval for the New Haven Estates Subdivision. The property owners have asked the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the conditions that would permit the construction of a vinyl panel wall instead of aconcrete blockwall. The proposed vinyl wall would be similar in size, shape and composition to the structure recently placed along Biddle Road in the Central Point East Subdivision. Atthe meeting, the Commissionwill reviewtherequestand comments submitted bythepublic and may render a decision to retain or modify the conditions. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter 17 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance with the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Anypersoninterestedincommentingontheabove-mentionedlandusedecisionmaysubmitwritten comments concerning the wall along Hamrick and V ilas Roads up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Apri16, 1999. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. ~~ 76 ' ` 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 wall adjacent to Hamrick and Vilas Roads and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. CopiesofallevidencerelieduponbytheapplicantareavailableforpublicreviewatCityHal1,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies ofthe same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contactthe Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE Atthemeeting,thePlanning Commissionwill reviewtheapplications,technical staffreports, heartestimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments concerning the request for modifications ofthe conditions of approval. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion ofthe review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the request for modification: City regulations provide thatthe Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ..„..: a., dt.: ~ ~„ ~~~ - ' 381 ~°I ~gl . ~B~ ~ ~E~ ~ ~l ~ ~Yl $~ ,' •YVwnrsar i~ ~ 1 • •^~---.wryntr~ • cszvwwmrr. • ~ `~' •r~~urx-ox....~. ~ -•~ __ ~'~1 jj ~• S u ~, ~"i 35 tnltYt hNt rtlilf~TOf~.. ~~. r ___t. ~F ~"l'F ~0i ~ ~'i ~ ~l ~ t~l i [wtin 'r l4:i a E ~i•A ~ ~~ ~ ^ ~ 11• ~~ 4 swan ~ ~a~r' p`a ~, , » -a v. ixm, iws> •~,fr 3aG ~ .°. i :'Ri ~~" [ n 9. ' p Re sr Rr ~1 ~1 ~1 ~,1 ~j _ l € .".t..t.y~ ...__~ .a.mt~ ,. 2-taM~ ~~ 4, ~'j \• rvm e,t•[o, vnw x :'[I Proposed Wall """' -__ ' ~t E _sr" Road Wall 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 .~ ~ Attachment'D, HEARING DATE: May 19, 1998 TO: Central Point Platming Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Amendment to the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Walnut Grove Manufactured Home Park. AUD~lican-U Walnut Grove Village Partners Owner: ' P.O. Box 8271 Medford, OR 97504 @g ne tfs1: Wayne Christian, Pat Havird and John Schleining P.O. Box 8271 Medford, OR 97504 Properly Description/ 37 2W 02 Tax Lot 100- 32.20 acres ti R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District The applicant, Walnut Grove Village Partners, is proposing amendments to the Site Plan for the Walnut Grove Manufactured Home Park located near the intersection of West Vilas and Hamrick Roads. Amendments include moving the clubhouse buildings and park area to the Vilas Road entrance and using the existing clubhouse site for RV parking and seven (7) additional manufactured home spaces (see Exhibits A, B 8c D) 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. (Exhibit C). 31 ~~ 7g CPMC 5.32.010 et seq: Mobile Home Parks CPMC 17.28.010 et seq: R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval CPMC 17.76.010 et seq.- Conditional Use Permits The Planning Commission initially approved the Conditional Use Pemut and Site Plan for a 193.. unit Manufactured Home Park in July 1997. Six months later, the Commission approved an amendment to New Haven Estates (an adjoining subdivision) resulting in the conveyance of an additiona12.5 acres to Walnut Grove Village. The additional acreage was approved as a recreational vehicle storage area for the park. The RV storage. azea was to be~ 'k enclosed with a masonry wall along Hamrick Road and included other conditions noted in the Planning Commission minutes (refer to Exhibit E). It is staffs understanding that several factors led to this request for a site plan revision: 1) approval of the pond, originally planned for the clubhouse and open space area, could not be obtained from the irrigation district; 2) relocation of the clubhouse/pazk site will be more attractive at the entrance to the village; 3) internal RV storage will be more secure, private and accessible to village residents in the pazk's interior; and 4) the applicants want to add seven additional manufactured home spaces. Since this project was last discussed at the Planning Commission, the applicants have prepared a boundary line adjustment but have not yet transferred a 20-foot Hamrick Road right-of--way dedication from the New Haven Subdivision to the Walnut Grove Village property. The property line adjustment increases the total mobile home. park land area to 34.7 acres which, when the density is calculated, allows up to 202 MHP spaces. The applicant wishes to increase the number of spaces from 193 to 200 with this site plan revision. The relocation of the RV storage area is a more aesthetically pleasing, arrangement than having it along Vilas Road which is elevated and from which the RV's would be noticeable. The new parking azea will accommodate approximately 96 RV's and is adjacent to five residential lots in the New Haven Estates subdivision. A sight obscuring fence is planned around the mobile home park perimeter. The exception to this is the masonry wall on New Haven and Hamrick Roads mentioned eazlier. The applicants are now depicting a vinyl coated fence with slats in place of the masonry wall. The Commission will need. to determine whether to authorize this change. as part of the site plan revisions. The New Haven Estates subdivision will still have a masonry wall along Hamrick. 32 ~ '79 _ i ~I '. , In the course of scheduling this item forowners on Gebhard Road (see ~b"g Departmi if ~ i . received correspondence from property the initial approval not all of the issues raised in the enclosed letters were discussed during ublic works of the Walnut Grove Village CUP and Sit ~ PP ~~ ~l be xpected to adhere to ~~ conditions that have been adopted by the City. the Planning Commission and/or ! previous conditions of approval unless they are modified by City Council. r mmnw• of Fac+ x Conclusions of 1~ • 1 • The project site is located in an R-3, Residential MSIC ~P ~1~iDe P ~ and tha project and proposed revisions are consistent with the City The project is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies which encourage a range of housing types, styles and costs includwg manufactured homes. It is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map which designates the project site as High Density Residential. 2, The project involves the revision of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan to establish a 200 unit mobile home park. ro osed The site plan includes all information .required by the CPMC. Thep P manufactured home park falls within the comprehensive plan density requirement or ter 5.32 actually limits the R 3 zone which is a maximum of 25 unitslacre er aMe nd the total number of units mobile home park density at a maximum 6 units p allowed given this stipulation is 202. 3, The applicant has sausfled Pre'nO~ City conchtions/requuements including, but not limited to: a boundary line adjustment and transfer of a 20-foot Harnrick Road right-of-way dedication from~thb ~a ~~ssion on July t S,th1997~and the rconditions assoca ted with conditions adop Y 20,1998. rnodifications to the Site Plan adopted on January 20~ 1998 The conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission on January lans are listed in Attachment E. The applicants have submitted their improvement p to the City and they are being reviewed for consistency with the conditions previously imposed by the Commission and City dramag are being rovements have been deferr worked out by the developer. to a later date while others including Staff will have a copy of the conditions from earlier staff reports should the Commission need to refer to them at the meeting. ~~ 8~ " ~, ~ City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1998 -Page 3 privacy, (5) potential deterioration of the Merritt building itself because of exhaust, vibration and possible collision, (6) Issue of safety on the particular corner which is congested because of proximity of Highway 99. Mr. Shearer requested a 10 foot setback between the driveway and their residence and requested that the driveway cut be 40 foot from Pine Street. Mr. Casey stated that across the street from the Merritt building on two sides, are businesses that have much longer hours of operation and generate noise, light and vehicle traffic. They originally considered an attractive wall to deflect the lights. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 421 approving the application to position a mobile espresso cart near the intersection of East Pine and North First Streets, including all conditions of the staff report and adding the following: The applicant shall enter into a maximum of five-year Deferred Improvement Agreement fora 6 foot sidewalk; a standard driveway approach shall be installed prior to occupancy with a 40 foot setback from Pine Street and a 20 foot radius in the alley; a pitched roof on the espresso cart; implement a landscaping plan using wine barrels; aone- way, 12-foot driveway northbound with directional arrows; surface water drainage shall be controlled so it will not drain on the street, alley, sidewalk or remain on the property; hours of operation shall be 5:45 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey yes; Johnson, yes. Chairman Piland declared a recess at 9:47 p.m. Chairman Piland opened the meeting again at 9:57 p.m. B. Public Hearing~o consider an amendmenrto the Tentative Plan for the Walnut Grove Manufactured Home Park Chairman Piland opened the public hearing. There was no ex-parte communication or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Richard Stevens, P. O. Box 4368, Medford, OR, representing the applicant, stated that this is an amendment to an approved manufactured home park. The proposal is to exchange the open space designated for the park and the R.V. Storage area. The R.V. Storage area would then be in the middle of the middle of the project for more security and the park would be on Hamrick Road. The proposal will add 7 additional lots to the manufactured home park, however, 7 residential lots have been lost from New Haven Subdivision. He stated that they recognize the previous conditions and j>; J City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1998 -Page 4 continue to accept those in the approval process. They had considered a masonry wall, but that will be replaced with a 6 foot chain link fence with green slats. Given the park and other changes, the masonry wall is no longer needed. Commissioner Fish suggested that all along Hamrick Road the fence at the park should be made up of corner posts so that if a car goes out of control the fence will catch the car. Wayne Christian, 2821 Bullock Road, Medford, OR, agent for the applicant, stated that the area along Hamrick will be raised to the level of the roadway. Sam Inkley, 5055 Gebhard Road, Central Point, stated that he circulated a petition to those families on Gebhard Road and he entered the petition into the record. The petition stated that the neighbors would like to see a maintenance gate on the entrance from Gebhard Road so traffic will not go through the park and out onto Gebhard Road. It is a farm road according to Jackson County, not a secondary road. Jerry May, 5098 Gebhard Road, Central Point, Or, stated that he feels a 6 foot, chain link fence will not be enough buffer or security. Children will be able to get over that fence into his farm and orchard.. He will also be spraying the trees and the spray will filter through the fence. Mr. May wanted to make sure the covenants include a "right to farm" clause for the neighbors. Mr. Stevens and Mr. Christian stated that the issues raised in Mr. Inkley's comments were addressed at a previous commission meeting and they are not an issue now. They also stated that Mr. May does have a right to farm however, he is next to land designated for urbanization. Mr. Christian stated that they are required to plant a tree on each lot and may look into planting more trees on the lots next to Mr. May's property to give a visual buffer. Commissioner Fish suggested that the lease agreements with the tenants should include a statement that there are farming activities behind them and there may be spraying. Tom Humphrey stated that the City has an agreement with Jackson County concerning a buffer between farm land and the land in the city limits. There are several buffer options that can be considered which include special setbacks adjacent to urban growth boundaries, acquisition of land by public agencies, lower densities at the periphery of the urban growth boundary, 82 ~~ Attachment E CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 20, 1998 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:04 P.M. It. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey. Karolyne Johnson came in at 7:20 p.m. Also present were Jim. Bennett, City Administrator, Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, and Arlene LaRosa, Public Works'Secretary. Angela Curtis was absent. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence IV. 'MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion Minutes for December 16, 1997, Commissioner Gilkey. ROLL CALL: Gilkey, yes. V: PUBLIC APPEARANCES to approve the Planning Commission as written. Motion was seconded by Dunlap, abstain; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; There were no public appearances. VI. RPVIP~! of L ndacaoing R~as~irementc for Oregon State Police Division III Heado jai rtPrc Jim Bennett reviewed the background for this agenda item. Wally Skyrman, 5488 N. Pacific Highway, Central Point, complainant and neighbor of the new Oregon State Police headquarters, has written a letter concerning the sycamore trees that have been planted next to his property. The State would like the Planning Commission to make a recommendation concerning this situation. Mr. Skyrman gave the Commission a packet with letters and other information concerning the London Plane trees a.k.a. Bloodgood Sycamore trees. He stated that the actual talk about the boundary planting started in March of 1997. He stated that he suggested a Photinia hedge rather than tall trees. The developer stated that they were going to change the plan and plant a Photenia hedge. They have planted the hedge but also planted the trees. Mr. 83 CTTY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1998 -Page 2 Skyrman stated that he did not realize the significance of this until others mentioned the size, the allergens and the leaf drop of these particular trees. Karolyne Johnson came in at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Skyrman stated that he would be satisfied with only the Photinia Hedge. He would Tike for them to remove the trees or replace them with a much smaller tree, possibly a Golden Gingko. Carl Skyrman, Lucille, Idaho, brother to Mr. Wally Skyrman, stated the he is a practicing landscape architect. He stated that one of the biggest issues with the trees is the size. It is not a tree to put in a confined area, next to a sidewalk, curb or paving because of the root system. it puts out a lot of shade and would severely impact the hedge. The root system would also damage any water pipes underground. Shannon Bennett, Jacksonville, Or, stated that the Golden Gingko is a very good tree, but they need to specify male trees rather than female trees. Commissioner Dunlap made a motion that the Planning Commissior recommend that the Oregon State Police remove the London Plane trees a.k.a Bloodgood Sycamore trees on the north side of the property, let the Photinie hedge grow enough to cover the fence area, and, if the State wants to replace the trees, replace them with a smaller tree, possibly a Golden Gingko. Motior was seconded by Commissioner Johnson. ROLL CALL: Dunlap,-yes; Fish, yes Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. B. 1; J~ Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. New Haven Estates would eliminate Lots 1 through 7 south of New Haven Road and transfer ownership to the Walnut Grove Village- Mobile Home Park via a lot line adjustment. There are a few areas of concern: (1 )There is a 15-foot easement proposed for access from the mobile home park to the RV storage area. The City feels it needs to be a 20-foot easement and the Fire District concurs; (2) If the entrance to the RV storage area is gated and locked, the Ftre District would like to have a lock box on it or some kind of device so they have access to it; (31 This area would be for RV storage only and there would be no occupancy allowed in any vehicle in that area; l41 This area was to have 84 r CITY OF CENTRAL. POINT Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1998 -Page 3 a masonry sound wall when it was a part of the New Haven Estates subdivision. The applicant has assured the City they would still build the sound ~l wall and would continue it around the R.V. storage area along New Haven Road all the way up to the entrance of the mobile home park so that it would be completely screened from the roadway. The City would like a minimum height of 8 to 10 feet for the wall to adequately screen the R.V.'s. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, stated that there is a visibility issue .with the masonry wall and it might be an appropriate location .for an entry sign or landscaping with low shrubs. Herb Farber, 120 Mistletoe Street, Medford, OR, agent of record for New Haven Estates, stated there will be no problem with giving a 20-foot easement. There is enough space to accommodate that. Commissioner Fish stated that there has to be an adequate sight triangle at the intersection of New Haven Road and Hamrick Road. Herb Farber stated that the mobile home park would be responsible for :. dedicating, by deed, the 20-foot additional right-of-way for Hamrick Road. The .~ engineering and design for the intersection, road improvements, and: he wall will have to be reviewed and approved by the engineering department to make sure that the sight triangle is free and clear. It is the intent of the applicants to do some landscaping along the wall when it is built. The applicants have stipulated that they are willing to build an 8-foot wall and whatever style is chosen will be used for all of the frontage of both the mobile home park and subdivision. He stated that on lots 15, 16, 17 and 18 they dropped one lot and changed the alignment of the lot lines. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 412, amending Resolution 403, approving the following modifications to the Tentative Plan for New Haven Estates: 1) Lots 1- 7 and Lot 15 are eliminated; 2) Lots 8 - 14 are renumbered Lots 9 - 15; 3) Lots 16 - 18 are reconfigured and will require driveways that are curved to provide proper access to Hawthorne Way; 4) The 20-foot dedication of street right-of-way along Hamrick Road for Lots 3 - 7 is removed contingent upon transfer of ownership of Lots 1 - 7 to the Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park and completion of a lot line adjustment. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Fish. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes, Johnson, yes. 85 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission ]VI'inutea January 20, 1998 -Page 4 r Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 413, amending Resolution 390, to approve the following modifications to the Site Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit for Walnut Grove Mobile Home Park: 1) The proposed recreational vehicle storage area is approved subject to the requirements of Fire District 3; 2) The perimeter of the property along New Haven Road and Hamrick Road will be enclosed by an 8-foot masonry wall or an acceptable combination of a berm and a masonry wall subject to approval by the Planning Department and affected utilities; 3) The masonry wail will be designed to meet sight vision triangle requirements at the intersection of New Haven Road and Hamrick Road; 4) The mobile home park will dedicate to the city a 20-foot section of street right-of-way for Hamrick Road adjoining the recreational vehicle storage area. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes with reservations; Fish; yes, Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Johnson handed out posters for the Town-Hall Meeting. Jim Bennett discussed future agendas. VIII. Adjournment Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. ~,. - 86 Date: Applicant: Project: Location: Legal: Zoning: Lots: Units: Plans: Report By: Attachment CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REVISED STAFF REPORT for NEW HAVEN ESTATES PW#97031 10/15/97 VanWey Homes, Inc. 1762 East McAndrews Road, Medford, Oregon 97504 -`(541) 772-7782 Subdivision North of Viles/Hamrick Road curve. T37S, R2W, Section 01 B, Tax Lot 3800, acrd T38S, R2W, Section 36C, Tax Lots 2500, 2501, and 2600 R-1-8 (with conditions) 207 total (11 phases proposed, but not illustrated) 207 Residential Tentative Plan for New Haven Estates, Sheet 1 of 2, dated Lee Brennan, Public Works Director ~ ~~~~ 10/2/97. Sheet 2 not received. 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 subdivision. Gather information from the DevelopedEngineer regarding proposed development. Special Requirements 1. Blocks -Sizes CPMC 16 24 020: The tentative plan illustrates block lengths along Rabun Way, Jeremy Street, and Devonshire Place of approximately 1,397 feet. CPMC 16.24.20 states that "Blocks shall not exceed twelve hundred feet In length except blocks adjacent to arterial streets or unless the previous adjacent layout or topographical conditions justify a variation". The City's PWD review of the tentative plan indicates that the proposed blocks are not adjacent to arterial streets, and the surrounding topographical conditions or adjacent development does not warrant a variation. The City's PWD would therefore recommend that the streets be reconfigured to meet the requirements of 16.24.020. A suggested correction would be to extend Savanah Drive(?) north to an intersection with Rabun Way. 2, R/nr45 Easements CPMC Ili 24 030 C PedestHan Wavs: In accordance with CPMC.16.24.030 C, we are recommending that a minimum 6-foot-wide paved pedestrian public way be provided which is aligned between Rabun Way and the property to the north, somewhere between lots 196 and 202 (to be determined during the design phase), to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian traffic between Vilas/Hamrick Road and future development to the north. This bicycle right-of-way can be aligned in conjunction with the recommended CItyIBCVSA, or other public utility easements to be provided to allow for connection of future development to utility infrasWcture, as discussed in Item 6 below. 3. Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrasWcture (i.e. street; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level ofservice 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 ~7 z~~ New Haven Estates, TentatWe Plan PWD Stt{Q"Report October /, /997 Page 2 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. 4. MasferPlans: Thornton Engineering (Thornton) has submitted to the City preliminary master plans (dated July 9, 1997, and hereinafter referred to as the "Northeast Central Point Master Plans") for the proposed development and neighboring properties. These preliminary master plans include a storm drain master plan (mapping of storm drainage basins and proposed primary off-site conveyance facilities), sanitary sewer master plan (mapping service areas and proposed alignments of main trunk conveyance lines), and a water master plan (identifying a proposed layout of main [12-Inch-diameter and larger] water distribution lines).- The City PWD is currently working with Thornton on the refinement and adjustment of the noted items and will continue to work with Thornton and the affected Developers on the design refinement and implementation of the master plans through the development in the noted service areas. The Developer shall provide plans for City approval of storm drain collection, retention, and conveyance facilities, the sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system, and the water distribution system which address the items noted in the master plans and which include allowances for the flows or demands of the proposed development, any existing demands or flows, and any future development on neighboring properties, as noted on the Northeast Central Point Master Plans and/or on other master plans prepared by the affected utilities or other regulatory agencies. 5. wainrDlstrihutlon Svstem and New Water Master Meter. The Developer shaltdesign and construct, at 4he Developer's expense, file large'diameter(12-inch-diameter and larger) waterlines that will be aligned through the proposed subdivision, inaccordance with the Northeast Central Point Water Master Plan being developed. The City will reimburse the Developer (in the form of credits against water SDCs)'for the material's price difference (as bid to the City), for pipe and appurtenances with diameters larger than fl- inches-diameter that are required by the City to be installed as part of the proposed development. The proposed development and surrounding development will require the installation of a new water master meter (Including a suitable connection to the Medford Water Commission's water main line, and other associated appurtenances) to be installed on the north side of the comer intersection of Hamrick and Vilas Roads. The Developer shall work with the City DPW and the Medford Water Commission on the development and Instaliaflon of this meter. It is the City's intent to have this master meter instalied as part of this and other currently approved development, and to be installed at the expense of the Developer and surrounding land owners, determined on a per acre of development basis as established by the City. 6. ~hts-of--Way and Easements: Provide dedication for expansion of the right-of-way along HamrickNilas Roads to 100-feet in width (50-feet each side of centerline). Provide suitable and acceptable easements - for any public works infrastructure located outside the public rights-of--way. A separate 10-foot minimum width public utilities easement (P.U.E.) should also be required outside the Hamrick~las Road right-of--way for utility installation, The City PWD is also recommending that a minimum 20-foot-wide City/BCVSA utility easement (with an all weather surface) be aligned between Rabun Way and the property to the north, somewhere between lots 196 and 202, to facilitate City/BCVSA utilities connection (in possible combination with bicycle and pedestrian access) with future development to the north. 7. Landscape Buffers: As part of the proposed development, to provide for noise attenuation and a visual buffer along the secondary arterial roads that border the proposed development, it is the City PWD's recommendation that the Developer provide designs for and be required to Implement a City and JC Roads approved landscape plan, which, at a minimum, includes a landscaped buffer consisting of iMgated landscaping and sidewalks along Ute applicable portions of the HamrickMlas Road rights-of-way that "~ ,~ border the proposed development from the southwesterly comer of Lot No.7 to the easterly properly Jf 88 /i J/ New Haven Fstates, Tentative Plan PWD Stafj'Report October 1, 1997 Page 3 extension of Lot No. 8, and from the westerly end of improvements at the intersection of Naples Drive and Vilas/Hamrick Road to the easterly end of Lot No. 53. It is recommended by the City PWD that a suitable ~ t, sound wall be required to be constructed by the Developer on the proposed development's property along ~ri the applicable portions of HamrickNilas Road, for sound attenuation purposes. 8. Traffic Studv. A study entitled "Traffic Impact Study for Walnut Grove Village New Haven Estates" dated August 5, 1997, prepared by Hardey Engineering and Associates, Inc (hereinafter referred to as "Traffic Study") was,received by the City on October 2, 1997. City PWD staff have not had adequate time to thoroughly review The Traffic Study; nor has the City received any comments from JC Roads staff regarding the Traffic Study.:: Cursory review of the traffic study by City PWD staff indicated that the Traffic Study did not include the additionaltrafficampacts forfuture development to the east and west of the proposed development that will have access to the proposed development's streets; or for-any impacts as the result of "cut-through"traffic from Gebhard Road to Vilas/Hamrick Road, through the;proposed subdivision. The Traffic Study shall be revised to include these additional impacts. The developer shall implement and construct, as applicable, any associated infrastructure. as recommended in the Traffic Impact Study and/or as determined by JC Roads and the City - 9. Collector Street Des)gnation It is the City's PWD recommendation that New Haven Road (the portion between the intersections with Vilas/Hamrick Road and Hawthorne Way) and Naples Drive (the portion between the intersections with Vilas/Hamrick Road and Rabun Way), be designated as "collector" streets as described in the City's comprehensive plan, which shall be provided with a minimum of twoaravel lanes, „. trafficaurning lanes as required, and bicycle lanes. It Is also the City's PWD recommendation that street parking would not be permitted on these collector streets, with the exception of allowing parking on the eastern side of Naples Drive. It is also the City PWD's recommendation that no parking restrictions and n, ;,. bicycle~lanes should be provided on Hawthorne Way between New Haven Road and SavanahDrive. 10. erosion Control Plan:. A suitable erosion control plan must be prepared and implemented for the construction of any improvements associated with this development. 11. Off-Site Storm Drainage Infrastructure: For any storm drainage infrastructure constructed or improved outside the City's rights-of--way or easements, the Developer shall provide a suitable document or documents which contain approvals focthe implementation of uch connection and/orimprovementssnd which describe: ^ Who is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the infrastructure facilities to maintain the original design parameters associated with the infrastructure. If the City is to operate and.maintain the infrastructure, the applicable funding mechanism that will be created (i.e local improvement district) for the associated City,expenditures; ^ 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 properly 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 12. Irafflc Control Device at Intersection of New Haven Road or Naples Drive and Hamrlck/Vilas Road: A park site has been designated for development in an area to the southeast of the proposed development. Pedestrian or bicycle access to these facilities will require crossing of HamrickNilas Road. The City shall ~, ~:. 89 ,, ~ ~ ? ~ . ~ ,, ri [ 6 w - p K s gg II~ • C~ L~~~~~~ L ~~ .. ~ L •~ ~ L~~ ~ I~ ~en - ' A ~' ~` ( ~r + L ~ i Y i F ~ ~~~~ ~ t ! ~;n I =: " i ~~f 1! ~ a ~ i C I ~ ~ .asn L I ~ _P:n 9 ~ ~ .., ~,. L A ~g _ w I i I I ~ C ' S f c A m L~ ~~ 9~ ~ `n = " r ~ .a L \ \ ~ _,. ~ Pa~ < ~ • a ~e^ \ \ +'~s A~~ L I 8e F ~ ~..r ° ~ V5 ~ A • A _~ L ro . r ;~ .__;,._ ~ .., .. b ~ ~ Q ~ 1 1 m RA {~. ~ oxteea ti:Se ~ 8 n ~ Pric Gtw A , ~ R P e~ n N ~ ~ IA ~ ;o !xs ~ a ~ ~ ¢~ ; one n \ ~~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ \ ~ u n \ ~ 1 ~, L _ .... ~. n ~ ~ g i:~n L ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~M~ 1F P ~~ f ~ ~ ~ q ~n ` m Oa J ~ = , i ~ « C ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~NG iYI• ~ }y6 id:~i " ~8 ~ ~. C L L ~ .... _. ~- L r ~ u" ! ~~° .' ~ A ~ '~ i L u~ ~ A R ' ~ _. ~ WP1E8 pt11E M ~ ~ ~ 1•,,t R " .rn. v R - 0 ?, 90 c~ u~, ,III .y 1I~ "'/ ~ ~ I(J/7 ~/~'L~. v~ ~.(, IVL~VLLBJL[J/J yY GV -- ---- - ~p_l ( C~ G _ -- -- ~ - --- --- -- ---- -- --- ~ ~% ~ Q ----~--------~----~ - _ ----- - ---- ------------------------- --- y (Q.~ rI -/...---1-- --/-----------(~--------- -- ------------ j _ -_- -- -- --- ---- --- --- -- - -- - -- --- --- . ---- ----- _ _ --- - ~~`~~-a~`L~ ~` i - --- - -- -- ---- --- ---- - ------Y=1 __ /V--!~!'~d_O-u-~---`~~JIC~.- ttivT'l~C----------------------------- ~ ~' / -._ - ___---___.-_. . -_~~~ ~~ - _~-_/'_-'_-~6=.(.W~-~.-~~~.__V-'_-`_~~1k'1.~4(~' s~ w ~L.- L4A4.e~~ir~'~.C\I_l..R,~__ ------- - - ~ - - _- _ ~ , _ ~P- _ YV~~er~©~~5 -~SS~,fz~cL"~dl t~`?C?ic, _1 /l.~l_C!)Ilvt~l _ cJ~ ------ r ,a. ; I l _..- --._ -- --- --- --- -- ~ ! ~ ~~ ~ -----_- .~~~ ~9~n~~_ -~ ~=- ~*e--~- ~--~ .-~~ ~- _-~- -=_-Vie.:,- --- ---.- ._.- -__. -- - -- - -- - -- -------- --- ._ 4![ ~ \~1~... -'+R. -_l.' _ ~ _~ ~..A ~~t"1 ~ d_ (' t~-Y-'1-ys" ~"'f `^__~~ _ ~ _ ._ ~ L '~ _.___ ~ ~ - I / ~,~.~4 ~ p f/~y / yy /y ~ / / ~ ~~j ' ~ -/ / ~ t 1~ ----- ~ ~ ~ ~ -- --~_ 99 -- ~.~~` ~~tn ~N.-_ ~ rte _ ~° ~~ _ ~ ~-- ~.~s ~ - ~z ----- - _-~_ ~~ ----------- ----------- -- - ----------------- _ `~"I-~Y~___~~~~~_"lam? i--~~~~16~~___-_l-l=~-1~_~L'~~-t.-C~_~,5--___ t /J G L ~~~ Ir 11 ~ ~ ~ ' J~ r .- _ _ _. . .. _ _______-. _.._.. ______ ----- - -------------- 4 V ._. _- _.__ _ ~ _-.._ ~ ~ /~ ~~ --1~0! a~--~A_ - 1_~ ~~,~ ~ ___c~- __.._ -.-_____-.__-_-_.-_._.---_- --_ _.___-. ~ -- ~` r ` ~~ / 4a - .. ~ ~ _ ~~ - -- - ---- - - - - --- - -- ~~ --- J - - _ ,/ J - -- -- -- ---- ---- __ _ -- -- --- (' / r / / / - -- - --- --- -- - --- ® 1 1./...~ dj~t t~.~l (~ 0113.1-~'_C' a °}:~~ '~Y_L ~° ~t.Ll~ ~-- ~ 1 y/ q ~ ~ ~ - -- ~ 'L\L-t~__~j~=LJ Y 6.-:[I-Y-~ ~_ ~=.f S1.~6~.J~~ S_.~__ ~i.E.?-~~eGls J ~ a - -__ ---- -- - j I e' J~ / // ~y y~~ ____ ~ ~- 6 --- 1 4I D ~ ~ ~ V~~ _ ~"AIL Q~~7~1 C',( ---~ ~`~Vl-~ -- G -( -. -" ";.' --- --- I ~ ~ l " -- - -- / _ - - - - II j ,-- L ~~~ ___~, L` r, ~l~ ~-- - - -- _ __ _- - --- I_ - - ---------- --o - ---------------- _- / ~~ l r ~ ~ ---- ~0 _ l 1 C _ c~_O __ C~~° _ ~/ O___S ~~-G~_ C'Ori~~~ ---~, ^~- mi ~ t"=9 L~-~=-- -- ----- -- l J .< , , I ~_. --- -------------- -- -~------- ~ ---------II--~ ---------------- ------- ~ ~ ~ l - ~~~ -c~~ _--~ n ---------------------- --------- -- =r~~~ ~ - -~- ~~~-~~- e - ----- -------------------------------- ~~ ---- - - : -- ~~~ -_--- -- --- - - / / -_- ---- ~ ------------- - -~i ~ --- ~'~~~- ---------- --- ---------------- --- --------- ---- - --- - - ---- - ----------------------------------------------------- - - -- - - ----- - -- ---- I -~ ~ ~ ~ ------------ - --c\ ------------))----------------------------------- ------ ----- _ ---- --- / - -~ t -- ---- ` ~ am ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~' -c f~J`= l_ _ `eC,,,pp-- ®cJ( ~ -~~1! ~? _ C~- ~°---- ___- -__-_. . ~- -~~~~-__~~Sl,~J_e _____ ____- --_-___-__ _.__._______.__ _-.__,_. ____-_._._._.____ ~/ ~/~ I _____. ~/ ~ ~ ~ ---_- ---.. I~_5~...- __~_~ -~"4=-=~~1\._ ~1_G_~>c~=/~~ 'fly ~-- --~ -- - -- ~ , ~- ---- _--` _~~G.G~ILLES~ ~O_ I~ =o~~/Y~ !J9~~ ~~/ ~l~Gl~ Cc~C~~._. ------ ~~Y_l~~_L`~~?~l- - t --- --- -- - --- ~. 11 ~ l~ ' ~ rG\y ~ / w /~ q_@ _~~ ~ n- _l~`- Le~~~ // a _~ i _~?~.~L~L~ d C ~ ~ '// / r J - ~ ' a~~~c~ c~S-- ~~SC~S~s~On ate- P ~ , .., / ~ - ~ _~ c.~ ?~~ -_s~ ~._ff.~Ll _ ~- ,~._ _ _ -~ _ ~ CJ od ~~~~~~UL` p ~ ]~iY ~iY~ ~ ~~~~s d ~ uy~-=~jU-~-~o~ ~~~~ ~ ~c~ -~- _ . ~~~ ~~ ~s ~e~~o~~ ( 7_ .. ~. h - -~ // ~ , ~~~ - - (`~.~, lIiLIM ~ ~~ ,fn ~ ~ r~~s~ pct ~'"(~-~. ~ 6'~ ~ g/~YatK/ ~i~ _ _ ~ -- - Tory,Hill , 218 N ath st. . `Central Point Tax Lot 7303 and 7306 the moving of the Shamrock Apartments. This will increase traffic on Laurel and 9th streets which already has to may problems with Dust and pot holes do to the fact the streets ate not paved (which was supposed to have been paved 30+ years ago) and lack of proper maintenance today. My property adjoins the tax lots where the proposed move exists and I feel that the Apartment complex will ruin my view with more ugly low income looking apartments! As well a oppress the use of my adjoining land. PLANNING COMMISSION Please Sign In Date ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~ ADDRESS ~~ ~~~~~~ ~,e_. -c~i~ ~~. ////Transit • ////Oriented ~ ////Development What TOD IS... TOD is planning which preserves and enhances those qualities that people tell us make small town Main Street America a great place to live. • small town feel • convenience • attractive surroundings • more transportation options • places to shop close to where you live • a place where people can walk on errands • a place for people of all ages to meet and congregate TOD is a blue print for healthy, quality living over the next two decades. It understands developers' needs, and works with them...not against them It is based on a partnership of private and public interests. It is planning that depends on taking small steps in the right direction! ////Transit • ////Oriented ~ ////Development What TOD IS NOT... • an instant solution for transportation problems • a plan to take people out of their cars • based on pie in the sky, wishful thinking • a way of turning the Rogue Valley into Portland ////Transit • llll Orien ted ~ ////Development Public Involvement Meeting Schedule Meeting Stakeholder Task Force # 1 Public Open House #1 Stakeholder Task Force #2 TOD Plan Design Charrette Stakeholder Task Force #3 Public Open House #2 Stakeholder Task Force #4 Stakeholder Task Force #5 Location RVTD SmullinCenter RVTD RV Mall ERC RVTD SmullinCenter RVTD RVTD Date January 27 February 10 February 24 March 12 March 24 April28 May 12 June 2 Time 6-9 p.m. 6:30-8:00 p.m. 6-9 p.m. 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 6-9 p.m. 6:00-8:00 p.m. 6-9 p.m. 6-9 p.m. ////Transit • ////Oriented ~ ////Development Technical Memos Completed #1 Report on existing plans, ordinances, and studies related to the project. #2 RVTD Customer SurveyAnalysis and Transit Improvement Recommendations. #3 Site FeasibilityAnalysis and Preliminary Corridor Identification. #4 Land Use Inventory Technical Memos In Progress #5 Model Ordinances & Codes #6 Transit Oriented Development Plan #7 Transit Capital Improvement Program #8 Transit Marketing Plan #9 Regional Transportation Plan Amendments #10 RTPAdoption and Presentation to Local Governments x~ 4• ////Transit • ////Oriented ~ ////Development Stakeholder Task Force TOD Site Selection Criteria • The site should have public support for growth and change. • Infrastructure should be in place, sewer, roads, schools, etc. • An existing mix of small business, residential and open land is preferable. • Area should have a good liklihood of success. (Developers identified, people open to the concept.) • Lots of available space. Don't want to tear down to start over. • The area needs to have good development value. ////Transit • llll Orien ted ~ ////Development Stakeholder Task Force TOD Site Selection Criteria • The proj ect should not threaten or reduce existing values in the area. • The area .should need the housing. • Should have a pedestrian friendly quality and provide for pedestrian connectivity in neighborhood. • Location must demonstrate potential for high ridership. (Should be on a corridor). • The site needs to have good accessibility. • TOD sites should contribute to the economic vitality of the local area. ////Transit • llll Orien ted ~ ////Development TOD Stakeholder Task Force This group will meet about five times during the study process to assess and to provide feedback to the work in progress. They represent a broad cross section of interests and locations. They provide input, direction and endorsement of the project findings. Name Affiliation Area Represented Eileen Adee League Of Women Voters Medford PaulAvery RVTD Board Medford Carol Bennett RVTDBoard Central Point Diana Bilyeu Bilyeu Construction Phoenix Chris Borovansky Jackson Co Fairgrounds Jackson County Curt Burrill Property Investments White City Kay Harrison RVTD Board/Commuter Central Point Randy Jones Mahar Homes Jackson Co. Homebuilders Steve Lilley AsanteHealthSystem Medford Mike Montero KOGAP Medford Bret Moore W.L. Moore Construction Central Point/Medford Kate Moore Property Owner Central Point/Medford Dennis Nielsen Planning Commission Medford Larry Parducci Mayor City of Phoenix Kathleen Purdy Bear Creek Corp Jackson County Vince Quinones Rogue Valley Mall Medford David Strauss Architect/Planner Medford Marian Telerski Mayor City of Talent Lynda Weinhold Commercial Real Estate Medford ////Transit • ////Oriented ~ ////Development About the TOD Design Charrette Forty persons from both TAC and Stakeholder Task Force attended the all day session. In the morning, we looked at all 10 activity centers. • For all ten, we developed land use and circulation plans In the afternooon, we broke into three groups to focus on the three selected in-depth study sites: White City, Downtown Medford and Central Point. • In each one, we went into more specifics of planning and design for: • site planning • circulation patterns • transit facilities • building massing and relationships • scale and buffer area connectivity. The group also addressed transit corridor issues as they related to the various sites n .1. ////Transit • ////Oriented ~ ////Development What do we want from you...? • Your feedback • Your areas of concern • Your assessment of possible roadblocks or hurdles • Your support for the project