HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - May 20, 19971,
r , ,,
„~
CITY OF CENTR?L; POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
May 20 1997 - 7:00 p.m.
I.
MEETING. CALLED. TO ORDER
Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 383
IL ROLL CALL
Chuck Piland -Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Bob Gilkey, Karolyne
Johnson, and Valerie Rapp
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES
A. Review and approval of May 6, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes
V: PUBLIC "APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
A. Continued Public Hearing -Review and recommendation regarding a Zone
Change from R-1-10, .Residential Single-Family {10,000 s.f.) to R-1-8,
. Residential Single-Family (8,000 s.f.). (37 2W 10 Tax Lot 5900) (Dallas Page,
applicant)
B. Continued Public Hearing -Review and decision regarding a Variance and
Preliminary Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development, Rosewood
Estates. (37 2VJ 10 Tax Lot 5900). (Dallas Page, applicant)
C. Public Hearing -Review and decision regarding a Variance of the rear yard
setback requirement. for. a residential accessority building at 412 South Central
Valley Drive (3Z 2W .10 BD-11000) (Mark Fiebelkorn, Applicant).
D. ' Public Hearing -Review and decision regarding a Variance of the front and rear
yarn setback that would:allow, construction of a 1595 square foot single family
dwelling at 448 Laurel Street (37 2W 03 DD-4601) (Jim Wilson, Applicant).
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
,I
~ ~'
{ ~ ~ ~
CITY, QF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION
May. 6,.1997
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Angela Curtis, Candy Fish, Bob Gilkey; Karolyne
Johnson, Valerie Rapp, Jan Dunlap. Also attending were Jim Bennett, Planning
Director, Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director,
Arlene LaRosa, Secretary.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
There was no correspondence.
IV. MINUTES
A. On item C, Commissioner Rapp. abstained from voting. Commissioner Fish
made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction as noted. Motion
was seconded by Commissioner Rapp. ROLL CALL• Curtis, yes; Dunlap,
abstain, Fish, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes; Rapp, yes.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Tom Sharp, 1:105 .Cherry St., .Central Point, agent for Miltoh & Kathleen Gorden,
Hardbodies Gym, 155 No. First Street,. Central Point, came forward with a request
to modify the site plan as approved by the Planning Commission on November 19,
1996.
Jim Bennett stated that the owners are getting ready to do the parking lot and
they are requesting to be able to narrow the walkway and lower it so that the
parking lot looks like one ihstead of being separated by a raised walkway. There
will be no changes in the number of parking spaces.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to accept the modifications as requested in
the revised site plan for the Hardbodies Gym located at 1:55 North First Street, and
in addition adding traffic stops on spaces 1 to 4 and blocking off vehicular access
to the alley with signs and/or posts. Motion was seconded by Commissioner
G(Ikey. ROLL CALL: Curtis, yes; Dunlap,. yes;fish,:yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson,
yes; Rapp, Yes.
VI. BUSINESS
q. Continued Public hearing Revie~ro and decision regarding a Tentative Plan
for the Beall Estates Subdivision Ph~s III R-2 zoning district 372W12C
TM~•' of 3404! (Noel A Moore and Bret A Moore. aoolicants!
'~ ' r N
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
May 6, 1997 -Page 2
Chairman Piland opened the Public Heating. There were no conflicts of
interest. Commissioner Gilkey :noted that Mr. Moore came xo a Parks
Committee meeting and discussed parks in September, but. has had no
contact since that time. _
Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Depattment Staff .Report.
Lee Brennan reviewed the Public Works Staff Report and identified revisions
in the Staff Report that had been agreed upon by Staff and applicant.
.Herb Farber, 120 Mistletoe, Medford,. agent for the applicant, stated that
they concur with everything that has been put forth and the changes
required by Lee Brennan. One concern is the Planning Department condition
in Exhibit C, page 7, item 6 second sentence. Their suggestion is that the
word "significant" be added as the first. word in that sentence so they don't
have to return with minor modifications.
Mr: Farber submitteda Notice. of Authorization signed by both the Gilman's
and the Moores.
Chairman Piland closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 383 approving the
Tentative Plan for the Beall-Estates Subdivision, Phase 111, R-2 zoning district
(37 2W 12C Tax Lot 3404), (Noe4 A. Moore and Bret. A. Moore, applicants),
with the correction as suggested' by applicant's agent, and subject to all
conditions of the Staff Reports as corrected. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Johnson. ROLL'CALL: Curtis, yes;. Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes;
Gilkey, yes; JoMrison, yes; Rapp, yes.
B. ~ontinbed PubUc He ring Review and decision r@garding a Tentative Plan
for the Centr^I Point East S~bdivicion R-1-6 R-1-8 R-2 & R-3 zoning
~~+.r,.+s (3721^!01(' -Tax Lots` 100 & 200. 37 2M! 01 B Tax Lots 2500
9700 & 29001 (Pa pars Tryst Company, applicant)
Chairman'Piland opened the Public Hearing. There were.. no conflicts of
interest or ex-pane communications.
Jim`Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff.Report. A special
purpose park was one of the key issues raised at the. previous Public
Hearing. Jim showed the original comprehensive plan for parks in the area
and discussed buffer zones. Jim Bennett stated that he wanted to clarify
the mistaken impression that the applicant would be providing park land on
Gebhard Road. The applicant-was simply trying to how the Planning
~,
,t_' ,
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
May 6, 1997 -Page 3
Commission that there were other areas. better situated for a park than in
this 'subdivision. They were not intending to imply that they would facilitate
that or make it available to the city.
Lee Brennan reviewed the Public Works Staff Report. He stated that the
previous staff report submitted on March 18, was a tentative staff report
and some changes were made which he was going to read verbally. The
corrected staff report would be made available at a later time.
Jim Bennett noted some changes in the original Planning Department Staff
Report. Delete Item #2 in the Recommended Conditions, page 8. However,
this issue could be-left open to be replaced with a similar condition to
provide a park. Delete Item #3 which deals with submitting an application
for a comprehens(ve plan amendment to adopt the neighborhood circulation
plan and park development plan. The neighborhood circulation plan can be
submitted directly to the-Public Works Department.
Chairman Piland declared a 1 O minute recess. at 8:13 p.m.
Chairman Piland called the meeting to order at 8:22 p.m. to continue the
Public Hearing.
Dennis Hoffbuhr; representative to the applicant, 1062 E. Jackson,
Medford; came forward. The park issue has raised some concern and is
confusing at this time. The special: interest park was originally designed to
save trees along the. ridge line and provide a buffer for. the industrial area.
The restrictive covenants cover saving the trees along the xidge line and the
city has been made a part of the covenants so that they can enforce the
covenants as well. The second issue was the buffer for the industrial. area.
Dennis presented some pictures of a buffer zone in Medford like the one
they will have in this subdivision. The applicants would be happy to work
with staff on a cost sharing approach on the traffic. control light at the
intersection on Hamrick. Road. The applicants are in agreement with the
conditions as presented in the revised staff report.
Doug Hoffbuhr stated that Mike Thornton has prepared a storm drain plan.
Mike Thornton, Thornton Engineering; 1236 Disk Drive, Suite 1, Medford,
came forward and stated .that they have noted the drainage concerns in the
area and fieel they cah meet the conditions and improve the drainage in the
area
Chairman Piland questioned the problem of people buying. residences near
the businesses along Table Rock Road and later suing the businesses.
',,,
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
May 6, 1997 -Page 4
Dennis Hoffbuhr stated that there will be deed restrictions identifying that
they are adjacent to an industrial land.- This is a common way for handling
this situation.
Chairman Piland asked about the oid pipe-line in that area.
Dennis Hoffbuhr stated that there is an old pipe line easement. The pipe
line was never built. They will have to go through a process to get the pipe
line easement removed. Any property owner that would benefit from that
easement would have to agree to sign the release for that easement.
Eric Stark, Legal Counsel for the applicant, 201 W. Main, St. 1 B, Medford,
came forward. He stated that'the Restrictive Covenants run with the land.
Each purchaser of the homes vvould have to sign those covenants. Every
method is included to protect the trees; He also stated that the pipe line
easemenf vvill have to be removed.
Mr. Stark stated they understand the concerns for a park.. They will include
a draft of a comprehensive plan amendment which provides a safety barrier,
fence, berm, and preservation of the trees along the ridge line.
Mr. Don Grove, Partners Trust Company, the applicant, showed an air photo
of the seven acre property on Gebhard Drive which they feel is a better
place for a park and they would give their option to buy that property to the
city. He suggested that other developers in the area share in the costs and
all fairly contribute.
Mr. Stark stated that they have met all the requirements and provided the
city with a follow-up 'report. They have met the criteria. They agree with
the staff report antl they ask for'the Commission's approval.
Heidi Phipps, 1972 Crestbrook Road, Medford, came forward in favor on the
application. She read a letter she wrote to the commission to the audience.
Kevin Hering, 1045 Diane Ct. Medford,'came forwardrand showed the
Commission the property that Mrs. Phipps would like to 'purchase. He also
discussed the berm.
Doug 'Pfaff, 4630'Hamrick Road, came'forvvard with a concern about the
water run-off and drainage.
Betty Hayward, 4461 Hamrick Road, Medford, came: forward in opposition
to the application. Her concern was a traffic signal, how long the turn lane
would be, and the greenbelt taxes.
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
May 6, 1997 -Page 5
'Erma Layton, 1760 E: Pine St., Medford, came forward. Her concern was
the•plan for the buffer between neighbors property and the development.
Her concern was that children would walk through neighbors properties.
Naomi Wood,. 4460 Hamrick Road, Medford, and stated that she would like
to see a park incorporated within this subdivision.
Carter Wood; 4460 Hamrick Road, Medford, stated that the. city needs to
find out about the widening. of Table Rock Road.
Dennis Hoffbuhr addressed some of the issues that were raised:
1. They have several options on the drainage and have identified
- potential solutions to the problem. The preferred solution is not to
have the water cross Mr: Pfaff's property at all and there are several
options that would. remove the water from the property totally.
2. The turn lane being proposed. is a Jackson County project and is not
related to the project.
3. Security issues are hard to address.
4. Greenbelt is•standard. When anyone changes the use they have to
pay back taxes;
5. Buffer: that property is residential The streets terminate in a
barricade.
Chairman Piland asked if there will be fencing between the neighboring
property owners on Hamrick Road and the subdivision.
Don Grove stated that they will require the individual homeowners to build a
fence between their property and. the neighboring properties.
Dennis Hoffbuhr stated. that they agree with the park issues. The city needs
to look at the SDC fees and how they were developed. No matter where
the park is located, the city will have to buy the park land.
Mr. Stark stated. that because the .comprehensive. plan does not specifically
designate a neighborhood park, the city cannot require the developer to
provide a place for a neighborhood park. Even if it is designated as a
special purpose park, the city. has to .purchase that land to develop that
special purpose park.
Mr. Grove stated that they hoped that rather than the city buying the land
,
.~
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
May 6, 1997 -Page 6
for a special purpose park, that the developers providing a berm and safety
barrier would be a better use of the money. ,The city. vvould not be spending
any money. The developers are providing larger lots,so that they kids have
a place to play.
Commissioner Dunlap. commented that Van Horn Park is only a two acre
piece of land but it is used by a lot of people...
Commissioner Gilkey stated that: if they are going: tp develop in the Central
Point area they will need to have a place for, recreation.
Commissioner Fish asked the developers if they would agree to negotiate
vvith the city for some ofthe.land, that is.not being developed, for a park.
Mr. Stark stated that they agree to enter into negotiations. with the city for
two acres for a park. He asked if the city would do their own
comprehensive plan amendment.
Commissioner Fish made a motion to extend the meeting beyond the 10
o'clock time limit. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap. All said
"aye" and the motion passed,
Doug Pfaff came forward and asked if they could leave the ponds. open until
that phase of the subdivision was built.
Mr. Stark said that they could not because of the liability issues.
'Jim Bennett stated that the city canhot require deyelopers to enter into
negotiations with the city for land. The Commission is appealing to the
developers to voluntarily enter into negotiations with the city for a park.
Mr. Grover stated that if they are going to put in a two-acre park, he would
like to design and develop it and then have the city purchase it.
Mr. Stark stated that it seems the commission is going to approve but they
are. requesting that we enter into negotiations for atwo-acre piece of land
on one our adjacent parcels.
Jim Bennett stated that we can agree to that and the city will do the
comprehensive plan amendment.
Mr. Stark stated that the negotiation for the park is outside of the approval.
Commissioner Piland closed the public portion of the meeting.
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
May 6, 1997 -Page 7
.i ~l,
Lee Brehnan stated that the city would like input on the park even if Mr.
Grove designs"the park.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution X84 approving
the Tertative Plan for Central Point East Subdivision, R-1-6, R-1-8, R-2 & R-
3 zoning districts. (37 2W 01 C Tax Lots 100 and 200; 37 2W 01 B Tax
Lots 2500, 2700 & 2900) (Partners Trust Company, applicant, subject to all
the conditiohs in the Staff Reports; deleting Item 3, Page 8 of the Planning
Department StafY Report requiring a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and
including changes that were made at the first public hearing.
Lee Brennan stated that if there are any issues in regard to the revised
Public Works Staff Report, it can be brought to the Planning Commission
again:
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
Jim Bennett discussed future agenda items,
Jim told the Commission that the budget committee approved the 1997-98
budget. He also stated that they are not sure of the impact of Measure 47 or
Measure 50.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by
Commissioher Gilkey. Ali said"aye and the. meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
~LANNTNG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING
DATE: May 20, 1997 _
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: James H. Bennett, AICP
City Administrator
SUBJECT: Corninued Public Hearing -Zone Map Amendment from R-1-10, Residential
Single-Family (10,000 s.f.) to R-1-8, Residential Single-Family (8,000 s.f.),
Preliminary Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development, Rosewood
Estates, and Variance from Zoning Standards Within 50 Feet. of Property
Boundary. (37 2W 10 Tax Lot 5900)
@pnli~ant: Dallas Page
900 Wmdemar Dr.
Ashland, OR 97520
Owners: Louis & 7acquiline Kula W. G. Beard
. 2145 ,Kings Hwy. 1570 Angelcrest Dr.
.;Medford, OR 97501. Medford, OR-97504
nin 37 2W 10 TL 5900 - 5.50 acres
Description:.°' R-1-10, Residential Single-Family (10,000 sq. ft.)
The project consists of a Zone Change from R 1-10, Residential Single-Family
. , (10,000 s.f,.) to R-1-8, Residential Single-Family (8,000 s.f.), a Preliminary
Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development on 5.74 acres fora 29-unit
single-family townhouse development, Rosewood Estates, and a Variance
from zoning standards within 50 feet of the property boundary. •
The public hearing. for the Zone Change and Planned Unit -Development
applications was continued by the Planning Commission from the regular
meetnig of Aptil 15,1997 to the regular meethtg of May 6, 1997 to allow for
republication ofthe hearing notice andrenotification of surrounding property
,.. ,,.~ r..,.:; ,,,~.~~,..owners.~The~yatxancgapplication was subsequently added to the project to
• address exceptions to zoning. standardswithin SO,feet of the boundary lines
of the proposed development.
~~- ~~.
CPMC 1.24.020 invests the Planning Comnssion with the authority to hold public hearings,
review and make recommendations to the City Council on amendments to the Text and map
of the caning ordinance, and render decisions on preliminary development plans of planned
unit developments. A corrected notice of the public hearing was prepared and delivered in
accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit A) -
lic City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan.
~: CPMC 1.24 Public Hearings Procedures.
CPMC 16.40 Variances.
CPMC 17.20 R-1, Residential Single-Family District:
CPMC 17.68 Planned Unit Development (PUD).
CPMC 17.80 Variances:
CPMC 17.88 Amendment.
Discussion
This is an amended staff report that focuses on the Variance application that was submitted
to address exceptions to zoning standards that are requested within 50 feet of the boundary
lines for the proposed Planned Unit Development.
CPMC 17.68.080 pernuts the Planning Commission to grant exceptions to specific zoning and
subdivision standards where it finds that the objectives of the zoning and subdivision titles will
be met. However, this does'nof apply to areas within 50 feet of the boundary lines of a
proposed development. A Variance is required for any'exceptions to zoning and subdivision
standards that fall within the designated 50 foot area.
For clarification, the following exceptions to`wning and subdivision standards have been
requested. by the applicant:
F,XCPp ion R nested
Cut-de-Sac Streets
Type of Dwelling '
Ivfinimum Lot Area
]Minimum Lot Width
1vGnimuin Yard' Setbacks
L.ot Coverage
Special Setback Requirements
~n icahlP ode Section
CPMC 16.20.080
CPMG 17.20:020
CPMC 17.20.050
CPMC 17.20.050
CPMG 1720.050
CPMC 17.20:070
CPMC 17.60.090
" The Public Works Department has also amended its staff report to address specific
infrastructure issues.' A copy of the amended report is attached for your review (Exhibit B).
J ~ QN
' ~! 1
indines of Fact and Conclusi
The Variance application involves both zoning and subdivision standards. Variances from
zoning standards are covered in CPMC 17.80.010. This section states that. the Planning
Commission may grant a variance if findings are made that the following considerations will
either result from the granting of the variance or do not apply to the. requested application:
1. The variance will provide added advantages to-the neighborhood or the city, such as
beautification or safety;
2: The variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the, neighborhood;
3. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zoning district;
4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same
zoning district; and
5. The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed through the
applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the. applicant's agents, employees or family
members.
Variances from subdivision standards are covered in CPMC 16.40.020. This section states
that applicants for variances have the burden of proving, by clear. and convincing evidence,
that their application meets each of the following standards:
1. That the strict application ofthe provisions ofthis title would result in an unnecessary
hardship which was not self-imposed or created by action of the property owner;
2. That there are special conditions, such as exceptional or extraordinary physical
features of the properly size, shape, topography or sundar features, affecting the property that
are not common to all property in the area;
3. That the variance is not being sought merely to circumvent the intent of a city
requiremeirt, and that the variance, if granted, would be faithful to the spirit and intent of the
regulation in question, and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
4. That there would be no adverse impact of any sort upon other properties within the
city.
5. That there is no practical alternative to .achieve the relief sought, and that if granted,
the variance allows no more than the minimum amount of relief from the regulation in
question necessary to achieve relief from the unnecessary hardship.
~~- 03
If the Planning Commission decides to approve the Variance application, it must adopt a
finding that the project either meets each of the above standards, or that a specific standard
does not apply to the project, and further must,adopb each of the applicable standards as
conclusions of law.
iatLn ng c omrmssion ncnon
The Planning Commissionmay take one of the following actions with regard to the proposed
zone change, variance and preliminary development plan for a planned unit development:
1. Recommend approval of the zone change and adopt Resolution No. ~ approving the
variance and preliminary development plan for the Rosewood Estates PUD, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions of law and subject to the recommended conditions of
approval as set forth in the staffreports;
2. Recommend denial of the wne change and deny the variance and preliminary development
plan for the Rosewood Estates PUD, based on findings of fiict articulated by the Commission;
3. Continue the review of the subject. application at the discretion of the Commission,
~:
A'."'' Corrected Nofice of Public Hearing-
B. Amended Public Works StaffReport
C. Additional Written Comments Received
~a3a ~_> s
Itt h'~'• ~~- :. -
.. - O
CYty of Central Pomt
,: ; '' •, ; C;~rty of Central. Point ~z~zT t~~rf
Planning Department
PLANNXNG DEPARTMENT
James Bennett
Planning Director
Tien Gerschler
Planning Technician
NOTICE OF MEETING -
DateoPNoUce: Aprill4,l997
Meeting Date: Tuesday, May 20th 1997
Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Place: Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
NATLTRx OF MEETING
Beginning at the above place and time, the Central'Point Planning Commission will;review applications
for a Zone Change, 'Variance and Preliminary Development Plan for a proposed Planned -Unit
Developmentto be'located at 3436 Hanley Road. This public hearing will provide an opportunity for
citizens and other interested parties to give testimony and gather information about the: applications for
the Zone Change, Variance and Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development.
1. •The applicants have requested a Zone Change that would reduce the minimum lot size from ten
thousand square feet (R 1-10) to eight thousand square feet (R 1-8).
2. The applicants have requested a Variance to allowexceptions to the zoning and subdivision standards
for the proposed development within SU feet of the property boundary.
3. The proposed Planned Unit Development would be comprised of twenty eight single-family townhouse
units qn twenty eight lots with an existing residence to be retained on a twenty ninth lot. The proposed
amenities for the development would include recreational vehicle storage, a swimming pool and
conversion of an existing barn for recreation and storage purposes. The site of this project is located on
the tax assessment plat map as 372W IOCA Tax Lot 5900.
CRTTF TA FOR DECISION
The requirements #or approval of Zone Changes, Variances and Planned Unit Developments are set forth
in Title 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code. Subdivision requirements are set forth in Title 16 of
the Central Point Municipal Code. The proposed plan. is also reviewed in accordance with the City's
Public Works Standards.
PLTELIC COMMENTS
1. Any person interested in cgmmenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit
written comments up until the date of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 20th, 1997.
..~ _ 05
2. Writtencomments n. , Abe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South
Second Street, Central Point, OR' 97502. " ~ ~ ~,
3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the
expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about 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 theapplcant are available for public review at City Hall,
155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents
per page.
5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321
(ext. 231)
F PROCED
At the meeting, Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear testimony
from the applicant, proponents, and 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 recommend approval or denial of the Zone Change. to the City Council and
znay approve or deny the Variance and the Preliminary Development Plan for the. Planned Unit
Development.. City regulations provide that the Central Point City, Council be informed. about all
Planning Commission decisions.
_~
~~~ ~~
r Y l
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBL/C WORKS
REVISED STAFF REPORT
for
ROSEWOOD ESTATES; SUBDIV/SION
PW#97014
Date:
Applicant:
Project:
Location:
Legal:
Zoning:
Lots:
Units:
Plans:
Report By:
Purpose..
City of Ceitra1 '.oti
~i ~IISIT tt ,".
Piannirig Department
05/14/97
Parthenon Construction
c/o Dallas Page, 900 Windemar, Ashland, OR 97520
Subdivision, 2 Phases
Hanley Rd. near W. Pine St.
T37S, R2W, Section 10CA, Tax lot(s) 5900
R-1-8
29 (two phases)
29 Pad-lots--Residential
Rosewood Estates Tentative Plan, 02/18/97, Eagle Eye Surveying
Robert W. Pierce, Public Works Technician
Lee Brennan, Public Works Director
:Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred
to as "Developer") regarding Public Works standards and proposed new standards
to be included in the design.. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer
regarding proposed .development.
Special Requirements
1, Developer. shall prepare and submit, for City Public Works Department (PWD)
review and approval, a suitable landscape.. plan for the proposed
development. The plan shall be prepared and implemented by and at the
expense of the Developer. At a minimum, the landscape plan shall include
provisions for landscaping the "retention areas and berms"; provide for a
landscape buffer within the public right-of-way along Hanley Road; and
provide details for the connection/separation of the development to'the
existing City park located adjacent to the northern portion of the proposed
development,
~~~ ~~
,, , r
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff RepoK on Tentative Pla{
May 74, 1997
Page 2
2. A suitable erosion control plan must be prepared and submitted to the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEO) for the construction of
any improvements associated with this. development. The construction plans
associated with this development will not be approved by the City PWD until
the City PWD receives a copy of the written approval of the erosion control
plan by the DEQ.
General
1. Developer shall submit to the City's Public Works Department (City's PWD)
for review and approval, plans and specifications for all improvements
proposed for construction or modifications within the City or public rights-of-
ways and easements.
2. Public improvements, where applicable, include, but are not limited to,
streets (including 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,. street signs and delineation.
3. All construction of public improvements within the City shall conform to the
City's Public Works Standard Specifications and Details'(City PWD
Standards) and other special specifications, details, standards, and/or
upgrades as may be approved by the City's Public Works Director.
4. 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.
5. No construction shall commence until the City PWD. has reviewed and
approved a professionally prepared set of engineered construction plans and
specifications (stamped by an Oregoh registered professional engineer), and -
the City PWD has issued a Public Works permit for the proposed
improvements.
.,~~ 08
.,
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff Report on Tentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 3
6. The Developer shall pay for all costs associated with the design,
specificatiori, and installation of the improvements specified on the approved
....plans.
7. Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals, and
conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW); Oregon. Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), affected irrigation districts, and Jackson
County Road and Park Services Department (JC Roads).
8. Prior to ..approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or
surveyor shall provide the Public-Works Department with a digital drawing of
the construction "as-builts" in an AutoCAD compatible format.
As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line"
.changes to final approved construction plans which identify the Jocations and
or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not
limited to, invert, inlet, and'rim'eli:vations; 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 looations; other below: grade utility line locations
and depths•,'etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy. (on Mylar) of construction
drawings, and an acceptable AutoCAD compatible drawing. electronic file to
the City at completion of construction.
9. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the City's PWD a
drawing of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Mylar 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.
10. All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and
on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established benchmark
acknowledged and approved by the City's PWD. All elevations used on the
.construction plans §hall reflect true elevations based on the said City PWD
approved benchmark and vertical datum. An equation station will not be
- U9
~. , t.
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff Report on Tentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 4
acceptable. At least one permanent Benchmark shall be provided for the
proposed development, the location of which shall be mutually determined by
the City's PWD and the developer's. surveyor. All adjustments to alignment
or gradient shall be noted on the "red-line as-built" drawings. The nearest
City PWD approved Benchmark is a brass disk on the North curb of County
Bridge #116 on W. Pine Street. Elevation 1274.83
11. All fill materials placed in the: development shall be "engineered fill", and
compactedto City standards: 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.
12: Idehtify easement dedications and. widths on the Final Plat and Construction'
Drawings.'
13. Easements for-City infrastructure (ie. sanitary sewer, water, and storm
drain) must be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines.
Easements for public storm drainage,.sanitary sewer, and waterlines should
be dedicated to the City and not just a public utilities easement (PUE).
Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five (5) feet
from the edge of the easement.. PUEs must be have a minimum 10-foot
wjdth. Easemeht dedications in final deeds or in CC&Rs need statement
which clearly states that easements must be maintained for suitable,
driveable access, as determined and approved by the City PWD.
14. All design, construction plans and specifications, and as-built drawings must
be prepared to acceptable professional standards.
15. All street and water improvement plans must be approved in writing by Fire
District 3 prior to review by the City's PWD.
16. It appears that the proposed development. places improvements and
structures within the 100-year floodzone. The developers engineer must
state and certify what affect does the placement of hese improvements and
. ~ ~Q
i
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff Report on Tentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 5
structures have on the floodplain elevation and floodzone boundary, and
what affects will the modification of the floodplain elevation and floodzone
boundary have on the existing facilities and properties surrounding the
proposed development. The Developer's engineer shall determine the
existing. Base Flood Elevation- contours and illustrate the existing: boundaries
of the Floodplain and Floodway for a-100 year storm event along Jackson
Creek on the construction plans submitted for the development for City's
PWD review and approval. The drawings shall also indicate the revised Base
Flood Elevation contours and boundaries of the Floodplain and Floodway
expected to occur following the completion of any development within the
identified floodzone (also referred to as the "Area of Special Flood Hazard").
17. All work shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the
City's Municipal Code; in particular, the recently revised chapter pertaining to
Flood Damage Prevention and Hazard Mitigation (Chapter 8.24).
18. Street lights and fire hydrants shall not be placed within PUEs.
19. Prior to the City PWD final approval'of the construction plans for the
proposed improvements, the following must be submitted:
^ A copy of written approval from Fire District 3 of the final street and
water system improvement plans for: the proposed development.
^ The plans relating to the sanitary sewers must be approved in writing
by BCVSA, and the appropriate signature blocks must be completed
on the .plans.
^ - Copies of written approvals and/or permits from the various agencies
involved: DSL, DFW, DEQ, 'and/or ACOE.
20c Field verify alt existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe
inverts, curb elevations, street elevations, etc.), tb which the proposed
subdivision will connect into existing improvements, prior to final . .
construction plan design.
V. M ~ 1 1
n „ `
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff Report on Tentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 6
21. The Developer's engineer 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 the effective
'level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the
existing infrastructure facilities have 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.
Streets/Traffic
Existing Improvements - Hanley Road -Major Arterial. ROW 60' wide,
,;,.pavement 25' wide. Jurisdiction -Jackson County.
- ,Brandon Street -Local Street. ROW 50' wide,
pavement 30' wide. Jurisdiction -City of Central
Point.
1. Construction drawings for this Tentative Plat shall include a Street Lighting
Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City's PWD. The
construction drawings shall include clear vision areas designed to meet the
City's PWD requirements. A minimum 25-foot unobstructed sight triangle
' area shall be required at the uncontrolled intersection with Brandon Street,
and a minimum 55-foot unobstructed sight triangle shall be required at
intersection with Hanley Road.
2. All improvements for connection to Brandon Street and Hanley Road, and
any improvements to Hanley Road, including, but not limited to, street
section; curbs, gutters, landscape buffer, sidewalks, and traffic control and
delineation, shall be coordinated and approved by he JC Roads and the
City's PWD.
3. Stop signs shall be required at the intersections with Brandon Street and
Hanley Road.
u~~ 12
Rosewood Esiates
Revised PWD Staff RepaR on Tentative P/at
May 14, 1997
Page 7
4. The Developer's engineer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and
determine the street section designs to handle the expected loads (including
fire equipment) to be traveled on these private roads.: _
5. All roadways should be designated as private roads and not public rights-of-
way, unless otherwise approved by the City's Director of Public Works.
6. Recommended minimum Curb to Curb width of private streets is 24 feet.
7. Enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement for the.
development/improvement of the street section and appurtenances (i.e.
sidewalks, street lights, etc.) for Hanley Road, along the development's
.frontage with Hanley Road, as required by JC Roads, and City DPW.
Storm Drainage
Existing Improvements - Open ditch along Hanley
- Jackson Creek through center of proposed.
1. Developer's engineer shall develop a site master plan for the. storm, drain
collection, retention, 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); any future
..development on adjacent properties; conveyed storm drainage; and surface
water flow (i.e. Jackson Creek).
2,- Developer's engineer shall determine how SD system vvill work during 10-
year and 100 year flood events associated with Jackson Creek. What is
HGL in Jackson Creek during 1'0- and 100-year event,- and what affect will it
have on-the proposed outlets and storm drain. system. System must be
designed to adequately drain 10-year storm vvithout surcharging or must be
provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to
prevent backflow of storm water from Jackson Creek up into SD system
during the 100 year base flood event.
~.-~ 13
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff Report on Tentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 8
3. During the design of the SD System, the. Developer's .engineer shall consider'
the effect of the proposed improvements :and structures .with regards to the
base flood floodway and floodplain for Jackson Creek and the drainage ditch
on the west side of the proposed development. The allowable flow rates
into Jackson'Creek or into the ditch along :Hanley Road from the proposed
development shall not be greaterthan the run-off flow rates experienced
from the property in its current status. The Developer's engineer must
provide suitable hydrological calculations and storm hydrographs to depict
the existing condition and the finished .condition of the proposed
development. The Developer's engineer and the City PWD shall agree'on the
applicable run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance etc., used in the
Developer engineer's calculations. Provide analysis of the drainage ditch
alorig Hanley Road as well as Jackson Creek.
4. Plans which propose to include discharge to Jackson Creek or the existing
drainage ditch and any construction thereof, shall be in compliance with DSL,
ACOE, ODFW, DEQ, JC Roads, and/or City PWD (as applicable) guidelines
and requirements. Any modifications to the drainage ditch and Jackson
Creek shall be done in accordance with any. requirements and applicable
conditions of the DSL, ACOE, ODFW, DEO, JC Roads, and/or City PWD (as
applicable).
5. The discharge point and potential retention of storm water run-off shall be
coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide an
aasthetically pleasing, useful, and low maintenance facility. The storm water
retention facilities shall be suitably landscaped and designed to mitigate
erosion, and sediment'and hydrocarbon deposition into Jackson Creek, and
to mitigate the "attractive nuisance".hazards associated with these facilities.
6. Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this Tentative
Plat, the Developer's engineer shallproyide the City PWD with a complete
`set of hydrologic and .hydraulic. calculations. and profile plots for sizing the
SD system. The engineer shall use the rainfall/intensity curve obtained from
the City PWD for hydrologic calculations, and the negotiated run-off
parameters.
~~~ 14
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff Report odTentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 9
7. The SD system shall be designed to carry runoff from a,10 year storm event
if O< 100cfs. Use runoff for 50 year storm if 0? 100 or < 200 cfs. Use
100 storm runoff if Q is > 200 efs. _
8. Minimum. storm drain diameter for improvements within the City's jurisdiction
shall be 15 inches. Materials shall be PVC (ASTM D 3034: with gaskets),
HDPE (meeting ODOT requirements for corrugated polyethylene storm sewer
pipe, including a provision for premium water-tight coupling bands), or
approved equal. Provide concrete encasement where required to preJent
pipe deformation in areas of minimum cover.
9. 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 must maintain cleaning velocity and have adequate capacities without
surcharging.
10. Due to the high level of groundwater in the area, the. Developer may wish to
incorporate the use of a perforated SD system. If so, then the perforated
storm drain system shall be designed to have adequate capacities to:
^ Convey the collected groundwater and storm water uvith 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.
11. Construction of private storm drains is discouraged by the City. However, if
a private storm drain is to tie constructed, the following information must be
provided to the City:
- How-will the private storm drains be maintained, repaired, etc.
- All roof and lot drainage must be drained to the curbline.
~: 3.
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff Report on Tentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 10
- Provide invert elevations and lateral stationing for construction
of private storm drain system.
- Provide plan and profile views and elevations for any_ private
storms drain system that may be proposed.
12. Deed restriction or CC&Rs shall include a covenant or restriction that
prohibits the introduction of substances other than storm vvater, irrigation
vvater, or fresh water into any private or public storm drain system
13. Roof drains and underdrains shall not be directly connected to public storm
drain lines, and shall drain to the street at the curbline, whenever possible.
Lots should be raised if necessary. Building foundation under drains (and
'these type of facilities only) may drain.to private storm drain lines that
discharge onto the streets, or into a storm drain curb inlet or manhole only;
must be approved before construction by the City PWD; and must be
identified and accurately portrayed on as-built drawings.
T4. Curb and gutter sections shall not exceed 350 feet before entering a catch
basin or curb inlet, vJithin the City's jurisdiction..
15. Storm vvater run-off from-the proposed development into the public SD
system associated with Brandon Street shall be minimized and be as
approved by the City PWD.
Sanitary Sewer
Existing Facilities - 8-inch-diameter sanitary sewer along east side of Brandon
Street.
- 8-inch-diameter sanitary sewer along the west side of
Hanley Road.
1. All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design,
construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the
Oregon DEO, 1990 APWA .Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley
ar
- .L ~J
F.
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff Report on Tentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 11
Sanitary Authority (BCVSAI, and: the City PWD Standards, where applicable.
2. The Developer's engineer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations
and flow line plots for existing and proposed sanitary sewers to both BCVSA
and the City. Calculations and flow line plots should include allowances for
existing flows and projected future or existing development that will be
connected to the system. Plot HGL on profile or provide a separate profile
drawing that indicates the HGL on the profile. All pipes must maihtain
cleaning velocity and have adequate capacities without surcharging.
3. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral
stationing for construction of sewer laterals.
4. The City upon completion of initiaP construction plainreview and p[eliminary
approval, wilt forward the plans to BCVSA for completion. of the .review
process with DEQ. Upon' completion of the review by DEQ and 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.
5. 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 DEQ, BCVSA; and the City •with test reports, TV
reports and cenification'of the sewer system construction prior to final
acceptance.,
6. The SS System shall be designed in accordance with ,any master planning
prepared by Bear `Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA) and/or the City to
provide adequate capacity for the proposed development area, any future
development on adjacent properties, and any existing sanitary sewer
collection systems that may need to connect-into the.proposed
development's SS System:' ;
7. Any proposals requesting the City or BCVSA to share in costs for
development of the sanitary sewer collection system to accommodate the
V Y ~ ~~
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff Report an Tentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 12
r
I
upgrade of line sizing to handle the additional capacity requirements for
surrounding development, shall include detailed engineering calculatiohs and
costs analyses. The Developer will be responsible to coordinate and develop
any cost'sharing agreements with any identified adjacent property
owners/developers.
Water System
Existing Improvements - An 8-inch-diameter water line along west side of
Brandon Street.
- A 42-inch-diameter identified for installation on
Hanley Road.
1. A water distribution system shall be designed in accordance with the 1979
Water System Master Plan which accommodates. the proposed development,
any future development on adjacent property, and any areas deemed by the
City that vvill need to connect-into the proposed development's water
distribution system. 'The designed water distribution system shall include the
installation of the 12-inch-diameter water distribution line and appurtenances
from a point located near the intersection of Brandon Street and West Pine
Street, to a point on Hanley Road near the northeast corner of the
development.
2. Any proposals requesting the City to share in costs for development of the
vvater distribution system to accommodate the upgrade of line sizing to
handle the additional capacity requirements for surrounding development
(i.e., from 8-inch-diameter to 12-inch diameter, shall include detailed
engineering calculations and costs analyses. The Developer will be
responsible to coordinate and develop any cost sharing .agreements .with any
identified adjacent or neighboring property owners/developers
3. Developer's engineer shall design the water system fo provide a minimum
flow of 1,000 gpm and conform to Fire District 3 requirements. Maximum
spacing of fire hydrants shall be 300 feet. Construction plans shall be
reviewed and approved by Fire District 3.
~~~ 18
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff Report on Tentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 13
4. Specifications for the design and construction of the water system shall be in
accordance with City PWD standards and requirements.
5. lateral /connection stationing and size shall be provided on construction
plans and as-built drawings.'
6. Developer's engineer shall provide a reinforced flow ("looped") water system
with connections to the water distribution facilities at Hanley Road and
..Brandon Street.
7. Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City
requirements for backflow prevention. An OHD approved backflow
prevention assemblyshall be installed immediatelydownstream of the water
meter serving each dwelling unit..
8. Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and location of ail water
mains, hydrants, air valves, service connection, and other.appurtenance
details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the
City PWD..
9. All connections to the water supply system must comply with OHD
requirements. Water will not be "turned on" by the City_until such
requirements have'been met to the satisfaction of -the City's designated
inspector (currently the Jackson'-County plumbing nspector). ,
10. Water system shall be tested in accordance with City PWD: Standards and
requirements at Developer's expense and must be approved by the City.
Site work, Grading and Utility Plans « ~'
Existing Improvements - Jackson Creek flows North through the center of '
,..the property - ~ ,;
- 'Existing house and garage on property
u....
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff Report on Tentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 14
- Existing barn on,property
1. Developer shall provide agrading/paving plan(s) with the construction
drawing submittal to the City PWD. Plan(s) shall illustrate the location and
elevations of the existing and post-development base flood event flood zone
and floodway of streams in proximity to the development (if applicable); curb
elevations; finish grades; and building pad and lowest floor elevations.
2. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with
positive drainage away from the building. Drain lines shall be connected to
the curb and gutter and discharge from the curb face.
`3. Developer shall provide the necessary "rough" lot. grading to assure that all
lots will drain properly to the curb and gutter, or to a drainage system that
drains to the curb and gutter.
4. Provide the City with copies of any required permits and approvals (including
'any mitigating requirements or conditions). from DSL,' DEQ, and ACOE
(including any mitigating requirements), for any required wetland or flood
hazard mitigation work to be performed as part of the proposed
development.
5. Grading plans must 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 must be labeled with
elevations.
6. Provide for landscaped sound buffer (with or without sidewalks) along Hanley
Road. Coordinate design with JC Roads and City PWD.
7. Need to place street lights on plans, vvith table indicating stationing and
offsets for locations. Since the proposed streets are private streets, and not
City streets, .the costs for installation, operation, and maintenance of the
. ~,~~ 20
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Staff Report on Tentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 15
street lights shall not be borne by the City.
8. Provide City.: with a utility plan approved by each utility company which
.reflects all utility crossings, transformer locations, valves, .eta.
9. Utility locations must be accurately included on the as-built drawings, or as a
separate set of drawings attached to the as-built drawings.
Rights of Ways/Easements
1. All easements for improvements dedicated to the City shall have a minimum
15 foot width and shall be located (whenever possible) contiguously along
the exterior boundaries of properties and shall not split lot lines. Public utility
easements shall have a minimum width of 10 feet.
2. Hanley Road is currently designated in the City's comprehensive plan as a
major arterial. The comprehensive plan states that the right-of-way widths
needed for a major arterial are 100-110 feet. In review of the current right-
of-ways widths and the right-of-way widths that are reasonably available on
the connecting major arterial (West Pine Street), the City's PWD has
determined that an 80-foot wide right-of way is required for this portion of
Hanley Road. Since the existing right-of-way width for Hanley Road is 60-
feet, the City will require an additional 10-foot dedication for right-of-way
along the western boundary of the applicant's property.
3. 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 must be approved by the easement's owner in writing, and a copy
of that written approval must be submitted to the City's PWD prior to
submission of construction plans for City's PWD review and approval.
4. Private easements shall be located contiguously along the exterior boundaries
of single properties.
., ., ,. 21
Rosewood Estates
Revised PWD Sta/f Report on Tentative Plat
May 14, 1997
Page 16
5. If applicable, the Developer shall provide a Statement of Water Rights (on a
City approved form), for the. affected property. 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.
6. 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 must be approved by the easement's owner in writing, and a copy
of that written approval must be submitted to the City PWD prior to
"submission of construction plans for City PWD review and approval.
7. 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.
.,~. 22
`i~7
April 10, 1997
Attention: Jim Bennett
City of Central Point Planning
115 South Second Street
Central Point, OR 97502
ROAOS & PARKS SERVICES
JOSEPH L STRAHL,.DIRECTOR
(503) 8263122 or (603) 778-7268
FAX: (503) 830.6407
City of Central }?viiE
E~HIB~`I' t~tf
Piann'
ing I)epairtment
RE: Planning File 97014; 29-lot residential subdivision '
Dear Mr. Bennett:
Thank you'for the opportunity to comment on this request for Rosewood Estates
Subdivision, a 29-lot residential subdivision, located on the east ide of Hanley Road between
Beall Lane and Brandon Street. This department recommends the following conditions of
approval.
1. The applicant shall submit construction drawings to Jackson County Roads and Parks
Services and'obtain county permits if required.
2. We recommend that the applicant sign an agreement to fund half-street frontage
improvements to Hanley Road to urban standards. Improvements shall include road
widening, curb, gutter, sidewalks and-bike lanes. If.additional right-of-way Is required for
.the improvements, dedication should be required.
3. The applicant shall obtain a road approach permit from Roads and Parks Services for the
new road approachto'Hanley Road. The paved approach shall have 30' approach radii
and a 30' width.
4 spacing and circu at on~ Access po this areatmay need to be from Houston Coart access
If you have any questions or need further information feel free to call me at 830-6400#230
Sin. erely, .:, . .
Eric iemeyer
Traffic & Development Section
., ., ~ 2 3
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
200 ANTELOPE ROAO WHITE CnY, OREGON 87603
I:\DEVEIAP\CITIES\CNTRLPT\97014.DSS
BEARCREEKGREENWAY / ENGMEERING / fLEETMANAGEMENT / MOTORPGOL /PARKS / ROAD MAINTENANCE / VEGETA7fON MANAGEMENT
776.7288 8283!22 8283!22. 776.7339 776.700! 8163112 8263!22
sa.~.rc- 4/t ~/g-7
{~ eith A. Smith, P.E., L.S. r1 304 S. Holly I
` (54,,772-550,. Kas & ASSQC~gtGS, I11C. Medford, OR97501eS
A-. Fax: (541) 772-5807 ENGINEERING • PLANNING • SURVEYING
Apri114, 1997
Dallas Page
900 'Windemar Drive _
Ashland, OR 97520
Subject: Existing barn on site of proposed Rosewood Estates Subdivision, Central Point
Dear Ivlr. Page:
As requested, I have considered the structural integrity of the barn on the subject property. After
a brief inspection of the barn it is evident that the structure is basically sound. If it is to be used
for the proposed storage and recreational uses,' a number of things will have to be done. ,
1: The concrete floor and footings must be cleaned to allow complete inspection.
2. Wooden members must be inspected for insect and/or fungus infestation. This is especially
:true along the top of the footings where asix-inch separation must be maintained between
wood and soil
3. Interior improvements must be integrated with the existing structure to provide strength for
added loads.
4. Access, energy, light and air considerations must be designed to meet applicable codes.
As I' understand it, your objective is to-retain the. exterior appearance of the structure while
transforming it to use for other purposes. This should be possible with this structure.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.-
Si~~nc^^er//ely~,//
G.-•
Charles A. n, P.E.
. ., ,. 2 4
hlIAY 1~ 1997'
LI"fY Olr •.='ul"i°i;h!_ !=`JINI"
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT -= ~~_ __ (~:.,_.
~~~~ ~~~~ _ _ __~ ~
ATTN: JIM BENNETT - CITY PLANNER
KEN GERSCHLER - ASSISTANT PLANNER
T would ljke to request that you put this information in eac h planning
commissioner's packet, that we might be able to review it an the 20t.h
of May.
Thank you; Dallas Page
5-12-97
1. APPROXIMATE LOT SIZE ---°------`---- ------° 253,000 SQ FT - 100
2. EACH HOUSE FOOTPRINT - 1,296 AQ FT - X 28 = - 36;288 SQ FT
a. ADDLTION FOOTAGE 2`X33' = 66' X_ 28 = ---- 2,848 SQ FT
b. EXISTING BUILDINGS (COVERAGE) - --------,-- 4,536 SQ FT
c. TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT ------ -------"-- 42,672 SQ FT - 17 ~
3. .ROAD AND PARKING COVERAGE ---------
.
. ---------- 31,500 SQ FT - 12.5
,
,
4. YARDS AND OPEN SPACE --------------
--------- 177.828
SQ
FT -
70.5
,, ~ . 2 5
~l/ °/ ~ /
~~1: ~h s. +~t ~.
bear Planning Commision:
We are opposed to the changes to the current zoning to
accommodate development of townhouse units on the subject.
property. The basis of our opposition is as follows:
1) The zoning change to accommodate many units in a
relatively small amount of space;
2) The wall-to-wall housing with no space between units.
This is contrary to current zoning;
3) The increased traffic in our neighborhood. With 28
planned units is such a small area, there would be at least 56
additional vehicles traveling our neighborhood streets each day;
4) The severe impact on the local schools. Mae Richardson
alone cannot support 28 more families;
5) The increased noise created by not only very close
neighbors but also by the "apartment" atmosphere,i.e. recreation
centers and swimming pools; and
6) The immediate depreciation of our .property values.
7) The simple increase of people automatically implies the
increase of crime in the area.
We ask you as appointed officials to consider the impact on
our neighborhood, schools and environment before considering
tax revenue. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~-~~~~
~:~ 4 26
i ,
William F. & Sherry H. Long
826 Brandon Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
April 18, 1997
City of Central Point
Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
e
~ECEdVE®
APR 2 21997'
CITY Of CEPuTR!{L Pgl~7
TIME Z:Oo~n ~ .~„
RE: Application for zone change and variance, 3436 Hanley Road
We are resident owners in Jackson Creek Estates, adjacent to the
property involved in the requested zone change, variance and
proposed development. We would be adversely affected by such
changes and request they be denied., The requested zone change
and development; (in our opinion) would result 'in extensive non-
resident ownership and.rental properties. 'This would not be
compatible with our existing neighborhood.
If the Planning Department is favorable toward the application
we suggest requiring a through public street between Brandon and
Hanley Road, bridging Jackson Creek and an isolating perimeter
block wall.
Thank you for the opportunity for expressing our views.
;, .; ~ 27
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT.
Hl/ARING
DATE: May 20, 1997
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: James H. Bennett, AICP
City Administrator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Variance to the rear yard setback at 412 South Central Valley
Drive (372W10$D-11000).
nlicant/ Mark Fiebelkorn
Owner: 412 S. Central Valley Drive
Central Point, Oregon 97$02
&gent: Same
Sun~manC
The applicant, Mark Fiebelkorn has applied. for a Variance to.the rear yard setback that would
allow him to construct a 575 square foot attached shop. The subject parcel is zonedR-1-8,
Residential Single-Family.
Authority
CPMC 1.24.050 invests the Planning Comrission with the authority to hold a public hearing and
render a decision on any application for a Variance. Notice of the Public Hearing was effected in
accordance with CPMC 1.24.060.
Q,pnlicable Law
CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Single-Family District
CPMC 17.80.010 et seq. -Variances
CPMC 17.08.290 -Definitions: Lot line, Front
V N
Discussion
The applicant, Mark Fiebelkorn would like to construct a 575 square foot attached shop to his
residence located at 412 South Central Valley Drive.
CPMC 17.08.290 defines the front lot line as the property line abutting a street. In the case of a
corner lot, the property line having the shortest street frontage. _
The applicant is requesting a Variance that would allow the new construction to be located
;within 7 feet of the rear property line. CPMC 17.20.050 requires a minimum 15 foot setback,for
rear property lines in a R-1-8 zoning district.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
CPMC 17.80.010 requires that the Planning Commission may grant a Variance if findings are
made that the following considerations will either result from the granting of the Variance or!do
not apply to the requested application:
1. The Variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the city such as
beautification or safety;
2: The Variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood;
3~ The Variance will utilize property within the intent and the purpose of the zoning district;;
4 Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same
zoning district; and
5. The conditions for which the Variance is requested were not self-imposed through the,
applicant's own actions, not the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members.
The applicant has submitted fmdings of fact for consideration by the Commission.
ii
A. Site Plan
B: Notice of Public Hearing
C. " Applicant's Findings
D: Letter from neighbor
i;: Planning Department Recommended Conditions
F. Public Works Memorandum
V N
4 ~ ~ p~' ~
• ,'.~ GYrty' o, f Central .Poi~nj~
.: lJl~'ol <T+T.114141 ~Q~nM
~1.~~~ M~ tf
Planning' Department
,. . ,,..
PLA,N.iVXNG DEPARTMENT
• James Bennett
_ Planning Director
ICen Gerschler
Planning Technician
NOTICE OF MEETING
Date of NoU«: April 23.1997
Meeting Date: Tuesday, May 20th 1997
Time: 7:00 p.m. (A,pproximate)
' Place: Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
NA Ti2F OF MEETING
Beginning at the above place and time, the Central Point Planning Commission will. review an
application for a Variance at 412 South Central Valley Drive. The parcel is located, in a Residential
Single-Family (R-1-8) zone on Tax •Lot 11000 of Jackson CountyAssessor Map Page 37 2W IOBD.
The applicant is requesting a Variance to the: rear yard setback to allow the construction of an
attached 576 square foot shop.
The requirements for approval of Variances are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point ; .
Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street Parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and
Construcfion Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in.aocordance to the City's Public Works
Standards.
~IBLIC COMMENTS
1. Any person interested in commenting on the aboveinentioned land use decision may submit
written comments up until the date of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 20th, 1997.
2. Written comments maybe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155
South Second Street, Central Point, OR .97502. .,uw ~_
155 South Second Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • (541) 664.3321 • Fax (541) 664-6384
V c3
w
s
HICKORY
Z
W
U
~P~~~ . w , , ., .
z
J
~P
y
O~~o
'9 z
_ Q
0
U
~ r-~ i
3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the
expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about
the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated
clearly to the'Planning Commission.
4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall,
155'South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents
per page.
5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-
3321 (ext. 231)
SC iiy( ARY OF PliO D JRR
At the meeting, Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear
testimony from the applicant, proponents, and opponents and hear arguments on the application.
Any testimony or written wmments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion
of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Tentative Plan. City regulations.
provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about ali Planning Commission decisions.
,, . 3 2
_. n
~
/n
City Af Centr;al Foint
EXHIF~T t'C't
Planning Department
U T~~' ,~R2/R.uGc`" Lc~~ rl / 2~v~r~E" /r~~t~C~
S f ~ f~ r~~F yF~ H&~-~ ;dui ~a ~.~
~~ rye ~~r /r~~,~~N,~,~/ ~~.. /~/~w~.~~-
T.</,~7` 1 !l.Uaw L~;I~,C~ ~,~ is ,l,~,uc~ ir, /'~~ ~,{~c~c6'
aJ~~k is ~~EN T T~s! 5~.~~r`, T.~~' NFL
T~ ~~2,,~~ ~< /,~~~ .fro r~F,~~ ,~~,,~
6~ T~~ ti~,~,~~.~~ T ~,~ fG~~r,~~r~ ~~
~~ SFFti ~~. T~~ ~~~~
.... ~ ~~ //:6/l/~fNff. ~ CC/>~~/ 1L 7~~2E' /y/~ ~!liDG`2/y_ lvrflil~v -
:. ,f>u€ T T~ ~~~ Ti~,~, ~'~~1.~ /~ui/Grime-. ~s .~ SEco,
_.. _..
_ ._
_.._ .. _ ..... ~/~cE.~~,vf -o ~ 7.~!~' ~.~~~<t.-a/ . Sf a ~7zc_.~c~..-!v_~ ~it%~i _ _. _, _
7,~~. ~~ RNs w<rr ~E ~~~~s~~~~ ~ A~,_ _.
.____.
_-
( ~ • J T~'is ~i~/.Q.upcct' /s' ,c/~~~tfes,,?/i~' /~~cauS~' . _~ .~
~- ?jS~E' Or~i~~.tvg~ I~EcE/~JgtUl a7 ../`/~ /~''~SL"~. d/1~ . /~s_.. _
..
-- ---- _ ~E,'/91G5/~_ ,G~ETq?~c[° .. /~'Fin~.//~l//ICIi~iQSEv~/~- /.~~ /~ftc6~l~
_ _........ ~i~'c1~ f //~~F/'~EN( GT ~!/1~E' 1Y01~T~' GN(~ //~1~~' GQ~I~. /S L-~I~U/(jrfs/
yc/ a T /~~J ~criilJ ,V~J,iUS' ~i 07 LYti/~GrvFlf,(JGkI~V i.
~~ ~~ / _ _/ 3 3 /
I
r~ ~
r
~ ...
- ~~an s -fv ~.-~d an e,~-Ic,~-(zv~~ ~!l_h~~r ~sr--fie ,
~~~.lsa .M~~le n~~ (Rwo1'e ~~ ko~ LIoJ~
h<M 6~.~1~~~, Tk~`s ~dd~~n
. cen.~-gin.( ~.~:1(e~ ~~
L
~ !
I_
i-
t
i--
:'
V..
'
/.C { ~'
EXHIBIT "E"
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The project shall be constructed in accordance with the approved site plan.
2. A building permit shall be obtained for the construction.
3. The site plan approval shall expire in one year, May 20,1998 unless a building permit has been
issued and construction has commenced and diligently pursued toward'completion.
1
35
interoffice
M E M O RA N D U M
City of Central i~oizt '.
~~~°X~~~ tT~tt
. Planning Department
to: nn Benne Lois DeBenedetti
from: aul W. Worth
subject: Fiebellcorn Garage _
date: Apri130, 1997
There are presently no Public Works impacts withregardsto the variance.
The plan is not drawn to the required 1" = 20' scale and does not indicate a driveway from the
proposed structure to South Central Valley Drive.
Should the Applicant desire to construct a driveway along the east side of the properly, a
driveway apron meeting Public Works Standards will be required.
.. .
i~ ~7
u ~ ,
~~ !..
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING
DATE: May 20, 1997
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: James H. Bennett, AICP
City Administrator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Variance to the front and rear yard setbacks aY448 Laurel Street
(372W03DD-4601). .
lic Jim Wilson
Owner: P.O. Box 3343
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Aeent: Same
.,_mn'
The applicant, Jim Wilson has applied for a Variance to the front and rear yard setback that
would allow him to construct a 1595 square foot single family dwelling. The subject parcel is
zoned R-2, Residential Two-Family.
authority
CPMC 1.24.050 invests the Planning Commission with the aathority to hold a public hearing and
render a decision on any application for a Variance. Notice of the Public Hearing was effected in
accordance with CPMC 1.24.060.
®p-plicable Law
CPMC 17.24.010 et seq. - R-2, Residential Two-Family District
CPMC 17.80.010 et seq. -Variances
CPMC 17.60.060 -Lot size requirements -General exception
_~: 37
<p
Discussion
Earlier this year for health and safety reasons, Mr Wilson demolished the existing residence
located at 448 Laurel Street. The applicant would like to build a new 1595 square foot residence
as a replacement structure.
The 0.09 acre lot located at the corner of 5th and Laurel Streets fails to meet the required
minimum lot size as required in CPMC 17.24.050 but is exempt as an existing lot per CPMC
17.60.060.
CPMC 17.24.050 (D)&(F) require a minimum setback of 20 feet for the front property line and
10 feet for the rear property line.
The applicant is requesting a Variance that would allow the new construction to encroach within
twelve and a half feet of the front lot line and three feet, nine inches of the rear lot line.
There is an existing recorded easement that allows the applicant to use the northerly six feet,`
three inches of the property located at 141 North 5th Street.
Findingc of Fact & Conclusions of Law
CPMC 17.80.010 requires that the Planning Commission may grant a Variance if findings are
made that the following considerations will either result from the granting of the Variance or do
not apply o he requested. application:
1. The Variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the city such as
beautification or safety;
2. The Variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood;
3. The Variance will utilize property within the intent and the purpose of the zoning district;
4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same '
zoning district; and
5. The conditions for which the Variance is requested were not self-imposed through the
applicant's own actions, not the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members.
The applicant has submitted findings of fact for consideration by the Commission.
_~- 38
,:
,~/4~
hi i
A. Site Plan
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Applicant's Findings
D. Planning Departrnent Recommended Conditions.
B. Public Works Staff Report and Recommended Conditions
,~
~~`
N
z®
~ cn
~.. ,-,-
~+ ~
cD
~-
b 'S
~ ~
Laurel St.
moo
~~a
" !? F
~~ P
F JW
ate`
~ V £
(7
f0~
.~. f+.
~ A ~ D
-~ W A
~. r '~ ~.
~ c n
... O m
O (°- ~ '°
A ~' '~
N ~-' o
~~ ~
~ O
~ ~
0
N
V .:. ~O
uty oi:~,eftu•at route
,,, C'Z~7 Of ~Eh~'Gdr POZh~" EI,~HT~I~ t~~ it
' PlanningDeparfinent
PLAN.NXNG llEPARTMENT -.-~...~.....T~„
)ames Bennett
Planning Director
1Cen Gerschler
Planning Technician
NOTICE OP MEETING
Date of Notice: April 23,1997
Meeting Date: Tuesday, May 20th 1997
Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Place: Central Point City Hail
I55 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
NATCJRE OF MEETING
Beginning at the above place and time, the Central Point Planning Commission will review' an
application for a Variance at 448 Laurel Street. The parcel is located ina Residential',('wo-gamily (R
2) zone on Tax Lot 4601 of Jackson County Assessor Map Page 37 2W 03DD.
The'applicant is requesting a Variance to the front and rear yard setbacks to allow the construction
of a Single Family Residence.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for approval of Variances are set forth in Chapter 17 of the.Central Point ,
Munidpal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street Parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and
Constnrctioq Plans. The prokiosed Alan is also reviewed in aocotdance to the Guy's Public Works
Standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS'
I. .Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use dedsion may submit
written comments up until the date of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 20th, 1997.
-~,.;
2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City HaI1~s~155
South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. ~ '~'~
I55 South Second Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • (541) 664-3321 • Pax: (541) 664-6384
~.,. 41
`~ ~~.~ 's~~~,~CENTRAL
,~'~~ ,. ~~,~'`~ ~~ \``~. PAR K
.s
r
3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior.to the
expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about
the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated
dearly to the Planning Commission. .
4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall,
155. South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents
per page.
5. For additional information, the public may wntact the Planning Department at (541) 664-
3321 (ext. 231)
STIMMARY OF P1tOCEDURE
At the meeting, Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear
testimony from the applicant, proponents, and opponents and hear argtunents on the application.
Any testimony or written rnmments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion
of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Tentative Plan. ,City regulations
provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions.
42
~,5 ',.
CHAPTER 17.80
~~}
,..
City of Central Boint:
. Planning Deparlinent
VARIANCE
Section
17.80.010
1. The house at 448 Laurel'St, was built during or before the 1940's
with few or no building permits. There was no foundation, it had been
added to several times, and most of the building, including floor
supports had dry rot. The electrical wiring ,and plumbing were
antiquated. Building anew home on this lot will improve the
appearance of the neighborhood.
2. The house that was on the properly had three bedrooms and was
approximately one thousand square feet. I wish to build a two
bedroom home, of approximately one thousand square feet. The
new home would include a garage, in order to conform to current
zoning requirements. There are other homes with in a block to the
west on 6th St., and to the east on 4th St. that have closer set
backs than what i am requesting.
3. The property is zoned R-2. 1'll be building a two bedroom, single
family, one story home. Most of the properties within the block are single
dwellings on R-2 lots. So it will be compatible with the other properties in,
that block.
4, fl will be difficult because of the lot size and its location on a comer
to stay within the current set backs, and still have the required space for
two vehicle off-street parking.
5. Again, the reason I am requesting variances is to be able to add a
garage to the new dwelling. With the lot size being what it is, I will
need to use the 6 feet 4 inches of easement to the south, and 7 feet 6
inches to the north.
~~
EXHIBIT "D"
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The project shall be constructed in accordance with the approved site plan.
2. A building permit shall be obtained for the construction.
3. The site plan approval shall expire in one year, May 20,1998 unless a building permit has been
issued and construction has commenced and diligently pursued toward completion.
1
44
/ K. / ..
{~
1
C~tp of Central Foint
PUBLIC WORKS STAFF DEPARTMENT I ~~I3IBeI~ ttE tt
SITE PLAN REVIEW . Plannuig Department
PW#97020:
Date: April 29, 1997
Project: Wilson Variance and Site Plan
Zone:. R-2
Location: 448 Laurel Street
Lots: 1
Structures: 1 Single Family Dwelling
Applicant: Jim Ray Wilson
P.O. Box 3343
Central Point, OR 97502
(541) 664-2256 '
Agent: Same as Applicant
Engineer: None'
Plans drawn by: Applicant
Location: ' T37S R21N, Section 30D, Tax lot 4601 ~.
Land Use Action: Variance
4~?;.
Prepared By: Paul W: Worth
Public Works Technician ,
1
45
'~ ~'~1
Existing lmprovements
Streets - Laurel Street, 80' ROW, 36' width at face of curb.
5th Street, 60' ROW, 36' width at face of curb.
Sidewalks: None. A 8' driveway with 3' tapers exist at the SE property corner.
Storm Drainage: Curbs and gutter exist on_both streets. An catch basin exists at
SW corner of Th and Laurel streets. The gutter on Th street
was paved over during the 1996 overlay. project.
Water: The property is currently served by a 314 inch water meter. facing
Laurel Street at the midpoint of the lot.
Sewer: The property appears to have been served by a tap to the 8 inch sewer
in Laurel Street. Needs to be confirmed with BCVSA.
Safety: A street light is installed on PP&L pole #2317 at the NE corner of 5th
and Laurel. Stop Signs exist on .Laurel at Th street. No obstructions
currently exist on the property or adjacent-ROW.
Easements: A private driveway easement, #82-10074 traverses the property
adjacent to the southerly property line, the width described as 6.30'.
General Conditions
1. All- improvements constructed in City Right of Way shall be constructed in
accordance with City of Central Point, Public Works Standard Specifications
and Details.
2. Prior to construction within'a City Right of Way, the applicant or contractors
under his control shall make application for and obtain a Public Works
Construction Permit prior to beginning construction.
3. Pay Public Works Department review costs in the amount of $94.76 and
required System Development Charges (SDG'sl, prior to obtaining a building
or construction permit.
2
46
. \.
~! ~o
Specific Conditions
Streets
1. Reconstruct the driveway apron, including removal of any portions not
meeting current City standards in the location of the access easement in
addition to any new driveway aprons required for the proposed residence.
Minimum driveway throat width is 10'. The maximum throat width is 30'
with 2 - 6' driveway tapers. An inspection shall be required prior to
construction.
2. Applicant shall construct sidewalks adjacent to 5th and Laurel street
frontages, conforming to current Public Works Standards and Specifications.
3. Applicant shall maintain a 25' sight triangle, free of obstructions greater than
42 inches in height from the curb, as measured from the intersection of the
property lines fronting to 5th and Laurel streets.
Wa r
1. Applicant shall utilize the existing water meter located at the Laurel Street
frontage.
Sewer
1. Applicant shall make application for sewer service and construction with
BCVSA. A Public Works Permit will be required to construct sewer within
the street ROW.
Storm Drainage
1. All roof drainage and underfloor drains shall exit at the nearest curb and
gutter adjacent to the street. Minimum size for roof drains shall be 3 inch
diameter smooth wall schedule 40 PVC pipe.
2. Lot grading shall drain towards the street. Suitable drainage structures such
as ditches or french drains shall be constructed to prevent runoff to adjacent
property and shall drain towards the street.
3
4'7