Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - March 6, 2007 (1)A CENTRAL POINT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA March 6, 2007 - 7:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 719 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Connie Moczygemba, Candy Fish, Damian Idiart, Chuck Piland, Wayne Riggs, Pat Beck, and Mike Oliver III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of February 6, 2007, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Pgs. 1 - 32 A. File No. 07033. A public hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development application to allow fora 53 single-family zero lot line residential development located in an R-2, Two Family zoning district and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W OlBA, Tax Lots 500 & 700. The addresses are 137 and 165 Vilas Road and are located north of East Pine Street, east of Hamrick Road and south of Vilas Road. Applicant: Heritage Development Inc.; Agent: Jim Clark Pgs. 33 - 84 B. File No. 07032. A public hearing to consider a request for a Planned Unit Development to allow fora 53 single-family zero lot line residential development located in an R-2, Two Family zoning district and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W O1BA, Tax Lots 500 & 700. The addresses are 137 and 165 Vilas Road and are located north of East Pine Street, east of Hamrick Road and south of Vilas Road. Applicant: Heritage Development Inc.; Agent: Jim Clark Pgs. 85 - 122 C. File No. 07025. A public hearing to consider a request for approval of a Tentative Plan application for the creation of a 53 single-family zero lot line residential development located in an R-2, Two Family zoning district and identified on the Planning Commission Agenda -March 6, 2007 Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W O1BA, Tax Lots 500 & 700. The addresses are 137 and 165 Vilas Road and are located north of East Pine Street, east of Hamrick Road and south of Vilas Road. Applicant: Heritage Development Inc.; Agent: Jim Clark Pgs. 123 -150 D. File No. 07036. A public hearing to consider a request for approval of a Site Plan application for the purpose of constructing a 120-unit residential facility with various residential services located within the facility. The subject property is located in an HMR, High Mix residential zoning district and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 03C, Tax Lot 100. The address is 888 Twin Creeks Crossing and is located north of Taylor Road, east of Rustler Peak Street. Applicant: Twin Creeks Retirement, Oregon Limited Partnership; Agent: Ronald L. Grimes, Architect VII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Freeman Road Improvements B. Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Update C. Regional Problem Solving Update VIII. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Agenda -March 6, 2007 City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Connie Moczygemba, Chuck Piland, Damian Idiart, Candy Fish, Wayne Riggs, Pat Beck, and Mike Oliver were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director; Connie Clune, Community Planner; Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician; Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary; Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator; and Stephanie Woolett, Engineering Tech II. III. CORRESPONDENCE There were several items of correspondence pertinent to item C on the agenda that were distributed to Commissioners. IV. MINUTES Pat Beck made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 2, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Chuck Piland seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Beck, yes; Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Oliver, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. File No. 7019. A public hearing to consider a request for Site Plan review to allow for the construction of a 32,000 square foot two-story medical office building to be located at 870 Front Street, identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 11CB, Tax Lots 401 and 500. The subject property is located within a C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial, and TOD-GC, Transit Oriented Development Corridor General Commercial zoning district. Applicant: Providence Health System-Oregon; Agent: Michael C. Robinson Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 2 There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Commmissioners Candy Fish and Mike Oliver stated that they had made site visits. Community Planner, Connie Clune, presented the staff report, indicating that the proposed medical building would be constructed on 2.63 acres of property, formerly the site of Westside Lumber, on Highway 99. Ms. Chine added that the existing eight (8) foot tall concrete block wall located along the eastern side of the property will remain intact as part of a twenty (20) foot buffer between the medical building and adjacent residential properties. The applicant intends to enter into cross-access easements with property owners to the north and south of their property at a later date to ease internal circulation and create additional access for emergency vehicles. Matt Samitore, Development Services Director, informed Commissioners that these easements would satisfy the need for a second access on the property without having an additional access onto Highway 99. Mr. Samitore advised that all utilities and storm drainage are available and adequate for this site. Mike Robinson, land use attorney and representative of the applicant, came forward and thanked staff for their cooperation with this project, adding that his client was agreeable to all of the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Robinson assured the Planning Commission that Providence was delighted with their site and wanted to be a good neighbor, providing a well landscaped building that functioned well in a highly visible location. Scott Harris, architect, presented samples of building materials to be used in the construction of the medical facility and distributed a three dimensional artist's rendering to Commissioners for their review. Mr. Harris described the layout of the site and answered questions about parking, lighting, storm water filtration, landscaping, emergency exits and a proposed heat shade cover for windows on the first floor. The public portion of the hearing was opened. No one came forward to speak for or against the site plan application. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Commissioners determined that they would like to review the proposed signs for this development once they have been designed. Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, indicated that Providence had either met or exceeded design features for both the C-5 and TOD-GC zoning districts. Damian Idiart made a motion to approve Resolution No. 715 granting approval of the Site Plan for the construction of a 32,000 medical office building at 870 Front Street (Jackson County Assessor's map 37S 2W 11CB, Tax Lots 401 and 500) zoned C-5 and TOD-GC based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Mike Oliver seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Beck, yes; Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Oliver, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 3 B. File No. 07028. A public hearing to consider a request for a Class C Variance to three (3) standards of the Central Point Municipal Code on property located at 1676 Beall Lane (Jackson County Assessor's map 37S 2W lODD, Tax Lot 2100) and zoned R-1-6, Single Family Residential. Applicant: Dorothy L. Norman; Agent: Herb Farber There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Commissioner Mike Oliver said he had made a site visit. Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Ms. Morgan explained that the applicant had also filed an application for tentative plan for the creation of three (3) single family residential lots on the subject property. Jackson County and the City of Central Point Public Works Department have recommended that all three (3) lots take access from a flag pole thus creating the need for a variance to Section 16.35.040(D) for Lot 3 as direct access onto Beall Lane is not safe. Herb Farber came forward on behalf of the applicant and advised Commissioners that the applicant understood that use of the existing garage on Lot 3 would be discontinued. Mr. Farber also acknowledged correspondence presented by adjoining property owners requesting that the applicant fence the property as a condition of approval to which Mr. Farber concurred. Mr. Farber indicated that although he was not opposed to connectivity through adjacent properties, his client would like to obtain approval for their plan at this time to move forward and develop the lots requested in their tentative plan application. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Dorothy Griffith, Dorothy Norman's niece, came forward and stated that the existing driveway was already being used for access to the back of the house. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Damian Idiart made a motion to approve Resolution No. 716 granting a Class "C" Variance to CPMC Section 16.36.040(D) allowing three (3) lots to take access from the flag pole easement based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Candy Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Beck, yes; Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Oliver, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. C. File No. 07029. A public hearing to consider a request for approval of a Tentative Plan application for the creation of three (3) single family residential lots. The subject property is located in an R-1-6, Single Family Residential zoning district and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W lODD, Tax Lot 2100. The address is 1676 Beall Lane and is located north of Beall Lane, west of Chickory Lane. Applicant: Dorothy Norman; Agent: Herb Farber Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 4 There were no conflicts or ex parte coininunications to disclose. Mike Oliver stated he had made a site visit. Planning Technician Lisa Morgan addressed correspondence received from adjacent property owners and distributed to Planning Coimnissioners. The Hills are wishing to partition their property; the Templers would like to have a six (6) foot fence constructed along the property line between their property and that of Mrs. Norman; the Routsongs are concerned with infill development and storm water runoff. Ms. Morgan advised that the City's Public Works department would require that storm water be dealt with as a condition of tentative plan approval. Ms. Morgan then presented the staff report, recommending approval with conditions as outlined in her report. Herb Farber came forward, stating that he concurs with the staff report as presented. In addition, Mr. Farber was willing to stipulate that his clients would no longer use the garage on Lot 3. Mr. Farber added that his clients were willing to provide whatever fencing they and the neighbors agreed upon along both sides of the proposed development. Mr. Farber was not aware of a storm drain being stubbed out along the northern end of the property. Mr. Farber requested that staff clarify required frontage improvements along Beall Lane. He did not feel that it was fair to his clients to have to make improvements to 85 feet of frontage and felt that having his clients make a cash payment towards road improvements to be made at a later date would be a much better way to handle this matter. Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator, informed the Planning Commission that in 2003, the City Council decided that they would no longer defer improvements on arterial streets with development. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Doug Templer, a neighbor, came forward and wanted clarification on the location of the proposed fencing. Mr. Farber answered that the fencing would run the full length of the property, leaving twenty (20) feet of frontage at the Beall Lane end of the property vacant for clear vision requirements. Chuck Piland raised the issue of a circulation plan involving neighboring properties. Herb Farber replied that no one has approved a design or applied to the City for such a circulation plan. If an alternative were to be presented, they would certainly look at it. However, for the present time, his clients would like to move forward without having to wait for adjacent properties to get involved. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page S Chuck Piland made a motion to approve Resolution No. 717 granting tentative plan approval to create three (3) single family lots on property identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W lODD, Tax Lot 2100, based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Candy Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Beck, yes; Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Oliver, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. D. File No. 07030. A Public hearing to consider a request for approval of a Tentative Plan application for the purpose of creating five (5) commercial lots. The subject property is located in a C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district and consists of approximately 4.87 acres (identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W OlC, Tax Lot 802). The proposed project area is located on East Pine Street, west of Table Rock Road. Applicant: Excelsior Investment Co.; Agent: Hoffbuhr and Associates, Inc. There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Mike Oliver said he had made a site visit. Connie Clune, Community Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that a master plan for the proposed shopping facility would be submitted at a later date. With the creation of a subdivision, each business would be able to purchase its own property. A fully improved public road along the southern property line is available for access to Hamrick Road and a traffic signal. Matt Samitore added that since the inception of the E. Pine Transportation plan, there have been updates to the plan as some intersections are failing. As a result of this, some very specific improvements will be required of the developer of this subdivision. More information is needed from the traffic engineer with regard to costs associated with these improvements, and the developer is aware of this. Additional information will be presented when site plan review is requested. Commissioners discussed the proposed tentative site plan map which was attached to the staff report as Attachment "C" and made comments regarding the location of the businesses, parking layout, number of parking spaces for each business, street trees, landscaping and cross-access easements for all businesses in the development and the Super 8 Motel which is located adjacent to the proposed development. Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, stated that adjustments could be made to the proposed site plan while maintaining the character of the development and would be presented to the Planning Commission for approval. Jim Maize, representative for the applicant, came forward and requested that the Planning Commission address the land division at this meeting as there are a number of decisions Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 6 to be made prior to submittal of site plan review. Mr. Maize further informed that the site plan that was included as Attachment "C" was only one of many possibilities and not the exact site plan that would ultimately be submitted. At the present time, it is unknown who the business owners will be; specific uses have been identified. There may be adjustments prior to final plat. Jirn Maize assured Commissioners that the development will be nicely landscaped along Biddle Road as well as internally. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mike Oliver made a motion to approve Resolution No. 718 granting tentative approval for a five (5) lot commercial subdivision know as North Valley Center located on 4.87 acres in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district (identified on Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W O1C, Tax Lot 802) based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Pat Beck seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Beck, yes; Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Oliver, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator, introduced Stephanie Woolett, Engineering Tech II, to Planning Commissioners and described her job responsibilities. Mr. Samitore then informed Commissioners that they would like to solicit comments on the intersection of Scenic and Upton Road. Stephanie Woolett stated the City's staff arborist had surveyed the property on the northwest side of the intersection, which has recently been acquired by the City of Central Point, and determined that sixteen (16) trees would be impacted by the realignment of the intersection. Additionally, several of the trees are in close proximity to power lines. The property is located outside of the City's Urban Growth Boundary, and Public Works would like to remove these trees and commence with construction in May of 2007. Tenth Street will be improved to Crest Drive and street trees will be planted in conjunction with other street improvements. Tom Humphrey added that the realignment project is tied to the State bridge repair project, and it is very important for this to go forward. Urban Growth Boundary Update Tom Humphrey advised Commissioners that the American Planning Association has come up with web based training opportunities that he would like to share with them and if they could agree on a time, they could participate in some introductory and refresher training. Planning Commission Minzztes February 6, 2007 Page 7 Mr. Humphrey then presented an update on Strategic Planning, the RPS process and the proposed UGB expansion. He indicated that staff needed to prepare findings for the properties to be included. The focus would be on the central business district and exception areas first as the City Council did not wish to go beyond Wilson Road at this time. Mr. Humphrey said that the proposed railroad crossing was moving forward. The real property has been appraised, and the value was determined to be at $6,200. The City would either be making an offer and proposal to the railroad or appeal their objections. A full set of design plans would eventually be presented, and installation of a full signal for the railroad and traffic at the crossing is anticipated. Mr. Humphrey further stated that changes to the sign code may be forthcoming. More and more people are coming into the department with proposals that are not compatible with the City's current vision. IX. ADJOURNMENT Mike Oliver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Chuck Piland seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the February 6, 2007 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 6, 2007. Planning Commission Chair GL,AF~K ~ ~ILAS ROAD ~ GUP . t, ~p^~° ~~~~I ~~Y a t.! .1~... (7111 ~ ~11111~1~'l l~~yr ~~~~r I ~ ~ (. ~ Ca7tY1t7tUIt~liCyC)rwcla~n,u~ntt~irecttrrl t t\~,~i,i~3~ ~~i pity ~dnainistrator STAFF REP'fJi7T March 6, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: File No. 07033 Consideration of an application for a Conditional Use Permit to develop a 53 lot Planned Unit Development located in the R-2, Two-Family zoning district located on the south side of Vilas Road approximately 500 feet west of Table Rock Road and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 372W O1BA, Taxw,~ats 500 and 700. Applicant: Heritage Development Inca STAFF SOURCE Lisa Morgan, BACKGROUND: Zoning Overview. The applicant is requesting ~ ~~< m~ ~ y~ gk ~ ~ ~a ~~. ~~ approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the ;_ development of a zero lot line single-family •° ~;~; detached Planned Unit Development. In addition „~ i ., to the consideration of this Conditional Use j ' • ,°~ ~ ~~ Permit the Planning Commission will also be ~ " ' ~~ `° ~'~• ~ ~ reviewing the Planned Unit Development ~~ ~~ ~, ~~ application, and a Tentative Plat application. Because each application has a unique set of criteria it is necessary that the Planning ~°° r Commission take separate action on each ~• " application. This report will focus on the criteria °° applicable to a Conditional Use Permit as set w; forth in Section 17.76. ,, , , ,. The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit process is to assure that certain designated uses ~ - ~ - are properly reviewed far compliance with the intent of the underlying zoning district and abutting land uses. As applied to this application the Conditional Use Permit will determine the extent to which the proposed Planned Unit Development complies with the intent of the R-2 district and its compatibility with abutting properties. The intent of the R-2 district as set forth in Section 17.24.010 is to: 1. Promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life at a slightly higher density than permitted in the R-1 districts; 2. Provide opportunities for lower cost duplex and attached dwellings; and 3. Allow replacement housing within existing single-family neighborhoods at slightly higher densities while assuring that the character of the neighborhood is preserved, Project Description. When combined the subject properties (Property) total 7.11 gross acres. The Property is designated as Medium Density on the acknowledged Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map (Ordinance No. 1525, Exhibit "A"). The Property is zoned R-2, Residential Two-Family; which is consistent with the land use designation for the Property. Within the R-2 district Planned Unit Developments are allowed as a conditional use. Proposed Uses: The proposed planned unit development is limited to single-family detached dwelling units, a use that is permitted within the R-2 district. Other than the Project being defined as a planned unit development the proposed use of the Property is consistent with the intent of the R-2 district and the uses permitted in the R-2 district. No commercial activities are proposed. Proposed Density: The maximum allowable density for the Property is 85 units (Section 17.68.100). The Project's design provides for a maximum of 53 dwelling units. If developed as a standard R-2 subdivision it is estimated that a maximum of 48 units could be developed. The Property's configuration (deep and narrow) and the need for a public street significantly reduce the Property's yield potential. The Planned Unit Development process allows flexibility in lot configuration making it possible to provide public street access and connectivity to the project, while attaining an adequate lot yield to support construction of required public improvements. A more complete discussion of circulation is provided in the Planned Unit Development Staff Report. Exceptions: As presented the Project requires the approval of four (4) exceptions. These exceptions are fully discussed in the Planned Unit Development application (File No. 07033) and are summarized as follows: Lot Area. The R-2 district requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. ft. on which a duplex may be sited, for an average per unit area of 3,000 sq. ft. The proposed Project has a minimum lot size of 3,100 sq. ft. on which is allowed one single-family detached zero lot line dwelling unit. The lot area and density are consistent with the minimum per dwelling unit requirements of the R-2 district. 2. Lot Dimensions. The R-2 district requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet on which a duplex may be sited, for an average per unit width of 30 feet. The proposed Project has a minimum lot width of 35 feet on which is allowed one single-family detached zero lot line dwelling unit. The proposed lot dimensions are consistent with the minimum per dwelling unit lot dimensions of the R-2 district. 3. Flag Lots. Flag lots are permitted provided that each flag pole is a minimum of 20 feet in width. The Project proposes the use of four (4) flag poles serving a total of eight (8) single-family detached dwelling units. The proposed flag poles measure a minimum of 16 feet in width. The ~r flag pole design has been reviewed by the Fire District and found to be acceptable as driveways. 4. Side Yard Setbacks. Within the R-2 district the side yard setback requirements are five (S) feet for each story. The Project is comprised of two-story names with a proposed side yard setback of five (S) feet. For two-story homes a ten (10) foot side yard setback would be required. Previous zero lot line developments have been approved at two-stories with a minimum S-foot side yard setback. A reduction in the side yard setback fram 10-feet to S-feet does not impact abutting properties. Around the perimeter of the standard rear yard setbacks will be accommodated. Adjacent Land Uses: The Project is surrounded by a variety of land uses as follows East. Lands are zoned and developed as industrial (M-1) and commercial (C-N). South. Land uses are single-family detached (R- 1-8) and industrial (M-1). West. Land uses include Don Jones Park and a small R-1-6 parcel. North. Land uses include residential (R-1-6) and C1v1C (Civic). .~~,~~ ,,,^9 Within the general Project area (southwest} there are three approved single-family attached planned unit developments. This application is consistent .......~ with and similar to previously approved planned °~ m4µ ~... unit development applications in the general area. ~", ~'" a° ~~~~~~ ,: FINDINGS: See attached Attachment "D" ISSUES: With respect to the Conditional Use Permit there are no apparent issues relative to compliance with Conditional Use Permit approval criteria (see Attachment "D"). As noted above and discussed in the Findings the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development application is to allow the design flexibility necessary to provide for connectivity and public access, while allowing the reasonable development of the Property. The proposed uses and requested exceptions are consistent with the residential character to the south and adequate buffering has been included where the Project abuts commercially and industrially zoned lands. CONDITIONS O APPROVAL: 1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is subject to approval of the Planned Unit Development as presented in File No. 07033 and compliance with all conditions attached thereto. ,~ EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" -Proposed House Layout & Landscaping Exhibit "B" -Applicant's Findings Exhibit "C" -Public Works Staff Report Exhibit "D" -Planning Department Findings Exhibit "E" - Proposed Resolution ACTION: Consideration of Resolution No. _, approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution No. , granting a Conditional Use Permit approval. N. MOUNTAIN AVE. s+ __ _ - _ - S `: g I' ~g ~U III,\~ ''', BEGIN- ' \'\ HOUSES SHOW ON THIS PLAN ARE FOR PARKWAY SUBDIVISION NOTES PHASE II PHASE I caAPHICAL PuRPOSes ONLY (tYP). E%TR/. E%TRA PARKING 6.0 ' PARKING 6.00' 10.00' E%iHA PMNING ~ 00' . LOT 53 . PW "M" ~ 10.00' 00• LOT 46 35 ~ b ~- 10.00' LOT 34 ~ . , -. 50'x}0' ~ ~ ~ 0' (rP) 00' 5 PW "D" ' . + 12 00' --~ 13.00 PW "C" UUUU P A" W •~ x B' PW "D" ' ' 19.00' ' -"- • 18 0 . tit x51 . 52'x47' _ (TM ' 62 P 1 10.00 ~) 9 35' (ttP) 1].52' (1Y) 49 5' •: v2' ~C` Pw "K" LOT 47 x M1 (TYP) 20 00' LOT 35 ~ _ x3 (ttP) ~ ~ ( ) ~~ LOT 47 . -- ~ f8 ~ • 1 20. ~~~~ LOT 52 ~ 19.24' _ l0T 40 __ ~ '0 WJDSCAPE OEI'aL "C- ' 20.00' zo.oo' _ 13.00' PW "C" S(Wx.~. sz'xa>' _ _ (ttP) (NP) - 20.00' LOT 28 lOT 29 19. - 24' 19.24' U ~' '~ LOT 51 18.2 15.2x' LOT 48 ~ ~ 15.24' LOT 42 l0T 39 15.20' W a! , ,R ~.. I Pw 'P' ~ - LOT 38 LOT 33 I-i 1 50'x30' 5.00 ~ 5.S 5.00' ~- ~ - 8.50' 5.00' 6.00' % 5.00 w 5,00' Z ~I • (ttP) LOT 49 PW "E' Pw - 1' PW "C Op' ~ ~W T" ]'0 LOT 30 - PW 'i" d __ PW "'c PW "J" Sa'x30' 50'x30' 54'x30 p K, Pw "f." Sa'x:0 PW "K" 50'x}0' ~ 30 53•xg7E (ttP) (ttP) (ttP) 50'xz>' 54'x30' (ttP) PW H: 0'x2>' PW 'H' ___ (ttP) ~)) ti w r Pw „J, ~ J1YP) (lYP) LOT 45 LOT 44 LOT 43 (ttP) (tYP) LOT 38 LOT 37 g0 x30 (TMP) LOT 32 LOT 31 50'x30 _ LOT 27 LOT 26 LOT 50 16.24' o W-IiTE ~ , VINYL FENGE I ~„ ~ ~ I ' ~ PN (TM G WN'.TE .-- •; INY.. FENGE GRAPHIC SCALE N ~: P~ ~® n (wrEP,') rn " Z 1 moo + t Z Q 3W z Wa FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT lV g ~ a ~ --'- W O ~ M J (n ~ .. ~ ~ U UNDSGAPE DEfaL b' - -^ 16.00 (I~ v z uNOSCAPE DEraL ^6" PARKWAY DRIVE Z O y , ~. . ,r.. LL 5 ~ tb 5a; r w; ~ 1 o vw f." Pw c" PW 'G PW 'E" i 54'x30' 62'x30' fi2'x30' 54'x30' PW "G" PW, "E" (1YP) PW, P (ttP) (lYP) PW "F" (ttP) 62'x3U' 30' O 60 x30' 60 x30' (iyp) PW "F" ~Typ) PW "r" ~ ENG 6' +/ \ 1 , 1 0- (ttP) (ttP) ~ 60x) (ttr3G WHITE IJ W Q J il'P VINYL Q -G' WHIT FENGE VINYL F NGE ~ L o I~- lOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 8 LOT 7 LOT a lOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 1'I LOT 7 2 LOT t 3 LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 77 LOT t 8 LOT 19 LUT 20 LOT 21 LOT 22 LOT 23 LOT 24 LOT 25 r I ` Z o4d8d"al®® €~ ~ ®® ®t~~9 t~®® ~t~® ®®~ ®~~ ®~~ ®® CB~9R~ ~~ ~'¢Fr ~&~® ~9~f3@13 ®99@~ 'S86~~ ®~4Y90'~~~ P®$9~ 9B'~® ~ ~®~ ®C9 ®~F9eYJ69@6+ Q () S~If2U~ e GROUNDGOVER L C~ ND PH-A ^~ P.;-A 6 UNITE .~ ~ PH-A TREE LECsEND A~L SNUBS & TREES WILL HAVE A lTrw ' W !TY°~ VI\YL FENGE lTYP) SYMBOL SmBOL coMMON NAME R M coMMGN NAME RAINBIRD "DRIP ZONE" (TYP). NOTES ~ L ~ ~-' NB NEWPORT BLUE PHASE ii PHASE I NW-M RED MAPLE a~x eale~6w~ene cron.o+lanue~ oarlmuanaiore*~ f GB-W COMMGN BOX-WGOD NORWAY MAPLE is°+~ia enim,°u"e eu'c'xRN'.ra.-~P \~ G-BB CHINESE BEAUTYBERRY PH_q PHOTINIA * ' ueoul.w.w ~c rlre wcn4wao.ua. wx~P CF OwP'nar. uo ~+o, exceed ceo' 3. Guar, Nn.n.c m L w,o 4 nwuu7 aw'saioraoll"ar+oncws~w ~cLCanma°.i ov a Ln wTN nlx csv. rc~L O /Y' W O WORK BY OTHERS ~ ~ O ~ su4Lecc+eesreAerwu. avo au xmlNC wuuLC. ` I O cav, or+, ~~PweR iO Vxvc. 4JLl ~ ~ O Pxnce ol.exm=e woe~n n~L~ N wimacam. E]~roac nx~ sr+oo er a.ecves wR Lavoxni x //~~//~~ J P PLAM NG SCH - W 6L ~ ~ and rSEGiION xwaur. ~ O ~ O i 1' Gtpn pNMw nxf w m a-n~ ro~~ w a a,x.,a. u« B w °; iw "w. r.,.,a 1m w,.l O N x(artisnuj ~ l~ uu,mtv)n ~~i owm~~i " c D `"iwra~t°"": m ici ru<.6 ~- r,xio~`Gla ~ ~ w ~m.a~. tea. .n Hwy r,;n. mRa ~ - ° ~i~.,~plr~ ,E we~~o.„~,o~•a~.,4~~. ~•~: ~ wow >o, R-M -, • ~ . NW-M LAWN LAwN ' I~ - f ~ e~ ~BB 3.5K-BB 3 5KB W {l.: ~~.• '~~ A m,.~aa sa ~ o uwN I.AwN 8 +m ~ ~ o ~ 5 5 D:. ~.~ A~ ~ `~;~N~8 ! q CJ. EPx>„ ~u e ~ ~ 5-leJB f~~~~ ~_ ~.: f, .•w„ma mn a,m ~ cwuemt N I t ~ ` ~ J - . ~ .: . 13-5 hIB l l3-5:G-BB F u. ., ' . . a . ~~' 19-5KB-W D Tnie Oocumcnt, gn; In< and the ~eoe_ and creel orporoted naroln an mstrumant o1 o ~ Z w ~ NW-M R-M LANDSCAPE DETAIL "'D"' NT5 , Promcemnm ervlca, Is too proneny or sugar Pme consuulnq uc', nna In not to ne usoa m wnoic or m Port ror on otnor ror an nln r art r oc mn t u ut ~ x m w ~ LANDSCAPE UETAIL "D" wN NW-M NTS , , y , y c e w ou ,e wr en P P~ v outnorizmlon or su ar Pme concunm m.e arowm LLC i m nm l • l x o o o U u -~- - -- - g y _ q r grop o y, ,urP~~r on not to So ~:ea mr ~ nntr~cuon. udc drowm9 no: ,~ rm mrrcrant araanne mmnea. . BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON iN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION ) FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ) ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF ) WEST VILAS ROAD AND WEST OF TABLE ) ROCK ROAD; THE SUBJECT SITE 1S ) DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR'S MAP NO. ) T.37S-R.2W-SEC. 01 BA, TAX LOTS 500, ) & 700; DALE CLARK, HERITAGE DEVELOP- } MENT CORPORATION, THE APPLICANT; ) PARKWAY SUBDIVISION, A PLANNED ) UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS RECITALS: Owners- Dale Clark Heritage Development 3365 Snowy Butte Lane Central Point, OR 97502 Dennis Patterson PO Box 1410 Eagle Point, OR 97524 Consultants- Richard Stevens & Associates, lnc. PO Box 4368 Medford, OR 97501 Property Description- ~ 37-2W-01 BA, Tax Lots 500 & 700 Acreage- 7.11 gross acres Zoning- R-2, Residential Two-Family District Land Use- Detached Single Family Residential 1 ~-~ NARRATIVE: The purpose of this Planned Unit Development application for Parkway Subdivision is to establish a detached single family dwelling project. The project includes requests to deviate or take an exception from the Code for side yard setbacks and exceptions to the lot area and lot width standards for the land use designation present, R-2 Residential Two- Family District via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. The purpose of this PUD application is to identify the residential lots with the requested exceptions within the subject property. The intent of Parkway Subdivision is to provide for entry level housing on narrow lots for the future residents of Central Point. This process affords both the City and the Developer assurances that the land use modifications are agreed upon and established by a review process. The attached site plans adequately defines the proposed residential uses for the property. The proposed development for detached single family homes on narrow lots, with the requested exceptions, is to provide for zero lot line dwellings. These dwellings will have a zero side yard setback on one side of the lot with a minimum of 5 feet to the other side yard setback. This style of development still provides usable private backyard outdoor living area, to assure that the livability of the neighborhood is maintained. The differing styles of homes proposed on the lots have considered the placement or design of windows on the house to support privacy for the occupants. The applicants have submitted a landscape plan, in conjunction with this PUD application. The applicant will provide landscaping in accordance with the Central Point Parks Department for the street scape along West Vilas Road, Parkway Drive and Sugar Pine Court. The nature and planned use of the proposed Parkway Subdivision PUD is to provide for a detached single family residential development within an R-2 zoning district. The ownership of Parkway Subdivision a PUD is held by Dale Clarkwith Heritage Development Corp and Dennis Patterson. The proposed development schedule is to construct the project with two separate phases, starting in 2007. The engineering and design will include the entire area, while the improvements and construction will be conducted per respective phase, as soon as the infrastructure is in place for the development. The total net acreage for the Parkway Subdivision PUD site consists of 7.11 acres. There will be maintenance of the common areas (private minimum access) that will be the responsibility by owners of property that are served by these access ways, and the costs will be accrued with the mutual access and maintenance agreements that will run with the PUD. A copy of the Homeowners Association and CC&R's are attached for review and will be submitted with the Final PUD Plan for compliance. ¢~~ CHAPTER 17.24, CPMC: 17.24.010: The purpose of the R-2 district is to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life at a slightly higher density than that permitted in the R-1 district, and also to provide opportunities for the development of lower cost duplex and attached dwellings. Where this district is applied to areas of existing single-family homes, the intent is to preserve the low density neighborhood character, promote continued home maintenance and rehabilitation, and allow replacement housing at slightly higher densities that is compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. Subsection 17.24.030(G) identifies that Planned Unit Developments are a Conditional Use within the R-2 district. The demonstration of compliance with the CPMC are addressed below for this PUD application. APPROVAL CRITERIA: The application procedures and applicable approval criteria fora Planned Unit Development within the R-2 district are listed in Sections 17.68 and 17.76 Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC). The criteria are: CHAPTER 17.76, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 17.76.010, Purpose: In certain districts, conditional uses are permitted subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual characteristics or the special attributes of the area in which they are to be located, conditional uses require special consideration so that they maybe properly located with respect to the objectives of the zoning title and their effect on surrounding properties. 17.76.040, REQUIRED FINDINGS: 17.76.040(A): That the site for fhe proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subjecf zoning district and all other provisions of this code. Discussion: Parkway Subdivision area totals 7.11 gross acres of land that is suitable in size for residential development. The proposed development is a zero lot line development for single family dwellings on narrow lots. This is similar to a duplex development with the addition of a boundary line to separate the dwelling units. There are exceptions to the Code that are being requested and discussed below, all other provisions of the Code can be met. The proposed development does meet the density requirements and is suitable for residential uses as outlined within the Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The City of Central Point can find that the size of Parkway Subdivision area is suitable for the proposed development as zero lot line single family dwellings. With the requested exceptions the project meets all other standards of the Code. 17.76.040(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. Discussion: The subject property has direct road frontage on West Vilas Road, along the northern boundary. The proposed Parkway Drive will eventually connect with North Mountain Avenue via. Sugar Pine Court, to enhance street circulation in the neighborhood. There is sufficient street capacity to accommodate the proposed 53 dwelling units on the subject site. FINDING: The City of Central Point can find that there is sufficient street capacity on ~IVest Vilas Road and North Mountain Avenue to provide adequate access for the project site and the development of 53 single family dwelling units. 17.76.040(C) That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. Discussion: The proposed development of the site for residential purposes will not have a significant adverse impact on surrounding lands. The location of the site with the R-2 district is bound by R-1 zoning to the north (across West Vilas Road), south and west, excluding Tax Lot 600 James Clark property. Tax Lot 600 is also zoned R-2 and contains a single family dwelling. With the proposed Parkway Drive along the eastern boundary, Tax Lot 600 can feasible be redeveloped. The land towards the west is planned to be a new City park "Don Jones Park". The proposed uses on the subject property are identical in character to the existing urban residential uses. With the similar uses proposed, no impacts on their permitted uses are anticipated. The property east of the project site, along West Vilas Road is zoned C-1 a commercial zone in the City. The other properties to the east and along a portion of the southern boundary are zoned M-1 an Industrial zone. Any future development of these lands will not be adversely impacted from the subject site and design of the project. In addition, Parkway Subdivision is proposing a 6 foot solid vinyl fence along the common boundary along with an evergreen vegetative screen. These commercial/industrial lands have frontage along Table Rock Road and West Vilas Road to create acommercial/industrial street system. This will keep the commercial truck traffic separated from the residential neighborhoods. These commercial/industrial lands can be developed consistent with the Central Point Municipal Code provisions. FINDING: The City of Central Point can find that the proposed residential uses will not have a significant adverse effect on the abutting properties ability to develop consistent with the Code provisions. 17.76.040(D) That the establishment, maintenance oroperation of the use applied for will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community based on the review of those factors listed in subsection (C) of this section. Discussion: The proposed use of the site is for detached single family dwellings. The proposed Parkway Subdivision will comply with all safety and health regulations through the engineering standards and requirements for public water, sanitary sewer and street circulation. 5 Appropriate measures have been included in the site plan to ensure that the health, safety and general welfare of residents and businesses/employees will not be significantly impacted, particularly to the east of the site. These include fencing and an evergreen vegetative screen. FINDING: The City of Central Point can find that Parkway Subdivision PUD will have the engineering and design consistentwith local, state and federal regulations. In addition the project does include buffering measures to ensure that the general health, safety and welfare are protected for the community as a whole. 17.76.040(E) That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare... i~iS~~~sSi~n~ The applicant is agreeable to any reasonable conditions for approval of the PUD application, in the event that evidence is presented to warrant the condition to mitigate the concern. FINDING: The City of Central Point can find that the applicant is willing to accept reasonable conditions, consistentwith the Code provisions to mitigate any.warranted concerns for public health, safety and general welfare. CONCLUSIONS: The City of Central Point concludes that the size of Parkway Subdivision being 7.11 gross acres is suitable for the proposed developmentas zero lot line single family dwellings. With the requested exceptions to the Code development standards, the project meets all other standards of the Code for the R-2 district. The City concludes that there is sufficient street capacity on West Vilas Road and North Mountain Avenue, with improved street connectivity, to provide adequate vehicular access for the project site and the development of 53 single family dwelling units. The City concludes that the proposed residential uses within Parkway Subdivision will not have a significant adverse effect on the abutting properties ability to develop consistent with the Code provisions. SECTION 17.68, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: Section 17.68.010 Purpose: The purpose of planned unit development (PUD) is to gain more effective use of open space, realize advantages of large scale site planning, mixing of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation by allowing a variety of buildings, structures, open spaces, allowable heights and setbacks of buildings and structures. A PUD should have a harmonious variety of uses, utilize the economy of shared services and facilities, and reduce municipal costs of operating and maintaining services while insuring substantial compliance with the district regulations and other provisions of this code. Discussion: The purpose of this PUD application is to allow for zero lot line detached single family dwellings on narrow lots within the R-2 district. The project will provide for several styles and sizes of single family dwellings. The square footage of the dwellings will range from approximately 1550 to 2250 square feet. This provides fora varied residential neighborhood development that will not look like a typical tract home subdivision. The standard size lots fronting on the planned Don Jones Park will be accessed by minimum access easements (private drives). Additional off street parking is also provided for each lot to accommodate visitors to the future residents. These common areas will be maintained by the individual owner of the property that ensures that the maintenance will be provided by the home owners thru the CC&R's. With the development of the site to provide detached single family dwellings on narrow lots, when considering the density requirements for the R-2 district, exceptions to the lot area, lot width and the side yard setback standards are being requested with this application. The density of this project and all other development standards for the R-2 district are in compliance with the zoning district and only the design of the project as a zero lot line detached single family residential development justifies the PUD review. The use of public street right of ways, Parkway Drive and Sugar Pine Court, that will include landscaping, bicycle lanes and sidewalks will be constructed by the developer of the project. The minimum access way will be maintained by the owners of the properties being served. The provides an economy of shared facilities for the project, and no additional costs to the City for maintenance. ~~ '~ 7 Finding: The City finds that the purpose of this PUD application for Parkway Subdivision, is consistent with this section of the Code, with the exception to the dwelling setbacks, lot area and lot width standards. The provision of private access ways, that will be maintained by the property owners, does not impose a financial responsibility onto the City and the shared facilities also provides for an economy of scale. Section 17.68.020 Size: A PUD shall be on a tract of land five acres or larger. Discussion: The subject property within the project area contains approximately 7.11 acres, which does meet the minimum 5 acres requirement. The proposed PUD does satisfy 17.68.020. Finding: The City of Central Pointfinds thatthe subjectsite does contain greater than 5 acres to qualify for a Planned Unit Development. CONCLUSION: The City of Central Point concludes that the site consists of 7.11 acres and that the purpose of the application for detached zero lot line single family dwellings on narrow lots justifies this PUD application, in compliance with Section 17.68.010- 020 CPMC. Section 17.68.040, Criteria: A PUD shall be permitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards and procedures of this chapter. In the case of a use existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and classified in this chapter as a PUD, a change in the use orin lot area, or an alteration of structure shall conform with the requirements for PUD use. To approve or deny a PUD, the planning commission shall find whether or not the standards of this chapter, including the following criteria are either met, can be met by observance of conditions, or are not applicable. 8 A.) That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of this title; Discussion: The site plan identifies the most efficient development of the land that integrates the available land for residential purposes with buffers toward east buffering the commercial and industrial lands. In addition the project is minimizing the wall effect with a 4 foot fence toward the west adjacent to the park land, with the existing surrounding land uses. The proposed detached dwelling units are two story with up to ten differing styles of homes, to ensure that window placement and livability are preserved. The exceptions requested is to the lot width and lot area standards of the Code. Lots numbered as 1-25, 26-27, 30-33, 36-39, 42-45, 48-53 do not meet the minimum lot width being 60 feet, and the minimum lot area standards being 6,000 square feet for the R-2 zoning district. The R-2 zoning district typically allows for duplex development within the minimum 6,000 square foot lots. The narrow lots vary in size from 3123 - 5171 square feet, each lot containing a single dwelling unit. If the development area was to a conventional duplex subdivision, this would allow for the same or similar number of dwelling units with the development of streets that would not need an exception to the lot width and lot area standards of the Code. All other standards of the Ordinance for development will be in compliance. Another exception being requested is the side yard setback standards of the Code for the R-2 district. The R-2 standard prescribes that a minimum of 5 feet be provided per story. These lots are proposed to be developed with zero lot line detached single family dwellings on one side of the lot with a minimum of 5 feet side yard setback on the opposite side. Finding: The City finds that the development of Parkway Subdivision is not practical as a standard subdivision with the R-2 district providing for duplex lots. The applicants desire to provide entry level housing for the first time home buyer with detached two story single family dwellings. This proposal is consistent with the existing land use pattern towards the south and west while providing street connectivity. { B.) The proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the city; Discussion: The subject property is zoned for two family residential purposes (Low Density) consistent with Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. The Low Density designation allows for the R-2 zoning district. The purpose of the R-2 district is to provide for a suitable environment for families at a slightly higher density than the R-1 district. This is typically expressed as duplex lot developments. The proposed zero lot line development of Parkway Subdivision is very similar to the duplex development. The difference is that an additional property line is included separating the two family homes onto individual lots. This will provide home ownership in an area that would other wise be rentals. This low density development will promote and encourage a suitable environment for new residents. Development of urban areas will provide additional housing opportunities for the future residents of the City. The policy of the City is to encourage well thought out developments within the boundaries of the City to accommodate the future residents without enhancing sprawl or need for expansion of the UGB. Finding: The City finds that development of Parkway Subdivision and the proposed uses is consistentwith the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site and that the uses are also consistent, including the requested exceptions, with the zoning ordinance and policies of the City of Central Point. C.) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have minimal adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area; Discussion: The location of the site with the R-2 district is bound by R-1 zoning to the north (across West Vilas Road) excluding Tax Lot 600 James Clark property, south and west. The land towards the west is planned to be a new City park "Don Jones Park". The property along West Vilas Road is zoned C-1 a commercial zone in the City. The other properties to the east and along a portion of the southern boundary are zoned M-1 an Industrial zone. The size of the project consists of approximately 7.11 gross acres. The proposed use of the site is zero lot line two story single family residential dwellings. 10 Livability - Lands to the north and south are currently developed to urban low density residential standards, similar to the subject proposal. Land to the west is planned for a City park consistent with the R-1 district. The proposed uses on the subject property are identical in character to the existing urban residential uses. With the similar uses proposed, no impacts on livability are anticipated. The lands to the east are zoned for commercial and industrial uses, there will be no impact on livability. Value- The value of the surrounding properties may increase with the development of the site due to the improvements on the subject site along with the enhancement of the street circulation. Parkway Drive can provide alternative access to West Vilas Road from the residential development to the south. The proposed use is consistent with the planned surrounding area, thus, no impacts on value are contemplated. Appropriate Development- The properties to the north, south and west are/or can be developed appropriately to urban standards consistent with the zoning standards. Lands to the east are currently developed to Jackson County standards and are planned for City Commercial and Industrial uses to Table Rock Road. Any future development of these lands will not be adversely impacted from the subject site and design of the project. These lands have frontage along Table Rock Road and West Vilas Road to create acommercial/industrial street system. This will keep the commercial truck traffic separated from the residential neighborhoods. These commercial/industrial lands can be developed consistent with the Code provisions. Finding: The City finds that lands to the north and south are developed to urban residential standards, consistent with the Code; the land to the west is planned as a City park consistent with the R-1 zoning and Code; the lands to the east and a portion of the southern boundary are currently developed to County standards, and are planned for commercial and industrial uses. The development of the subject property will not have a significant impact on Livability, Value or Appropriate Developmentto the surrounding lands. it D.) That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they are financially able to carry out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete said construction within a reasonable time as determined by the commission; Discussion: The developer for the project, Dale Clark, has received financing approval to construct the project in its entirety. It is anticipated to have final PUD plan and final plat by spring/summer of 2007. At which time construction for Phase 1 of Parkway Subdivision would occur during the summer/fall of 2007 with completion of the project by the end of 2009. Finding: The City finds that Dale Clark the developer for the project has approval for financing to start and complete the projectwithin a reasonable time frame. E.) That traffic congestion wilt not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking; Discussion: The development of the project will not have a significant impact on the transportation system in the area. Parkway Subdivision will construct 53 new dwellings that will generate approximately 508 ADT based on the ITE Manual 7th Edition. It is anticipated that approximately 50% of the trips will travel west along West Vilas Road to Pine Street. The balance of the trips generated may go east along West Vilas Road to Table Rock Road. There will be no significant impacts on the local transportation system in the vicinity. .Finding: The City finds that the generation of approximately 508 average daily trips will not have a significant impact on the local street system and that there is sufficient capacity existing to accommodate the development. t, 12 F.) That commercial development in a PUD is needed of the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed: Discussion: Not applicable. There are no uses proposed that deviate from the underlying R-2 two family residential zoning. The proposed uses are for residential purposes exclusively. Finding: The City finds that the proposed use for the project is strictly residential and that this standard is not applicable. G.) Thaf proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; Discussion: Nat app{icab{e. There are no uses proposed that deviate from the underlying R-2 two family residential zoning. The proposed uses are for residential purposes exclusively. Finding: The City finds that the proposed use for the project is strictly residential and that this standard is not applicable. H.) The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present: Discussion: There are no natura{ features present on the subject property. There are also.no wetlands present on site. The existing irrigation ditch will be realigned and piped underground consistent with the irrigation District standards. Findin The City finds that Parkway Subdivision does not include a natural feature within its boundaries. 13 l.) The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area; Discussion: This PUD application is not proposing any non-permitted uses. The only proposed use is single family residential, consistent with the surrounding Comprehensive Plan designation and the R-1 zoning to the north, south and west. The proposed uses are identical and compatible with these surrounding existing and planned uses. The lands to the east and a portion of the southern boundary will be separated from the residential development with a 6 foot solid vinyl fence with an evergreen Photinia hedge to screen and mitigate any potential conflicts. The proposed street circulation can also provide a separation of residential neighborhoods and traffic from the industrial uses and traffic. Finding: The City finds that the proposed use is single family residential, consistentwith the R-2 zoning districtand surrounding residential uses to the north, south and west. The proposed landscaping and 6 foot solid fence will ensure that the residential uses are screened from the commercial and industrial uses to the east. J.) The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land. Discussion: The permitted uses for the R-2 district are: Single-family dwellings; Single-family manufactured home; One two-family dwelling; Public and private schools; Churches; Public parks and recreation facilities. This PUD is proposing zero lot line Single family dwellings. There will be no greater demand on the public facilities than the permitted uses listed. Finding: The City finds that the proposed use being single family residential is a permitted use and that there will be no greater demand to serve the site with public facilities. 14 1~ CONCLUSIONS: The City of Central Point concludes that this PUD application for Parkway Subdivision is in compliance with Section 17.68.040 CPZO, in that this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation forthe site and thatthe uses are also consistent, including the requested exceptions, with the zoning ordinance and policies of the City of Central Point. The City concludes the project is consistent with the R-2 zoning district for density. The exceptions to the Code are the Lot area, Lot Width, and setbacks for the R-2 district. All other development standards of the Ordinance will be met. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses and zoning districts, thus, no adverse impacts on surrounding lands are contemplated. 17.68.050, Preliminary Development Pian: A preliminary development plan shall contain a written statement and maps and other information on the area surrounding the proposed development to show the relationship of the planned unit development to adjacent uses, both existing and proposed. Discussion: Submitted with this application are the site plan maps and detail plans with the applicable standards for development. The standards found in Chapter 17.57, Fences, will be addressed during the review and permitting processes. All proposed uses and locations for the development of Parkway Subdivision are in compliance with the applicable Chapters. The site plans clearly reflects the proposed uses and locations for development consistent with the Central Point Municipal Code. The submitted Preliminary PUD plan along with these Findings of Fact have addressed the applicable standards of the Code and Section 17.68.050 CPMC. FINDING: The City finds that this application with the submitted site plans and maps for Parkway Subdivision a PUD has addressed the site plan standards of the Ordinance and has identified the applicable information required for review. 15 CONCLUSION: The City of Central Point concludes that the applicant for Parkway Subdivision PUD has identified the existing and proposed uses on the submitted site plans and has prepared Findings to demonstrate compliance with the Code criteria for review, consistent with the standards of Section 17.68.050 CPMC. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: The City of Central Point can conclude that this application for a Planned Unit Development has addressed the applicable approval criteria as outlined in Chapters 17.24, 17.68 & 17.76 CPMC and that this application is in compliance with the Central Point Municipal Code, Central Point Comprehensive Plan, and state law. With the attached documents, site plans and information before the City of Central Point, the applicant respectfully requests approval of this application for a Planned Unit Development for Parkway Subdivision. Respectfully Submitted: Dale Clark Heritage Development Corporation 16 Public Works Department CENTRAL POINT Bob Pierce, Director Matt Samitore, Dev. Services Coord. PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT February 15, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Fifty Three Lot Residential Subdivision for 37-2W-O1BA, Tax Lots 500 and 700 Applicant: Heritage Development Inc., 3365 Snowy Butte Road, Central Point, OR 97502 Zoning: R-2, Residential Two Family Zoning Traffic: Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, a 53 lot subdivision will generate approximately 53.53 peak hour trips (PHT). The City has recently updated the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP). The recent analysis shows that the intersections of Beebe/Hamrick Roads and Meadowbrook/Biddle Roads to be failing in the PM Peak. A signalized intersection is scheduled to be installed at the intersection of Beebe/Hamrick Road as part of the North Valley Subdivision land-use application. The secondary access point onto North Mountain Avenue must be approved by City Council because the proposed street access proceeds through Don Jones Park. The access cannot be granted without City Council approval. The Council may impose financial or other obligations upon the developer for this access. Existing Infrastructure: Water: There is an existing 8-inch ductile iron waterline in North Mountain Avenue and a 12-inch ductile iron in West Vilas Road. Storm Drain: There is an existing 15" HDPE storm drain line in West Vilas Road and a 24" in North Mountain Avenue. Street Section: W. Vilas Road is improved with no sidewalks. North Mountain Avenue is an improved city street. Engineering and Development Plans and Permits: The Central Point Public Works Department is charged with management of the City's infrastructure, including streets, waterworks, and storm water drainage facilities. In general, the Department's "Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction" shall govern how public facilities are to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Works Department. In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and profile for streets, water, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, storm drainage calculations, storm drainage basin map, erosion control plan, utility ar~d outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a 140 South Third Street ,y Central Point OR 97502 •541.664.3321 ~ Fax 541.664.6384 E~ ~~ traffic control plan. A Public Works Permit will only be issued after the Department Director approves the final construction drawings. After approval, the fees associated with the development will be calculated and attached to the public works permit. All fees are required to be paid in full at the time the Public Works Permit is issued. Conditions of Approval: West Vilas Road Frontage Improvements: West Vilas is classified as a Minor Arterial. Developer will be responsible for constructing sidewalk and landscape row, with street trees, for the West Vilas Road frontage. 2. Quiet Title and Access: The City and the applicants are currently working in collaboration to resolve a boundary and ownership issue regarding the twenty to thirty feet of area along the south boundary of Don Jones Park and the applicant's parcels. Until this is resolved the City cannot legally grant a road right-of--way or sell a portion of Don Jones Park to the developer. Until this is legally resolved the connection onto North Mountain Avenue cannot occur. 3. Don Jones Park: The City Council has ultimate authority on selling a portion of Don Jones Park to the Developer for legal access to the development. Until the City Council has given approval for this sell the connection of the proposed Parkway Drive to North Mountain Avenue cannot occur. 4. Street Tree Plan: Tree plantings shall have at least a 1 %" trunk diameter at the time of installation. All street trees shall be irrigated with an automatic underground irrigation system. Maintenance of the landscape row will be of the property owners who own the property directly adjacent to the landscape row. 140 South Third Street <~ Central Point, OR 97502 * 541.664.3321 -~ Fax 541.664.6384 ~ ~n~ ~~ ~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW File No. 07033 INTRODUCTION: In the matter of consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application to allow a Planned Unit Development applications for two (2) tax lots identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 01BA, Tax Lots 700 & 500 (Property). The property is located within an R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district. CPMC 17.24.030 -Conditional Uses, states that Planned Unit Developments (in accordance with CPMC 17.68 -Planned Unit Developments) are allowed in the R-2 district when authorized by the Planning Commission in accordance with CPMC 17.76 -Conditional Uses. The first element to consider in the applications for this proposed development is whether or not it meets the criteria to grant approval for a conditional use permit. CPMC 17.76.010 -Purpose. In certain districts, conditional uses are permitted subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual characteristics or the special attributes of the area in which they are to be located, conditional uses require special consideration so tlTat they may be properly located with respect to the objectives of the zoning title and their effect on surrounding properties. Findings: The Property is long and narrow, and in two ownerships, making development under standard regulations extremely inefficient. The primary challenge is in assuring adequate public street connectivity that complies with the City's land development requirements. If developed as individual properties construction of a public street would not be possible due to the limited width of each parcel. The applicants have collaborated in preparing a plan for the development of the Property that allows efficient use of the land. The planned unit development design is for single-family detached zero lot-line homes on individual lots. Single-family dwellings are allowed a s a permitted use in the R-2 district. The planned unit development does not include any uses not allowed as permitted within the R-2 district. CPMC 17.76.011-17.76.020 -Application and Review; Information Required. Relating to review of applications, fees and required information. \ \ Serverzilla\ pl\ 2007 Land Use Files\ 07033 -Clark - Vilas -CUP\ FINDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 1 of 7 Findings: The applicants have submitted all of the information required for review at this time. Conclusion: The applicants have complied with these sections. CPMC 17.76.040 -Findings and conditions. 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; Findings: The proposed project site consists of two (2) tax lots. Combined, the approximate gross acreage is 7.11 acres. Pursuant to CPMC 27.68.100 -Planned Unit Developments -Density, an R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district may have up to 12 dwelling units per acre. Using this calculation the applicants could be allowed up to 85 units based on 7.11 gross acres. The applicants are proposing 531ots. Because of the width of the Property and public street connectivity requirements it is not practical to attain higher densities. As a Planned Unit Development, CPMC 17.68.080 -Planned Unit Developments - Exceptions to Zoning and Subdivision Titles, the Planning Commission may allow exceptions within a PUD for dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, structure heights, distances between structures, street widths oroff-street parking and loading facilities differing from the specific standards for the zoning district in which the PUD is located. The proposed lots range in size from 3,123 sq. ft. - 6,720 sq. ft. The applicants are pursuing a PUD for the purpose of varying from: 1. The standard setback requirements to allow for zero lot line homes. 2. The minimum lot area requirement of 6,000 sq. ft. 3. The minimum lot width requirement. Conclusion: The proposed exceptions do not conflict with the intent of the R-2 district. The setbacks, lot area, and lot width exceptions are consistent on a per unit basis with the R-2 district requirements for a duplex. (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; Findings: The site has direct access onto West Vilas Road, which is classified by the County as a county arterial road. Jackson County has expressed safety \\Serverzilla\pl\2007 Land Use Files\07033 -Clark - Vilas -CUP\FINDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 2 of 7 concerns about the "partial road" that intersects with West Vilas Road. As a mitigation requirement to the sight distance concern Jackson County is requiring the applicants to provide a sight distance analysis for the intersection of West Vitas Road and Parkway Drive. Public Works commented that typically a project of this size based on the estimated PHT (Peak Hour Trips) would require a traffic study. The Public Works Director has waived this requirement due to a previous study that anticipated further development in this area. The applicants are proposing to provide secondary access by connecting into North Mountain Avenue, which is a City public road located at the south boundary of the project area. In order to accomplish this connection, the applicants will have to purchase a portion of Don Jones Park. Additionally, there is a quiet title issue to resolve with a portion of Don Jones Park. Therefore, the City Council cannot make a determination as to whether or not this can be accomplished, until the quiet the action is completed. Once this is cleared up, the City Council will review the applicants' proposal to purchase the required land for this connection pending the Planning Commission s decision to approve or deny these applications. Conclusion: As proposed the Project provides adequate public access. (C). That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting properhj or the permitted use thereof. In making this determination, the Commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; heights of buildings and structures; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs; Findings: The subject project area is adjacent to Don Jones Park on the west side, with Industrial and Commercial Neighborhood zoned properties to the east. To the south are existing subdivisions such as Central Point East, and Beebe Woods, PUD. The proposed development would have no more of an impact on adjoining properties than development of the Property with permitted uses. The traffic would increase somewhat to the south with possible access through Central Point East to Beebe Road. Construction traffic would be limited access from West Vitas Road, so as not to disturb or disrupt existing neighborhoods off North Mountain Avenue. The applicants are proposing a pedestrian crosswalk from the east side of the development to the west side with pedestrian access continuing through to Don Jones Park. There will be a white vinyl fence along the eastern side of the development with Photinia on the inside of the fence. The applicants will ~~ r,. ~ \\Serverzilla\pl\2007 Land Use Files\07033 -Clark - Vitas -CUP\FINDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 3 of 7 provide a four (4) foot vinyl fence on the west side adjacent to the park that matches the fencing proposed to the east. The vehicular access and internal circulation will depend upon successfully acquiring access to North Mountain Avenue. The applicants have provided 10 different house designs to fit the lots proposed. With the exception of the zero lot-line configuration all house designs meet the height and setback criteria of the R-2 zoning district. There will be no variances other than those addressed in the approval of the accompanying applications for this development. Any signs would have to go through the building permit process and meet the criteria as outlined in CPMC 15.24 -Signs. Signage is not addressed in the application. Conclusion: The applicants have adequately addressed the Criteria C. (D). That the establishment, maintenance or operation of use applied for will comply with local, state and federal health and safefij regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safetl~ or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community/ based on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of this section; Findings: Refer to the findings as outlined in detail in subsection C above. Conclusion: The applicants have adequately addressed the Criteria C (E). That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and may include: 1. Adjustments to lot size or yard areas as needed to best accommodate the proposed use; provided the lots or yard areas conform to the stated minimum dimensions for the subject zoning district, unless a variance is also granted as provided for in Chapter 17.13. Findings: The proposed lot sizes and yard areas comply with the equivalent per dwelling unit requirement of the R-2 district. As an example the minimum lot area is 6,000 sq. ft. on which can be located a duplex for 3,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. The proposed Project has a minimum per dwelling unit lot area of 3,100 sq. ft. ~, ~~ \\Serverzilla\pl\2007 Land Use Files\07033 -Clark - Vilas -CUP\FINDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 4 of 7 The applicants are not proposing any variances as provided for in Chapter 17.13. Conclusion: Any changes to the proposed PUD, will be addressed in the final development plan as an amendment, when brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. 2. Increasing street widths, modifications in street designs or addition of street signs or traffic signals to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use, Findings: This is yet to be determined depending upon whether the applicants can acquire the additional land necessary to make the North Mountain Avenue connection. Conclusion: Any changes to the proposed PUD, will be addressed in the final development plan as an amendment when brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. 3. Adjustment to off-street parking requirements in accordance with and unique characteristics of the proposed use, Findings: The applicants have provided additional parking for proposed lots 28 & 29, Lots 34 & 35, Lots 40 & 41, and Lots 46 &47 along the western portion of the project area adjacent to Don Jones Park. There will be approximately 7 on-street parking spaces between driveways where the narrow lots are proposed. Combined, there are approximately 14 additional off-street and on-street parking spaces, as well as the required covered parking provided for each lot. Conclusion: With the narrow Iot configurations, the applicants were able to still provide some on-street parking. 4. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress, Findings: Meeting this criterion will be dependent upon successfully acquiring the necessary land to make the North Mountain Avenue connection. Conclusion: Once the quiet title action is resolved, the City Council will determine whether or not the City can proceed with selling approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of Don Jones Park to make the connection. If not, the applicants will need to come up with an internal circulation plan. This could result in a loss of the \\Serverzilla\pl\2007 Land Use Files\07033 -Clark - Vilas -CUP\FINDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 5 of 7 number of lots and will be addressed as an amendment in the final development plan. 5. Requiring landscaping, irrigation systems, lighting and a property maintenance program, Findings: A landscape & irrigation plan will have to be submitted and approved by the City prior to final plat approval. A property maintenance program would be controlled by a Homeowners Association. The City shall receive a copy of the CC & R's to ensure that common areas are maintained. The CC & R's shall be provided with the final development and final plat applications and approved for recording with the final plat. Conclusion: These requirements shall be satisfied prior to signing final plat. 6. Regulation of signs and their locations, Findings: The applicants have not addressed signage in their applications. Any signs will meet the criteria outlined in CPMC 15.24. Conclusion: A building permit would be required, and compliance verified through the review process. 7. Requiring fences, berms, walls, landscaping or other devices of organic or artificial composition to eliminate or reduce the effects of noise, vibrations, odors, visual incompatibility orother undesirable effects on surrounding properties, Findings: The applicants have identified perimeter vinyl fences. When the industrial property to the east develops, they would be required to screen their uses to reduce the above mentioned effects. Conclusion: The applicants have met this criterion for the proposed use. 8. Regulation of time of operations for certain hypes of uses if their operations may adversely affect privacy of sleep of persons residing nearby or otherwise conflict with other community neighborhood functions, Findings: N/ A Conclusion: N/A 9. Establish a time period within which the subject land use must be developed, \\Serverzilla\pl\2007 Land Use Files\07033 -Clark - Vilas -CUP\FINDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 6 of 7 Findings: A development schedule has been provided with the associated Planned Unit Development application. The applicants have identified that the proposed development will be completed in two (2) phases. Conclusion: The applicants have met this requirement. of time, 10. Requirement of a bond or other adequate assurance within a specified period Findings: The amount or type of assurance accepted by the City will be determined by the Public Works Department in conjunction with required improvements. Conclusion: The Public Works Department will make sure that this is satisfied prior to Public Works signing the final plat for recordings. 11. Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public health, safeh~ and general welfare, Findings: In the applicants' findings, they have agreed to comply with any additional conditions imposed to ensure the protection of public health, safety and general welfare consistent with CPMC. Conclusion: The applicants have agreed to comply with any additional requirements. 12. In considering an appeal of an application for a conditional use permit for a home occupation, the planning commission shall review the criteria listed in Section 17.60.190. Findings: N/ A Conclusion: N/A \\Serverzilla\pl\2007 Land Use Files\07033 -Clark - Vilas -CUP\FINDINGS OF FACT.doc Page 7 of 7 A~ 1 ~<.dI I~~~v N LL ~ 99 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION IN PREPARATION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND TENTATIVE PLAN APPLICATIONS LOCATED IN CENTRAL POINT, OREGON Applican#: Heritage Development Inc. 37S 2W 01BA, Tax Lota 500 & 700 File No. 07033 WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a Conditional Use application in preparation for Planned Unit Development and Tentative Plan applications for the creation of 53 zero lot line single family lots located within the R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district on approximately 7.11 acres on properties identified on Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 01BA, Tax Lots 500 & 700, in the City of Central Point, Oregon; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2007, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted aduly-noticed public hearing on the applications, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission s consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district section 17.24, and Conditional Uses, section 17.76 of the Central Point Municipal Code; and BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. does hereby approve the application based on the findings and conclusions of approval as set forth on Exhibit "A", the Plaruung Department staff report which includes attachments, which is attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 6~ day of March, 2007. Planning Commission Chair ~-~ ,; Page 1 of 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. (03062007) ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this day of 2007. Planning Commission Chair ~~ Page 2 of 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. (03062007)