Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - March 2, 1999~~~ ii ~'I ~ • I VII. MISCELLANEOUS 52 - 54 Discussion of Gloria Dei Lutheran Directional signs. 55 Presentation of a residential infill proposal by Brad Miller for Commission consideration and input. VIII. ADJOURNMENT „t,u e ~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 2, 1999 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Paul Lunte, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, Karolyne Johnson. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; Ken Gerschler, Community Planner; Lee Brennan, Public Works Director; Sue Meyers, Office Technician; and Mayor Bill Walton. III. CORRESPONDENCE Two pieces of correspondence were introduced. The first was a letter from Bert and Margie Webber, 892 Laurel Street, opposing the redevelopment ofPine Streetbetween 8`h and 10'" for the benefit ofthe Rite Aid Shopping Center. The second piece of correspondence was a Uniform Fire Code Review on the Von Brandt Apartments from Fire District #3. IV MINUTES Commissioner Fishmade amotionto approve the Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 1999. The motion was seconded by Commission Foster. ROLL CALL: Lunte, yes; Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES Jack & Ruth Campbell, 3252 Bursell Road. Mr. & Mrs. Campbell came before the Planning Commissionto voicetheirconcemthatthe developments aroundthem (duplexes onthe south side oftheirpropertyand Shelterwood Subdivision onthe east) were elevated 12" to 18"above their property level, leaving theirproperiy in a "hole". Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, agreed to do some research and contact them. Richard Watson, 555 Freeman Road, #251. Mr. Watson would like to put some directional signs around town to direct people to his church. The Commission asked, Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, to look into the sign ordinance and asked Mr. Watson to present a plan at the next Planning Commission Meeting, scheduled for March 2,1999. Tom Humphrey said he would call some other cities regarding signs placed on street signs. Pastor Jonathon E. Prestage, 3852 N. Foothill Road, Medford, OR. Pastor Prestage is interested in purchasing the property located at 155 N. Third Street inthe C-5 zone, to be used as a church and daycare facility. There was some discussion, followed by the statement from the Planning Commissioners thatthe policy inthepasthas beento leave the commercial zone for commercial uses. ,.,' , City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1999, Page 2 VI. BUSINESS A. Transit Oriented Design Presentation (RVCOG) Dan Moore, Transportation Program Manager, presented an introduction to TOD (Transit Oriented Development). TODisaplanningtermthatdescribesdevelopmentinfluenced by and oriented to transit service. Elements of TOD projects include good pedestrian access; moderate to high density housing; and mixed use such as offices, retail businesses, and services, all concentrated within strategic areas linking the transit system. The goal of TOD is to reduce the vehicle miles traveled per capita by 5% across the region. B. Public hearine to consider areauestbv adioinina nronerty owners to vacate the 9'h Street right-of--way between Pine Street and Manzanita and the Alley rieht-of--way between 8~' and 10`" Streets for the purnose of develonin¢ a new Rite Aid shoppine center. The subject rights-of--way are located in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. Commissioner Fish was noticedaboutthishearing,asitisinherneighborhood. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the Planning Departmentstaffreport. Theapplicanthassubmittedarequestto vacate a public street and the alleys separating two City blocks in order to develop a Rite Aid shopping center and incorporate it with existing commercial and residential uses. The applicant has submitted a petition signed by all of the property owners abutting the subject rights-of--way. The City Council will set the date for a public hearing after it receives a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, presented the Public Works staffreport. Suitable easements shall be provided. Any utility and public infrastructure modifications necessary for the vacation and/or the proposed development shall be performed atthe expense of the Developer. Suitable additional right-of--way on 10`"and Manzanita Streets shall be granted by the Developer. Deed restrictions will need to be granted on the Development's property to allow for vehicular and pedestrian access to the land use activities that remain after redevelopment occurs. Mr. W.J. Walsh, 815 Manzanita, had some comments/questions for the Commission. He was questioning what impact the project might have on Manzanita, and if it was likely to become a "back alley". City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1999, Page 3 Commissioner Johnson made a motion to recommend to the City Council the vacation ofthe 9"'Street right-of--way between Pine Street and Manzanita and the Alley right-of--way between 8"' and 10th Streets for the purpose of developing a new Rite Aid shopping center. Motion was seconded by Don Foster. ROLL CALL: Paul Lunte, yes; Jan Dunlap, yes; Candy Fish, yes; Don Foster, yes; Bob Gilkey, yes, Karolyne Johnson, yes. C. Public hearing to consider a request by Scott and Shawna Meyer to vary from the City's two car off street covered parking requirement in order to convert a gara eg into additional living area. The subjectproperty is located at 5035 Crestwood Drive inthe R- 1-8, Residential Single Famil zy onine district. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. Commissioner Fish stated that she knew the Meyers. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, reviewed the Planning Department StaffReport. He stated that the Meyer's son, Brandon, was paralyzed from the waist down in an automobile accident in 1997. Scott and Shawna Meyer would like to convert the existing garage into a wheelchair accessible living area which has its own bathroom and an outside door to the driveway. If the garage were converted to living space, there would be no covered off-streetparking provided atthe residence, which would not comply with the Central Point Municipal Code. There was some discussion of acarport, and/ or a deed restriction in the event the house is later sold. Commissioner Fish stated thatthere is a demand for homes that are handicapped accessible and thatthe Meyer's home could subsequently be purchased by someone with a disability. Therefore the deed restriction should recognize such a sale and only someone without a disability should be obligated to convert the new room to a garage. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, presented the Public Works Staff Report. The Public Works department is concerned that current or future owners/occupants ofthis properly may not have adequate parking spaces available. They suggest that if a variance is granted, it be conditioned with adeedrestriction onthe property thatwhentheproperty is sold or transferred, the variance will no longer be in effect. Applicant, Shawna Meyer, reiterated their need to accommodate their handicapped child. Commissioner Bob Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution #438 to grant a request by Scott and Shawna Meyer to vary from the City's two car off street City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1999, Page 4 covered parking requirement in order to convert a garage into additional living area, including staffreports and a deed restriction, wording to be prepared by the City Attorney. The subject property is located at 5035 Crestwood Drive in the R- 1-8, Residential Single Family zoning district. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap. ROLL CALL: Paul Lunte, yes; Jan Dunlap, yes; Candy Fish, yes; Don Foster, yes; Bob Gilkey, yes; Karolyne Johnson, yes. D. Publichearin@toconsideraminoroartitionandsiteplanforNoahVonBrandttosubdivide a 0.88 acre tax lot into two parcels: one for an existing single family residence and the other to develop a 12 unit apartment complex. The subject property is located at 443 North Second Street in the R-3. Residential Multiple Family zoning district. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. Minor Partition: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. For finance and developmentpurposes, the applicantwould like to create two separate tax lots that would segregate the existing residence from a larger vacant area that is the site of aproposedtwelveunitapartmentcomplex. The applicant has made no provision fora play areaforchildren. Planningstaffisrecommendingthatapprovalofatentativeplanbe conditioned upon the addition of more land from parcel #1 to allow for a tot lot. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director presented the Public Works Staff Report. Public Works staff recommends the following: 1. Developer shall install sidewalks, including a suitable driveway apron with 20- foot throat" along the 2nd Street frontage. A street light may also be required. 2. All roads, driveways, and parking and turning areas must have asphalt or cement concrete surfaces and must be designed to accommodate the turning movements ofanAASHTO singleunittmckandthe Fire District's requirements. 3. The developer shall design and maintain a site drainage/storm drain plan. 4. A minimum 6-inch diameter tap and service lateral will need to be made to service the existing fire hydrant. The line and hydrant shall be placed within a 15- footwide easement dedicated to the City. Public Works is recommending that water service be provided by the positioning ofnew meters in the area east ofthe proposed fire hydrant. 5. All connections to City infrastructure, or any underground infrastructure crossing oft"d Street mustbe completed priorto commencement ofthe overlay City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1999; Page 5 work on 2"d Street; no later than March I, 1999. 6. If applicable, all overhead facilities should be converted to underground. All agreements and costs shall be by and between the utility owners and the developer. The applicant, Noah VonBrandt and his architect, Phil Schwimmer stated that they were prepared to create a 1200 sq. ft. area between the 21ots for the tot lot. They thought they may be able to tie into the existing school drainage system. They would like to contract with the City to do street work on 2"d Street when the City is doing the overlay. They were agreeable to the conditions proposed by the Planning and Public Works Departments. Jim May, BCV SA, said that there is a manhole on 2nd Street that would have to beremoved andreplaced, whichwould costthe developer approximately $1500 to $2000. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution #439 to grant a request for a minor partition forNoah VonBrandt to subdivide a 0.88 acre tax lot into two parcels; one for an existing single family residence and the other to develop a 12 unit apartment complex, with adjustments for a tot lot, all staff requirements, and all requirements of BCVSA and Fire District 3. The subject property is located at 443 North Second Street in the R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilkey. ROLL CALL: Paul Lunte, yes; Jan Dunlap, yes; Candy Fish, yes; Don Foster, yes; Bob Gilkey, yes; Karolyne Johnson, yes. Site Plan Review: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, reviewedthe Planning Department Staff Report. The applicant has requested a Site Plan Review for the constnrction of a 12 unit apartment complex behind the existing single family residence located at 443 North 3m Street. The apartment complex would include 12 attached carports and 15 uncovered parking spaces. There is a conflicting use in the area. The High School bus bam is located directly behind the complex and the buses are started at 5:00 a,m. each morning. The School District may eventually find another location for the bus barn. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. TheprojectwillaccessNorthSecondStreetviaacommon20footwide driveway which is acceptable to the City and affected service providers. The City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1999, Page 6 project meets the minimum parking requirements. The CPMC will require the address for the project to be displayed prominently. The project would need to meet any requirements ofJackson County Fire District 3. The minimum setback requirements have been met. The proposed structure is similar to other structures located in the R-3 zoning district. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, covered all the Public Works StaffReport items under the Minor Partition portion ofthe hearing. He stated that a 10' PUE would be required along the front of 2"d Street, and no parking would be allowed on the street or within the 20' wide driveway entrance. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution #440 to approve the site plan for Noah VonBrandt for an existing single family residence and a 12 unit apartment complex with revisions for a tot lot, all staff requirements and all requirements ofBCVSA and Fire District 3. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lunte. ROLL CALL: Paul Lunte, yes; Jan Dunlap, yes; Candy Fish, yes; Don Foster, yes; Bob Gilkey, yes; Karolyne Johnson, yes. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Johnson announced the Town Hall Meeting scheduled for February 10, 1999. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March 2, 1999. The Planning Commissioners requested that City Staff try to schedule more items under the miscellaneous portion ofthe meeting, rather than Public Appearances, so that the scheduled items could be dealt with in a more timely manner. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gilkey made amotion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. All said "aye" and the meeting was adjourned at 9:35. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: Mazch 2, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission .FROM: .Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing - To consider a Tentative Plan for an 91ot subdivision on the north side of Beall Lane east of its intersection with Bursell Road inthe R-2 zoning district (372W11DD Tax Lots 17000 and 17100). A_nnlicant/ Owner: W.L. Moore Construction LLC 3600 Westover Drive Central Point, Oregon 97502. Agent: Herb Farber 120 Mistletoe Street Medford, Oregon 97501 Summary: The applicant has submitted an infill development proposal to subdivide two existing tax lots (1.68 acres total) into 8 padlots and one 14667 squaze foot residential lot. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Tentative Plan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Aonlicable Lawi CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.24.010 et seq. -R-2, Residential Two-Family District CPMC 17.60.130 et seq. -Access CPMC 17.60.210 et seq. -General Provisions, Padlot Developments Discussion: In January of this year, the applicant's surveyor Herb Fazber approached the City of Central Point with a request to perform a lot line adjustment of the common boundary between the pazcels identified as 37 2W 11DD 17000 and 17100. The purpose of the adjustment was to isolate several existing residences from a lazger,undeveloped azea. Additional prepazation for the proposed subdivision included the deeded dedication of a ten foot strip along the Beall Lane frontage of tax lot 170Q0 for right. of way Purposes. - ~. '~ ` °~ The Planning Department will require as a condition of approval that documentation be submitted to demonstrate the completion of the preliminary lot line and right of way dedication. The nine lots that comprise the Beall Estates Subdivision Phase IV range in size from 3925 to 14667 square feet. Each of the interior lots would access Beall Lane via a newly created 30 foot wide street named Benjamin Court. Lot 73 is being created to retain an existing residence with direct access to Beall Lane. The Public Works Department would prefer to see the driveway on lot 73 reoriented to the new street to minimize conflicts between multiple vehicular access onto Beall Lane. They would like Benjamin Court to be renamed Benjamin Lane to coincide with the residential standards.. Padlot Developments Padlot developments are a permitted use in all zoning districts in Central Point with the exception of the R-1 district. Development proposals are normally processed as a subdivision application which is how Beall Estates Subdivision Phase IV is being introduced. Under CPMC 17.60.210, parent lots must comply with the standard requirements for lots, which in the R-2 zone call for a lot area of 6000 square feet. Additionally, CPMC 17.60.130 requires a minimum frontage for padlots of not less than 30 feet. Each of the parent lots in this subdivision meet both the minimum frontage and lot area requirements. Subdivisions The subdivision design attached to this report has been reviewed for completeness by City staff and is the one the applicant would like the Commission to consider as the most desirable plan. The Planning Department has reviewed the tentative plan for compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. The area is designated for medium density residential development and is zoned R-2. This infill development will. result in a more efficient use of residentially zoned land and improve the overall appearance and value of this property and neighborhood. The Public Works Department has reviewed the tentative plan for compliance with the City's water, sewer, storm drain and transportation standards. Public Works staff have summarized department requirements in the staff report included as Attachment C. Art adjoining property owner, Robert Johnson, has expressed his concern about the impact storm water runoff that this development could have on his property. The mitigation of these concerns are attached as Attachment "C". Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Staff suggests the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as applicable to the project and necessary for its approval. 1. The project site is located in the R-2, Residential Two-Family'Zoning District and increases residential land use efficiency in this area. „ _ 2i fhc proposed tentative plan for single family residential development is a permitted use in the R-2 zoning district. The zoning in turn is consistent with the Residential Comprehensive Plan map,.. designation. The Comp Plan encourages innovative residential planning and development techniques that would help to increase land use efficiency and reduce costs of utilities and services (Comp Plan, page XI[-12). Infill projects of this sort are consistent with this city policy. 2. The project consists of a tentative plan application for the subdivision of approximately 1.68 acres for the purpose ofdeveloping asingle-family residential (padlot) subdivision, Beall Estates Phase IV. The total number of lots proposed for the subdivision is 9. The average density for this project is 5.4 units per acre. The proposed single-family subdivision meets the density requirement for the R-2 residential zone which is a maximum of 12 units per acre. Each parent lot within the subdivision meets the requirements of the City's subdivision and zoning codes for residential lots as well as the specific requirements of the R-2 zone. The tentative plan includes all information required by CPMC 16.10.010 et. seq. 3. The Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the tentative plan for the proposed subdivision and the findings of fact and determined that the project meets all City standards and requirements subject to the recommended conditions of the Planning Department (Attachment E) and the Public Works Department (Attachment C). Recommendation: ';Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Adopt Resolution No., approving the tentative subdivision subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment E); or 2. Deny the tentative subdivision; or 3. Continue the review of the tentative subdivision at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Notice of Public Hearing and Location Map B. Tentative Plat C. Public Woiks Staff Report D.' Correspondence Received from- Affected Agencies. E. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval G:\PLANN ING\99005. wpd City of Central _'oznt ~ ' ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP aty of Ceitti`t1 Point Planning Director J11111T~~1. tfAff KenGerschler L111111J-1 Community Planner Planning De~ariment Deanna Gregory Administrative/I'lanning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: February' 10, 1999 Meeting. Date: Mazch 2, 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 nine lot Tentative Subdivision to be located behind the existing residence at 586 Bea11 Lane. The subject pazcels to be divided are located in a R-2, Residential Two Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W11DD, Tax Lots 17000 and 17100.. The Central Point Planning Commissionwill review the application of Tentative Subdivision to determine if all of the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. If the Commission determines that the subdivision can be created, a tentative approval could be issued . Once a tentative approval has been issued, the applicant must file for a final plat ofthe subdivision within one year of the Commission's decision. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Subdivisions are set forth in Chapter 16 ofthe Central PointMunicipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan; Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. 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, Mazch 2, 1999. !~ ' ~ 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, l55 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 3. Issues which may provide die basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration ofthe comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hal 1,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541)664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE Atthe meeting, thePlanning Commissionwill reviewtheapplications, technical staffreports, heartestimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must berelated to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approveordenytheTentativeSubdivision. City regulations providethatthe Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. :9 _ i 3JECT PROPERTY • CYty of Centrial t±otat ~xxr~rr «B t~ Planning Depulmeat TENTATIVE PADLOT SUBDIVISION PLAT o! BEALL ESTATES, PHASE IV A REPEAT OF PARCEL 1. PARTITION PIA7 NO. P-JJ- 1997 located in SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 11 - I TOWNSHIP J7 SOUTH. RANGE 2WEST I I WILUMETTE MERIDIAN. JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON I ~ I , ZONE R-Z ~ /or ~ ~ ~ ONSTRUCTION, LLC C W.L. MOORS I _ - - - _ - - - 1t ~ ~ ,~ I I CENIR. LLPdM ORES 9]SOY - - . ~ ~ ~ ~ % . i? I I _ _ _ _ - ~ rrN mMM4 -------- 1~, - --- ______________ ~ - ____-_-l ~ .aw..w` Wegl OP - i s .. , r`~ ;`1+x3 \ oyve --------- ` ~" _ t I ~ II'~-''__~-------- ~ I ruoe rob+ c x e sV.w•. senwl nnm ~. I I n~ ~.«~~~,A° nrem ' as xw ::w r,beY M+ I waeM .a ac.r l I tN m ,,, a> tat v I I I NT Pw.SE 111 ~ I 11 1• I ESTAT45 SSE ~I Il 1 ~ rzrvo I nano I r.,,u..l an.. uee.. rani Ww wx A :-..:,°0~r...n ALLE{ POI r I ~ l i eEpLl E II V S PNr'~ ~aw I 1 I/^ LL ESIP~ LOi 75 en' -.~ ZONE R-2 - - - .. vamo ~ un so. n ~' I d0 ~ Lm' vux' I _ raven u.aw. x ~~ _ _ - Ew_rr_ _ _ ` 1 I I .. I $ LOi 76 8 : n. P' root m. ~ ' r,aa .~e..ex I' - - - - r.. ll ) ~ o ~ 'LOT 75 T~ , ~ n. I w„ 7 - - __'- _ --.-.--- vra m. ri // ca ~ ll ur:ar ..rMa w~ a V ra.r7' I E 1 LOT 76 $_ I ~ LOT 74 ,r09A 'g, I o ~ raoo'g .rra m. rt. p9g0 I nrvoo rexrt a axr a..e x«,... q w:omm. i R . roT,1.y5 m ~ ra.ar• ~ lo-a.xx' x.m.m' - e n~n [ ~ /j ( ~: I ~g t I rs. u.xeex ` __ -P -- 1 ram e - 113. ,~ / ~ 1/ ~ . to A a ~ rc 0.Marx IF I L4T Z • ,, i"S~.T* s' I ZONE R-2 F, Q~d. . rt ~ ' '~ rxGa oc ° 1 I o~ 1:7.or' ~~ 'ft , l e I _ - _ - - - ro. n«rw ~ cr rw.u' . b l 99 4r 8c LOT 77 $ Q ....: Mw~T A w 1 c` rxao I nrwoo - i I j ~ Y smt fa rt. i t Arr+,rt wlwb u.tr I y I . ~ 2°~ J° rxr.n' I n,awa Awf A M11y Aw a.n..e. LOT 73 1 . a' ~..ulw vn I r I rvo wr.e sr. run m n. ~ r 1 i ~ REYNNOCR Of n 17000 I I ' l ~l Hrm m. n.I I i ~~ I ~1 ___-_-- :~1 ~ .I I I I I ~ ~I I erM1rM I ~I I nramo I 1' 1 w ~ ~ a+n.ry 1 I I wer r ... x n. wa ww eere.,rw w I ' v.m' $ ~-rY ewrn - . 3t - - - ..aa wA. 1°r' •r r••"r«" aIN ar ttxnia rwn xwNVwr_ -c - - ' f-._----__ -_-----_--_~-_--~- inra lsoraw eant~rr Beall Lane ' R ~ - R _ - - Connell j - -r~- -- - ' - - - - - - ~ Mortlee ~ n.rro I ne.ao I Avenue I °'••" cWMxee ' r Street , . .n+ o.w... r wMw a. wa,~w a. , wenrx t xr vxw nm Nolo: -hrxnwR MaP_Na• 371W11D0 TL 17000 ~ 17100 FMBER & SONS, INC. dbaTbll) E778 ~+6 NC w. D. OlrICE EOUTgN: HPV.Lp ~xs' Ito ur3RE'IOE' YxOr1iIID, olrECOII Y730r CEMR.IL p0,Wr, pR[DON O730T Ply6109 nyEal~~o( lM yu hrrM p~ID6 nrftMrll 1. rrM w °m^y.,~rornrrrnx 6 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Qt3' of Central) ftnitC DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS -F-~n.l~r$rr`~' ccC» STAFF REPORT Planning Dep~~,t for BEALL ESTATES, PHASE IV TENTATIVE PLAN REVIEW PW#99005 Date: February 22, 1998 Applicant: W.L. Moore Construction, LLC, 3600 Westover Drive, Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Herb Farber, Farber Surveying, 120 Mistletoe St., Medford, Oregon 97501 Properly Owner: W.L. Moore Properties, LLC, and Mark Burkhalter, 3600 Westover Drive, Central Point, Oregon 97502 Project: Beall Estates, Phase IV Location: North of Beall Street, between the Intersections of Marilee Street and Connell Avenue with Beall Lane Legal: T37$, R2W, Section 11 DD, tax lots 17000 and 17100. Zoning: R-2 Area: 1.68 Acres (approximately). Units: 10 lots.(8 pad lots, 1 sfd lot, and one remaining sfd lot. Plans: 1 page,entitled "Tentative Padlot Subdivision Plat of Beall Estates, Phase IV", dated 12/7/98, prepared by Farber and Sons, Inc. (received by the City on 1/12/99) Report By: Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director Purpose Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design. and development,of the proposed residential subdivision. Gather information from the Developer/Engineerregardieg the proposed development. Special Requirements 1, t~rlstlnor Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, stone drain systems; natural drainage systems; ...etc.,) will not intertere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure 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 developments infrastructure, or will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer4o accommodate the additional flows and/or demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as approved by (as applicable), the regulatory agency, utility owner, and/or property owner involved. 2: Residential Lane: The Developer is proposing the use of a residential lane with a hammerhead turnaround. The PWD has proposed that in revision of the City PWD standards, that a residential lane standard be established, and that this standard would specify that residential lanes be designed to serve a maximum of 12 lots. The' proposed layout-will serve 10 lots. We would also request that Benjamin "Court' should be renamed Benjamin "Lane" to coincide with the City's classification of the streef as a "residential lane" and not a "standard residential street". The residential lane has the following standards: Beall Estates /V Tentative Plan Revtew, PWD Stall'Report February 2l, /999 Page 1 ^ A 25-foot-wide traveled section (curb-to-curb width), with a 2 percent crown ^ Standard curb and gutters ^ A 2-foot-wide strip located behind the curb for installation of water meter service boxes, fire hydrants, street lights etc. ^ Requires a 30-foot-wide right-of-way. ^ Street parking not allowed on residential lanes. Another concern regarding the use of a residential lane for this development is the lack of visitor parking within the development and on the closest street to the development (i.e Beall Lane) Street). We would suggest the possibility of inclusion of an off-street visitor parking area within the development. A suitable City approved permanent traffic barricade shall be designed and implemented at the terminus of Benjamin Lane. A suitable "T" shaped "hammerhead" turnaround shall be designed and implemented, as approved by the City PWD and Fire District No. 3. The,connection to Beall Lane will be a standard driveway connection with a 2-foot concrete "landing" behind the driveway apron; the driveway apron shall have a 30-foot throat. 3. Removal of Drlveway Connections to Beall Lane: It should be required to have the existing driveway connections of proposed lot 73 and the remainder of tax lot 17000 removed and require connectiorrto Benjamin Lane. These driveway connection would have to start a minimum of 25- - ,feet behind the right-of-way ofBeall: Lane, to provide for proper sight distances and allow tuming - ,movements-onto these lots that are not made on Beall Lane. 4. Street Parkincr. As we are proposing in the revised PWD standards, the use of residential lanes require that street parking not be allowed. We would recommend that street parking not be allowed on Benjamin Lane. 5. Connect/on to Beall Lane: Need 30-foot radii on right-of-way as it connects to Beall Lane right- .. of-way. Suggest wider taper road section of the residential lane to 30 feet (curb to curb distance) as t connects to Beall Lane to facilitate tuming movements from secondary arterial: May also need to construct tapered acceleration/deceleration lane improvements on Beall Lane, to meet County requirements. 6. Sidewalks and Sidewalk Easement: The residential lahe does not provide for sidewalks.' The City PWD is recommending that a 5-foot wide public sidewalk section (with a suitable public ingress and egress easement requirement) be provided adjoining the right-of-way on the east and west sides of Benjamin Lane. This will also require that the structure setback be increased to 25 ..:feet to afford driveway parking that does not interfere with pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. The 10-foot-wide public utilities easement would be moved to the outside. of the sidewalk easement to mitigate Interference with public utility installation and facility placement (i.e transformers, risers, pedestals, etc.). As required on recent developments utilizing the residential lane street standard, the sidewalk would be installed at the Developer's expense as part of the development and will be maintained by the property owner, similar to the: Citys curcent sidewalk ordinance requirements. 7. Utility Easements: A 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) will be required outside the City's right-of-way of Benjamin Lane, on both sides of the lane. To facilitate placement of the sidewalk 8 Bea(I Fsta(es !V Tenfa(ive Plan Review, PWD Staff Report February 11, 1999 Page 3 section, the PUE would be located adjacent to the sidewalk easement, and extend 15-feet behind the right-of-way. An easement to the City of Central Point shall be dedicated across lot 77 for the uhderground infrastructure aligned in the 25-foot easement along lots 38 and 39 of Beall Estates Phase II. It is suggested that this easement be set at a width of 23.71 feet to line up with the western boundary of the Benjamin Lane right-of-way. 8. Beall Lane Ricrht-of-Wav: Beall Lane is identified as a secondary arterial. Comprehensive plan specifies right-of-way width required is 80-88 feet. Current right-of-way width: 60 feet. Not likely to be able to obtain 80-88 foot wide necessary right-of-way from existing development on Beall Lane, except by condemnation. Would suggest minimum right-of-way of 80 feet (40-feet from centerline), lot 73 and on the remainder of tax lot 17000. 9. ~ht Triangles: Field review of this property's access to Beall Lane indicates that the sight- triangles can afford the proper sight triangles for a local street that connects to a secondary arterial, with removal of the interfering trees and vegetation. This type of street intersection requires a 55-foot sight triangle. 10. l~rovements to Beall Lane: Improvements to Beali Lane including, but not limited to, street section. widening (to 30 feet from centerline to curb-line), acceleration and deceleration lanes, 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 subdivision. Acceleration and deceleration lanes meeting JC Roads standards may need to be provided at the proposed development's intersections with Beall Lane. These :improvements extend for the entire frontage of the tentative plat: from the southwest comer of lot 73 to the southeast corrier of the remainder of tax lot 17000; a distance of approximately 257 feet. As approved by the City Administrator, the Developer may request or be required to defer any or all of the required improvements along Beall Lane 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/County for the developmenfrmprovement of the street section and appurtenances (i.e. sidewalks, curb, gutter, street lights, storm drainage, etc.) along the development's frontages with Beall Lane, as required and approved by the JC Roads and City PWD. General 1. All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions .approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as may. be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development: During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to implementation. 2. Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals, and conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Department of Fish and 4 Henl! lsmn~s ll' Teruarirv flan Recieu•. PII'D JYa// Repnr! /i~br'unrv Z?, /999 Pnge J Wildlife (DFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEO); Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), affected irrigation districts, and JC Roads, as applicable.. 3. 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-builtdrawings are tote provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved construction plans that identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited to,'invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; road alignment; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral stationing; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet locations; street light locations; other below grade utility line locations and depths; etc. Provide a "red.-line" hard copy (on Myla~), or an approved alternative 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. 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. 5. If applicable, all existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures, clear and grub materials, and other deleterious materials shall be removed from the site and either recycled or properly disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the DEQ. 6. Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable]) should be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.E. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five (5) feet from the edge of the easement. If two or more City owned utilities are located within an easement, then a minimum of 20-foot width .should be required. Easement dedications in final deeds or CC&Rs need a statement which should clearly indicate that easements must be maintained with suitable, driveable vehicular access to City public infrastructure facilities, as determined by the City PWD. 7. Prior to the City PWD final approval of the construction plans for the proposed improvements, the following should be submitted: ^ A copy of written approval from Fire District 3 of the final street and driveway layout, site access, fire hydrant placement, and water system improvement plans for the proposed development. ^ The plans relating to the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the appropriate signature blocks should be completed on the plans. ... Bea(! Fstafes !V Tentative Plan Review, PWD SfaJj'Repor( February 2l, /999 Page 5 ^ A copy of written approval from JC Roads regarding Beall Lane improvements (as applicable) and street connections to BeaII Lane. 8. Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, top of banks, ditch/channel inverts, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed development's infrastructure will connect into existing improvements, prior fo final construction plan design and submittal for final approval. 9. 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 Deveioper. 10. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) on the construction plans and as-built drawings. 11. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a drawing of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Myla~ and in an acceptable electronic form in AutoCAD® format. The Final Plat shall be tied to a legal Government corner and the State Plane Coordinate System, .The Final Plat shall either reflect or be later modified to reflect any applicable "red-line" changes noted in the construction "as-builts", at the discretion of the City Administrator or his designee. Streets/Traffic Existing Improvements - Beall Lane -.Secondary Arterial. Current ROW 60' wide, varying street width. Right-of Way required: 80-88 foot width. Right-of-way requested 80-foot width; 40.foot on either side of centerline. Jurisdiction -Jackson County. 1. Construction drawings.for this Tentative Plan shall include a Street Lighting Plah and Traffic Delineation Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City PWD. Street lights shall be placed. in a "zig-zag" pattern along the streets and at maximum 200-foot spacing (as measured from light post to light post) to affordbetter lighting of the public rights-of-way. The Street Lighting Plan shall include placing street lights on the residential lane, and be of a design and of locations as approved by the City PWD and Pacific Power. Street lights will also need to be installed or possibly modified along Beall Lane to afford proper lighting of the street intersection_ 2. The City PWD, at the cost of the Developer, shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the street section designs for Benjamin Lane and Beall Lane in accordance with the City PWD Standards. The City's engineering staff or selected engineering consultant (at Developer's expense),. shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the street section designs in accordance with the City PWD Standards. Minimum street section for Benjamin Lane shall be as follows: ~~ Beall Fs(ates IV Tenm(ive Plan Review, PWD S(aff~Report February 22, l 999 Page 6 - 3-inches Class "B" A.C. - 6-inches of 1"-0" crushed rock - 8-inches of 4"-0" crushed rock (City of Medford specifications), - Woveh geotextile fabrioover compacted subgrade. ' Minimum street section forBeall Lane shall be as follows: - 4-inches Class "B" A.C. - 7-inches of 1"-0" crushed rock - 13-inches of 4"-0" crushed rock (City of Medford specifications), - Woven geotextile fabric over compacted subgrade. Street section (excluding the asphalt concrete portion) shall be extended underneath and a minimum of two feet beyond the curb and gutter section, and underneath the driveway apron connection with Beall Lane. 3' ' As applicable, stop signs and traffic delineation (i.e. "stop bars") shall be required and installed by the City PWD (at the Developer's expense) at the proposed development's intersections with Beall Lane. Storm Draihage,1rrigation improvements Existing Improvemehts - 15-inch-diametecstorm drain stub-out from Beall Estates II Subdivision. 1. During the design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system (SD System), which shall provide for and convey storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (either surface run-on or culvert or creek/ditch conveyance), the Developer shall demonstrate that the storm water flows from the completion of the proposed development (and at any time prior to completion of development) do not exceed predevelopment flows; or that existing capacity, 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. 2. .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 impactexisting 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 desighed to discharge to the street surtaxes. 3. Roof drains and underdrains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain likes, and shall drain either to an on-site private storm drain system or discharge at the curb face. 4. Prior to City PWD construction plan review, the Developer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the SD system, which shall incorporate the use of the City PWD's rainfalifintensity curve, and City approved run- 12 Beall Fs(a(es IV Ten(a(ive Plan Review, PWD S(aJjRepor( February 22, /999 Page 7 off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, pipe roughness coefficients, etc:, that are used in the engineering calculations. 5. Storm drain pipe materials shall be PVC; HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with water-tight joints meeting the requirements of ASTM D3212, F477, and C-443M; as applicable. Provide concrete (in areas within the rights-of-way) orsand-cement slurry (in areas outside the rights-of-way) encasement where required in areas of minimum cover. 6. If inlets/catch basins are to exceed 4.5 feet in depth from the lip of the inlet, then the inlets and catch basins shall be designed to afford suitable "man" entry into the inlets/catch basin for maintenance/cleaning purposes. 7. Developer's engineer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations and flow line plots for private and public storm drains. Plot HGL on profile or provide a separate profile drawing that indicates the HGL on the profile. Pipes should maintain cleansing velocity (minimum 2.0 feet per second) and have adequate capacities without surcharging during the design storm. The Developer may wish to incorporate the use of a perforated SD system. if so, then the perforated storm draihsystem shall be designed to have adequate capacities to: m ^ 'Convey the collected groundwater and storm water with the minimum cleaning velocities and without surcharging the collection and conveyance piping; and ^ Minimize silts, sands, gravels, and fines migration from the native soils into the SD system. The plotted HGL shall include both the groundwater infiltration, and the storm water run-off and run-on inflows into the SD system. 9. Maintain a minimum 0.2-foot drop between inlet and outletpipe inverts inmanholes and curb inlets, unless flow-through velocities during the design storm event exceed 3.0 feet per second (fps). If flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps and the inlet pipe is in relatively direct (i.e. 180 t 5 degree) horizontal alignment with the outlet pipe, then as a minimum, the: pipe slope shall be maintained through the base of the manhole or curb inlet. If flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps, and there is other thah relatively direct horizontal alignment between the inlet and outlet pipes, then a minimum of a 0.1-foot'drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes or curb inlet must be maintained. A bottom channel shallbe formed in the manhole or curb inlet base to mitigate transitional losses and enhance flow through the manhole or curb inlet. 10. Sheet flow surtace'drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. Sanitary Sewer All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design, construction and testing shall cohfonn to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEQ, 1990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. 13 Beall Estates /V Tentative Plan Review, PWD Sfafj'Reporf February 11, 1999 Page 8 2. The construction plans and thews-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals. 3. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary approval, will forward the plans to BCVSA for completion of the review process. Upon completion of the review,by BCVSA, completion of final revisions to the plans by the Developer's engineer, and following the final approval and signature on the construction plans by BCVSA, the Public Works Director will approve the plans in final form. 4. All testing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be done in accordance with BCVSA requirements, at Developer's expense. The Developer shall provide BCVSA and the City with test reports, N reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance. Water System - Existing 8-inch-diameter water line installed frdm Westrop Drive to Beall Lane. The water system shall be designed to provide the required fire flow demand capacities for the proposed facility, which meefFire District 3 requirements, with fire hydrant placement as approved by the City PWD and Fire District 3. Maximum spacing of fire hydrants shall be 300 feet. Water service ateral dornection stationing andsizeshall be provided on construction plans and as-built drawings. 2. Developersh'all complywith Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for backflow prevention. 3. Water service meter boxes shall be City PWD specified "Christy" brand meter boxes, that accommodate the Sensus touch-read equipment. City PWD will pertorm all "hot" connections to active water lines, including service lateral taps, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. Stte work, Grading, and Utility 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. 2. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. 3. Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company which reflects all utility line locations, crossings, transformer locations, valves, etc. 4. tJtility locations musfbe accurately included on thews-built drawings, or as a separate set of drawings attached to the. as-built drawings. 5. All fill placed in development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in accordance with City PWD and 1994 UBC standards, except for the upper 1.5-foot of fill placed 14 .Beall Fsfates !V Tentative Plan Review, PWD S(gJJ'Report February 22, 1999 Page 9 outside of public rights-of-way and that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas. Rights of WayslEasements 1. If applicable, Developer shall provide a Statement of Water Rights (on a City approved form), for any affected properties. For properties determined to have water rights, the developer will coordinate with the State Watermaster the re-allocation of any waters attached to lands no longer irrigable as a result of the proposed development. 15 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT 1 BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT APPLICANT: City of Cenir~al Paint EXIISIT t'D" Planning Department Zip code: 97~~ ~ AGENT: Name: ~fh2P~~?L SIl1E'.~E~rNGo Address: City:, OWNER OF RECORD: Name: /Y1 pD~ ~ ~/YLIL IfIPL:~^~. City:, PROJE State; Zip code: Zip code: ING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: P/~n -~~~-5 ARC sF7 Mva ~~~,,,e~ s~~~,a-T~ Irr7Li7 v ~'~2~rCc-"'~ Td c-}l~f#~ 5~11~~ e.-. CENTRAL POINT BUII.DING DEPARTMENT o~ By: Dated: a'/N`y STAFF T.wpdCACoreRSu1tc81TanpktelCusWm WP Tpnplates~BUSinas Fomu~STAFF RHPORT.wpd ~~ ~~~~ 16 „~ , ATTACHMENT E PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit to the City a copy of the proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the Beall Estates Subdivision Phase IV. 2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the development of the Beall Estates Subdivision Phase IV. Evidence of such compliance shall be submitted to the City prior to final plat approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the development and construction of the Beall Estates Subdivision Phase IV. 4. The applicant shall provide all plats, legal descriptions and deeds necessary to demonstrate that all lot lines are properly adjusted prior to Final Plat approval. The final plat must depict the recorded document number for the 10 foot strip of land deeded for right of way purposes adjoining Beall Lane. 5: • The applicant shall provide separate utility service to each Single Family Dwelling and utility ''" easements, approved by the City Building Department, for the eight padlots. G:\PLANN ING\99005. wpd i~ MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT March 2, 1999 Central Point Planning Commission Tom Humphrey. AICP, Planning Director Public Hearing- Site Plan Review of 37 2 W02CC, Tax Lot 9500 -Blaska Tax Service Building licant: David E. Blaska 943 East Pine Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Owner: Joe & Helen Self 1:020 Newland Road Central Point, Oregon 97502 o e Description/ 37 2W 02CC, Tax Lot 9500 - 0.18 acres in C-2, Commercial Professional District 5ummarv The applicant, Dave Blaska has requested a Site Plan Review for the relocation of a tax office building from its. current location at the northwestcorner of Pine and Tenth Streets to the proposed location at the northeast corner of Oak and Fourth Streets. The relocation will involve placing the building on a new foundation and site improvements including, but not limited to; access, parking, landscaping and signage. Anolicable Law CPMC 17.36.010 et seq: C-2, Commercial-Professional 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). ~ 1.R CPMC 17.64.010 etseq.- Off Street Parking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval Discussion Commission members are familiar with the Blaska Tax Office currently located at the northwest corner of Pine and Tenth Streets: The proposed Rite Aid development is necessitating the removal of the tax office and Mr. Blaska is negotiating to buy the lot at the northeast corner of Oak and Fourth Streets to relocate his building: The site plan Mr. Blaska has submitted depicts the placement of a 1556 square foot single story structure onto a 140' by 55' corner lot. The building currently sits on a 142' by 65' foot lot so the two parcels are roughly comparable. Both parcels take access from one street and an alley. The applicant has proposed using an existing curb cut for a driveway access from Oak Street and shows four parking spaces along Oak Street, five spaces along Fourth Street and one along the alley. Mr. Blaska's preference is to pave the entire site to minimize its need for maintenance and consequently he has not proposed any landscaping. Commissioners who are familiar with the new location know that portions of the lot are lower than the street and the alley and that sections of the sidewalk on Fourth Street are broken and raised. The proposed use is permitted in the C-2 zoning district but must meet various criteria. The parcel in question has adequate area and the parking requirements can be satisfied given the size of the building being moved onto the site.: The C-2 zone requires a 5 foot front and side yard setback for the express purpose of landscaping with lawn, trees, shrubs, and other materials determined to be suitable by the Planning Commission. According to the code, landscaping must be maintained in good condition. The parking areas shown on the applicant's site plan 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 publicright-of--way: Planning staff has come up with an alternative site plan to illustrate the above mentioned points (refer to Attachment A). The Public Works Department has come up with a number of recommended on and off site improvements which are believed to be reasonably related to the proposed development. These include, but are not limited to; curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements; site grading and drainage; on-site lighting; paving and utility (water, sewer and storm drain) connections (see Attachment D) The City has not received any comments or recommendations from Arista Utilities (formerly WP Natural Gas), the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA) or Jackson County Fire District 3. Approval of this application should be conditioned upon satisfactory compliance with the requirements of each of these agencies. 19 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases iYs decision on the following standards from Section 17.72.040: A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not ,substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the maintenance of .existing plants or the installation of new ones for. purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ The applicant has 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. Adjoining property consists of public rights-of--way on three sides and is vacant to the east therefore screening would serve no immediate benefit. Mr. Blaska has stated that he intends to fence the north and west property lines however, access to the alley via a gated opening should be maintained. 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 project. will access Oak Street via a 12 foot wide driveway which is acceptable. to the City and affected service providers who have responded. Access to the alley should be unobstructed. 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 Public Works Department has reviewed this application and recommended specific conditions which are contained in a staff report included as Attachment D. Among the improvements that public works would like to see are the reconstruction and replacement of the sidewalk on Fourth Street and the construction of a sidewalk section and a driveway apron on Oak Street. These improvements are intended to make the site more accessible to users and safer to passers-by. 20 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 aze compatible with the design of their buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of neazby signs; ^ No signage has been proposed at this time however' the applicant will be required to applyfor a sign permit and submit his plans to the City prior to any sign installation. 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 of Jackson County Fire District 3. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The proposed construction will meet the minimum setback requirements for the C-2, Commercial Professional District G' Compliance with such architecture and design standards. as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point azea and it's environs. ^ The structure is a remodeled home and similar in architecture to other structures located within the C-2, Commercial Professional zoning district. The C-2 District in Central Point has actually become more of a transition area between the City's commercial core and older single family residences. The applicant's building is appropriately suited to this location. In considering the conditions that may be required for approval of a permit, the Commission should make a finding that improvements are reasonably related to the development and deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff believes that the conditions being recommended with the exceptions that have been noted are reasonably related to this development proposal. 21 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Site Plan application for the 12 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. of the Site Plan Review application at the discretion of the Commission: Attachments A. Application, Exhibits and Alternative Site Plan B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Recommended Conditions of Approval. D. Public Works Staff Report dated February 22, 1999 E. Comments from Effected Agencies (Building Department) - s 22 Attachment A , SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION U [~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ City of Central Point Planning Department f ~a8 1999 U ~ DATE STAMP OFFICE USE ONLY APPLICANT INFORMATION JOE F. & HELEN $. SELF Address: City:.. CENTRAL POINT State:OREGON Zip Code; 97502 Telephone: Business: Residence: 541-826-8858 2. AGENT INFORMATION Name: DAVID E. BLASKA Address:_943 EAST PINE STREET City: CENTRAL POINT State: OR Zip Code: 97502 Telephone: Business: 541-664-1040 Residence: 541-664=2126 or 772-752 3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Than One) Name: JOE F. & HELEN S. SELF Address: 1020 NEWLAND ROAD City: CENTRAL POINT State: OREGON Zip Code: 97502 Telephone: Business: Residence: 541-826-8858 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION MOVE BUILDING FROM 943 EAST PINE STREET TO TypeofDevelopment: 41 SOUTH 4TH STREET Township: 37 Range: 2w Section: 2 Tax Lot(s): #9500 Address: 41 SOUTH 4TH STREET Zoning District: C2 Project Acreage: .18 Number of Dwelling Units: ONE Non-Sale Area Sq. Footage 144 Sale Area Sq. Footage 1412 =Gross Floor Area 1556 NumberofParldng Spaces: 10 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ~ This Application Form. ^ Legal Description. 1~ Application Fee ($225.00). ^ Letter of Project Description. Site Plan Drawn to Scale (!0 copies). •MOVE BUILDING ^ Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process. ^ ReducedCopies(8%:xll)oftheSitePlan,BuildingElevationsand LandscapePlans(lcopyEa.). ^ Landscape and Irrigation Plan (3 copies). 6. I HEREBX STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED 1N THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARETRUE, CORRECT, AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. , „ '~ 3 z.l J .., 'JE3T Y- /lAdv<T/t ,~ ~~~- F~ GiaE ~. x y~,~' ~d~ ,o'~'' ua~`i ,~ -- . _. I ~~ ' ~,.. I 3°~L~ ~ _~ ;~ ~ ~ I ~ -_. ~~~ _ _ :~ `~ Via.. _ .. _~.~. w. ~T _i~ ._,-- .;_ _ _ Fti~ _.~ . -- ,b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~; 24 ~a~~ p~'r~~-ca~ ivy I a ~~~Y I ,~ s . .~ o~ o [[~~ G * ~ TAtic o~~cE N ~ ~ Qt~il~,9h.IG ~ 3~.' ~ moo' U [ry~~ ~1 j ~YY ~ Q y C~ c 7 _ . . L ~ 7 Olt.) p parG.. S~#r __ ._._._ .i ._..~_ . .,_ L_1.~... _`._ ~._... Czty of Central .- oint Attachment B PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: February 10,1999 Meeting Date: March 2, 1999 Time: 7;00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central. Poinf City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginningatthe abovetime and place, the Central Point Planning Commissionwill reviewan application for a Site Plan Review that would allow a 1556 squaze foot building to be moved from 943 West Pine Street to 41 South Fourth Street. The tax preparation business currently operated within the structure would also be moved to the new location. The parcel proposed to receive the building islocated in a C-2 Commer+~ialProfessionalZoningDistrictonJacksonCountyAssessmentPlat 372W02CC,TaxLot9500. TheCentral PointPlanning Commissionwillreviewthe Site Planapplication to deternvnethatall applicable provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Cade, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use deci sion may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Mazch 2, 1999. 2. W ritten comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City HalI,155South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 26 u 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration ofthe comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hal1,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at l5 cents per page. 5. Foradditional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staffreports, 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 approveordenytheandSitel'lan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. SUBJECT PROPERTY 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax• (541) 664-6384 2'7 ATTACHMENT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on March'2, 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 liearing within 30 days of Planning Commission approval. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. The project must meet the off-street parking requirements for professional offices, 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 obtain a special inspection from the City before. the Building Department can comment on and authorize building relocation. 5. The applicant shall submit fmal parking, landscaping, lighting, fencing and sign plans to the Planning, Public Works and Building Departments for approval prior to obtaining any building permits. 28 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Attachment D DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for Central Point Tax Service Building Preliminary Site Plan PW#99010 Date:.... February22, 1999... Applicant: Joe F. & Helen $. Self, 1020 Newland Road, Central Point, OR 97502 Agent David E. Blaska, 943 East Pine Street, Central Point, OR 97502 Project: Relocate building oh.vacant lot at 41;So. 4T" Street from 943 East Pine Street Location: 41 South 4T" Street Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 02CC, Tax Lot 9500 Zoning: C2 Units: 1-Commercial Building. Plans: Sketch Report By: Paul Worth, Public Works Technician Purpose:; Provide information to the Planning Department/Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as (Developer) regarding Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements; and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed site development. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. Special Requirements Fourth Street. Developer shall remove and replace a 6-ft wide concrete sidewalk section and any broken curb and gutter sections along the property's frontage with Fourth Street, in accordance with PWD standards. The existing sidewalk is "up-heaved" and undermined in several points and needs to be replaced. A suitable wheelchair ramp shall be constructed at the corner of 4`h and Oak Street. 2. Oak Street Developer shall construct a 6-foot sidewalk with suitable driveway apron and remove and replace any broken curb and gutter along property frontage, in accordance with PWD standards. 3. AIIev: Alley is currently paved to a 20-foot width adjacent to property line. Applicant shall either make improvements or be required to enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement (DIA) for storm drainage, driveway apron, and alley improvements required to bring alley to current standards, for the length of alley from Fourth Street to the northeast corner of the subject tax lot. 4. 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 accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO single unit service truck and the Fire District #3 requirements. All driveways, access roads, and parking areas should either have asphalt or cement concrete surfaces. 5. 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 tax lot. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way, or onto 29 ('enn~rd Pain ~l'<r.~ Srr~rirr ltuilding 1'relinrirrar'r $ik• flan. l' ll'I) A7y/T Krparr /'i•hruarr _'?. 1999 Page ' 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 waterfilows from the completion of the proposed development (and at any time prior to completion of development) do not exceed predevelopment flows; or that existing capacity, allowances, or provisions have been made (and approval of the applicable properties owners and regulatory agencies has been obtained), which accommodate any additional flow which exceed predevelopment flows.. The Developer and the City PWD shall agree on the applicable run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc., to be used in the engineering calculations. Developer's engineer shall provide a site drainage plan with the facilities being designed, at a minimum, to accommodate a 10-year storm event. The SD 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 tothe 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 water7un-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. 6..- :: On Site Lighting: On site lighting shall illuminate parking areas and driveway entrances in a f.4• .manner which will provide safe access for ingress and egress to the complex. Fixtures shall be of the type tha4will adequately illuminate the required areas but will not deflect light to surrounding residential areas or cause vehicular safety hazards in .adjacent streets. 7. Sight-Triangles: Developer shall provide for suitable sight triangles at the driveway connection to Oak Street, and maintain the sight triangle at the alley entrance to Fourth Street. The driveway connection and alley entrance require 25-foot vision triangles, as measured from the right-of-way line. 8. Building Setback and Parking. Spaces: Developer will need to provide a revised site plan that places the building and parking spaces in areas that meet setback requirements and keep parking spaces and structures outside the sight-triangles.. There shall be no vehicular turning movements (from parking spaces) allowed within the City's right-of-way. General 1. Exisfinp Infrastructure: Fourth Street -Functional class is a "Collector. ROW width is 60-ft. Street width is 40-ft @ <TFC Oak Street -Functional class is "Local Street". ROW width is 80-ft. Street width is 40-ft @ TFC: 30 ('en(ral I'nin( Ta.c Sen•ire liuilding Prelimin,rrr .Bile Plae, !'ll'U .l7y/)~Repori hihruurr l3, /999 Pnge 3 Water Main - 4-inch diameter cast iron is noted in the 1979 water system inventory Water Service - 5/8-inch meter, '/, service is located on Oak Street. Fire hydrant -Exists at southeast corner of 4r" and Oak; southeast corner of 4r" and Pine Streets. Storm Drain - A catch inlet exists at the northeast corner of 4r" and Oak Streets. Gutter flow is ' north to south in 4r" street and west to east in Oak Street. A storm drain exists in the 4r" Street ROW behind the curb. Sanlfary Sewer -22-inch diameter (BCVSA) Street Lighting ~ PP&L #B 2458 located at southeast corner of 4T".and Oak St. Sidewalk - A 5-foot wide sidewalk with a 1.5-ft. width concrete filled strip exists along 4r" Street. Several cracks and disturbed panels noted. No sidewalk exists on the Oak Street frontage'. Alley- Paved along northerly property line. See Special Requirements # 3 above. The Developer shall provide suitable engineering certification arid 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 omthe 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 filows and/or demands while maintaining or improving the existing effective level of service of the affected facility. 2. 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 orpublic rights-of-way and easements or for connections to City infrastructure. Public improvements include, but are not limited to, streets and alleys (including street/alley section, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters); 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, streetsigns, 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. 3. Approvals: Obtain required plan approvals from Fire District No. 3 (fire hydrant placement, waterline sizing, emergency vehicle access, etc.) and BCVSA (sewer lateral and main connection) prior to final construction plan review and approval by City PWD. Provide PWD with copies. 4. 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 Developers engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form .- 31 ('mural !'oin( Inc Set~~i<•r 6ui/ding !'reliniinm•o $i(e Plan. PII'U ,C(n/j~Repor( hibrunn'11. 1999 !'age J (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 omdrawings; water lines, valves, and fire,hydrants, watecand 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:.. 5. -Elevations: All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks,-and on the permanent benchmark if applicable, 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 Developers surveyor. ~•, :it.. 6. - -... , Existing Infrasfrucfure: As applicable, field verifyall existing infrastructure elevations and 7 s,i° 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. 7. 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.: 8. Road/Driveway/Parking Areas: The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the access road, parking, and driveway section designs to handle the expected loads (including fire equipment) to be traveled on these private driveways, access roads, and parking areas. Need to provide section for review. The driveways, access roads, and parking and turning areas on the proposed development should be designed and positioned in a manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of a single unit truck, without crossing into an opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic. The street section design for street improvements or connections to be constructed within the City rights-of-way (i.e: 4T" and Oak streets). shall be as follows: - 3-inches Class "B" AC - 6-inches of 3/4"-0" crushed rock - 8-inches of 4"-0" crushed,rock (City. of Medford specifications), - Woven geotextile fabric over compacted sub-grade. e) Fi ('rnlrol Pnim Ihi~Serrire Building Preliurinnrr Site Phut P II'I) .41gJj~Beporl l•i•hrunrr ??. /999 Pnge 5 See also Special Requirements #2 for required alley improvements. 9. Utility Plans: Provide the PWD with 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. Public Utility Easements: A minimum 10-foot wide public utilities easement (PUE) shall be dedicated oh 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 4T" Street and Oak Street if a PUE is not currently present in this area. 10. Fire Hydrants: Provide locations of existing and any new required fire hydrahts. 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. A minimum 3-ft clear area shall be maintained arouhd the fire hydrant. If applicable, a suitable 15-foot wide easement for installation and access to the City's water line shall be provided. 11. Water Svstem Cross Connecfion Control: Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) ahd City requirements for cross conhectiomcontrdl. The Citywilt not turn on the water uritihsuch requirements have been met to the satisfactiorrof the City's designated inspector. 12:- WaferSvstem: Construction drawings shall include the. size, type, andiocation of all water mains, hydrants, valves; service connectidn; meter; servicelaterals, and other appurtenance details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD and Building Department. The applicant shall determine the size of the building service line required to service the complex. An OHD approved Backflow Prevention Assembly (BPA) shall be installed at any pressurized irrigation system branches. 15. 'Storm Drain Svstem Design: Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this development plan, the Developers engineer shall 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. 16. Roof/Area/Underfloor Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the buildings. Roof drains and underfloor (foundation) drains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain lines, and shall drain either to an on- site private storm drain system or discharge at the curb face. 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 e.7 e~ Cenral Point Tax Service Building .Preliminary Site Plan, PWDStaJJ'Report February 23, 1999 Page 6 and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. 1 ti. Existing Easements: If applicable, Developer shall comply with all existing easement owner requirements regarding any proposed development that may overlap any existing easement. Any development proposed which overlaps or alters an existing easement should be approved by the easement owner in writing, and a copy of that written approval should be submitted to the CityPWD prior to submission of,construction plans for CityAWD review and approval. All existing easement locations and those proposed for this development shall be shown on the final plat and as-built drawings with reference to the recordation number and Grantee. 3~ 1~~ APPLICANT: Attachment E CITY OF CENTRAL POINT BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Address: /O ZD Aletc)~A-Nth City: Stater Zip code:~D~ AGENT: T Name: ,(JA,1 ~ c> ~ LAS k!E- Address: City: State: Zip code: OWNER OF Rf Name:_ Address: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Mni~~ iCtl_ Zip code: BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: ~TJ'7' CENTRA"~L POINT BUILDING DEPARTMENT By: ~/ Dated: ~ ~~' 3b PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: lic Owner: ent: March 2, 1999 .Central Point Planning Commission Tom Humphrey, Planning Director Public Hearing- Conditional Use Application of 37 2W 11D Tax Lot 1700- Additional Dwelling Unit on R-2, ResidentiaLTwo Family zoned lot. Betty Beale 3344 Bursell Road Central Point, OR-97502 .Ronald Hagemeyer . 650 East Fork Road Williams, Oregon 97544 Po e Description/ 37 2W i 1D Tax Lot 1700- 0.41 acres. in R-2, Residential Two Family The applicant, Betty Beale has requested a Conditional Use Permit to construct an additional dwelling unit behind the existing residence located at 3344 Bursell Road. 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 Conditional Use Permit. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B). Annlicable Law CPMC 17.24.010 et seq: R-2, Residential Two-Family Zoning District CPMC 17.76.010 et seq.- Conditional Use Permit 3'7 Discussion Ron Hagemeyer is working on behalf of Betty Beale to construct an additional single family residence behind the existing home located at 3344 Bursell Road. The new residence would allow her children to live nearby and care for her as she becomes older and less independent: After several visits to the Planning Department and numerous discussions, City staff recommended that Mrs. Beale exercise-one of two options to accomplish her goal. The first option was to partition the parent lot into two separate parcels and then proceed with the construction of the additional dwelling. If the parcel were partitioned, a staff level site plan review eould'be conducted, followed immediately by a construction review. The second option suggested under CPMC 17.24.030 allows the construction of the additional dwelling unit as a "dwelling group" in the R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district if a Conditional Use Permit were issued by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Beale decided to apply for the Conditional Use Permit and partition the existing residence from the new structure at a later date when her financial situation would be better. The area identified for the additional residence is topographically sloped northward and would require significant fill material prior to development. Access and utilities to the site are available from Greenleaf Lane which was recently constructed as part of Shelterwood. The proposed residence as shown on the site plan, will meet all adopted front, side andxear yard setback requirements when a future partition is filed. The proposed (second) single family residence will fronton a residential lane .with a 30' right-of-way that does not include sidewalks. The Public Works Departmentis 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 Shelterwood (refer to exhibit "E"). The sidewalk easement, coupled wither 10 foot public utilities easement, wouldpotentially effect the front yard setback and the Public Works Director has asked 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. Planning staff can support the Public Works recommendation for dedication of additional right-of--way on Bursell Road and the construction of a sidewalk along the' applicant's frontage that will match improvements installed north of this site as part of Forest Glen Subdivision, Phase IV. A Deferred Improvement Agreement could be considered by the City if immediate improvements were judged to be a financial hardship to the applicant. ~~ ~u Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law The Planning Commission in granting a Conditional Use Permit shall find as follows: A. That the site for the. proposed use is adequate in size. and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code. The parcel is large enough at 18,260 square feet to meet the minimum lot size and density for the R-2, Residential Two-Family Zoning District. - B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use. The additional dwelling would access Greenleaf Lane from the south property line: The addition of sidewalks will accommodate additional pedestrian traffic. '~:` ;~„ C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. The proposed construction is consistent with other single family residences located on adjoining properties. D. That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Any approval of the Conditional Use Permit would be subject to the recommended conditions of approval. In considering the conditions that may be required for approval of a permit, the Commission should make a fmding that improvements are reasonably related to the development and deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff believes that the conditions being recommended with the exceptions that have been noted are reasonably related to this development proposal. 3~ Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Conditional Use Permit subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit D ); or 2. Deny the proposed Conditional Use Permit; or 3. Continue the review of the Conditional Use Permit at the discretion of the Commission. xhibits A. Application and Exhibits B. Notice of Public Heazing C. Correspondence from Other Agencies D. Planning Department Conditions E. Public Works Staff Report i; ~ Q t o I. CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION City of CE - ~ -~ - t i APPLICANT INFORMATION CSity of Central i'uint EXI~I~I'~ ttA tf Planning Department i City: Gt:n1TRAL Fb~N'r state: ~R. zip Telephone: Business:- ~~ Q.~Z$ Residence: 2. 3 AGENT INFORMATION OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Sepazate Sheet If More Than One) Name: R~T1"Y R~' A C_~ ~~~~ FEB 21999 DATH STAMP City: ` r_~-NT R L ~(/J T State:~J3 Telephone: Business: ¢ ~"Z,~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION Township: 3 7 Range: 02 I.ll Section: j ~ ~ Tax Lot(s): 17 O O Zoning District° f•Z- Z Total Acreage: ~ ~ 4260 ,~(t General Description ofProiect: Rif ~ (_ jL~ S' c N r G ~ FA M (~Y 13 ~0, i~ 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 67~'1'his Application Form ^ Application Fee ($325.00) ®' An accurate scale drawing of the site and improvements proposed (10 copies) m' Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process ~ Reduced copy of drawing of site and proposed impmvments (8 '/: x 11) ~' AstatementindicatingfheprecisetnannerofcompliancewitheachoftheapplicablepmvisionsofTitle 17, along with other data which pertains to the findings required for wnditional use permit. 6. I HEREBY STATE THATTHEFACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVEAPPLICATION AND THEPLAN$ AND DOCUMENT'S SUBMITTED HEREWITHARETRUE, CORRECT,AND ACCURATETOTHEBEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. ,,~~ I certify that I am the : ~ Property Owner or yt' Authorized Agent of the Owner ^ ^ A ~ / ~ _ , 4 of the proposed project site. 1 BUR SELL ROAD LOT L/NE P3' . .\., :~ ~~ :,` ~ . ~ •~ L .. r ~• m ~I ~ '~ r s •~ 2. m a I i '``~ ~ .~ _ ~$ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ?, Y ; S ~~ ~~ F s, 1 ~ ., ,». City of Centrac Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT, City of Central Paint B~IIIII'T t~B tt :Planning Department Tom Humphrey, A1CP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: February 10,1999 Meeting Date: March 2, 1999 .Time:.... _ 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second. Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning atthe abovetime and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will reviewan application foraConditionUse Pemutthatwould allowthewnstrttctionofa 1360 square foothome to be constructed behind the residence located at 3344 Bursell Road. The Central Point Municipal Code will allow two residencestoshareasingleparcelifthePlanningCommission issuesaConditionalUsePemut. The parcel to be discussed at the meeting islocated in a R-2 Residential Two Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W11D, Tax Lot 1700, 'f he Central Point Planning Commis sion will t+eview the Conditional Use Permit application to determine that all applicable provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met and may decide at the meeting to approve or deny the requested permit. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter 17 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Anypersoninter+estedincommentingontheabove-mentioned land usedecisionmaysubmitwritten comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 2, 1999. 2. WrittencommentstnaybesentinadvanccofthemeetingtoCentralPointCityHa1I,155South V 43 Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration oftlre comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4: Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City HalI,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 23 L SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission wil I 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 Comtission may approve or deny the application foi•the Conditional Use Pemtit. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. t55 Sotrttt Second Street ~ Centre! Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 SUBJECT PROPERTY !t ! ~~ APPLY eNT• AGENT: City: State: CITY OF CENTRAL POINT BUILDING DEPARTMENT ' aty or central i~tnc STAFF REPORT E~~Y~IT «C~~ Planning Department Zip coder 973 0 Z (,~u57Iz~~1 a~~ Zip code: OWNER OF City:, Zip code: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~_,, n S~.n i36~ BUII.DING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: i W ~~t~-~lyC ,~~' CENTRAL POINT B ING DEPARTMENT By; Dated: a~ ~~ q TAFF REPORT.wpdC:~CorohSuite8lTanplate~CusWm WP Tanplatus~BUSinas Fomts~STAFF REPORT.wpd . ~~: TM ~~.p~y - 45 EXHIBIT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL L The approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan shall expire in one year on March 2, 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 applicant's representative shall contact BCVSA to establish design requirements, fees and permits for sewer extension and hook-up. 46 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for Beale Greenleaf Lane Residence Preliminary Site Plan PW#99011 Date: Applicant: Agent: , Project: Location: Legal: Zoning: Acreage Units: Plans: Report By: Purpose City of Central L'uiut ~XIiISI'T t'E't Planning Department February 23, 1999 Betty Beale, 3344 Bursell Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502 (Owner) Ronald Hagemeyer, 650 East Fork Road, Williams, Oregon 97544 Additional Dwelling Unit North of Greenleaf Lane, Adjacent to Shelterwood Subdivision T37S, R2W, Section 11 D, Tax Lot 1700 ; 3344 Bursell Road R-2 0.42 acres 1 New Single Family Residence, and existing Residence 1 page ("Betty Beale", dated 2/1/99; prepared by Agent). Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director 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 1. Street Parklna: No street parking. is permitted on either Greenleaf Lane or Bursell Road. 2. Sidewalks and Sidewalk Easement: The residential lane right-of-way for Greenleaf Lane does not provide for sidewalks. The City PWD is recommending that a 5-foot wide public sidewalk section (with a suitable public ingress and egress easement requirement) be provided adjoining the right-of-way of Greenleaf Drive... This will also require that the structure setback of the garage be increased to 25 feet to afford driveway parking that does not interfere with pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. The 10-foot-wide public utilities easement would be moved to the outside of the sidewalk easement to mitigate interterence with public utility installation and facility placement (i.e transformers, risers, pedestals, etc.). As required on recent developments utilizing the residential lane street standard, the sidewalk would be installed at the Developer's expense as part of the development of the subject lot and will be maintained by the property owner, similar to the City's current sidewalk ordinance requirements. A sidewalk shall also be installed on the property's frontage with Bursell Road, as discussed in :Item 6 below. 3. Utility Easements: A 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) will be required outside the Citys right-of-way of Greenleaf Lane. To facilitate placement of the sidewalk section, the PUE . along Greenleaf Lane would be located adjacent to the sidewalk easement, and extend 15-feet behind the right-of:way. A 10-foot utility easement should also be dedicated along the western -- 47 Bale Residence on CreenleajLane Preliminary Sile Plan Review February 23, 1999 Page 1 boundary of the property adjoining Bursell Road. 4. Slaht-Triangles: Field review of this property's access to Bursell Road indicates that the sight- triangles can afford the proper sight triangles for a local street that connects to a secondary arterial, with removal of the interfering parked vehicles, fencing, and vegetation. This type of street intersection requires a 55-foot sight triangle. 5. Improvements to Bursell Road:' 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. These improvements extend for the entire frontage of the subject tax lot along Bursell Road. The Developer shall coordinate with the Developer of the Sheltervvood Subdivision (Michael Sullivan) on the completion of improvements of the intersection of Greenleaf Lane and Bursell Road. As approved by the City Administrator, the Developer may request or be required to defer any or all of the required improvements along Bursell Road 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/County for the developmentfimprovement`ofthestreetsection:and°appurtenances(i:eaidewalks,-curb, gutter, streetlights; storm'drainage;'etc:) along the`developmerit's frontages withBursell Road, as required and approved by the JC Roads and City PWD. 6. Site Dra-naae/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 tax lot. 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 nan-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (either surtace 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 priorto completion of development) do not exceed predevelopment flows; or that existing capacity, allowances;'or provisions have been made (and approval of the applicable properties owners and. regulatory agencies has. been obtained), which accommodate any additional flow which exceed predevelopment flows. The Developer and the City PWD shall agree on the applicable run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc., to be used in the engineering calculations. Developer's engineer shall provide a site drainage plan with the facilities being designed, at a minimum, to accommodate a f 0 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 stone 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 d(scharge to the street surfaces. The potential retention of storm water run-off shall be coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide an 48 Beale Residence on Greenl¢ajLane Preliminary Site Plan Review February 23, 1999 Page 3 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. i.'k 3 ~, y.'; ~% Genera/ . 1. ExlsNng 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/or demands while maintaining or improving the existing effective level of service of the affected facility. 2. 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 orpublic rights-of-way and easements or for connections to City infrastructure. Public improvements include, but are not limited to, streets (including sidewalks, driveway aprons and, curbs and gutters); 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. The right-of-way for Greenleaf Lane extends to a point approximately 2.50 feet behind the face of curb. The required 20-foot setback is from the back of right-of-way, and not the back of curb as shown on the site plan. Thus the residence would have to be setback a minimum of 2 additional feet. 3. Approvals: Fire District No. 3 (fire hydrant placement, waterline sizing, and emergency vehicle access) and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA, for sanitary,sewers) written approval of constnaction plans shall be submitted to the City PWD prior to final construction plan review and approval by City PWD. 4. s-Bullts: Prior to approval and acceptance. of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department wfth "as-built".drawings. If feasible, the 49 Beale Residence on Greenleaf Lane Preliminary Sl(e Plan Review February 13, 1999 Page 4 Developers engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form (produced on MyIaY~) and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD®, or other form as .approved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet; street light locations; other below grade utility lines; eta Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on Mylar°), or an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD® compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part ofthe proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. 5. 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. 6. - Exlst/ng Infrastructure: As applicable;ifieid verifyall existing infrastructure elevations and Idcations (i.e: pipe inverts, curb elevations; street elevations; etc:), to which`ahe proposed developmentwill connect into: existing improvements; prior to fihal construction plan design and submittal for finalsapproval: 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) ohthe constructioh plans. 7. 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. 8. Bursel/ Road Street Sect/on: The City PWD, at the cost of the Developer, shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the street section designs for the Burseli Road street section In accordance with the City PWD 8fandards. The City's engineering staff or selected engineering consultant (at Developers expense); shalt evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the street section designs in accordance with the City PWD Standards. Minimum street section for Bursell Road shall be as follows: - 4lnches Class "B" A.C. - 7-inches of 1 "-0" crushed rack - 13-1hches of 4"-0" crushed rock (City of Medford specifications), - Woven geotextile fabric over compacted subgrade. Street section (excluding the asphalt concrete portion) shall be extended underneath and a minimum of two feet beyond the curb and gutter section; and underneath the driveway apron 50 ,, v„ Beale Restdence on Greenleaf Lane Preliminary Sil¢ Plan Review February 23, 1999 Page 5 connection of Greenleaf Lane with Bursell Road. ~;.. 9. Ut11it~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.). 10. Water Svstem Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for cross connection control. Water will not be "turned on" by the City until such requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the City's designated inspector. 11. Roof/Area/Unden`loor Dralns: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the buildings. Roof drains and underfloor (foundation) drains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain lines, and shall drain either to an on- site private storm drain system or discharge at the curb face. 12. Gradin 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. 13. Existing Easements: If applicable, Developer shall comply with all existing easement owner requirements regarding any proposed development that may overlap any existing easement. Any development proposed which overlaps or alters an existing easement should be approved by the easement's owner in writing, and a copy of that written approval should be submitted to the City PWD prior to submission of construction plans for City PWD review and approval. All existing easement locations and those proposed for this development shall be shown on the final plat with reference to the recordation number and Grantee. ~1 ,.., ~~ , PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: Mazch 2, 1999 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Discussion of Gloria Dei Lutheran Directional Signs At the last Planning Commission meeting Mr. Richard Watson asked that Gloria Dei Lutheran Church, located at 745 North Tenth, be allowed to erect signs at various places around town that would direct people to their church. He has submitted an example of what he has' in mind and a copy is attached for your consideration. The church would"like to place the signs on private property at Pine and Tenth Streets and on Front Street at an undetermined location. The City has no specific guidelines for off-sight signs as most are placed at places of business. Consequently, the Planning Department has contacted a few other jurisdictions and will present a summary of our survey to the Commission during the meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. Letter and Sign Illustration from Richazd Watson dated February 17, 1999 52 Feb 17, 1999 The Ciry of Central Point Planning Commission Dear Sirs / Madames, .. Attachment A The "Sign" attachments highlighted in yellow are for your perusal and for discussion ; during your meeting of March 2, 1999 (per your request / Feb 2, 1999 Planning Commission). This is the: type of sign we are proposing for Pine street & Tenth street and for-Front street as we discussed. I will be there for your March 2 meeting.: Thank you, .~ ~ OZ-t. ichard L Wa son President, Glori Dei Lutheran 555-251 Freeman Road Central Point, Or 97502- Phone 664-6646 53 GL021A DEL LUTN~izAN L ._'_-/ LCMS Outdoor Banner ~~ -~~'' ~ Extend your church's welcome with this highly-visible (3' x 12') vinyl outdoor banner. " 'border webbing for strength and six eyelets to help secure the banner to a wall or I middle pole is recommended). (K) a 991 $82.50 ~ _ A. LCMS Plexiglas" Sign Mounts to wall, door or outside board. 15' x 78' x 1/4'. Hardware ~ iz}~. '~h~`~:: not included. (K) ~ ~~~ 88.1041 $50.00 ,~- lri~ LU~l~ti~KAty ~riUKI; WELCOMES YOU! Road Slgns These 20' x 30' road markers will withstand years of use and retain their color! Signs are constructed of aluminum, covered with rust-resistant baked enamel and finished with white "Scotchlight"-a reflectorized :imaterlal that makes the marker ?'wisitile at night. And it's easy to set pup,-just buy a 10-1/2' tall 4' x 4" 'jpost (cedar is recommended) from !~,ryouilocallumberyard.Includes - ~.;~:instructions. (K) Single-faced LCMS road marker 90.2763 $80.00 each Two or more single-face signs with identical imprint $73.00 each Double-face LCMS Road Marker 90-2764 $120.00 each Two or more double-face signs with identical imprints 5118.00 each Imprlnting Information The church imprint can be a maxi- mum of three lines, with a maxi- mum of 161etters and spaces per line. The Imprint is included in the price of the sign. NOTE: Fewer words mean larger figures. More wards mean smaller figures. Txe wTrD:RnH eHUaCH MISSOURI SYNOD B. LCMS Vinyl Sign ounts to window or door. Has cial pre-tolded lip, making it i for use in outdoor bulletin boa . 6' x 10-1/2'. (K) 88-1 53.95 B THE WTHERAN CHURCH MISSOURI SYNOD A THE I~TI'HERAN CHURCH L 021 A DE.L \ LU71-l~-zP~hl o,~ 74~N.lonlS;. / Ep ny Lutheran 155 ntral Avenue u ay School a.m. Worshi Service 10:30 .m. LCMS Roadside Sign Reach out to your comm in a BIG way with this impressive sign! Standing 4' high 8' long, this sign helps you extend a sincere m age of warmth and care. It can let others know who you are, w e you're located, why you'd like them to vis' our congregation and what options are available to them (worship vice hours, phone numbers, day scho lasses, etc.) Passers-by will the beautiful LCMS logo cross and Synodical name. And, in the large 6' x 3 hate space and/or, in the 1' x 6' b undy stripe along the bottom of the sign, you can Imprint your church and co oily name, a personal me ge, and other information. Top-quality craftsmanship in .032 gauge weather-resistant minum. Includes i lation instructions. This sign can be shipped by UPS. (K) Four- el Sign Shipment Imprints UPS ivery: We will imprint your road sign for yowl Imprinting is charged b e Sh' ed as four 2' x 4' panels. line. Please keep in mind that less wording means larger type. (K embly required. - 90-2827 $27.50 a line -2826 $295.00 54 i PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: March 2, 1999 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Presentation of a Residential Infill Proposal by Brad Miller The Planning Department has been approached by Brad Miller who is interested in developing property between the Royal Heights subdivision and Scenic Middle School. The property is narrow, long and zoned R-1-8. Mr. Miller 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 to do so. He is trying to determine whether the Commission would look favorably upon rezoning before he makes a financial investment and pursues this option. The property could be developed as an R-1-8 subdivision with a standard residential street section abutting the middle school but it is questionable whether the sale of resulting lots would offset the cost of public improvements. Mr. Miller will elaborate on the options he is considering and would like the Commission to point him in the right direction. ATTACHMENTS None ~~