Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - September 6, 2005CEM"RAt_ Ffl1hFT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA September G, 2(}05 -'T:00 p.m. Next Planning Caznrnission Resolution Na. 66~ I, MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Cozanie Maczygenzba ,Candy ~`islz, Damian Idiart, Mack Lewis, Scott Mangold, Cluck Piland, and Wayne Riggs, III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of August 2, 2E105, Planning Cazn.znission Minutes B, Review and appraval of August 16, 2045, Planning Caznznissian Minutes C. Review and approval of August 16, 20f~5, Special Joint CAC & Planning Caznmissian Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS A. CONTINUANCE of a Pu61ic hearing to consider a Tentative Plan application and a Planned Unit Development application. The purpose of these application is to create G ~~s t-2i single family residential Tots. The property is located within an R-1-f~, Residential Single Family zoning district. It is identif ed on the Jackson County Assessor's map at 3'7 2W l ODC, Tax Lot 100. B. Public hearing to consider Tentative Plan and Planned Unit Development applications known as Phase lIl ofa previously approved Master Plan known as Cascade Meadows. The purpose of these applications is to create 4 single family rsidential lots. The ~~s 22-~7 property is currently located in an TflD-EC, Employment Commercial. The property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 3'l 2Vi~ 11CC, Tax Lot 5100. APPROVAL OF THESE APPLICATIONS WOULD BE CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF PENDING ZONE MAP 8z COMPREHENSIVE FLAN AMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM TOD-EC, EMPLOYMENT COMMERCIAL TO TOD-LMR, LOW MIX RESIDENTIAL. PCfl90fi{}5 C, A public meeting to consider a Site Plan application for the purpose of constructing a I~Ioliday Inn Express motel. The property is located within a C-4, Tourist and Office- Professionai zoning district and is identified oil the Jackson County Assessor's map as Pis ~s-s~ 37 2W 02D, Tax Lots 1904 & 18(}0. The project site is located south of East Pine Street and east of Interstate 5. D. A public hearing to consider a Tentative Plan application for the purpose of creating 1 SS Pgs. s7-zos lots {150 residential lots} located within the Twin Creeks Master flan area. This area of the Master Plan is known as North Viiiage Twin Creeks, Phases I & II. Tl7e zoning consists of TOD-OS, Open Space and TOT3-LMI2, Low Mix Residential and is identified on the Jackson County Assessors map as 3`7S 2V~ 038, Tax Lots 1.600, 1601, 1602, 1603, 180{3 and 3'7 2W 03C, Tax Lots 100 ~ 102. The property is located south of Scenic Avenue, north ofTaylor Road, east of Grant Road, and west of LTS Highway 99. Pgs. zo~_i~e E. A public hearing to consider a Tentative Plan application for the purpose ofcreating 67 residential lots within the Twin Creeks Master Pian area, known as Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase II. The zoning consists of TOD-OS, Open Space and TOLD-MMR., Medium Mix Residential. It is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 3 C, portions of Tax Lot 102 and portions of Tax Lot 100. The property is located south of Scenic Avenue, north of Taylor Road, east of Grant Road, and west of US Higway 99. VI. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of the Transportation System Plan. VIA. ADJt3URNMENT rco9a~as August 2, 2005 Minutes PtcrruTing Carrrrnisslotr A~itsutes r#ugust 2, 2{1f15 P~rgc=1 City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 2©U5 ~, MEETING CALLED Td ORDER AT 7:0o P.M. ~~. ROLL CALL: Chairperson Connie Moczygemba, Candy Fish, Mack Lewis, Scott Mangold, Chuck Piland and Wayne Riggs were present. Damian Idiart was absent. Also in attendance were; Dave Alvord, Community Planner; Don Burt, Interim Planning Manager; Matt Samitc~re, Development Services Coordinator and Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician. III. COR:R~,SF4NDENCE There was no correspondence. N. MINUTES Commissioner Piland made a motion to approve the minutes from JAY 5~ 200,x, Commissioner Mangold seconded the motion. RQLL CALL: Fish, yes; Lewis, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, Yes, Motion passed. V. FUBLiC APP~'A:RANCES There were no public appearances. VT. BUSINESS A, Public hearing to consider an application for a minor partition. The purpose of this application is to create three individual parcels, two of which will be designated as Upen Space and one parcel which will be further subdivided in the future. The property is located within the Twin Creeks Master Plan area and is identified on the Jackson CountyAssessors map as 37 2w 3CD, Tax Lot x24, Commissioner Mangold recused himself since he resides within the noticing area. Plarrrring ~`onurrissicrn ,t~irrntes ,august 2, 2t1t1 i Page 2 Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician presented that staff report. There were written questions submitted regarding open space, and who would be responsible for the open space, and the difference between a parcel and lot. Bret Moore, applicant stated that this partition is for minas housekeeping. The property is land that is left over from Twin Creeks Grassing Phase 1 and will keep the open space from being developed. They don't want to include open space an the final plat, as outlined in Condition # ~ of the Planning Department Conditions of Approval. They have always worked with Public Works in the past for open space with the intent that the open space to be dedicated to the City when Public Works is satisfied. The ternparary RV parking has a tentative agreement in process for a permanent location. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the application. The public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Lewis made a motion to adopt Resolution 6b1, approving a Tentative Plan application, based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staffreports, in addition to the followi~r-g condition: ~ . Condition # 5 be amended to read: The open space will be dedicated to the City at such time that the terms of transfer have been satisfied. Commissioner Piland seconded the mot;.on ROLL C.~-LL: Fish, yes, Lewis, yes; Yiland, yes, Riggs, yes, Motion passed. Commissioner Mangold resumed his chair f©r the remainder of the meeting. B. C4NTIlti~E.TANCE of a public hearing to consider applications for a minor partition application and a subdivision variance. The purpose of these applications is to create two tax lots; the variance application is to vary from the minimum size requirement fora "Flag Lot" configuration. The property is identified on the Jackson CountyAssessor's map as 37 2W ~.1D, Tax Lot a.b8©~.. The address is X12 Beall Lane. Commissioner Mangold made a site visit. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner; presented the Planning Department staff report. Mr. Gerschler brought attention to the code regarding flag Tots. He explained the request of the variances and the applicant's praposaL Mr, Gerschler went through the Platrttitr~ ~'arrtrnissiotz A~`intttes ,~ugtest 2.2t~C15 Page 3 correspondence that had been submitted by surrounding citizens. Mr. Gershler read through the criteria for approving a variance and states that unfortunately the City's hands are tied in this case. He explained how a legal decision must be based on the Code. Mr, Gerschler said that the application has met Criterion # 8, however without meeting the other variance requirements it would be difficult to approve the partition. Private access drive standards will be brought to the Council in the future. Larry Kellums, C3wner/Applicant stated that he had discussed the access road variance with Public Works and had thought that this issue was resolved, As far as the minor partition and variance from minimum lot size, Mr. KeIlums was uncertain if he was asking for 2 flag lots or z standard lot with ~ flag lot. Don Molloy, a resident on Circlewood Drive stated that the evidence is clear and convincing and doesn't see how this application could be approved. Mr. Molloy added that Mel Coffin prior property owner} purposely divided his land this way to protect surrounding property owners from the land being further developed. This property was also sold to the applicant knowing the intent ofthe seller. Mike Zigler, a resident on Beall Lane, lives adjacent to easement on the west side. He was surprised to hear that codes could change. The easement serves as access to his property as well. No one else carne forward to speak in favor of or against the application. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Lewis made a motion to adept Resolution {-~i2, denying a Tentative Plan application for a manor partition based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff reports, Commissioner Mangold seconded the motion ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Lewis, yes; Mangold, yes; Piland, yes, Riggs, yes. Motion passed. C. Public hearing to consider a Tentative Plan and Planned Unit Development applications for the purpose of creating fi Single Family parcels to be known as Creekside Village. The subject property is located north of Beall bane, west of US Highway g9, south ofTimothy Street and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W xoUC, Tax Lot .too. Commissioner Mangold made a site visit. 1'laniring C'ornmissidn Alirzuter .~ugzrsi 2, 2t?0~ Page ~ David Alvord, Community Planner presented the Planning Department staff report. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting a continuance. Don Bunt, Interim Planning Manager stated that the Planning Commission and City Council had a study session regarding Planned Unit Developments and staff has been instructed to determine minimum and maximum lot size requirements. The City Council and Public Works Department will not allow any more private roads for Planned Unit Developments. The public portion of the meeting will remain open. Commissioner Mangold made a motion to continue the public hearing to the September b, 2005 meeting per the applicant's request. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion RC1LL CALL: Fish, yes; Mangold, yes; Piland, yes, Riggs, Yes. Motion passed. VII. MISCELLANEt3ITS We will be looking at code amendments in the near future. The Planning Department and Public Works Department met with Sonic Restaurant for a Fre-App meeting. There will be a special joint Citizen Advisory Committee & Planning Commission meeting on August x6, ~oo~ to discuss the Regional Problem Solving options. Viii. AUJE3U%-NMENfi Commissioner Piland made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion, RtJLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M. August 16, 2005 Minutes Plctrtrtirag C'ottttnissiota hfrnutes Atcgust 16. 2~}~15 Pale I City of Central Po~xat Plaaru~~in,g Cor~r~:m~ss~.on Minutes August ~.b, 2005 I. MEETING CALLED TO £)RDER AT 7:©© P.M. II. RC}LL CALL: Chairperson Connie Moczygemba, Candy Fish, Damian Idiart, Mack Lewis, Scott Mangold, Chuck Piland and tfVayne Riggs were present. Also in attendance were: Dave Alvord, Community Planner; Don Burt, Interim Planning Manager; Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator and Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician. III. CQR:RiESFCI-NDENCE There was no correspondence. IV. MIN~I~CES There were no minutes to approve at this meeting. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public meetangto review a Final Development Plan for Hazel Creek A Planned Unit Development. Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director presented the Planning Department staff report and went through the process for a final approval for a Planned Unit Development. Mr. I-Iumphrey explained that all infrastructure improvements have been made already. The applicant is banding for his portion of the Hazel Street improvements. The bond will remain in effect for one year. The City has contacted MPO to try to secure Federal funding for an air quality grant to help finance the City's portion of improvements for Hazel. Street. Plnnnin,~ {'otrttrtissiott tj?inrrtes Arrgirst IS. 2~Q5 I'crge 1 The Public Works Department is satisfied. The landscaping plans and CC & R's have ail been submitted and staff finds they are satisfactory. Mr. Humphrey informed the Commission that the Council denied the request to vacate Hazel Street. The Council would like to keep Hazel Street. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 663, approving a Final Development Plan application, based an the standards, tinclings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff reports. Cornrnissioner Mangold seconded the motion RQLL CALL: Fish, yes; Lewis, yes; Pi%a.nd, yes, Riggs, yes. Motion passed, VII. MISCELLANEQUS Mr. Humphrey distributed Downtown Festival flyers and introduced Dan Burt, Interim Planning Manager to everyone. VIII. ADJUUI~~NMEI~~'T Commissioner Piland made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. RULL CALL; Manion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7; i5 P.M. August 16, 2005 Special CAC & PC Minutes City of Central Faint Special Joint Meeting Citizen's Advisory Cammi#tee 8z Planning Commission Minutes Augtcst 16, 24U5 '7.2Q P.NI. I. Meeting Called to Qrder II. Ralf Call: Connie Moczygemba, Chairperson; Caddy Fish, Planning Commissioner, Uarnian Idiart, Planning Commissioner; Mack Lewis, Planning Commissioner; Scott Mangold, Planning Commissioner; Chuck Piland, Pla~u~ing Commissioner; Wayne Riggs, Planning Coznrnissioner; Walter Moczygernba, CAC Chairman; Herb Farber, CAC; Sam lnkley, Jr., CAC; Sant lnkley, Sr., CAC, David Painter, CAC; Peg Wiedznan, CAC were present. doe Thomas, CAC.; vas absent. Also in attendal~ce vas Tom Iiuznphrey, Community 1)evelapment Director; Do~z Burt, Interim Planning Manager; and Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician. III. Minutes There were no minutes. Minutes from prior meeting to be approved at the ~~.ext individual regularly scheduled meeting. I'4~. Public appearances There were no public appearances V. Business A. Public Meeting; far re-consideration of the Regional Problem Saivizrg (RPS} potential future g;ro~~th areas surrounding Central Point. Planning Chairperson, Connie Moczygeznba asked if anyone bad conflicts of interest or ex-parte comzx~unications to disclose. Candy Fish stated that she has 13{l acres listed for sale in area CP~a. Peg Wied~~~an owns property within area CP6a. Sam lnklcy, 3r. owns property wifihin area CP21a. All Citizen Advisory Co~~zmittce members intracluced fltemselves. Tom 1-lumphrey, Community Devolopn~cnt Diz-ector explained the purpose and tale of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC}. Mr. Humphrey gave an overview and bacpground regarding the lit recommendation far the urban resolve area trade by the CAC aztcl Pla~zning Commission. Tk~is process evolved and snore itaput was received from various age~~cies, as to whether or not they would support the areas recommended before. He explained that the Technical Advisory Cotn~nitteo wants to see this process wrapped up, Tho City of Central Point is looking at a 3'7,0{10 - 40,~}Cl0 population within 35-40 years. Mr. flutnphroy went through each of the previously recommended areas. CP-1 was mot with opposition because of agricultural land, it could have an impact far C~DC}T, and DLCD opposed the area. CP-2 couldn't handle all of the growth expected by itself The City will Hoed approximately 2300 acres and therefore began. looping at other areas that tray wore. There was a modification to the area west of Grant Road adding mare acreage to the original 33 acres recommended. He explained that no matter what direction the City chooses, we will run into agricultural land. On Plan `A', area CP-2 had bean reduced significantly. Mr. Humphrey stated that if there are existing natural features, they can be supported in master planning. This area would be difficult to efficiently develop given the nutnbor of already divided land. Area 4a was added i~xcluding west of Boos Avenue. Area CPda was added. The property owners are rat in agreement with the classification of goad agricultural land. There are also pending Measure 37 claims in this area. CP-1 was amended based on a new potential industrial area being able to capitalize on the interchange, and respecting boundaries of a new interchange on exit 35. This plan accommodates County Cotnmissionor Giltxtore's plan to create a now industrial town. There are fatal flaws in Plan: `A'. The biggest being no continuity with City boundaries. Don Burt, Interim Planning Manager; stated that it consideration of growth areas should be based on an underlying philosophy. C)no such approach is to develop in centric pattern around your core downtown area. you want to try to balance both sides for developtnetit. Mr. Humphrey added that the County wants to develop also in the CP-1 area. Uur argument to support this area would be stronger since the County wants to develop there. There are several agencies against CP-l. This area was idontifted because of the unique opportunity with the railroad and freeway. There are many reasons why transportation is looking at moving away from tz-uckitag to rail. This az-ca is a l~z•i~~-ze c£zncliclate for iz~clustrial developn~ezat. Mr. Huzzaphrey continued thz°ough each of the options. The City needs further clarifzcatian of how industrial land will be allocated. Whether tl~e industrial land will be limited to certain areas in the region, or if Central Point would be entitled to have industrial land. There were questions regarding tztiIities, proposed route to connect Highway ~2 to I-5, how much weight the City has in the decisiora~ making, and which plan tl7e City recozrzmends, supports and why. Chairperson Moczygemba opened the public portion ofthe meeting. Citizen # I -Lives on Linden Inane. Would like to see a buffer. Would like to see a few I argcr parcels for housing. Citizen #2 - flail questions regarding plans. Mark Barthamew, Attorney representing Elk Farms south of Beall Lane and west of US Highway 99 urged the CAC & Plazaning Commission to consider taking this area in. 1-le stated that it could be rrzaster planned and it will unlikely be used as agricultural in the future. The property owner is considering a Measure 37 claim.. EIk Farms consists of appraxizxzately 3C~C} acres and would probably divide them into to 2 acre parcels. Citizen ##3 -Lives an Taylor Road is a proponezzt of Area 6a. I~Ie has a pending Measure 37 claim. This area is more contiguous with the downtown area. Water resides all along the laoundaries. There are larger parcels which are easier to master plan. Right now there is 135 acres along there with only ~ houses. The Iand has a class 3 soil, which can not support zntensrve crops. Dorian Bradshaw of 7 teaks Farn~.s said they appear to be right in the middle of what everyone else wants them to be. There has been interest in their property in relation to the Interchange. Feels the City should have input on the Interchange. No one else carne forward to speak in favor of ar against any other areas. Chairperson Moczygeznba closed the public portion of the meeting. There were additional questions regarding Measure 37, and how property owners could develop with the waiver but would still need to nzcet other requirements. Some mezrzbers felt that whether certain properties were in the City limits or not, they will develop and may not develop to the City's standards. There were questions regarding CP-1 and why it weazt so far ~zoz-th. Mr. 1-lumphrey explained that because of tl~e larger parcels anci best connection between the; railroad anti highway. The largez- parcels would be needed for industrial uses. There were variations discussed about adding az1 area included iz~ another option to another oz~e. herb 1~arber, CAC recommended Plan `B' as it stands. Scott Mangold, Planning Comzx~ission recommended Plan `B' as it stands. Recornmendatio~i: Chairperson Moc~ygemba asked those ~vlio were in favor of Plan `B' say "~,.ye" Those ~vho are opposed of Plan `B' please raise your hand. Commissioner Icliart .raised his hand. Mr.1-lumphrey asked the Citizen Advisory Committee and Planning Commission to offer some reasons as to why they recommended Plan `B'. Some of the reasons were: CP-6 can be easily developed; it could preserve agricultural land to the northeast; JC Commissioner Gilmorc's plan is a good idea, azxd could be done by the City; if the area in CP-1 is going to be industrial, we want the citizens of Central Point to have input instead of under the authority of the County. Vl. Miscellaneous There were no miscellaneous items. ill. Adjoar~lrtxent The committee adjourned at approximately 9:44 P.M. Creekside Village Continued Planning Qepartmen~ Tam Humphrey. AtCP, Cornarsunity Development t?irectc~r! Assistant City Ad~t~tnisirator IV~EETING SATE; September ~, 2005 T©: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: David. Alvord, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public 1"learing - A continuance of a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative S lot subdivision known as the Creekside Village PUD. The subject property is located west of Snowy Butte Lane and. north of Beall Lane in an R-1-~ zoning district {372W10DC), Tax Lot 100. Applicant: Paul Grout P,d. Box 821{1 Medford, OR. 9704 Owner: Roseann Wagner 1772 Beall Lane Central Point, (~R, X7502 Agent: Same as applicant Summary: The applicant has submitted a revised Preliminary Develapment Plan to create a PUD and subdivide an existing tax lot into 5 residential lots. An open space component will be incorporated into an existing park and a development to the earth and west of the proposed PUD. Authori :CPMC 1.24,050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision. Applicable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et. Seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.20,010 et. Seq. - R~1, Residential Single-Family District CPMC 17,68.01{1 et. Seq. -Planned Unit Development i<PUD~ 1 Planning Department STAFF REP~FtT ~"arn Fiu~~pl~rey,AtCP, Corztrttu~zity [~evelopm~nt €~irectorJ Assistant pity Adntinistratar Back~ronnd• This proposal was first heard at the August 2, 2005 Planning Commission meeting and at the request of the applicant was continued to September 6, 2005; therefore the public hearing is still open and re-notice is not required. However, l'~latice of Public Hearing for August 2, 2005 was given in accordance with CPMC 1.2~-.060. The purpose of the continuance was to allow the applicant and staff to address a variety of design options. Since the August 2`~ hearing the project's design has been modified significantly, eliminating numerous code deviations and basic design flaws. Project llescription: The proximity of the property to Griffin Creek in conjunction with the width of the property creates a basic design challenge to the efficient development of the property. The PUD process is being proposed y the applicant to overcome the creek imposed design challenge. The applicant is proposing that the property be developed as a 5 lot Planned Unit Development with a typical lot size of approximately 6,000 square feet. Lots 3, 4 ~& 5 require deviations from the minimum lot width requirement. Lots 4 and 5 at 52,22 feet are the narrowest lots {see Exhibit "A>'). All 5 lots are above the 6,{}00 sq. ft. requirement, Since this is a PUD, and because of the difficulty in developing this property due to the location of the creek, width, depth, and area requirements can be waived. The project will have access from Beall Lane. It is proposed that a 28-foot pubic street running north to south will serve a115 fats. The road will consist of a curb-to-curb width of 28 feet and aright-of=way width of 38 feet. Located immediately behind the easterly right-af~--way will be a 15-foot easement. ;,;:- Planning Depar~.ment STAFF REPC)RT E~iTFtAL ~-arn~a~,~t~rey,A~cP. ~~ Coms~nunit}r aev~lop~ent C?ir~etc~rl AssistanC Csty Acfn~inistrate~r Within this easement will be located a five foot sidewalk and utilities. Sidewalk easements have been approved for developments in the past as a way to provide a safe corridor for pedestrian and bicycle traffic to Flanagan Park while maintaining required lot sizes. Along the westerly side of the public right- o way there will be a four-foot landscape buffer running along the entire length of the new street, This area and the creek will serve as open space for the project. A barrier will be placed at the north end of the street until the lot to the north of the project has been developed. The applicant will be responsible for improvements to Beall Lane along the property frontage. Improvements will include additional paving width, curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The location of the new street and its intersection with Beall Lane have been coordinated with the County. Ail 5 lots will front on, and take access from, the proposed public street. Setbacks will be standard setbacks for R-I zones; 20 feet in the front; IS feet in the rear, and 5 feet per floor on the sides. Setbacks will be measured from the back of the sidewalk rather than the property line to allow for vehicles parking in the driveways to be inside of the sidewalk area. Discussi4n• When this project was presented to the Flanning Commission at the August 2, 2{}0.~ meeting, there were some issues associated with this plan that warranted a continuance of the project to the September 6, ZfI05 meeting that would allow the applicant to redesign the project at S residential lots, 6,OQU sq. ft. minimums each, Those issues and the outcome were: ..'~ Planning E~epartmen~ STAFF REPOrRT ~E~TRAL TarnFtumphrey,AiCP, ~~~~ Camrnunity [~eveiapment ()iC~CEar/ Assistant City Adn~rnistratar 1. The proposed private street needs to be constructed to the standards af, and dedicated as, a minor residential public street. The applicant has redesigned the street to public street standards for the curb-to-curb section. The street is identified as "public" on the Tentative Plan. 2. The prapased street creates a Bauble frontage situation with the property irr>ediately to the east. The street has been shifted further to the west, closer fo Griffin Creek. Double frontage situation has been eliminated. 3. As spawn, the proposed street dead-ends at the northern property line. The house an that property is located such that extension of the road far future development would require the pause to be demolished, if the street is allowed to remain as shown, it would therefore be approved as a dead-end street. The proposed street has been shifted to the west which, with the eventual development of the property to the north, will provide a connection well away from the home on that property. The potential of an approved dead-end street has been eliminated, 4.The close proximity of the intersection of the prapased street and Beall Lane to the bridge headwall will create traffic hazards. The entrance to the project provides a ~~-foot radius from the bridge headwall. Allowing traffic to enter and exit the proposed PfJD without additional traffic hazards. A 30-foo# turning radius is sufficient to allow emergency vehicles to enter and exit the project area. Punning C~epartmen~ STAFF REPORT C~NTf~AL. ~~~ ~~~,~~~~~y~~~cp, ~ V ~~ Community C~eueloprr~ent Directorl Assistant Gty Administcato~- S. Another issue that has been raised is the development of PU'L~s on property's less than S acres in size. The City allows PUDs under 5 acres subject to certain findings. The applicant has addressed those findings, The plan the applicant has submitted uses the PUD process to provide limited flexibility in modification of lot size. The proposed design essentially conforms to applicable R-1-6 criteria. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: In reviewing these findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission shall find whether or not the standards of this chapter, including the following criteria (CPMC 1'7.6$.{l4fl) are either met, can be net by observance of conditions, or are not applicable. A. That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of this title. The proposed PUI7 will be compatible with other PUI~s that have been approved for this area of the City. YYith the sh~ting of the proposed public street to the west towards Griffin Cree1~ the issues of avoiding a double frontage situation with the property to the east, approving adead-end street, and preserving the house on the lot to the north have all been addressed. B. The proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies ofthe City. The proposed PUU is consistent with the residential designation for the property as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Y~ith regard to compliance with the zoning ordinance the Planning Commission has the discretion to determine whether or not the proposal complies with the intent of the underlying STAFF REPC)RT CENTRAL POINT Planning C3epartment ~~~, ~~~~~,t,~~~ AICP, C4rr~r~tu«ity i~evelo~rnent Directorl Assistant City Adrr€inist~'atar zoning district The intent of the R-I district is to " .stabilize and protect the urban low density residential characteristic of the district while promoting and encouraging suitable environments for ,family life. "The question to the Planning Commission is whether or not this project is in keeping with the character of the immediate neighborhood. C. The lacatian, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have minimal adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development ofthe surrounding area. The original plan, as discussed at the august 2, 2(1(15 planning commission, called for 6 lots designed for single family- residential purposes..~s stated in the staff report, the development of the property as a standard R-1-6 subdivision would allow for 5 lots. The proposed I'IID, as revised, offers S residential Zots at 6, (1Qi1 sq. ft each. Public facilities servicing the project are sufficient to accommodate the additional units. The Planning, Public ViTOrks and Building Departments have reviewed the revised Tentative Plan for the proposed. subdivisian and the f ndings of fact and believe that with revisions that have been made, the project can meet all City standards and requirements found in Exhibits B, C, and D. D. The the proponents of the PLXD demonstrated they are financially able to carry out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months ofthe final approval afthe project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete said construction within a reasonable time as determined by the Planning Commission. The applicant has provided sufficient information to verb that they are financially capable of completing the project. >: T ~~ /A~ Punning i~epar~.men~ STAFF REPt~RT ~~~~ # ~~11`1~ TomNumpE~rey,AtCP, ~~~ Community I7eveloprr;ent C~irectorl Assistant City Administrator E. That traffic congestion will not likely be caused by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking. The development will generated 7.75 average daily trips. {5 lots x 9.55 trips per household). The entrance to the project area hers been offset fram the bridge headwall to allow a 3tt fact turning radius into and out of the praect area. The existing street system can adequately accommodate the additional traffic. F. That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed. The proposed development consists of single family residential homes. There is na commercial component attached to this project Nat applicable. G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well organized with adequate provisions fox railroad and truck access and necessary storage. The proposed development is not intended fr~r industrial use of any kind. Nat applicable. H. The PUD preserves natuxal features such as streams anal shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain. ~ four; foot buffer strip will be planted clang the top of the bank of G'rifjin Greek separating the street fram the creek The buffer will tie into the open space component of an adjacent Pt}I~ and city park which are close by. 1. The PUD will be compatible with the surxounding area. Gansideratian of this criteria is subject to the discretion of the Planning Commission and involves alignment with criteria A, B, C, and E..~s designed, is it the Planning Commission's finding that the project is compatible with the older developments and previously approved Planned Unit ~}evelaprnents in the immediate vicinity. Planning C}epartmen~ STAFF REPORT ~E~TFC~L. Torr,Fiur„pt,rey,AlcE~, ~~~"' Cor„rnunity Develaprnent Director) Assistant City Arfr,~€inistrator J . The PUD sviil reduce the need for public facilities and services relative to tither perrr~itted uses fer the land. As proposed the PUZ~ will not have any impact on the need for public services. Recommendation: Adapt Res4lutic~n No._, approving the tentative PUD plan as per the Staff Report date. September 6, 2~{l5, Exhibits• A: Tentative Plan B: Planning Departzx~ent Conditions cif Approval C: Public Works Staff Report D: Building Department Staff Report '~ PRE~St~it~ARY PI_IE3 PLAN ~..°~ o! el~' 9unt„x,,,~ V'V ~ ~ aoarr x As~a~~s. uc CR~EKSI€!E VI~.LA~E PWL GROU~7;~ ~T locmtnd to fhe ~r rc e~rt~uw ~.s. rl'n P.0. b47I y. P crra! ~,.~ x~wur :a. ~ SOU7iiEAS7 t j4 SECTION 10. TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTIi. RANGE 2 NIEST, ~a~o`cru as-+ssrz Wii..LAiyii='tTE NtEk2iRiAN. CITY t}F CENTRAL PfliN'~, JACKSON COUt~{TY, OREGON ~+aMa+^ Ir~~ ~_2w-taae~ a waa j I ~~ ~ u,~Trr>~w s PAYtYA cx.+.w~ ... I !~ j `~' seess+a'w ~ aasrta'ta~ x4~.as' ~. ( 56ALE} t>r . ~ ! L..`auo+ ra a ,~ _ .. ~ tsast' PaaPOSE~ a5' s~ 1 :I ...................................................................: c.,.,, Ij ~ ~.T .................... I• ~ I I ~ 'i _ _ I # wT 5 1 s~f--~-anoc u urn I ~ ~ ~ I eesw a ww taws i ~ I I :a ~ ~' ~ ~ I ~~~ ~ I P ta. 2 1 ~ ~ P~54~f90K .I ~ 'i $~ q ~ I ~ I BEALL LANI: "~ ~t ~ ~ I S ~ LOT 4 I i i ew9.o 50. t~. i ~ i i ~ i ,,, , ~....--__,.___~.. ., ~ ar-2w-lroc a asx ~~~ g k~~^^yy t~:NTt:RLSNE Of BEALL LANE sHOx+N ON Si3RVEY No. ''\ cm +of ca+MU. Pow '•~ '~, ~ ~~ k 'j i C' l50t! AS SOUTH 98'SS'i1' EAST. ti '1 ~~ `~ , ~ ~ ktlF 3 k `~ k ~~ DAlUµ ` \ 6D48.0 S0. fT. .; ~., `~ ~ ~ >> ~ k ~ = ~ i ~ FOllNO BRASS DISC TN RiE SOJTNEA5T OORNER #' . \ ..... ~fi,,,; i~ HEADWALL OF COUNTY BRIDGE ~41t ON BEAU LANE At 1. ~ ~ ~ ~ { licttyd;h';;a+i'li',.,1,F........... - SIN Cr'+~TC, ELEVATION ~ !298.18'. 'R \ ~ - ~ I i ~~ ~. ~~ 1 SCALE: !` ~ 3tI' ii .~~.~ i t ~ I LDT 2 ~ ~ ss gSaslCtsi ~ ~i'~3 t ~ 1 x 1 l gQ4p 0 SO. FT: I* i csw~ttFR t1f i 1 z 11 I y i .,~., j 1 j I! I ROSEANN WAGNER c~c tsraxes uwcr tao. • '.~ ~ ~ ~ i I I I 1 lT72 t3EALL LANE S l----__----t ~ CENTRAL FOINT. OREGON 97502 ti k ( t$ ~ wL-__~-~------"x i 37~2Y1-lOOC TAX LOT !QG I w j~-- k I GROSS AREA: !.!9 ACRES NOTES 1 j~~ '~ ~ 2 atotet k 1 ZONED: R-1-8 Akt E745S7Miit ~ W~ NEl~A11 to 9E leFYD~ ~ ` j I 1076 sq. N. 4 1 ~ DiSiRiCT ~.T~~ W5TRlGT Na. 8 ~,~ wctuc ~ AvAW19U: Ar ts~ twc tH~s was i i ~ ~ j - i k 4 i I QuR"°t I 1 ~ t~• i I ~ ~{ ( y I i LOT ! t ~ ~j ~ ~ "' ~ • i ts02:S.B 5O. FT... i. j PR~OFESSlD1~iAt ~~ ~..5._._._._..,._ ~ _3sa`i ~~ sx,ar !4 ~ :4• ta7a' `°~ P~ l,atiD SURVEYOR i .._......._..~.._.._.._...__. tx ~. ~ 3 ~ ' ..-.._........-,.......,..._....... tyE~AwA1L xax t srn ~~ ~ ~ KERRY K ~ApSNAW i ~ ~. ~ i aQ: ~x-aroo GE BEAU.. LANE :m.+a" ~'t~ ~ COTtNE?i me as ~ , -... .- ~ _ - -- '°p~`~ "' °` ss9~'!!"E soa.o~ {soD.na'. is t5Dlt) (BASSI O~ s`EARwas} eaoatx~AOw~. '" E BRASS iR5C ~ ePoOU[ ~! 17.L1A'i10R t2DA.t~ C: f9q Casiton 5oltwaa %fAL wow ORWT..BEAI.L-.tavttaf8-18-OS.d+r 5llE£7 ! OF t ____._,_ ..,...._. spa-sue-llthC Tt !00 ___..._ SUit'VEY.k'CSR A~VC<GR AQFN'f l.O.BDX 8110 N 9730! Dxr>~: RtN>~a,zoos w~ ~~ 37.2W-IODC P PR.~LiM~A~Y PLti3 PLAN 0f CR:~~TCSiDE VIF.LAGE }0c~cui to fhc SOLTE'ffiLt.S7 F T~ ~'"T'TY OP GET~lTRAL PCSTNT~7AC~~ ~OLTNTY, C?I~EGOI3 ~r'IT T.AM~T"i~ MERID 37-zw-IODB TL 9300 :.tax-rttswaentsei.A~~-P ssrrai S88'38'43"W 33'I I"E 1478 ' ,28' LOS 0 ~` 172w-14DCTL t01 7L2W pn 0 !Z - 0R#ATSA t.ARt 5.41~7fi ALSCt.ARK 52 . a I4.OT LO 5 52tD.fi 70.00' PARCEL Na 2 P.Sf-1946 37.2Vi-IODC'CI,3tR ~ ~~ C17Y DF CENfR1Lf43NS ~ LD7 567U.0 SD. Ft. 4 SCALE: 1" ~ 30' '"}F ~ R /~~ 1 ~V S5 CZGANOUT SAC1:St3tiCR3EF.#+ES't'AT&S t3NfINv.4 ~ ~ Y 2 ~ ~ 5203. 54. Ff. S'8t3ffER NATSS ~j 7*+ Ii ..u.~rua:ew.~w. sw4+~ wua* iar. u.+awu MCf AL. [ip.11Y YtC'AVY1'YiY F4}Y.JYU u M tva iw~ YaviY wF%GtiYLiffl+ cfar2ERUxEaRASS DISC .rccccnux tEAP35b:37-2~Y-10570 TI. LOT t 8458.9 F7. ~ Na9»33'II 30,00 N89'Syil"W 93$3' 50.00' BRIDGE wA ....r...+~+r^rt.w`... BRASS DISC BE73CH MARK nnu~..x uFADwA2.2, ci avasiaN-1244.18' ~'RVSY ffY: .TI:ifXh~1"' 1iVB LAND gZ}1'tVEY1SdG ~,/ V TNCOKI't]LtA7El7 SC6RRY K. BRABSFIA'w t.,S, 727C ~~ eA.06X306t 14' Ck`F3TRAS.lD7NS D]tF-~3L77i 47501. {3t 1156h73 m c~u~ sot-6+Az `VtGS1+IX'I'i' MAP (N4 SC LE} +4 ~ i BF.AF1-S.ANE 13X&IS 4 Cam"" weww•«.wiu...n.,. o.a.aow.m «.vy~.,axrr..rissr wr AA"ft1M yyyC~~+T p~gNR'lR~MMEYSA41d1fW11 CY1Ct O~1t-YAit LfC T'ViIDC~M519YtY3t.t3Y~iAY :IIfvxtKY+~if~.lY 91N{t9[~i~1 tp4AN1f N.F04'l 4nl+u~ilaxi orrsuwm:rcRwai mn na.~a,ac•Axim ,w acwwu,a onxau m+o ++. a`nw. xiorr z~ware c:' ~o .~u REGtSi[RED pi20FE5SI0NAL sa l.ANO SURVEti`dR ~ KERRY K,~~RADSNAW pi. 72-34.03 13.15• NfiCORN6RDLC66 . STAFF REPORT CENTRAL POINT EXHIBIT "B" Planning Department Torre Hump~rrey, AiCP, Corr~rrrunity Developrrrer~t Clirecior! Assistant pity Adn~i nistrator PLANNINCr DEPARTMENT REC{)MMENDED C{3NDIT1(~NS C}F APPRQVAL l , The applicant shah comply with ail requirements imposed by affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the development of the Creekside Village PUD. Evidence of such compliance shah be submitted to the City prior to Final Plat approval. 2. The applicant shall comply with ail federal, state, and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the development and construction ofthe Creekside Village PUD. 3, Public street shown on Tentative Plan shall be named. prior to recording of Final Piat. 4. Minimum setback requirements on lots wile be 20 feet for front yards measured from the rear of the sidewalk); 15 feet for the rear-yard and 5 feet perflnrar for side yards. ~~ P~-blic Works [3eparttnent I'~B.L.t=C TIC?. 'C7.R2°' ~~~~~.. ~~`~ ~~ Boh Pierce, f]irector I'V1att Sarnitore, f.7ev. Services COOrd. August 19, 2085 TC7: Planning Department FRC?M: Public W arks Department SUBJECT: Tentative Subdivision and Planned Unit Develaprnent for 3"7 2W I.ODC, Tax Lat I09 Creel~side Vzllage PUD At~nlicant Grout & Associates, LLC P.fl. Box 8210 1vledford, C}R 9'7501 Pro erty Descr%ption/ P.-1-6 Zoning Purpose Provide information to the Planning Camtnissian and Applicant {hereinafter referred to as "Developer"} regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design. and development of the proposed. Gather information from the L>evelaper/Engineer regarding the proposed development. A City of Central Paint Public Works Department Staff Report is not intended to replace the City's Standards & Specifications. St4~ff Reports are written in coordination with the City's Standards & Specifications to form a useful guide. The City's Standards & Speci~catians should be consulted far any information not contained in a Public Works Staff Report. .~`~isting Infrastructure 1. Streets: This section of Beall Lane is itnpraved to a paved width of 24 feet. Beall Lane is classi- fied in the City's Transportation System Plan as a Minor Arterial, 2. Water: There is an existingtwelve-inch water line in (rant of the subject property. 755 ~©uth Second Street ~ Central Point, dR 975t~2 = 547.6fi4.3327 Fax 54~.6fi4.&384 1,2.. 3. Storm Drain: There is no existing storm drain facilities within the immediate area Creekside Village PUT? ~"ranspartatian Currently Beall Lane is a country road that is paved to twenty four to forty feet in width. In the City of Central Point's Transportation System Plan Beall Lane is classified as a Minor Arterial. When improved, Minor Arterials arc. designed to handle up to 10,000 vehicle taps a day or 1000 P.M. Peak I-lour Trips. The most recent traffic counts for Beall Lane were conducted by the City of Central Point in 2004. The total trips per day were approximately 5000. No major transportation improvements or land use applications have occurred since the count was completed. If approved as a PUD the proposed project entails the development of six residential lots. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers {ITE} Trip Generation Manual base figure of 9.55 average trips per day per residence, the project would potentially create up to 57.3 average daily trips or roughly 5.7 P.M. peak hour trips, The Public Works Department does nat have standards that require Traffic Studies for new development. The City typically uses the Oregon Department of Transportation's {C7D(3T} Guide to Development Impact Analysis as a guideline fox requiring traffic studies. Only developments of 150 or more single family homes require a traffic study The applicant has also proposed the use of a private street within the development, if approved as a PUD. The Public Works Department is requesting that the street remain as a public street. The curb to curb face is adequate for a minor residential street with parking on one side. The applicant will responsible for improving Beall Lane along the property frontage. These improvements will be additional paving width, curb, gutter and sidewalks. Canditivns of Approval 1. Beall Lane m rp 0_Vements: Developer wi11 be responsible for constructing curb, gutter, and sidewalk and additional paving width to Beall Lane along the property frontage to a minor arterial standard. The Developer is eligible for some street System Development Charge {SDC} reimbursement for the capsiz- ing costs. A portion of the costs may be diverted through the potential Snowy Butte Lane LID. 2. Subdivision Street: Street shall be designed as a minor residential street. 3. Street Name: Developer shall submit a proposed street name for xeview and approval prior to issuance of Final Plat. ~, Garage setbacks: If approved as a PUD, the public works department requests that the front yard set- back for the garage be measured from the back of sidewalk instead of the true property Tine. This al- 155 South .Second Street : Central Point, C}R 97542 ~ 54 ~. fifi4.3321 ~ Fax 541.6fi4. fi38~ ~~ lows for vehicles parking outside of the garage to be located outside of the sidewalk area. S. Gradin Permit: The City of Central Point Building Department requires grading permits for all new subdivisions. Developer will need to provide a valid grading plan as part of construction documents and receive a permit from the building department prior to construction. 6. Home Owners Association- Developer shall form a valid Homeowners Association {I-1C}A} and supply the city with a recorded copy of the bylaws or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions {CC&R's}, '7. Non-Remonstrance Agreements --- Applicant shad sign aNon-Remonstrance Agreement for the forma- tion of a Local Improvement District for Snowy Butte Lane Improvements. 8. Fiber C)ptic Network -Applicant shah install a minimum conduit for the future fiber optic network throughout Central Point. 9. Stream Planting and Beall Street Tree Plan: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Public Works Director, a landscape plan for the areas designated for land- scape rows. The plan shall include construction. plans, irrigation plans, details and specifications for the trees to be planted within the landscape rows. Plantings shall comply with Municipal Code Section I~.36. Tree plantings shall have at least a 1 lz" trunk diameter at the time ofinstaliation. All street trees shall be irrigated with an automatic underground irrigation system. The current site plan does not indi- cate trees planted at 20-40 feet on center, Standard Spec~catrons and Goals 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. Central Point Public Works is committed to working with the Planning Department and developers to assure that all developments are adequately served by public facilities. Public facilities not owned or maintained by the City of Central Point include: Power (PP&L}, Gas (Avista}, Communications (Qwest}, and Sanitary Sewer (RVSS}. In working together it is the Department's expectation that the developer will feel free to call on the Department whenever the standard specifications are not, in the developer's opinion, adequately meeting the needs of the development. The Department will listen to the developer's concerns and work with the developer to achieve the best outcome. However, the Department is not obligated to assure a prof table development and will not sacrifice quality for the sole purpose of reducing cost to the developer. It is always the developer's obligation to provide the public improvements necessary, as determined by the Public Works Department, to serve the development, The Department and the developer also have an obligation to assure that public facilities are constructed so that other properties are not adversely impacted by the development. 155 ~©uth Second Sfreet =Cents! Paint, CSR 97542 ~ 541.664.332 ~- Fax 549.664.6384 /~ .l3evelopment Plans -Required InY fvrmatinn Review of public improvement plans is initiated by the submittal of 3 sets of plans that are at least 9S°lo complete, The plans shall include thane of other agencies such as RVSS. Following plan review, the plans will be returned to the Developer's engineer including comments from Public Works Staff: In order to be entitled to further review, the Applicant's Engineer must respond to each comment of the prior review. All submittals and responses to comments must appear thxoughaut the plans to be a realistic attempt to result in complete plan appraval. Upon appraval, the Applicant's Engineer shall submit {4} copies of the plans to the Department of Public Works. 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, erasion control plan, utility and outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a traffic contral plan. Public Turks Permit A Public Warks 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 Narks Permit is issued, except Public Warks lnspectian fees. After project completion during the final plat application process, the Public Works inspector will calculate the appropriate amount of inspection time to assess the developer. Before the final plat application is processed the developer must pay the relevant inspections fees and bond for any uncompleted improvements {as determined by the Public Works Director}. ~"reekside Vr'llage PLTD -flans 1. Three sets of plans at 95°la complete stage are to be submitted for review by the Public Works Depart- ment. 2. Once approval is achieved the Developer shall submit faun sets of plans to the Public Warks Depart- ment far construction records and inspection. 3. The Developer's Engineer shall document changes to the approved drawings made in the field. A rny- lar and digital copy of the f nal "as~buiit" drawings will be required before the final plat application is processed. 155 5©uth Secrand Sfreef Central Point, 4R 97542 ~ 541. fi64.3321 ~ Fax 541. fi64.6384 ~~ Creekside Village PUI1- Pratectic~n of Existing .~"`acilities The locations of existing facilities shall be shown on all applicable construction drawings for Public Works projects as Follows: 1. The exact locations of underground Facilities shall be verified in advance of any public works construc- tion, in cooperation with the public or private utilities involved. 2, All existing underground and surFace facilities shall be protected Pram damage during design and con- struction ofpublic works projects. 3. Any existint; Facilities not specifically designated For alteration or removals, which are damaged during construction, shall be restored or xeplaced to a "same as" or better than condition, at the expense of the Developer. 4. Suitable notice shall be given to all public and private utility companies in advance of construction for the purpose of protecting or relocating existing Facilities. Creekside Village PUl) -Water Cr~nneetr`an 1. Water system designs shall consider the existing water system, master plans, neighborhood plans and approved tentative plans. The Developer, Engineer and Contractor shall provide the necessary testing, exploration, survey and research to adequately design water system facilities, which will connect to and be a part of, or an extension ofthc City water system. All requirements of the C?regon State Plumbing Specialty Code and the Qregon State Health Department, as they pertain to Public Water Systems, shall be strictly adhered to. 2. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifcations should be consulted for speciFic information regarding the design and construction of water system related components. Creekside Village PUL? -Streets 1. The .Developer's street designs shall consider the needs of people with disabilities anal the aged, such as visually impaired pedestrians and mobility-impaired pedestrians, Every effort should be made to locate 955 South .Second Street ~ Central Point, QFi 97542 ~ 549.664.3329 ~ Fax 541.fifi4.fi384 ~~o street hardware away from pedestrian locations and provide a surface free of bumps and cracks, which create safety and mobility problems, Smooth access ramps shall be provided where required. All de- signs shall conform to the current American Disabilities Act {ADA} or as adopted by the Oregon De- partment of Transportation (ODOT}, Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, The determination of the pavement width and total right-ofWway shall be based on the operational needs for each street as determined by a technical analysis. The technical analysis shall use demand volumes that reflect the maximum number of pedestrians, bicyclists, parked vehicles and motorized vehicle traffic expected when the area using the street is fully developed. Technical analysis shall take into consideration, transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan, TOD, neighborhood plans, approved tentative plans as well as existing co~nercial and residential. developments. All street designs shah be coordinated with the design of other new or existing infrastructure. C'reekside Pillage PlTl3 -- Storm llrain It shall be the responsibility of the Developer's Engineer to investigate the drainage area of the project, including the drainage areas of the channels or storm sewers entering and leaving the project area. if a contiguous drainage area of given size exists, the engineer may use information that has formerly been established if it includes criteria for the drainage area at complete development under current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. if the City does not have such information, the engineer shall present satisfactozy information to support his storm sewerage design. The engineer shall also be re- quired to provide all hydrology and hydraulic computations to the Public Works Departrnent that are necessary to substantiate the storm sewer design. The storm water sewer system design shall be in con- formance with applicable provisions of Oregon DEQ, DSL and ODFW and United States COE and consistent with APWA Storm Water Phase lI requirements. 2. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific in- formation regarding the design and construction of storm drain related components. Creekside Village PAD _.Required Srsbmittals 1. All design, construction plans and specifications, and "as-built" drawings shall be prepared to accept- able professional standards as applicable, the Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals and conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to Oregon De- partment of Fish and Wildlife {DFW}, Oregon Depaz~tment of Environmental Quality (DEQ}, Oregon Division of State Lands ~DSL}, Oregon Department of Transportation {ODOT} approval for storm drain connection and easement, landscape berms, U,S. Army Corps of Engineers {ALOE}, affected irrigation districts, Bear Creak ~aliey Sanitary Authority (RVSS}, and Jackson County Road and Park Services 155 Saufh Secattd Slreel Cenfral Poinf, QR 975112 p 54 ~. fifi4.33,29 ~ Fax 541. fi64.6384 I ~" Department {JC Roads}, DAL and ACdE, as applicable {wetland mitigation}. 2. Fire District No. 3 must approve all streets and water improvemc,nt plans in writing prior to final review by City PWD. 3, During construction, any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's Engineer to the City Public Works Department for approval prior to installation. 155 Saufh Sec©nd Sfreef ~_ Cenfral Poirtf, CJR 975(J2 e 541. fifi4.3321 ~ Fax 541. fifi4.6384 !~ ~~~~~~~~ [~~PART'~E~IT CENTRAL POINT .1"vLA. c~~.Ue~ f.. 4G~~7 ~.ois ©eB~nedetti, Building C))fficial BUILDING D~PARTM~'1VT STAFF F~~'POF2T June 14T 200 TO: Planning Department Punning #ile nc~. a507C} FR~JM: Building ~?epartment SUBJECT: Creekside Village PUD -off Beall Lane APP~.ICANT: Name: Paul Grout Address P. (~. Box 82'I g City. Medford State: Qregon Zip code: 975g~ PRC3PERTY' flESCRIPTIt~N: Southeast 1l4 Section ~ Q Townshi 37South Ran e 2 West Willamette Meridian Ci of Central Point 37-21111-'I OCJB TL 9314 . PUF~'PtJS;E The staff report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Applicant regarding City Building Department requirements and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed project. This is nat a plan review. This report is preliminary and compiled solely for use by the Central Point Planning Commission. -'I 155 South. Second Street Central Point, fJP. 9~Sf12 ~ 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 1+~ BU~f.,I~~'~~ L7~PA.RT`MEI~S'T STAFF F~.ETCIRT BUII;.G~ING L~EPARTi'VIENT CgNIMENTS: 1. Applicant, agent and contractors must comply with all current State of Oregon adopted codes, and apply for all permits through the Central Point Building Department. 2. If a private storm drain system is proposed it must be reviewed and a permit issued by the Central Point Plumbing department. 3, Any private street lighting must be reviewed and permitted by the Central Point Alec#rical Department. 4. Provide the building department with a Geotechnical report as required by OSSC Appendix J and chapter '18 and Chapter 4 of the ODSC. A written report of the investigation shall Include, but need not be limited to, the following information: a. A plot plan showing the location of all test borings and/or excavations. b. Descriptions and classifications of the materials encountered, c. elevations of the water table, if encountered. d. Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and soil strength, and the effects of adjacent loads. e. When expansive soils are present, special provisions shalt be provided in the foundation design and construction to safeguard against damage due to expansiveness. Said design shall be based on geoteehnical recommendations. 5. Gradingl excavation permits are required in accordance with OSSC Appendix J and chapter 'i 8 and ODSC chapter 4 regarding any fill material placed on the site. Fills to be used to support the foundation of any building or structure shall be placed In accordance with accepted engineering practices. -2- 155 So~zth Second Street Central Point, ©1~ 975~~ .541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 STAFF R.EPC)-~2.T A soil investigation report and a report of satisfactory placement of fill {including special inspections of placement of fill and compaction} acceptable to the Building t~fficial shall be submitted prier to final of the gradinglexcavation permit, Building permits will not be issued until gradingJexcavation permit is finalied. Exception: 1. The upper 1. 5 foot of fill placed outside of public rights-of- way. 2. The upper 1.5 foot of fill that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas. ~. To move or demolish any existing structures located on the property call the Building Department for permit requirements. 7. Notify the City Building Department of any existing wells, or septic systems located on the property. 8. Any development ~ any man-made change} to improved ar unimproved real estate iocated within the flood hazard area of the City of Central Point shall require a Development Permit as set forth in the Central Point Municipal Code 8,24.1201, Any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Applicant, or Applicant's contractor to the Building Department for approval prior to start of work. _3.. 155 South 5e~ond Street Central Point, {)R 97502 ~ 541.664.3321 -Fax 541.664.6384 Punning Department ~o~ Fiumphrey,AiC~? Community C3evelopment C?irector.' Assistant City Administrator MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FR©M: David Alvord, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing - To consider a Preliminary Development Plan and 4 lot subdivision within Cascade Meadows, an existing Planned Unit Development. At~~lican~: Thomas and Anna Sunday P.(~, Box 2508 Grants Pass, C}R 97528 Clwner: Capital Development 20{}2, LLC 712 Cardley Avenue Medford., CSR 97504 Agent: Craig A. Stone 712 Cardley Avenue Medford, C}R 97504 ~~ Punning C}epar~ment STAFF REPORT CE~T~-AL TomNumphrey.AtCP, ~~~ Community Deve#opment Dir~~torl Assistant City Administrator Summary: The applicants are seeking a land partition on property within the Cascade Meadows Planned Unit Development. The applicants wish to subdivide the subject parcel into four lots designed for single-family detached dwellings. The project is located north of Beall La-~e at the southeast corner of Haskell Street and Alta Lane. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application. for a Zoning Map Amendment, Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision. Notice of Public l-learing was given in accordance with CPMC. Applicable Law: CPMC 1&.10.414 et. Sect. -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.65.014 et. Seq. - T(?D Districts and Corridors CPMC 17,68.41(} et. Seq. -Planned Unit Development (PUD} CPMC 17.88.414 et. Seq. -Amendments ~~ Punning C>epar~ment STS F F R E PtJ RT ~~~T~RA~. -~~-~ Hum~t~rey, AICP, ~~~~" Cammuatity Uevelaprrrertt C3irector/ Assistant C~t}r Administrator Back~rouncl: The PUD Master Plan for Cascade Meadows was Presented to and approved by the City in February of 2002, The subject property was indicated on the approved Master Plan as commercial. A subsequent request by the property owner was made and approved by the City to amend the original commercial designation oFthe subject property to TC}D-EC thereby allowing a commercial residential mixed use. The anticipated commercial use of the parcel was not realized and therefore, the property owner is requesting the zoning be amended yet again to TC}D-LMR, allowing the creation of four parcels for residential use only. Project Descr~tion: The applicant is proposing that the property be developed as a 4 lot Plazzned Unit Development. The corner lot (LOT 92A) is approximately 4,804 sq. ft with a dimension of 48' 2" in width and 100 feet deep. The remaining three lots (Lot 928, Lot 92C and LOT 92 D} will be 4,200 sq. ft. Each of the three lots (928, 92C, and 92D) will be 42 feet across and 100 feet deep. Discussion: As a part of the Master Plan for the Cascade Meadows PUD, the subject property was originally approved as Commercial, with a small open space component at the corner of Hasleell Street and Alta Lane. The applicant wishes to divide the subject property into 4 lots designed for single-family-detached dwellings that are smaller in width and overall square Footage than lots immediately adjacent to it. The Cascade Meadows Master Plan was approved as: • 68 residential lots designed for single-family detached homes with an average lot size of 5,000 sq, ft. • 21 residential lots designed for single-family-attached homes with an average iot size of 2,254 sq. ft. {fee Exhibit `B"} ~~ Planning De~ar~.ment STAFF REPORT ~~~T~~~. Tom Flurn~Etrey,AlCP, ~~ I Community C}evetapment [~irectdrl Assistant City Administrator Dimension of the lots appraved far single-family-detached dwellings is 5{? feet across and 10(l feet deep, Zf the project were to dewlap in accordance with the surrounding fats for lot area and width, a maximum of 3 Tats would be permitted. The praject will have access from Alta Lane. Alta Lane was appraved as a part ofthe Cascade Meadows Master Plan and is designed to TC}D Minor Residential Street Standards. Because of the claw proximity of proposed Lot 92A to Beall Lane (38 feet}, access to Lat 92A will be restricted to Alta Lane. Ali improvements, i.e, curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, and landscaping are in place as part of the construction of Cascade Meadaws. The purpose for the latest application to rezone the subject property is to abandon the commercial zone with its open space component and build 4 single-family-detached homes an smaller fats. lfthis project is appraved as a PLTD the addition to overall density in the Cascade Meadaws PUD will be 3°!0, traffic would be increased to 38.2 average trips per day. The increase in density and traffic are considered negligible because the existing infrastructure and streets can accommodate these increases. Because of the density increase being less than five percent, an amendment to the Master Plan is not required. (CPMC 1'7.6f.~3(}} A trade-off between a relatively small commercial space far four smaller fats designed far detached single-family_dwellings is warranted. In order for a commercial use to maintain its viability, the average square footage far cammercial use is 20,~Q{} square feet which includes retail floor space, parl~ing area and loading/uniaading areas far vendors. Established cammercial areas are inclose proximity. ~~ Planning [~epartmen~ STAFF REPORT ~E~~~L Ton, Hurnphrey,A~CP, ~ ~../ ~ ~~ Cat~nrr~unity Deveioprnent Director/ Assistant City Adrttinistrator Additionally, the location ofthe property does not lend itself to high visibility from highway traffic acid would require sighting and signage which would not be conducive to the Cascade Meadows PUD or the surrounding neighborhoods. Findz~~s of Fact and Conclusions of L aw: The applicants have compiled a list of findings {Exhibit I~} as they are listed in CPMC 17,68.04(}. In reviewing these f ndings of fact and conclusions of law as submitted by the applicant, the Planning Commission shall find whether or not the standards ofthis chapter (CPMC 1'7.68.{}40) are either met, can be met by observance of conditions, or are not applicable. The question to the Planning Commission is whether or not this project is in keeping with the character of the immediate neighborhood and its compatibility with the surrounding area as it aligns with criterion A, B, C ~ E. As designed, is it the Planning Commission's Ending that the project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood which is zoned T+~D-LMR. Criterion A B C & E are outlined below: A: That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of this title. ~`he proposed project is to construetfour single family-detached hr~mes that will reflect the same design, character and use as the existing whole Cascade Meadows 1'U~ phases I and I~: 1`;'' Planning C3epartment sT~.F~ REP~~T ~E~T~AL Tom Humphrey,A1C~? ~~~ Community i7eveioprnent t7ireetort Assistant City Aciminist~ator $: The proposal will be eQnsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the c~l~jectives of the zoning ordinance and Other applicable policies of the City. The applicants findings show the proposed zone change and PUD to be consistent with the residential designation for the Property as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. With regard to compliance with the zoning ordinance the Planning Commission has the discretion to determine whether or not the proposal complies with the intent of'the TC1L)-L.r1~R zoning district. The intent of the G'entral Point transit oriented development ~'l'C.7L)~ zoning district is to "Promote efficient and sustainable land development and the increased use of transit as required by the C)regon Transportation Planning Rule. " C: The It~cation, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUI~ will have minimal adverse impact on the livability, value ter appropriate development 4f the surrounding area. Previously, it was noted that development of the Property at S,Of10 sq. ft. per lot would allow for 3 lots. The proposed PlIL7 offers 4. The public facilities servicing the project area are sufficient to accommodate the additional units. D; That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated they are f nancially able to carry taut the proposed project, that they intend to complete said construction within a reascinable time as determined by the corr~mission. The applicant's financial capability is known and determined to be adequate based upon their performance in earlier phases of this project. ~~ Planning Q~par~ment STAFF REPC,~RT ~~~T~-AL 'FomHu~ript~rey,AlCP, ~"'~"" Carnrrtunity Deveta~rr~erlt Directori • Assistdrlt City Admiriistratc~r E: That traffic congestion ~~ill not likely be created lay the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan fox proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking. .F1s noted previously the additional traffic generated by the PUI~ approximates an increase of 3S. 2 average daily trips, or 3.8 trips during peak hour. The existing street system can adequately aecorrzmodate the additional traffic. F: That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed, The proposed development consists of single family residential dwellings and does not include a commercial component. Not applicable. Cx: That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage. The project dues not include industrial use of any kind. Neat applicable. K: The PUD preserves natural features such as streams, wooded cover and rough terrain. There are no such features associated with this project. Nat applicable l: The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area. The PZ~.I) amendment calls for residential development that will be compatible in density and design with the residential uses previously approved and completed. T: The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land. rls proposed the PU~1 will not have any impact on the need for public services. STAFF REPt~RT Recommendation: -. E _. ~~~~~~ PC~1~T The Planning Commission can take one of the three following options: Punning E~~partmen~ Corr~rnunity [~eveiopment Qirectc~rl A55tStdCtt City FtCIlYtiCllStCdCt}C l . Adapt Resolution No. ,approving the Tentative Zone Change and Land Partition subject to tlae recommended conditions of approval. 2. Continue this item to the next punning commission meeting,or; 3. Deny the project, dais action needs to include direction to staff to prepare the appropriate findings fox consideration at the next planning commission meeting. Exhibits: A. notice of Public Hearing B. Master Plan C, Tentative Plan D, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as submitted by applicant E. Public Works Staff Report F. Building Department Staff Report C. Planning Department Conditions of Approval ~~ X"'~' ~~~~A~ PLAN~~NG ~FpA~Tn~E~T !T "font Hurztph~ey, AICP 1 Corrtrnastity Deve[oprr~ertt Ctirector Kerr Gerschler Cotttmurtity Planner Dave Alvorcl Gommuristy Planner I~isa Morgan P tanning 'rechn iciest Notice of Public Hearing date of Notice: August 15, 20105 Meeting Qate: September ~, 20015 Time: 7:00 p.m. {Approximate} Place: ~ Central Point Ci#y Hat( 1 ~ S. Second Street Central Paint, tJregon NATURE C}F lV'll ETi II~C Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will revier+v Tentative Plan and Planned Unit Development applications as Phase Ill of Cascade Meadows, A Planned Unit 13evelopment< The nature o{ these applications is for the purpose of creating 4 single family residential lots, which would amend the previously approved Cascade Meadows The property is faceted within e TQD-LMR, Lour f~lix Residential coning district. The property is ident"tfecl on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 'I ~ CC, Tax Lot 51 Q0. The property is located west of US Highway 99, north of Beall Lane, and east of Chickary sane. {f #hese applications are approved it wou{a1 be Contingent upon a st~ccessfu{ none change from Taff-LC, Etnp{oyment Cotnmercia{ to Tt3C?-LMI~, Low 1t+Iix {2estdential. Pursuant to CJRS 197.T63 {3} {e}, failure to raise an issue during this hearing, in person or in writing, with sufficient specificity to afford the decision-matters and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal based on that issue. NOTICE TfJ MORTGAGEE, L.IEt~lH4l_DER, VENDC3R t,)R SELLER: C3R5 CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE lT MUST BE P~2.OMPTLY FORWAROE~3 TO THE PURCHASER. This notice is being malted to property owners within a 20101 foot radius of subject property. CRITERIA FOf'~ DECISION ,~~ The requirements for Tentative Plan and Punned Unit Development application review are set forth in Chapters ~ 6 and ~ 7.68 of the Central Point N(unicipal Code, relating to General Information and conditions of the project approval. PllBLIC C©MMENTS 1. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 6, 2646. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, 4r. 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 the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, '# 55 South Second Street, Central Point, C}regon. The City File Number is 05474. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. ~ For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at {541 } 644-8321 ext 292. SUIUIIVtARY OF PRC)CEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the application{s} and technical staff reports. The Commission, will hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application{s}. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may~approve or deny the application{s} as submitted. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. .3~ W r !M1llflV vliw l.~M14VM++YT'tewv,ptf~t Y+Y*+wt:} r vrrvvwel ~! tv w.vivr+ mu ww~srnv~rt M~.trr~t cm m~oa +rn~zt~an~e sis w i~i%i~pi~+tnrv;a~irrr t~n;,~ (tNM1)K7~ 4ShN~£Hd'i.ttNQGDYIIStiO.OR12f?24 z4#~,McVPF87;}81~,1ht11R'#7l`Ofti7tUlEIYTGVA MfCNAEI,.RAf7t1Rf'ER{)»AF'PLICAFtF ~OE~f3.G70~dfSq (OA£}IOO~MfRt ' E.._ ~ .......,~~ ,...» .....~..... .~ ~ ..f ...._._~ _ ...~,,......,. ~....... ~...~..~.,...~... ~ _~ r. _ .L_,.. _ ~,....,~... ~~ ~ Yw ti A£irEr `Y~ / i t ~ C f ,R F 3' t R 'R, h f, 'R t. f]f{ rn ~ t ~ r R, [ f ~ R R f ~ r I _ _~.._~__-:__.~_....~.._~..._ _ ~~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ m .<.r".,.t~t. ~ .* E~t ~ L7 ~} ~ C} ~'! ~ tits}} Q 3 t i i~~{r 1, }R ~.......i......~.~..~..~~ .... ~ .......af ....~ ~ t F 7 t ~ ....~ _~~~ ~.~r..~..t~ !!~"IRRS ~w~~ '~ 111 iw ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q P'^^-^^s 76' MAESKECi. MFt~~S' ~ ~ ~ ~ ! 4 > , ~. ~~i •••~ N i ,: . ~ 4 f~ .. elf - E ~ ~ ~ ) 1t '' 0 ^ H l W f i ~ ' .. ~ _ ~ ~,pyf~ ~jj ~ ptt ~q} ~tt yp~~ ~ y ~ Ip{' Q' tl~_ FY y G #~ ! . Rf pq t~ l pp t mA ~ q p iA~ A3 V! ~ i4: +oi ...... ..:~.....A .:.:....L....r~..:..~.r~ ~ L R 1 t rw ~_.,..,...£ti~ t f f $E ~ ~...~.. ~s~« J I:...........r.,~.t lry~ V ~~t..}!ttt~} }}~~y~ LtT 1 lA~ ~C ~( r~~/~ Vj V 1B# ~2fJNT SETBACK .~ 1B' FR0~1T SETBACI{ ______ ` i i i # # ___._._. # i r ~ i } 1 r _____... # # " ~ # 1 # # t # ; # i t ~ 1 # # # # 1 # # # J i # e t I i f # y 1 S I S.. _..».....»..# .: .. .._,. _..J j ~~~~5~'~# i. # ~"` # ~T~~~~~ i i # C i i # i ... .. i i 4~„~41.i.~.~e ~.:. t i 1/ I`# ~ ~fy~Ill/~., ! ' _ _ _'+ 1 L~~G~~«~.f~YJ.iG ! I ~ ~,/ i. i I (~Sj~C~[ i ~~~(~ # >• • x • ~ i tLSS,F3.3-I1Y1~ i i L., .# I y ~~ I # ,~ ..i + # t I I ~ ' # ` i ~ -- .__.«««« KL . ~ i }-_- '-i" ~ t # ~ to # I ~ } # i # # 1 # 4 # ..y.. _ _ _».. .. ... ~ #., «I t I e «__ I I # i t i r ~ I # # # i # 1 # F # # # 1 # i # # # # # # # # ..».. ..+x...».. ~.... ».. w......1....... x ..-....N_t _.. _.. u...... .._~_.. y .... .. ....«__.. .... .. r ... ....___. }~ f ~ I # # i Y 1 I # # i 1 # # # i ry # # # i ! # I ~ f # i 4 # ; 6RiVE AY y , ~lf~1VE~ Y ` ' 4" G CRETE j~ ~y~[ i ##~({ #I.+ [ ( # tJ~4v~ 1 i ~iJ~ ~R~p~k.I?~ ~ t iI # 1 l t # # l~ L # ,SA # # # __-_...- ~ u . . w I 1~S ~.V.4... S ALE: t f 16" =1`-p,# l a +n e+ J E~IBIT "D~'a BEFdRE THE CITY GC-UNCII. FaR THE GITY (aF GENTRA[. POINT JACKSGN GQUNTY, DREG©N iN THE MATTER OF APPLiCATIC}NS FDR } ZONE CHANGE FROM TD© CC?RRIDQR } EMPi-C?YMENT G4MMERCIAL. Tt3 TQD } Ct~RR1DC}R Lt3W MIX RESIDENTIAE., LAND ~ DIVISit~N AND AMENDMENT TO A } PREVICtUSLY APPRt?VED PLANNED } UNIT DEVELt3PMENT t~N LAND WITHIN } THE CITY LIMITS flF CENTRAL P13iNT, } JACKSCIN CQUNTY t~REGC}N } Thomas and Anna Sunday: Appllcaz~s PRpPC?SED FINDINGS OF FACT AND GCINCLUSIUNS OF I,AW Applicants' Exhibit 9 NATURE, SCC3PE AND INTENT C?F APPLICATION Thomas anal Anna Sunday ~"Applicant") seek a zone change and land partition on property within the Cascade Meadows Planned Unit Development and for which they have an option to purchase contingent upon approval of these applications. t.Jnder a previous application the subject property was rezoned from T£)D Corridor -Medium iV1ix Residential (overlays to TDI:3 Corridor -Employment Cot~unercial to allow the development of the subject C}.48-acre parcel with connnercial uses. Applicant now wishes to amend the previous Planned Unit Development ("PUD") approval and rezone the fl.48-acre parcel from Employment Commercial to Low Mix Residential to allow the parcel to be subdivided into four (4} single- family lots. The proposed development will be similar to and compatible with the adjacent residential uses within the Cascade Meadows Planned ~E.Tnit Development which are also zoned Low Ivli~ Residential. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION Applicant herewith submits the following evidence in support of the applications: Exhibit 1. The proposed Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law (this document} which demonstrates how the applications comply with the applicable substantive approval criteria as set forth in the Central Point Zoning Qrdinance (Zf~~ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of t-aw Cap"~aE Development 2002, E,I.G. Applicant June 24, 2405 Page 1 Craig A. stone & Assoc€ates, L.tti. Exhibit 2. Site Plan ^ 2.1 Proposed Land Use Plan ^ 2,2 Existing Land Use Plan ^ 2.3 Water and Sewer Plan • 2.4 Street Tree Plan Exhibit 3. Tentative Plan Exhibit 4. Constnzction Plans Exhibit 5. Zoning Map Exhibit 6. A completed application form accompanied by limited powers of attorney duly executed by the record owner which authorizes Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd, to perform acts procedurally required in connection with the subject applications. RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The criteria, under which zone change, planned unit development amendment and land division applications must be considered, are in the Central Point Municipal Code {CPMC}. The criteria are recited verbatim below and in Section V hereinbelow: Zoning M'ap Amendmenf The criteria governing zoning map amendments are set forth in Chapter 1'7.88 {CPMC}, which provides in pertinent part: 17.t38A40{Dj: If from the facts presented and the f{ndir~gs acrd repor# and recommends#iorrs of the piannir~g commission as required in Section '17.88.040, the city council determines that the public heat#h, sa#ety, welfare and convenience will best be served by a proposed change of zone, Planned Unit fletreJopment Amendment The criteria governing Planned Unit Development amendments are set forth in Chapter 17.68 {CPMC}, which provides in pertinent part: 17'.68.{340 Criteria to grant or deny a PUD: A PUD shall be permitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards and procedures of #his 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 ar in lot area, or an alteration of structure shalt conform with the requirements of PUI~ 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, or can be met by observance of conditions, or are not applicable. A. Ttrat the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifres exceptions to the normal raga"srements of this title; Find}rags of Fact and Cr~nclusions of Law Capi#ai De~elopm~n# 2002, l.~C. Applicarr# .3une 24, 2005 Page 2 ~~ Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. B. The proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objec#ives of the zoning ordinance and o#her applicable polices of the city; C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the P#1D will have minimal adverse impact an the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area; D. That the proponents of the PUD have demons#rated that they are financially able to carry out the proposed project, that they intend #o complete said construction within a reasonable time as defermined by the commission; E. That #raffic congestion will not likely be crew#ed by the proposed development ar v~iit be abvia#ed by demonstrable provisions in the plan of proper entrances, exi#s, internal traffic circulation and parking; F. That commercial developmenf in a PUD is needed of the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type prapased; G. That proposed industrial development will #ae effiraertt and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary s#orage; H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; 1. The Pl1D will be compatible with the surrounding area; J. The PIED will reduce need far public facilities and services relative to a#her permitted uses far the land. Tot? Corridor Site Plan and Landscaping The criteria governing the TC}D Corridor master plan, site plan, landscaping are set forth in Chapter 17.6 (CPMC}, and which provides as follows: '17.66.03Q Application and review A. Application Types. There are four types of applications which are subject to review within the Cents! faint TUD district and corridor. ~. TUC? distric# or Corridor Master Plan. Master plan approval shall be required for: a. C~velopment ar land division applications which involve more than five acxes of land or Early dwelling units; or b. Modifica#ions to a valid master plan approval, which involve one or more of the fallowing: i. An increase in dwelling unit density which exceeds five percen#; ii. An increase in aammercial gross floor area of ten percent or two #hausand square feet, whichever is Greater; iii, An increase in building height by more than twenty percent; iv. A ct-ange in the type and location of streets, accessways, and parking areas where off site traffic would be affected, or v. A modification of a condition imposed as part of the master plan approval. 2. Site Plan, Landscaping and Constnaction Plan Approval. The provisions of Chapter 17'.72, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval, shall apply to permitted and limited uses within the TdD district and corridor. For development or land division applications involving mare than five acres of land ar forty dwelling uni#s, a master plan approval, as provided in this chapter, shall be approved prior to, or concurrently wi#h, a site plan, landscaping and construction plan application. 3. Land Division. Par#itians and subdivisions shat! be reviewed as provided in Title 1fi, Subdivisions Findings of Facf and Conclusions of Law Capital Development 2442, Lf.C. Applicant June 24, 2445 .-~---- Page 3 ~~ Craig A. S#one & Associates, Ltd. ~, Conditional Use. conditional uses shall be reviewed as provided rn Ghapter 17,76, Conditional Use PermilS. B. Submittal Requirements. Applications shall be submrtted as required in Ghapter 1.24, of this code. 97.66.050 Application Approval Cri#eria A. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan * * * *~ B. Site flan, Landscaping and Cons#ruction Plan Approval A site plan, landscaping and construction plan application shat! be approved when the approval authority finds that the following criteria are satisfied ar can be shown to be inapplicable; 1. The provisions of Chapter 47.72 Site Plan, landscaping and Construction Plan Approval shall be satisfied; and 2. The proposed improvements comply with the approved TOD District or Corridor Master Plan for file Properly; and 3. Chapter 17.67, Design Standards - TQD District and T4D corridor C. Land Division A Land Division application shall be approved when the approval authority finds that the following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable: 1. The provisions of Section 46 -Subdivision ordinance; and 2. The proposed Land Division complies with the approved TQD District ar Corridor Master Plan for the property. 3. Ghapter 17.67, Design Standards - T4D District or Corridor D. Conditional Use "' * "''` 97.88.080 Exceptions #o Zoning and Subdivision Ti#tes. 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 dis#rict in which the PUD is located. Exceptions shall be based upon the applicant's demonstration that the objectives of the coning and subdivision #itles of this code will be achieved. OREGON TRANSPt)R7"ATIC7~N PLANNING RULE 860-092-0080 Plan and trend use Reputation Amendments SI~CTIC~N 600-012-(7060 {1} {1} Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing ar planned #ranspartation facility, the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section {2} of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified func#ion, capacity, and perEonnance s#andards {e.g. level of service, volume to capaci#y ratio, etc.} of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if i# would: {a} Change the functional classification df an existing or planned transportation facility {exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan}; {b} Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Capital Developrne~t 2002, Lt_C. Applicant June 24, 2005 °- Page d ~~ Craig A. Stona & Associates, l.tci. {c} As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation system plan: {A} Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types ar levels of travel ar access (whichl that are Inconsistent wi#h the functional classifcat'san of an existing or planned transportation facility; {B} Reduce the performance of an existing ar planned transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard Identified in fha'f~P orb comprehensive plan; ar {C} Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable pertormanrje standard identified in the T'SF' or comprehensive plan. ~~ FINDINGS C}F FACT The City Council, "Council" reaches the following facts and Ends them to be true with respect to this matter. The below Findings of Fact in Section IV support the Conclusions of Law Section V. 1. Property Locative: The subject property is described as Lot ~2 of Phase I of Cascade Meadows Village Planned Community which is located north off Beall Lane at the southeast corner of Haskell Street and Alta Lane. The subject property is within the corporate limits of the City of Central Point and described as in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Tax Lot 5100 on assessor map 3'7-2W-1ICC. The property is part of the Cascade Meadows Planned Unit Development. 2. Subject Project Area Acreage and Ownership: The property is 01.48 acres and owned by Capital Development 2402, LLC. 3. Existing and Proposed Plan Map and Zoning Designations: The subject property is covered by a TDD Corridor comprehensive plan map designation and is zoned TE.~D--EC (Employment Commercial). Applicant here proposes a zone change to TOD-LMR (Low Mix Residential}. The base zoning designation of R-i-B will remain the same. 4. Previous Land Use Applications and Existing Land Use: The subject property is presently vacant. Under previous applications the subject property, as part of the Cascade Meadows PUD, was approved for the following: ^ A.nrtexation to the City of Central Point ^ Zoning Map amendment ^ Conditional Use permit ^ Planned Unit Development (PUD~ TOD Master Plan *~ Site Plan, Landscape ^ Subdivision Frndings of Fact anti Conclusions of Law Capital Development 2002, LLC. App4icant 3csne 24, 2005 F~age 5 ~~ Craig A. Stops & Associates, Ltd. Upon approval of these previous applications the subject 0.48-acre parcel was approved for commercial development under the Tt~i~-EC zoning; dcsi~,mation. ~. Existing Land Development: Cascade Meadows Village was approved to be developed in two phases with 104 single-family dwellings, 22 attached R.ow Houses and 61 mini storage units. The subject property was approved for commercial uses. This application would have the effect of eliminating the potential commercial uses and putting in its place the approval for ~ additional single family dwellings and the same will increase the housing density by 3 percent. 6, T(3D Corridor District, Permitted Residential Uses: The below Table 1 sets forth the permitted and conditional uses within the TCJI~-L1v1R. zoning district: Table t TC?d Corridor Land Uses Source: TC}D C3is#ricts and Corridors Chap#er 17.66 (CPMC} Ta61e 4 t3 a Categories done bistric#s ,I..MR #~SIDENTIAL urge and Standard C.at P 0 dot Trine, Detackred P Attached Raw Houses P Accessory Units P1 "CabEe Notes: P--Permitted Use P1--Permitted use, 1 unit per lot '7, Lot Characteristics: The proposed lots have the following characteristics: I.,ot Width. Lot 92A has a lot width of 482 feet. Lots 928, 92C and 92D have lot widths of 42 feet. An exception to the requirement has been requested herein below in Table 3. ^ Lot Depth. Each lot has a lot depth of 100 feet. ^ I of Area. The lot area for Lot 92A is approximately 4,620 square t"ect. Lots 928, 92C and 921 have approximately 4,200 square feet. ^ Average Lot Area. The average lot area in the overall development is more than Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Capi#a! Developmen# 2002, Li.C. Applicant June 24, 2005 Page 6 39 Craig A. Stosta & Asscx:iates, Ltd. 4,9fl(} square feet; the city standard is ~,5~}U square feet. Lot Coverage. The lot coverage far Lot 92A is 6~ percent. Lat coverage far Lets 92B, 92C and 92~ is 6'7 percent.' S. Zoning Standards: The following ~'ahle 2 represents the design requirements and guidelines for the Low Mix Residential and Employment Commercial zoning designations within the TOIL Corridor and provides a comparisa between the existing Employment Commercial and Law Mix Residential requirements. Fable ~ TQ© Corridor Zoning Standards Source; Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.65 TOD bistrict Zoning Standards Table 5 Standard 7..one restricts I.:MR -:I =~ ----...._._ ..... _-w - -..__._ DENSrlY - UNITS PER NET ACRE {Fj __ .. -- --- __ _ _._ _.:~.4-.. - Maximum 12 NA Minimum ~ NA btMENStONAL STANDARdS Eliinimum Lot Area large lot Single Family 5,004 NA Standard Single Family 3,044 NA 0' lot tine Detached 2,740 NA Attached Rowtrouses 2,040 NA Multi-Family and Senior 2,000 NA AYera$e l~iliriimum Lot Area large lot Single Family 7,540 NA Standard Single Family 4,500 NA 4' lot line Detached 3,404 NA Attached Rowhouses 2,504 NA Multi-Farm and Senior 2,044 1,044 Minimum Lot Width large lot Single Family 50' NA S#andard Single Family 54` NA 4' Lot Line Detached 30` NA Attached Rowhouses 24' NA Mufti-Farm and Senior NA 1,444 Minimum Lot pepth 50' NA BUtli)ING SETBACKS Front {min. !max.} 14'!15' 0' r Lot coverage is all impervious surfaces including buildings and paved sur£acing- Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lary Capital Development 2002, LLC. Applicant June 24, 2445 Page 7 -i V Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Side (between buildings} 5' detached 0' {ds#achedlattached) 0' attached (a}{c} 'l0' (b} Comer min.lmax. 57t 0` 5Yt 4' Rear 9 5` i 0' b Garage Entrance (d} (e} MAXIMtJM t3UtLD1NG HEl{3HT 35' 60' MAXIMUM LOT COVEf2AGE {G} 80°lo i©0°lo MtN1MUM LANgBCAPED AREA (t} 20°l° of site area 0°!° of site aroa tiOUSlht+"a MIX Required Noosing Types as Listed <i6 units in Under Residential in Table 3 development 1 housing tYPe NA 16-40 units in development 2 housing ~~ >d4 units in develapme~ Table Notes. NA µ Not Applicable a} The 5-foal minimum also applies to the perimeter of the attached unit development. b} Seffiaak required when adjacent to a residential zone. a} Setback requirement is 10 feet minimum between units when using zero lot line configurations. d} Ten {10} feet behind front building fagade facing street. e} Garage entrance shall not protrude beyond the face of the building. f} Net Acre =Area remaining after deducting environmentaE lands, exclusive employment areas, exclusive civic areas and right-of-way. g} Lot coverage refers to all impervious surfaces, including buildings and paved surfacing. h} Parking lot landscaping and screening requiremen#s sti[I apply. i} Landscaped area shall include living ground caner, shrubs, trees, and decorative landscaping material such as bark mulch ar gravel, No pavement or other impervious surfaces are permitted except for pedestrian pathways and seating areas. j} Rooftop gardens aan be used to help meet this requirement. 9. Proposed Exceptions: exceptions proposed fc~r this project are enumerated i the £a~~owing Table 3: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Capital Development 2002, LLC. Applicant June 24, 2005 -- Page 8 ~~ Craig A. Storrs & Associates, l#d. Tabee 3 Proposed Exceptions Bourse: Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. .- . i f w ~ ~ R Minimum l.ot Applicant requests a minimum lot width of All 2017.88.080 17.65.470 Fable 5 ~~~ 48.24 feet and 42.40. An exception from tf~e requirement of 50 feet for standard single family in the TOD Corridor LMR zoning district. Minimum Rear Applicant requests a 10 foot minimum rear AI# ZO 37.68.080 17.65.074 Table 5 Yard Building Yard building setbac3c for detached garages. Setback An exception from the requirement of 15 feet. lt#. Proposed Development Standards: (7ther than the exceptions requested in the above Table 3, the proposed development will comply with the zoning regulations found in Chapter 17.65.070 at Tables ~ and 5. 11. Surrounding Land Development Pattern: Land adjacent and to the north, east and west of the subject property are developed under the previous Cascade Meadow Subdivision/PUD, Phase 1, as family residential. Land adjacent and to the south and south off Beall Lane is within the county jurisdiction and zoned Greneral Industrial. The property is in the owned by Boise Building Solutions Manufacturing LLC and is presently vacant. 1.2. Public Facilities. The subject property is served by the following public facilities and services: A. Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Services: The sewer lines are owned and operated by Rogue Valley Sewer Systems ("RVSS"}. The subject property presently has one connection to the 8~inch line within the Alta Lane right-of--way. The existing 8-inch line continues east within the Alta Lane right-of-way to the intersection with Silver Fox Drive, continuing south to Beall Lane where it connects to a 12-inch line. Sewerage wastes are treated at the Medford Regional Water Reclamation Plant, which is owned and operated by the City of Medford. According to Jim Hill of the Medford Engineering Department, sewage wastewater collected and transported by the Bear Creek Interceptor is treated at the Medford Regional Water Reclamation Plant. Mr. Hill serves as the principal staff person in Findings of tract and Conclusions of l.aw Capita{ Development 2402, LLC, Applicant June 24, 2005 -- Page 9 ~~ Craig A. Stone & Associates, ttd. inch storm drain line within the right~of--way of Alta Lane. Individual fats will be connected to the existing storm drainage system. ~. Streets: Access. The subject property has frontage along both Haskell Street and Alta Lane. The south property boundary francs along Beall Lane. There is an existing concrete black decorative wall between the south property boundary and Beals Lane. No access is proposed. directly from the subject property onto Beall Lane. Access to individual lots will be from either Haskell Street or Alta Lane, Street ownership and Classification; Beall Lane is a county owned and maintained road classified by the City of Central Point as a Miner Arterial Street. Oregon Highway 99 is owned and under the jurisdiction of the Qregon Department of Transportation {QDflT} and is classified by the City of Central Point as a Major Arterial Street. Haskell Street and Alta Lane are under the jurisdiction of the City of Central Point. Haskell Street is constructed to business collector standards and Alta Lane has been constructed to minor residential street standards. Street Construction; Beall Lane is constructed with a minimum right-of--way width of 60-feet from the railroad right-of=way to Snowy Butte Road. At the time of development of Cascade Meadows PUD Beall Lane was improved to a right- of way width of 65 feet along the frontage of the PI.~. Beall Lane has two travel lanes with a paved width of 30-feet from Highway ~9 to Malibar. Curbs, gutter and sidewalk have been constructed along the north side of Beall Lane at the south boundary of the Cascade Meadows Subdivision. Haskell Street and Alta Lane are both city owned and maintained residential streets. Haskell Street has a right4of way width of 76 feet and is improved with two paved travel lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides of the street. Alta Lane is constructed with a right-of-way width of approximately Sa to 52 feet and is improved with two paved travel lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalks on both sides of the street. Sidewalks along the north property boundary of the subject property will be constructed at the time of developed. Existing Traffic Loading; Traffic counts conducted by the City of Medford engineering department for year 2044 indicate that existing traffic on Highway 99 (south of its intersection with Beall Lane} is 18,840 vehicles per day. Traffic taunts conducted by Jackson County Roads and Parks in July 20(14 indicate that traffic loading on Beall Lane (west of its intersection with Highway 99} is 5,583 vehicles per day. Linder the approved Cascade Meadows PLTD, the subject 4.48-acre subject property was to be developed for service and retail commercial uses. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Capifat Development 2002, LLB. P.~plicant June 24, 2005 --_._... __. Page i 9 ~~ Craig A. Stone & Associates, Lfd. previously approved PUD plan far Cascade Meadows anticipated that the commercial development would include 6,640 square feet of office space on the first Haar and 2,504 square feet of office space on the second floor, a total of 9, ~ 40 square feet. According to the standard reference, Trip ~reneratie~n {Institute of Transportation Engineers} 6~' Edition, if the property were developed as offices {i.e. as a "General Office Building"} it would produce approximately 11 average daily vehicle trips {ADT} per each 1000 square feet of gross floor area, a total of approximately 100 ADT. As proposed, the 0.48-acre subject property would be occupied with four single family dwellings. Based upon Trip Generation {6~' Edition} single family dwelling produce roughly 10 ADT per unit on an average weekday, a fatal of 40 ADT and decrease of 60 ADT from the previously approved office building. V~hen combined, the existing 5,583 ADT an Bead Lane, the 1,1?~ ADT for the previously approved residential build out and mini storage units, and the proposed additional 40 ADT, the total is 6,fi9? ADT and represents a net traffic reduction of approximately 64 ADT. Existing Roadway Capacity and Level of Service: Under the previous approval, agents for the applicant had been advised by representatives of the Jackson County Roads and Parks Department, that Beall Lane has a threshold traffic capacity of 10,004 vehicle trips per day at level of service "D." A Traffic Impact Study dated May 5, 1998 by Hartley Engineering and Associates, Inc. was incorporated into the record of a 1998 legislative plan map amendment proceeding in Central Paint. According to the Hartley Traffic Impact Study, at full build out of the subject property {with R-1-6 zoning} the intersection at Highway 99 and Beall Lane would operate at Level of Service "B". Applicants agent testified that even with the proposed commercial uses -retail and service uses, mini-storage and cellular telephone facilities, that the level of service at the Highway 99Beall Lane intersection would be below a Level of Service "I7" These applications will produce a net decrease of approximately 60 average daily vehicle trips. 12. Public Transit: Public transportation in the region {and area surrounding the subject property} is supplied by the Rogue Valley Transportation District {RVTD}. 13. Bicycle Routes: Beall Lane and Haskell Street are designated bicycle routes, Frontage improvements to Beall Lane included striping far bicycles. 14. Electricity, Natural Gas; Telephone; CATV; Cellular Telephone: The sub,~ect property is served in adequate capacity by Pacific Carporation {electricity}, Avista Utilities, Inc. {natural gas}, U. S. Nest {telephone} and CATV. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lacy Capital ne~elapment 2042, t_LC. Applicant June 24, 2445 ~--~ Page 12 ~~ Craig A. Stare ~ Associafes, l_td. 15. Solid Waste Disposal; Recycling: Solid waste collection, storage and recycling are provided by franchise through Rogue Disposal and Recycling, inc. 16, Topography: The subject territory is nearly level with a slight grade which drains the property from south t4 north. 17. Public wealth, Safety, Welfare and Convenience: Statewide Planning Goals 9 and ltd recognize that public health, safety, welfare and convenience are served through the provision of both housing opportunities and employment lands in urban areas. Strong demand is expected for the contemplated residential development. The small commercial area in this PUD does not constitute a substantial component of the City of Central Point's commercial land base. As the residential component of the PUD is over 8fl percent built- out, the demand for the planned commercial space has not materialized. There are no substantial development projects anticipated for this immediate area in the near future that would further spur demand for commercial employment land, As such, continued designation for commercial uses levies an opportunity cost against the potential to serve Goal 10 by providing additional housing. Applicant herewith testifies that homeowners in the area have expressed their concerns over use of the subject property for commercial purposes and have expressed a strong preference for detached single family housing similar to that which exists throughout Cascade Meadows, Applicant believes and expects the requested zone change and accompanying development plan will address homeowner concerns. V CC}NGI.USIUNS C>F LAW The following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based on the findings of fact contained in Section IV above and the evidence enumerated in Section fl. The below conclusions of law of the City Council are preceded by the approval criteria to which they relate: Criterion 1 Zoning Map Amendment The criteria governing zoning map amendments are set forth in Chapter 17.88 {CPMC}> which provides in pertinent part: '17.88,040(D); If from the facts presented and the Endings and report and recommendations of the plartnirtg commission as required in Section 17.8$.444, the city council determines that the public health, safety, welfare and convenience will best be served by a proposed change of zone, « 4 Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section 1V {#17~, the City Council concludes exchanging the Goal 9 employment land opportunity for a Goal ltd housing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of C.aw Capital Development 2002, LLC. Applicant June 24, 2005 ----~- ----- Page t 3 ~~ Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. opportunity will best serve the public health, safety, welfare and Convenience, consistent with Criterion 1. Criterion 2 P/armed Unit >I7eve/opment Amendmen# The criteria governing Punned Unit Development amendments are set forth in Chapter 17.68 (CPMC), which provides in pertinent part: 17.88,0+!0 Criteria to grant or deny a PUD: A I~UI~ shall be permitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards and procedures of this chapter. In the case of a use existing pt7or to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter and ciassified in this chapter as a Pt1D, a change in the use or in lot area, or an alteration of stn.sature snail conform with the requirements of €'UD use. To approve or deny a PU©, the planning commission shalt find whether or no# the standards of this chapter, including the following criteria are either -ne#, or can be met by observance of conditions, or are not applicable. A. That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of this title; Conclusions of Law: The Council finds, based on the Findings ofFact in Section 1V and the evidence enumerated in Section lI, that the proposed amendment is of the same design, character and use as the existing whole Cascade Meadows PUD Phases I and II. Therefore, the Council concludes that the proposed development has justified the contemplated exceptions to the normal requirements of this title Title 17). to remain harmonious anal integrated with the surrounding area. Criterron 3 B. The proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable polices of the city; Conclusions of Law: The fact that Criterion 3 requires consistency with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan does not make ail goals and policies decisional criteria. See, Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 4r LUBA 450, affil 96 Qr App 645 { I989). In that and subsequent cases, the courts have held that approval criteria requiring compliance with a comprehensive plan does not automatically transform all plan goals and policies into decisional criteria, A determination of whether particular plan goals and policies are approval criteria must be based on the language used in the goals and policies and the context in which they appear. Plan goals and policies that are permissive rather than mandatory, or that merely encourage or suggest a course of action, are also not approval criteria. Based upon the foregoing, the Council concludes that the following comprehensive plan goals and policies are appropriately construed and apply in this instance as approval criteria under Bennett v. City cif Callas and those which are not Cited and addressed below, are not, in this instance, approval criteria: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Capital Deve€oprnent 2002,1_LC. App€icant June 24, 2005 ~ --- -- Page t4 ~l Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Noise Policy 3. The City shall €equire property owners to maste€ plan land use and design of new developments to control and minimize noise through such regal€ements as site orientation, buffering, distance separation, insulation, or other design features. Conclusions €~~' Law: Cascade Meadows, of which the subject development is a part of, has been master planned and noise mitigation was a part of that approved plan. The proposed project will not cause a significant increase in noise over what now occurs in the surrounding residential uses and will in fact decrease noise caused by traffic which would have occurred under a commercial zoning designation. Therefore, the Council concludes that the land use applications are consistent with I'~oise Policy 3. Parks and Recreation Policy Z: Ta provide an equitable distribution of recreation facilities throughout the Community to ensure the easiest possible access by all local €esidents. Parks and Recreation Policy 3: To enhance neighbo€haod and Community quality by providing far developmenf of attractive, functional, and accessible parks and open space areas throughout the City. Conclusions of Law.• The Council finds that the creation of parkland and recreational facilities was previously provided for under the Cascade Meadows Master Plan and that the existing parkland is or will be attractive, functional and accessible by the Local residents and by the residents of the dwellings herewith proposed. Therefore, the Council concludes that the land use applications are consistent with Parks and Recreation Policy 2 and 3. Site 1'~evelopment Policy 1; Ensure that all new development is in confom~tance with Gity codes, as well as applicable state and fede€al requirements. and Site i'~evelopment Policy 4: Ensure through the plan review process that all proposed developmen#s are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are of fhe highest possible quality. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and +eonclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with Site Development Policies 1 and ~ because the proposed development is in conformance with City codes and applicable state and federal requirements and are of the highest possible quality. Site Development Policy 5: Ensure that p€oposed development plans will not create obstacles fo fhe future development of adjacent parcels. Conclusions of Law: Applicants' proposal merely further partitions land within the existing subdivision. Adjacent parcels to the north, west and east of the subject parcels are already developed in a manner that is consistent with this proposed development. Based upon the foregoing, the Council concludes that the subject proposed development plans would not create obstacles to the future development of adjacent parcels. CirculationiTransporta#ion Policy 2: Whenever feasible, the City will utilize existing streets, highways, and other transportation facilities to the fullest extent possible to maximize the r'etum an past public roves#ments. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L.aw Capita! Development 2Ud2, I..t.C. Applicant .~iln@ ~+$, ~~t1~J Page 9 5 ~~ Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Cozrclasions of Law: Existing streets that serve the subject property are Beall Lane {a county road), Haskell Street and Alta Lane {city streets). The proposed project utilizes these existing streets and in this way has utilized existing streets and transportation facilities to the fullest extent possible to maximize the return on past public investments. Summary Conclusions of Law: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3 because the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the city. Criferion 4 G, The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the Ptll~ will have minimal adYerse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development of the Surrounding area; Conclusions of Law: The proposal will develop existing vacant land within an already approved and built PUD. The proposed development will be residential in nature and developed in a manner that is similar to and consistent with existing development that is adjacent and in the surrounding PUD area. The Council concludes that this criterion is met. Criferi©n 5 D. That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated tha# they are financially able to carry out the proposed project, that they Intend to complete said construction within a reasonable time as de#ermined by the commission; Conclusions of Law: Based upon applicant's stipulation in Section V, the Council concludes that applicant has demonstrated that construction will begin within six months of the final approval of the project final plat} and that construction will be completed within a reasonable time. As to financial capability, Applicants financial capability is known and determined to be adequate based upon their performance in earner phases of this PUD, Therefore, the Council concludes that the PUD is consistent with Criterion 5. Criterion 6 E. That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan of proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking; Conclusions of Law: Previously, this land was approved for commercial development; applicant now proposes a zone change to allow for residential development, a change which will have the affect of decreasing the Average Daily Trips (ADT~ over commercial use. The proposed residential development will place driveway access along Alta Lane, an approved and constructed City Street and will provide for adequate off street parking within an Findings Qf Fac# and Carrclusions of Law Capital C~eVeloprnent 2402, Lt_C. Applicant 3une 24, 2005 -- Page 16 Craig A. Mane R Associates, [.td. enclosed garage and will have additional off street spaces on the driveway aprons. The Council concludes Criterion 6 has been met. (;rlfG'rl4tt ~ F. That camrrtercial develapmen# in a PtJD is needed of the proposed location to provide adequate comrrtercial facilities of the type proposed; G. That proposed industrial develapmenf will be efficient and wail-organized with adequate provisions far railroad and track access and necessary storage; Couciasions of Law: The proposed development consists of single-family residential dwellings and does not propose any commercial or industrial development. The Council concludes that Criterion 7 does not apply. Criterion 8 H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; Conclusions of Law: The proposed PUD amendment does not affect any land which has existing natural features such as streams, shorelines, wooded cover or rough terrain. The Council concludes that Criterion 8 does not apply. Criterion 9 1. The PUD will be carnpatible with the surraundirtg area; Co>clusions of Law: The PUD amendment proposes residential development that is compatible in density and design with the residential uses already approved and now completed. The Council concludes that Criterion 9 is met. Criterion 1 a J, The PUD will reduce need far public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses far the land. Concl>trsio>ais of Law: In accordance with the public facility findings provided herein above, the Council concludes the overall difference in demand for public facilities is negligible and to the extent facilities were determined to be available for commercial uses the demands created by single family uses should be no more and inmost instances less. ~~~~~~x:~~~x~~~=k Findings of Facf and Conclusions of L.aw Capital Development 2002, l.t.C. Applicant June 24, 2045 - Paget 7 ~~ Graig A. Stone & Associates, ltd. Criferion 11 't7.68.t}8t} Exceptions to zoning and subdivision titles. The P#anning Commission may allow exceptions within a PUi~ for dimensions, site coverage, Yard spaces, s#ruGture heights, distances between s#ruetures, stree# widths or off-s#reet parking and loading foci#i#ies differing from the specific s#andards for the zoning dis#ric# in whicF~ the t'E.~[3 is located. Exeep#ions shal# be based upon the app#icant's demonstra#ian #ha# the objectives of the zoning and subdivision titles of this code will be achieved. Conclusions of Law. Exceptions are requested to the rear yard setback for detached garages to be lU feet from the rear property line and far lot widths to be reduced to 42 feet for interior fats and 48 feet far the corner lot. The Council concludes neither the zapipg title par subdivision title of the code captains a section entitled objectives and thus construes this criterion to invoke demonstration of compliance with Zoning Title Section 1'7.44.0320 {Purposes) and Subdivision Title Sections 1d.C}4.010 and 1dA4,420 {Scope of regulations & Design standards and principles of acceptability~~. The Council concludes the proposed cads exceptions are not inconsistent with these code sections in any substantive way that would significantly impair application of the City's caning and subdivision regulations and the same is sufficient to establish consistency with Criterion 11. Criterion T 2 T©D Carridar Masfer Pfau Amendment A. TC)D district or corridor master plan. A master plan shalt be approved when the approva# authority finds that the fa##owing Gri#eria are satisfied ar can be shown to be inapp#iGab#e: Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The fallowing criteria constitutes when a master plan is required: 1. T4D district ar Corridor Master Ptah. Master plan approval sha#1 be required far. a. Development ar land diYisian app#iGat#ans which inYatVe mare than five aCreS of land ar forty dwelling units; ar b. Modifications to a valid master plan approva# which invalYe one or more of the fo#tawing: i. An increase in dwe!ling unit density which exceeds five percent; ii. An increase in commercial grass floor area of ten percent ar two thousand square feet, whichever is greater; lit. An increase in building height by mare #han twenty percent; iv. A change in the type and lava#ian of streets, accessways, and parking areas where off-si#e traffic wau#d be affected; or v. A modification of a condition imposed as part of the master plan approva#. z `l"lae Council aclrnowledges the context and language of these cacle provisions are pat appropriately cansidereti specific decisional criteria pursuant to Berulett vs City of I}at#as. Correspondingly, demonstration of general consistency is su#~icient as a matter of law. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of haw Capifal ~eveiopment 2002, Lt,C, Applicant Just4 24, 2005 __._ Page i 8 ~'I Craig A. Stone 8 Associates, Ltd. Continued Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Council makes the fallowing conclusions with respect to Criterion 3: 1. The proposal is for the construction of 4single-family dwellings on a fatal of 4.48 acres of land. 2. The addition of 4 dwellings will increase the dwelling unit density by 3 percent. 3. The proposal does not include an increase in commercial floor area and in fact will decrease the commercial floor area. 4. As demonstrated by Exhibit 4 Construction Plans, the building height will nat increase by more than 24 percent from the existing residential development in Phases I and ~, 5. The proposal will not change the parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected and will not change the type or location of streets accessway. f. The proposal will not cause any modification of a condition imposed as part of the previous master plan approval. Ultimate Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the proposed development does not require an amendment to or revision of the previously approved master plan. Therefore, Criterion 12 does not apply. ~~~~~~>K~~x*~~~~x Cri#erion 'f 3 8. Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval A Sate Plan, Landscaping and Constnaction Plan application shat! be approved when the approval authority finds that the fallowing criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable: 1 The provisions of Chapter 17.72 Si#e Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval shall be satisfied; and 2. The proposed improvements comply with the approved TOD District or Corridor Master flan for the property; and 3. Chapter 17.87, Design Standards - T4D [District and TcJD Corridor Conclusions of Law: The Council makes the following conclusions with regards to Criterion 13: 1. Based upon Exhibits 2, 3 and 4, the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17,72 relevant to site plan, landscaping and construction. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Capital Qevelopment 2042, LE.C. Applicant 3tEne 24, 2045 ------ ..__.__ _..~ __________.,~..._____-- Page 13 ~~ Graig A. Stone & Associates, L#d. 2. Based upon evidence submitted in Section ll and the Findings of Fact in Section 1V the proposed improvements comply with TEED Corridor Master Plan. 3. Based upon Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 and the Findings of Fact in Section IV the proposed land division is found to be consistent with Chapter 17.67, Design Standards for TC}D Corridor lands. The Council concludes the proposal is consistent with Criterion 13. Criterion T 4 C. Land Division A Land Division application shall be approved when the approval authority finds that the follawirsg criteria are safisfied ar can be shaven to be inapplicable: 9. 1'he provisions of Sec#ion 96 - Sutadivision Ordinance; and 2. The proposed Land Division complies with the approved 'rOD District or Corridor Mas#er t'lan far the praper#y. 3. Chapt@r 97'.67, Design Standards - TAD District or Corridor Cvncluslons crf Law: The Council makes the following conclusions with regards to Criterion 14: 1. Based upon Exhibit 3 Tentative Plan, the proposed land division is consistent the provisions of Section 16, Subdivision C3rdinance. 2. The proposed land division is similar in design and character as the previously approved subdivision plat. 3. Based upon Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 and the Findings of Fact in Section 1V the proposed land division is found to be consistent with Chapter 17.67, Design Standards for TC7D Corridor lands. Crr`ferion ~5 4REGUN TRANSP£?RTATIt.~N PLANNING RULE S6f1-(#12-Og6#t Plan and Lana Use Regulation A~nend-t~ents s~c~-lora 6~ao9a-oo6o {9} {9) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an axis#ing or planned transpor#a#ion facility, the local government shall pu# in place measures as provided in section {2) of this rule to assure tha# allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards {e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Capital Developmen# 2002, LLC. Applicant .{une 24, 2005 ....._.._.._ _ .~ Page 20 ~~ Craig A. 5tona & Associates, Ltcl. etc.} of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment signi#iaantly affects a transparta#ian facility if it would: {a} Change the #unctianal alassifcatian of an existing or planned transpar#a#ion facility {exclusive of correction of map errors in an adap#ed plan}; {b} Change standards implementing a funatianal classification system; ar {c} As measured a€ the end of the planning period identified in the adapted franspartation system plan: {A} Allow land uses ar levels of development Iha# would resul# in types or levels of travel or access tha# are inconsistent with the func#ianal classifica#ian of an existing ar planned #ranspartatian facility; {B} Reduce the perfam~ance of an existing ar planned transpartatian facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or 2 comprehensive plan; ar {C} Worsen the performance of an exis#ing ar planned #ransporta#ion #aaili#y tha# is otherwise projected to perfam7 below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in ttte TSP or comprehensive plan. Conclusions of Law; The Council concludes the proposed zone change and PUT. revision wilt have minimal effect, and during typical peak hour conditions a reduction effect on trip generation within the site and on nearby transportation facilities. As such, the Council concludes the requested land use approval will not create an inconsistency with the existing functional classification system or facility performance standards in any material respects. VI APPLICANT STIPUI_AT10-NS Stipulation 1. Timetable for Il~evelopment: Applicant herewith agrees to stipulate that construction wilt commence within six months of the final approval of the project {including final subdivision plat approval) and that construction wilt be completed within, l year or such reasonable time as the city may determine. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law capital Development 2002, LLG. Applicant June 24, 2005 -~--- Page 21 ~~ Crsig A. atone & Associates, ltd. ~~~ ULTIMATE Ct3NCLUS{ONS Based upon the preceding findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council ultimately concludes that, the case for annexation and zone change has been shown to conform with all of the relevant substantive criteria. Respectfully submitted on behalf of applicant Mr. and Mrs. Robert Sunday CRAIG A. STC3I~TE & ASSCtCIATES, LTD. ...... Cra' to Co ultin Urban Planner Dated: June 24, 2005 Findings of Fact acrd Conclusions of L.aw CapifaC Development 2002, LLC. Applicant June 24, 2005 ._._._.__...___ .~ ----- Page 22 ~~ Public Works C?epartmen~ P~LIC' BYO. August 11, 2{}05 T~J: Plann%ng Department -~; ~_:: _ ~= 'C7RT ~~~~~ ~~~~~ P'R{~11~: Public Works Department St.TBS~CT: Tentative Subdivision for 37 2W 11CC, `%'ax Lot 510{1 Cascade Meadows Phase la A ~al~ icant Thomas and Anna Sunday P,C7. I3ox 2508 Grants Pass, 4R 97528 Agent Craig A. Stone 71.2 Cardley Avenue Medford, QR 97504 P.~~ Descriptionl TOD-EC/C_4 Zonin Purpose Bob Pietc~, Uirecfor ,lVfaff Samifore, Dev. Services Coord: Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant {hereinafter referred to as "Developer"} regarding City Public Works Department (PWD} standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed. Gather information from the DeveloperlEngineer regarding the proposed development. A City of Central Point Public Works Department Staff Report is not intended to replace the City's Standards c.'~ Specifications. Staff Reports axe written in coordination. with the City's Standards & Specifications to form a used. guide. The City's Standaxds & Specifications should be consulted for any information not contained in a Public Works Staff' 1i.eport. 955 South Second Sfreef ~ Central Point, C7R 975fl2 , 549.664.3329 ~ Fax 549.&64.6384 J'rjo Existing Infrastruetur~ Streets: Beall Lane is a County Road paved to twenty-four feet in width, with a deceleration lane often feet. It is designated a minor arterial in the City's Transportation System Plan. Haskell Street was paved as part of Cascade Meadows Phase 1 and is designed to TflD Collector Stan- dard. Alta Lane was paved as part of Cascade Meadows Phase 1 and is designed to TC1D Minor Residential Standards. 2. Water: There is an existing eight-inch water line in Alta Lane. Two water service lines were al- ready stubbed out to the parent parcel. 3, Storm Drain: There is existing twelve inch storm drain in Alta Lane. There are existing catch basins near the intersection of Haskell Street and Alta Lane. Astorm-drain line was stubbed out from the South side catch basin. 4. Sewer: There is an existing eight inch sanitary sewer line in Alta Lane with a six inch stub out into the parent parcel. Public Turks Review As originally planned this parcel was designed for a Commercial Building. All of the utilities have been stubbed out to the parent parcel. The Public Works Department recommends as a condition of approval that the engineer explore the existing utilities to see if service lines can be connected to there. in order to avoid cutting the newly paved street. The Public Works Department is willing to coordinate with the Developer on the coordination of these utility improvements. T`ranspc~rtation Currently Beall Lane is a country road that is paved to twenty four to forty feet in width. In the City of Central Point's Transportation System Plan Beall Lane is classified as a Minor Arterial. When improved, Minor Arterials are designed. to handle up to 1.4,444 vehicle trips a day or 1444 P.M. Peak Hour Trips. The most recent traffic counts for Beall Lane were conducted by the City of Central Point in 2404. The total trips per day were approximately 5444. I1Io major transportation improvements or land use applications have occurred since the count was completed. If approved as a PIJD the proposed project entails the development of four residential lots. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers {ITE) Trip Generation Manual base figure of 9.55 average trips per day per residence, the project would potentially create up to 38.2 average daily trips or roughly 3.8 P.M. peak hour trips. The Public ~rVorks Department sloes not have standards that require Traffic Studies for new development. The City typically uses the Clregon Department of Transportation's {QDC1T~ Guide to L7evelopment Impact Analysis as a guideline fox requiring traffic 155 Soufh Second Sfreef ~ Genfr~l Poinf, C}R 975C?2 : 541.6fi4.332~ ~ Fax 541.664.6384 5jj' studies. Only developments of 15~} or more single family homes require a traffic study Cascade Meadows Phase 1CZI 5txbdivisiott Cvnditidn of Apprvvais 1. Infrastructure lmpxovements: The developer's engineer shall explore options of connecting the existing utility stub-outs prior to designing utilities which will involve cutting Alta Street. 2. Public Utility Easement: Aten-foot wide public utility easement will need to be dedicated on the Final Plat. The applicant has not addressed where the PUE will be located. Standard Spec~cativns and foals 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 fio obtain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Works Depaz~tment. Central Point Public Works is committed to working with the Planning Department and developers to assure that all developments are adequately served by public facilities. Public facilities not awned or maintained by the City of Central Paint include: Power {PF&L), Gas ~Avista), Communications (Qwest}, and Sanitary Sewer {RVSS). In working together it is the Department's expectation that the developer will feel free to call on the 1=}epartment whenever the standard specifications are not, in the developer's opinion, adequately meeting the needs of the development. The Department will listen to the developer's concerns and work with the developer to achieve the best outcome. however, the Department is not obligated to assure a prof table development and will not sacrifice duality for the sole purpose of reducing cost to the developer. It is always the developer's obligation to provide the public improvements necessary, as determined by the Public Works Department, to serve the development. The Department and the developer also have an obligation to assure that public facilities are constructed so that ether properties are not adversely impacted by the development. Development Plans -..1~teguired .~nfc~rnsaticrn Review of public improvement plans is initiated by the submittal of 3 sets of plans that are at least 95°l0 complete. `l'he plans shall include those of other agencies such as RVSS. Fallowing plan review, the plans will be returned to the Developer's engineer including comments from Public Works Staff In order to be entitled to f~.~rther review, the Applicant's Engineer must respond to each comment of the prior review. All submittals and responses to comments must appear throughout the plans to be a realistic attempt to result in complete plan approval. Upon approval, the Applicant's Engineer shall submit (4) copies of the plans to the 1epartment of Public Works. 155 South Second Streef ~ry ~erafra! Paint, 4R 97552 •549.fi&4.3321 ~ Fax 541.6fi4.fi384 ' '~ 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 and outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a traffic control plan. Publie° Works Permit 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, except Public Works Inspection fees. After project completion during the final plat application process, the Public Works Inspector will calculate the appropriate amount of inspection tune to assess the developer. Before the final plat application is processed the developer must pay the relevant inspections fees and bond for any uncompleted improvements {as determined by the Public Works Director}. Cascade Meadows Phase III Subdivision -Plans 1. Three sets of plans at 95°lo complete stage are to be submitted for review by the Public Works Depart- ment, 2, C}nce approval is achieved the Developer shall submit four sets of plans to the Public Works Depart- ment for construction records and inspection. 3. The Developer's Engineer shall document changes to the approved drawings made in the field. A my- lar anal digital copy of the final "as-built" drawings will be required before the final plat application is processed. Cascade? Me?adows PJiase III Subdivision -Protection ear f `.Existing Facilities The locations of existing facilities shall be shown on all applicable construction drawings for Public Works projects as follows: L The exact locations of underground facilities shall be verified in advances of any public works construc- tion, in cooperation with the public or private utilities involved. 955 Sauth Second Sfreef :r Cettfral Point, GR 975(12 ~ 549.fi64.3~329 ~ Fax 549.fiF4.6384 2. Ail existing underground and surface facilities shall be protected from damage during design arzd con- struction ofpubl'zc works pra~ects. 3. Any existing facilities not specifically designated for alteration or removals, which are damaged during construction, shall be restored or replaced to a "same as" or better than condition, at the expense of the Developer. 4. Suitable notice shall be given to all public and private utility companies in advance of construction for the purpose of protecting ar relocating existing facilities. Cascade Meadows Phase ZI.I Subdivr'sian -- Water G'`on~tection 1. Water systerrz designs shall consider the existing water system, master plans, neighborhood plans and approved tentative plans. The Developer, Engineer and Contractor shall provide the necessary testing, exploration, survey and research to adequately design water system facilities, which will connect to and be a part of, or an extension of the City water system. All requirements of the Qregon Mate Plumbing Specialty Code and the Oregon State Health Department, as they pertain to Public Water Systems, shall be strictly adhered to, 2. The City of Central Point Fublic Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specifzc information regarding the design and construction ofwater system related components. Cascade Meadows Phase IIX Subdivisions -Streets 1. The Developer's street designs shall consider the needs of people with disabilities and the aged, such as visually impaired pedestrians and mobility-impaired pedestrians. Every effort should be made to locate street hardware away from pedestrian locations and provide a surface free of burrzps and cracks, which create safety and mobility problems. Smooth access ramps shall be provided where required. All de- signs shall conform to the current American Disabilities Act (ADAM or as adopted by the tJregon De- partment of Transportation ~4DC}T}, Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The determination of the pavement width and total right-af--way shall be based on the operational needs for each street as determined by a technical analysis, The technical analysis shall use demand volumes that reflect the maximum number of pedestrians, bicyclists, parked vehicles and motorized vehicle traffic expected when the area using the street is fully developed, Technical analysis shall take into consideration, transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan, T03~J, neighborhood plans, approved 955 South Seccmd Sfreef ~- Cenfral Poinf, UR 9?5a2 .549.6fi4.3329 ~ Fax 549.&64.6384 li!'t7 tentative plans as well as existing commercial and residential developments. All street designs shall be coordinated with the design of other new or existing infrastructure. Cascade .1Vleadaws .Phase III Subdivisivn -Sturm Drain It shall be the responsibility of the Developer's Engineer to investigate the drainage area of the project, including the drainage areas of the channels or storm sewers entering and leaving the project area. if a contiguous drainage area of given size exists, the engineer may use information that has formerly been established if it includes criteria for the drainage area at complete development under current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. if the City does not have such information, the engineer shall present satisfactory information to support his storm sewerage design. The engineer shall also be re- quired to provide all hydrology and hydraulic computations to the Public Works Depar.-tment that are necessary to substantiate the storm sewer design. The storm water sewer system design shall be in con- formance with applicable provisions of Oregon DEQ, DSL and ODI~W and United Mates C4E and consistent with APWA Storm Water Phase lI requirements. 2. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards &. Specifications should be consulted for specific in- formation regarding the design anal construction of storm drain related components. Cascade Meadpws Phase .tIISubdivision --Required Submittals 1. All design, construction plans and specifications, and "as-built" drawings shall be prepared to accept- able professional standards as applicable, the Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals and conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to Oregon De- partment of Fish and Wildlife {DPW}, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ}, C}regon Division of State Lands (DSL}, Oregon Department of Transportation ~ODOT} approval for storm drain connection and easement, landscape berms, U.S..~~rmy Corps of Engineers (ALOE}, affected irrigation districts, Bear Creak Valley Sanitary Authority {RVSS}, and Jackson County Road and Park Services Department ~JC Roads}, DSL and ACOE, as applicable (wetland mitigation}. 2. Fire District No. 3 must approve all streets and water improvement plans in writing prior to final review by City FWD. 3. Duru-rg construction, any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's Engineer to the City Public Works Department for approval prior to installation. 155 Soufh Second Sfreef ~ Genfral Poinf, OR 975x2 •541.664.331 ~ Fax 541.664.63$4 955 South Second Sfree~ ;= Cenral Point, fJR 97542 •541.6'64.3329 ~ Fax 541.664.6384 lv'~ E~;HtB~T "~`" BUIbD[NG DEPARTMENT Lois ©eEienedetti, wilding Official BC~lLD1NG DEPARTMENT STAFF RF'PC}RT DATE:8/~ 6105 TC): Planning Department Planning file no, fl5074 FRtJM: Building Department SUBJECT: PUD within a PUD {Cascade Meadows lll~ Name:_Thomas and Anna Bundav Address:P.C). Box 2588 City:Grants Pass Mate: 4r. zip code: 97528 PR(3P~RTY DEBCRIPTIC}N: 4 Tots on Alta bane P`URPOSE' The staff report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Applicant regarding City Building Department requirements and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed project. This is not a plaid review. This report is preliminary and compiled solely for use by the Central Point Planning Commission. 155 South Second Street Central Part, {~R 97502 ~ 5~1.66~.3321 ~ Fax 541.66-.638# BLTfL~}fl~~ DEPART~I~ENT s~~r ll~poRT _~_ BUDDING DEPARTMENT CCJMMENT~: ~ . Applicant, agent and contractors must comply with ail current State of Qregon adopted codes, and apply for all permits through the Central Point Building Department. 2, If a private storm drain system is proposed it must be reviewed and a permit issued by the Central Point Plumbing department. 3. Any private street lighting must be reviewed and permitted by the Central Point Electrical department. 4. Provide the building department with a Geotechnical report as required by t~SSC Appendix J and chapter ~ 8 and Chapter 4 of the C~RSC. A written report of the investigation shad include, but need not be limited to, the following information: a. A plot plan showing the location of all test borings andlor eXCavation5. b. Descriptions and classifications of the materials encountered. c. elevations of the water table, if encountered. d. Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions #o mitigate the effects of liquefaction and soil strength, and the effects of adjacent loads, e. When expansive soils are present, special provisions shall be provided in the foundation design and construction to safeguard against damage due to expansiveness. Said design shall be based on geotechnical recommendations. 5. Gradingl excavation permits are required in accordance with t~SSC Appendix J and chapter ~ 8 and {~DSC chapter 4 regarding any fill material placed on the site. Fills to be used to support the foundation of any building or structure shall be placed in accordance with accepted engineering practices. 155 South Second Street Central Paint, CJR 97502 ° 541.664.332 ~ =Fax 541.664.6384 Bt..TILDf~~SG DEPAR'~ME~IT STAFF REPQRT _~,. A soil investigation report and a report of satisfactory placement of fill {including special inspections of placement of fill and compaction} acceptable #o the wilding Qfl"~cial shall be submitted prior #o final of the gradinglexcavation permit. Building permits will not be issued until gradinglexeavation permit is finalled. Exception: ~ . The upper ~ . 5 foot of fill placed ou~ tside of public rights-of- way, 2, The upper 1.5 foot of fill that dues nat underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas, 5, To move or demolish any existing structures located on the property call the Building Department for permit requirements. 7. l~otify the City Building Department of any existing wells, or septic sys#er~ns located on the property, 8. Any development {any man-made changed #o Improved or unimproved real estate located within the flood hazard area of the City of Central Point shall require a Development Permit as set forth in the Central Point Municipal Code $.24,124. J. must control, and track out elimination procedures must be implemented. 14. Three sets of complete plans indicating compliance with the 2005 tJregon Residential Specialty Code should be submitted for each residence upon approval of this application. Any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Applicant, or Applicant's contractor to the Building Department for approval prior to start of work. 15S South Second Street Central Point, C.)R 9`15012 p 541.66~.332i `ax 5~1.664.63$~ ~Gr Planninig Department STAFF ~EP~RT Tom Nuinphrey,AlCP, Community i~eveiopment [7irector~ Assistant City Administrator E~iHIB1T «dr7 PLANNTItilG DEPARTMENT CdNDIT1dNS dF APl'RdVAL 1. The applicant shad comply with all requirements imposed by affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the development of the Cascade Meadows PUl7, Evidence of such compliance shall be submitted to the City prior to Final Plat approval. 2. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local regulations, standards, and requirements applicalale to the development and construction of the Cascade Meadows PUD. i~~ 1 Mote! TC): Planning Conunission FROM: I~en Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing-Site Plan Application for motel involving parcels 37 2W O2D, Tax. Lots 1902, 1904 and 2000. DATE: September 6, 2005 Uwner; A licanti Agent; Peninger Leasing LLC F.C). Box X129 Medford, ©regon 97501 Good Fortune LLC, Timothy D. Hovet 840 Beltline, Suite 242 Springfield, C)regon 97477 Property Descrit~#ion; 37 2W O2D, Tax Lots 1902, 1904 and. 201(}0- 2.00 acres total. Zoning C-4, Tourist and 0~f1„ice Professional District Avthot~i~; CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and. render a decision on any application for a site plan. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060 Attachment A}. Applicable Law: CPMC 17.44.010 et seq,- Tourist and Office Professional Zoning District CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan Review Discassion; Good Fortune LLC has submitted a site plan review application to the Planning Conunissic~n for a 84 unit Holiday Inn Express motel to be constructed toward the southerly terminus of South Peninger Road in the C-4, Tourist and 0)ffice Professional zone district. Motels are a permitted use in this area however they are required to obtain an approval of the site plan and architectural renderings. ~~ The proposed site plan meets the requirements far setbacks, landscaping, ofi=street parking and sanitary sewer. The affected agencies and City departments have responded to the proposed development and these comments arc; enclosed as attachments. It was originally thought that there were insuff dent minimum water f re flaw levels available to the site but this has since been resolved and found to be acceptable to the fire district. The site plan criterion are discussed in the fallowing findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Site Plan Review In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases its decision on the fallowing standards from Section I'7.72.E140: Criterion 1 A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the maintenance of existing plants or the installation of new ones for purposes of screening adjoining property. Finding. The motel will be located in an area that contains a mix offreeway-oriented commercial businesses that include a truck stop, gas stations, fast foal restaurants and another motel. The applicants have submitted a landscape plan formulated by a licensed landscape architect far this development and the plan is consistent. Criterion 2 B, Design, number and location of ingress and egress paints so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; Finding: The project site is located at the terminus of South Peninger Road where there is presently a maneuvering obstruction designed to prevent semi-trucks from entering the area. The East Pine Street Corridor Study has identified an eventual East-West connection from Peninger Road to Hamrick Raad. The applicants have proposed aright-of-way dedication of 60 feet far this proposed road and the Public Works Department has indicated that the road will need to be paved to City standards and have a barrier installed at the East lot line. A 26 foot wide private driveway will be located adjoining Interstate S on the westerly lot line. This driveway wi11 provide access to the parking areas and will connect these facilities into the new East-West road. Criterion 3 C. To provide off street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such a manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; Finding: CPMC 17.64,040 {B-2} requires that motels have "not less than one space per guest unit; plus one space .per each two employees. if units have kitchens, two spaces are required. " Chapter 1'7.64.0'7{} allows up to 25 percent of the required off street parking spaces to be reduced in size or °`compact". The application indicates that there are 84 units and up to 12 employees at peak which would equate to a minimum requirement of 90 spaces. This criterion has been met. Criterion 4 D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traffic control signs or devices and that they are compatible with the design of their buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; Finding: The building elevations submitted in the application package show signage affixed to the stucco facade above the front door of the building. A freeway pylon sign is also planned. The signage is consistent with Chapter 15.24 subject to the applicant obtaining permits from the Building Department. If other signs are proposed, each will require a separate permit and. must comply with code. This criterion can be met. Criterion 5 E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide or the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; Finding: Jackson County Fire District Number Three has reviewed the site plan and determined that the driveway adjoining Interstate 5 will need to be at least 26 feet in width, The agency initially identified a problem with an inadequate fire flow for the water system at this time but the City's Public Works L7epartment has since resolved the situation, Criterion 6 F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; Finding: This development proposal meets the city ordinances and regulations and this finding has been met. ~~ Criterion 7 G, Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point arcs and its environs. Finding; As previously idcntifed in a previous Ending, the project is surrounded by similar uses that are freeway-oriented in nature, The architectural elevations provided by the applicant are similar to the motif of the surrounding uses and therefore this criterion has been met. Planning Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission has the fallowing action option in deciding this matter; 1. Approve Resolution ~ approving the site plan application subject to the recommended conditions of approval. t ~" Attachments: A. Notice of Meeting B. Site Plan C. Building Elevations, Signage D. Landscape Plan E. Public Works Staff Report F. Building Department Staff Report G. Jackson County Fire District No. 3 Correspondence H. Rogue Valley Sewer Service Correspondence ~~ ~~~y of ~~t~f~~l Po~~~ J! ~~ ~-~-~~~i~ ~ ~ ~~[~~T~~A~ P~A~~rn~~ aEpARr~Enrr ~~ ~ 7T Tom Humphrey, k€CP Commun€ty Development Director Ken Gerschler Community P€anner Dave Aivard Community P€anner Lisa Morgan Piann€ng Techn€cian Nance of Public Meeting Date of Notice: August 17, 2005 Meeting Date: September ~, 2005 Time: 7;00 p.m. {Approximate} Place: Central Point City Hall 155 S. Second Street Central Paint, Qregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a Site Plan application. The purpose of this application is to build a Holiday Inn Express, which is an out right permitted use. The properly is located within an C-4, Tourist and Offce-Professional zoning district. The property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2V1102D, Tax Lot{s} 1904 & 1800. The property is located south of East Pine Street, east of Interstate 5. Pursuant to ORS 197.7fi3 {3} {e}, failure to raise an issue during this meeting, in person or in writing, with sufficient specificity to afford the decision-makers and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will precltade an appeal based on that issue. Nt~TIGE TO MQRTGAGEE, LIENHC1i.DER, VENDOR t7R SELLER: tJRS GRAFTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NtJTICE IT MUST BE PRQMPTLY FORWARDED Tf3 THE PURCHASER. This notice is being mailed to property owners within a 200 foot radius of subject property. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for a Site Plan application review are set forth in Chapters '17,44 & '17.72 of the Central Point Municipal Code! relating to General Information and conditions of the project approval. PUBLIC GOMMENTS 155 South Second Street • Central Point, 4R 97542 ~ {541 6~4-3321 ~ Fax: 541) ~~4-384 ~~ may submit written comments up until the close of meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 6, 2fl05. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to central Paint City Nall, '155 South Second Street, Central Point, Cdr. 975(}2. 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. The City File Number is fl5fl68. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning ©epartment at {54'1} 664-3321 ext 292. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the application{s} and technical staff reports. The Commission, will hear testimony from the applicants proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application{s}. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the application{s~ as submitted. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be infom~ed about all Planning Commission decisions. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, QR 975(}2 +~ {541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: {541 664-6384 '~,~ rt ~1 $---~ 4 CJ S. `--Y ~b~~a~~ 4 g['$'~ PLAN ~~~£ GENTR.u A05NT, 6s-iG~~~+ ~~ I~ THQGERSDN DESIGNS ftaskienUa~ ana COmmafUB) AsChltaUs xn zv rw, . s~. r» ~.r.. c..,., nm n.. [b11 MY-f:Y) in {50.51 sx-vcf ..- ~ U~ n o ~~~ x .~ o ~ ~ F$ ~ ~~~ W ~. '~ a ~t~ ~" a~ to ------(~ ------{ _~ ,~ m r m G D a z ~.~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~g ~xx~r~~a~t ~~.~EUai"~arwts ~j ~* ~~ ~ ~"~ T~ THOGEiZSON DESIGNS ~ I ~ .~.t..,.P; ,A ., . , c1,,, u f f2es3dantioi and Commgrciel ArctsEtects ~ ~ " i++r }}4 Imo"" ~. ~~arrr ~~~~~a REO sutscr tAARiC UiniE t£AF Ut+CEN %YtKK2Ak LH[1MY `_ CACi7Ay, fiFAR +tr~ y Wsmut PNE ~~~~,~ xCCUt CEDAR ;~, /"~ LESRPot NEUEOprc { ~Y---- +1CER CHCWATW . , ~~ {pZAL SLwfY CUSWEASiiR NQRttt LA~JDSCAPE P~A~( Nfl~IDAY l~N EXPRESS ......~ RfNSfON REN6t0.N ~ CdtFFOR6 OfStG+ PROJfC7 N0. 1-;Ix2405 DA0.j]SjUS tlES:Gns +ra .t.Ct+FFpfip >#s • !M Ik V) !Y !" z 0 a r`r ~ (~ . ~ 1 ~ F Z til ~ ^ ~Iw`~ x_~ Ei1; o ~ ~ ~ ~° ~~~ ~; o~yAr; ECw c&~x Cif ?z~p -ja b ~3 ;t S~+Efi '.tiLC- Pt,t~hT1> ~i,AN Pudic Works Depat~mettt CENTRAL POINT P ~IBL~C WC?RK~`STAFF REPURT August 11, 2005 TO: Planning Department FROM: Public Works Department ~~ i T'C~C"i{~vt~`P~4 4 Bob Pierce, Director Maft Samitore, Dev. Services Coord. SUBJECT: Site Plan Review for 37 2W ODD Tax Lot 1500, 1904 and 2000 Holiday Inn Express Applicant Sycan Development g40 Beltline Road Springf eld, QR 9'7477 Pr~ o~erty Descnptionl C-4 Zon,`ng Purpose Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. A City of Central Point Public Works Department Staff Report is not intended to replace the City's Standards & Specifications. Staff Reports are written in coordination with the City's Standards & Specifications to form a useful guide. The City's Standards &~ Specif cations should be consulted for any information not contained in a Public Works Staff Report. Existing Infrastructure 1. Streets: South Peninger Road is a City Street paved to forty-two feet in width, with two travel lanes and a center turn lane. 2. Water; There is an existing twelve-inch water line in Haskell Street. 3. Storm Drain: There is existing twelve inch storm drain in South Peninger Road. 155 South Second Street Central Paint, OR 975Q2 ~ 541.fifi4.3329 ~ Fax 54.664.6384 ~~ Public TEr~rks Review The proposed Holiday Inn Express is at the South end of Peninger Road. As part of the East Pine Street Corridor Plan the City has planned for an east-west road that will connect S. Peninger Road with Hamrick Read. The applicants have shown this new `future street' on their plans. The City will be requiring ahalf-street improvement of this street as a condition of approval. T"ranspvrtatian Currently South Peninger Road is a country road that is paved to twenty four to forty feet in width. South Peninger Road is classified a local street under the City's current Transportation System Plan. The proposed project entails the development of an eighty-four roam hotel. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE} Trip Generation Manual base figure of 8,1'7 average trips per room, the project would potentially create 686.28 average daily trips. A hotel only generates .59 peak hour trips per room or roughly 49.56 P.M. peak hour trips. The Public Works Department does not have standards that require Traffic Studies for new development. The City typically uses the C?regon Depa~~ent of Transportation's (t~DC7T} Guide to Development Impact Analysis as a guideline for requiring traffic studies. The City of Central Point recently completed the East Pine Corridor Traff c Study which studied E. Pine Street, Peninger Road, Harrnrick Road and a portion of Beebe Road. The improvements entail a new street being extended to the North of the subject property via a future bridge over Bear Creek that would extend to Hamrick Road. Additionally, intersection improvements at Peninger Road and E. Pine Street are scheduled. Iloiiday Inn Express Site Plan Condition ~rfApprr~vuls 1. East-West Street: The developer and land owner are responsible for constructing the east-west road that is shown on the site plan as `Future Street'. The City of Central Point requires forty feet of right-way dedication anal full forty feet street improvements to a Collector Status. The developer is eligible for SDC credit for a portion of the upsi~ing. 2. Storm Drainage Infrastructure: The developer shall develop a facility plan for the storm drain collection and conveyance system, which provides for run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development. The system will need to be publicly maintained for any section within a public right-of way. 3. Private Storm Drainage Infrastructure: Any privately maintained storm drain infrastructure will need a plumbing permit from the Central Paint Building Department. 4. Public Utilit Easements: Aten-foot wide public utility easement will need to be dedicated behind the right-of~way on the Final Plat. Ail other dedicated City utility easements must be a minimum of fifteen 955 South Second Streef ~. Central Point, t~7R 97502 ~ 549.fi64.3321 ~ Fax 549.fi64.&384 ,~r~ feet wide. S. Pezunger Road Connection: Developer's Engineer shall provide a detailed connection of the proposed Private Street and Peninger Road. 6. Private Street Desi :The Developer shall widen the proposed private street to meet the requirements of Fire District #3. 7. Street Tree Plan: Prior to issuance of the final plat, the appl€cant shall submit for approval by the Public Works Director, or his designee, a landscape plan for the areas designated for landscape rows. Street trees shall be planted thirty-feet on center around the perimeter of the property. The plan shall include construction plans, irrigation plans, details and specifications for the trees to be planted within the landscape rows. Plantings shall comply with Municipal Code Section 1.36. Tree plantings shall have at least a l IZ" tx~uxzk diameter at the time of installation. All street trees shall be irrigated with an automatic underground irrigation system. Maintenance of the landscape raw will be of the property owners who awn the property directly ad,~acent to the landscape raw. 8. Fiber ©~tic Network -Applicant shall install a minimum conduit far the future fiber optic network throughout Central Paint. Standard Specificatir~ns and Goals 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 haw public facilities are to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Works Department. Central Paint Public Works is committed to working with the Planning Department and developers to assure that all developments are adequately served by public facilities. Public facilities not owned or maintained by the City of Central Point include: Power {PP&L}, Cos {Avista}, Comr~r~unicatians (Qwest}, and Sanit~~ry Sewer {RVSS}. In working together it is the Department's expectation that the developer will feel free to call on the Department whenever the standard specifications are not, in the developer's opinion, adequately meeting the needs of the development. The Department will listen to the developer's concerns and work with the developer to achieve the best outcome. 1-Iowever, the Department is not obligated to assure a profitable development and will nat sacrifice quality for the sole purpose of reducing cost to the developer. It is always the developer's obligation to provide the public improvements necessary, as determined by the Public Works Depa,~tment, to serve the development. The Department and the developer also have an obligation to assure that public facilities are constructed so that other properties are not adversely impacted by the development. Development Plans -Required Infvrmatinn Review of public improvement plans is initiated by the submittal of 3 sets of plans that are at least 95°l0 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, QR 97542 •547.6fi4.3321 ~ Fax 541.664.6384 1. The exact locations of underground facilities shall be verified in advance of any public works construction, in cooperation with the public or private utilities involved. 2. All existing underground and surface facilities shall be protected from damage during design and construction of public works projects. 3. Any existing facilities not specifically designated for alteration or removals, which are damaged during construction, shall be restored or replaced to a "same as" or better than condition, at the expense of the Developer. 4. Suitable notice shall be given to all public and private utility companies in advance of construction for the purpose of protecting or relocating existing facilities. Holiday Inn Express Site Plan -Water Connection 1. 'hater system designs shall consider the existing water system, master plans, neighborhood plans and approved tentative plans. The Developer, Engineer and Contractor shall provide the necessary testing, exploration, survey and research to adequately design water system facilities, which will connect to and be a part of, or an extension ofte City water system. All requirements of the Oregon State Plumbing Specialty Code and the Oregon State Health Department, as they pertain to Public V~ater Systems, shall be strictly adhered to. 2. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific information regarding the design and construction of water system related components. Holiday Inn Express Site Plan -Streets l . The Developer's street designs shall consider the needs of people with disabilities and the aged, such as visually impaired pedestrians and mobility-impaired pedestrians. Every effort should be made to locate street hardware away from pedestrian locations and provide a surface free of bumps and cracks, which create safety and rriobility problems. Smooth access ramps shall be provided where required. All designs shall conform to the current American Disabilities Act (ADA} or as adapted by the Qregon Department of Transportation (UDC}T), Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The determination of the pavement width and total right-of--way shall be based on the operational needs 955 South Second Street Central Point, C}R 975Q2 ~ 549.664.3329 ~ Fax 549.6&4.&384 ~.~.. far each street as determined by a technical analysis. The technical analysis shall use demand volumes that reflect the maximum number of pedestrians, bicyclists, parked vehicles and motorized vehicle traffic expected when the area using the street is fully developed. Technical analysis shall take into consideration, transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan, TOD, neighborhood plans, approved tentative plans as well as existing commercial and residential developments. All street designs shall be coordinated with the design of other new or existing infrastructure. . Holiday Inn Express Site Plan - Storm .Drain . 1. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer's Engineer to investigate the drainage area of the project, including the drainage areas of the channels ar storm sewers entering and leaving the project area. If a contiguous drainage area of given size exists, the engineer may use information that has formerly been established if it includes criteria for the drainage area at complete development under current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. if the City does not have such information, the engineer shall present satisfactory information to support his storm sewerage design. The engineer shall also be required to provide all hydrology and hydraulic computations to the Public Works Department that are necessary to substantiate the storm sewer design. The storm water sewer system design shall be in conformance with applicable provisions of Oregon DEQ, DSL and ODFW and United Mates COE anal consistent with APWA Storm Water Phase 11 requirements. ~. The City of Central Paint Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific information regarding the design and construction of storrri drain related components. Holiday Inn Express Site Plan -Required Submittals All design, construction plans anal specifications, and "as-built" drawings shall be prepared to acceptable professional standards as applicable, the Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals and conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but oat limited to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ~DFW}, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ}, Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL}, Oregon Department of Transportation ~ODOT} approval far storm drain connection and easement, landscape berms, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE}, affected irrigation districts, Bear Creak Valley Sanitary Authority (RVSS}, and 3ackson County Road and Park Services Department (JC Roads}, DSL and ACOE, as applicable (wetland mitigation}. 2. Fire District Na. 3 must approve all streets and water improvement plans in writing prior to final review by City PWD. 3. During construction, any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's Engineer 955 South Second Sfreet = Central Painf, OF? 97542 +~ 549.664.3329 ~ Fax 549.6&4.6384 ~.~ to the City Public Works L7epariment for approval prior to installation. 155 South Secand Street Central Poinf, 4R 97542 •541.664.3321 ~ Fax 541.664.6384 ~ ~ ~ 3 }~~ate ~r~~~ ~11~~i~c ~i~t~ ~~ 9?'~~~~-1 c~~~ {~4 i ~ 8 26-~~' 144 {voice ~~"`"#- i } 8 Z6~Fj ~ ~ ~~ax~ Jc.trEa 15, 2Un5 Attn: Ken Gerschler ~ 'fi~~~ ~-~.~~~. CP Planner ` Re: 1"D #~ Comments for Holiday inn Express site plan The island located in the bulb turnaround at the end of Pertinger Road will most likely need to be modified to aa~mmodate increased traffc and larger vehicle activity at the end of this dead end access. • The private Road that extend beyond the end ol" peninger will need to be a minimum width of ~ feet curb face to ourb face with an approved dedicated tum around at the end `-~-~~ (.~ ~.~ -~-~~-~-, Pta..~.. -~~f ~-~,~~-~ ~~ • No Parking both sides of the private road allowed Pc3ST V111TM NC3 PARKING ANY TIME S1C~NAGE as approved by the Fire District and CP Public vuorks. * Submit afull-scale set of plans to the fre district for review and comment. • The Fire District shall approve the Icxcation of all Fire Ftydrants, Fire Deparkment Connect & ~Jaults for ~e required sprinkler system. ~ 13ft ~" minimum height clearance for the Porto Cochere Fire Lanes and Fire Appliance access areas shall be painted as described by the hire District and a final inspection for approval shall be required, Fire Flow shall be mat ftir this pr©ject • All additional required codes shah apply to this project. MaxtC Moran ~' C1C77.L f f LUYJ:J 3~-4. 17 J4.1. Jt7p~-fl f J. t L 3'C.St.~ FE ~l ~- ~~c~f ~ ~~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~u~e 1']} 2005 Ken Gersclzl~` ROGUE~VALLEY SEWER SERVICES T..oratzoxa: 138 west ~ 'rel. City +~f Centxal Faint P1az7riing 155 South Seco~xd Street Centxal Pc~i:~t, tJrego~i 975112 ~.2e: PLt-~lday T~i~x Express, ~`lle Dear ~e1;s, There is au 8 inch sewer rxiain subject propexty. The sewer s~ and payment of related develb The proposed developme~.t must cc ~PDES permit which are currently W e request that the fallawir~g l . Verification from RV 2. Cat~,currence byRVS t', pez~lit have been met. Feel free to call xne if you have: Sincerely, G%'~ ~ `- Carl''appc~ rt,~~_ District Engineer K:\DAT~~AGE~ E~'RESS_T~OC _... gad, Central 1?oirst - l~ailin$ ~,ddre~ss: ~' C3. Box 31317, Central l'oxnt,C3R 9 6~4.63{}C1 rr (541} 779-4~A~ F, (541.}664-'1 171 www-~.'VSS,us ~~..X f64-384 Interstate 5 that terminates nest` the Narthwcrt carnet of tk~e connecta.c~n to this main hne will xequire a penni.t fz'pm RVS fees. with. the water quality requixements ol'the phase 2 developed. be triet prior to final. approval of this develaprn.ex~.t: ~t the sewer perrrnit has been issued. and all related £etrs paid. stazxnwater quality requixetnents of the phase 2 ~~'DES questions regarding sewer service f`or this p1'oject. 505068-T~OI:~ID,A."Y l~ F~l~as~. I ~c IE TC7: ~'larl~iin~ Commiss%c~n ~ I~tiUM: Lisp lti~t?r4,~<~r~, I'I~rr~r,~in~ T~cirrrici;rr~ SCTBJE 1 : tic}rt}~ Villa~~~ i~~ T"wzn Cr~t~1:~, 1'Ilase T <~" 11 ~~~~~~ s° ~ ~~t/C~~~ ner^. 1. t~ i r~ {-'reeks Deg°elc~t~r~ler~i I,.I,.. P.C7t C3<~:~ X577 b $~.°- Herb 1'tlr~?Cl'% 1'<il'~~r eying ~. ("?~tk `~tr~ct ~,.- ' ~r,r~ ~ I~~nt2pr7r,:~ l`,iCf; Ct7t11~~ snit} D gar Tien [ .r -ror/ ~;cMSlda~CC.ily ^,tirn. arvr r ~ ~ t _ 1~llfiElO~'I1CY CPMC 1.24.(?5t~ ~-est the P1anr~in~7 Con~n~is5iz~n ~~ it}r~ tl~~ ~~utlrc~~:it~~ ~~ ht>1c~ a ~u~lic hearing and render a decision ~>r~ arry a~~~~licatic~r~ i~r.- a 7 ent<~1 ivc 1'1a~i. ~ii~t~ce of the 1'trblic ] Iearir~g was given accordance with !CP~1C 124.(}Ei{} (~1t~~~~r~,~~~ `A~'} h, iil~cah~c hs~~~~: C I' I~9 C" 16. ~ 4~.fJ 14 et seq.. - T"ent~tive Plans ~: P~ I~ 17.65 et seq. - T01) 1) i st r"iet s and corridors worth Vi[[~l~~t, ! T"wiri Creels P 1 & TT `~t:r~'i`~.c~l~~~r~t 1'~~~3c~ 1 o6 Planning Department STAFF REPORT Torn F}uKnphrQy,A}CP, Community Development Directort Assistant City Administrator DiscassiOn~ The applicant has submitted a Tentative Plan application for the purpose of subdividing approximately 54.85 acres into 155 lots as follows: ~ l50 lots are for residential use; • 2 lots arc dedicated for open space; • 2 lots for parks; and ~ l is for an Association Recreation area. The zoning within this entire area is of LMR, Low :Mix Residential and CJS, Open Space. Phase ~ will e comprised of 85 lots, 82 lots will be for residential use. The other 3 lots will be for the Association recreation area, a pocket park and l 1.04 acres of open space with the northern neighborhood park. Improvements for the Haskell Road extension will be included in Phase I. Phase II will have '~0 tots. 68 of the 701ots will be for residential use, with one lot for a neighborhood park and the other consisting of 2.4 acres for open space. The entire project area will contain attached and detached single family residences as noted on Figure 1. North Village ~ Twin Creeks Ph 18~ II Staff Report Page 2 of 6 sTAFF I;EP~~T ~~E" jN"~T~R[~A:~ i V I 1 ~i~ Figure 1 North Village, Ph I & II - Twin Creek Xing Ph II - Planning C}epar~ment 1"om Humphrey,A1CP Community Clevelopment C~irector/ Assistant City Adminisfirator ~9 SO 2+ ss~ 551 SS z:` qi :o sr 47 ss ax +vY Paz Si+ 5„ ~«~ ,~ The Planning Department has reviewed the Tentative Plan {Attachment B') for compliance with the TOD Design Requirements, Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan. The area is designated in the T4D Master Plan for low mix residential and open space. The Tentative Plan is substantially consistent with the Master Plan, with the following deviations; Minor Deviations Elimination of Traffic Circle at the intersection of Haskell Street & River Run Street. - Elimination of Traffic Circle at the intersection of River Run Street & Stone Pointe Drive. .biscussian: Luring Tt~f~ meetings it vas agreed upon them there is not a need to have additional traffic circles. (Refer to Attcrc/rrrxent `E''-- C`ortditinrt # 4} py~ ~~~.. ~G~ North Village a Twin Creeks Ph I & 11 Staff Report Page 3 of 6 ~I Planning D~partmen~ STAFF REPORT Tam Fiumphrey,A[CP, Community Deveiopment Director! Assistant City Administrator Reduction in number of lots from 1 {} to 8 and lot configuration in area located. west of Rustler Peak Street, east of River Run Street and north of Bridge Creek Drive (Lets 131-138}. lliscussion: The reduction in lets has been evaluated against minimum and maximum density requirements. ZV"orth i~illage Ph I c~ II is within the minimumlmaximum density requirements. - Private off street parking courtyards to accommodate cluster homes proposed in Master Plan for lots 36-39 and 127-130 not identified on Tentative Plan, Discussion: These are still proposed for cluster housing. Farber Surveying will be providing a revised plan that includes these shared access drives. Cluster home lots are designed fcrr 4 -- ~ unr`ts, - Haskell Street not connecting to Grant Road at this time. Dr`scussion: At this time there are no immediate plans to extend Haskell Street to Crant Road. In the meantime, Haskell will be stubbed to accommodate any, future development that may occur on the property to the east. Public Works has met with ;Fire L?istrict # 3 and has determined that the intersection of Haskell Street and River Run Street will provide adequate access and maneuvering for emergency vehicles try Lots 3 ~-39 c~ 127-1.3Q, Refer tv Attachment `~' -- C`vndition # 7 regarding regular vehicular turn around, since this portion of the road has parking on bath sides. This portion of Haskell Street also has a secondary community gateway identified on the 11rlaster Plan. Refer tv Attachment `E' - Condition # 6. - As a result of discussions between the developer and staff during TC-D meetings, an Association Recreation Area is propQSed for Lot 42 in Phase I. This lot is for the private use of residents and their guests and will have a clula house and swimming pool. Discussir~n: This area is zoned L14~IR, Lo~J Mix Residential, and this specific use was not identified in the Master Plan. Re, fer tQ Attachment `E' -- C`dnditivn # 5. The arlditinn of this recrerctivta area dues riot resuCt in an increase r'n density and tlrerefvre is consistent with the Master Plan. North Village rr Twin Creeks Ph I & II StaffRepc~rt Page 4 of 6 Planning Department STl'ZF~ RE~~['tt ~~~~R/`1~ TornNumphrey,AlCP, ~~(~~ Commun'sty Development Directorl # Assistant Ci#y Administrator - The northlsouth bound read between. the pocket park {Lot 54} and the residential lots Lots 49- 53}has been eliminated. Discussion: The developer has compensated for the less in parking that would have been on one side of this street by providing 1 ~ spaces to the north & south of the pocket park. Additionally, Public Worl~s is requiring more parking spaces along the northern portion of Lot 5~. The parking spaces along the north side will be diagonal, rather than head in. Parking along the south end will remain head in. Please see Public Works staff report {'Attachment `D') for further details. Staff supports this change. (Jutside agencies have been notified of this Tentative plan. Fire District # 3 has verbally commented as noted above. Ail agencies are familiar with this Master Plan and will continue to work with developer in the design of infrastructure. Findin s of Fact and Conclusions of Law Staff suggests the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as applicable to the project anal necessary for its approval, Criterion l The Project site is located in the T£3D-LMR, Low Mix Residential and T4D-US, {Open Space zoning districts and %ncreases residential and mixed use Land use efficiency in this area. Discussion; The proposed Tentative Plan meets or exceeds the requirements for this .zoning district for this Twin Creeks neighborhood known as North Village ~,`}a Twin Creeks, Phase I ,& l1: The zoning is consistent with the TQD Comprehensive Plan Map designation. This application is substantially compliant with the approved .Master Plan, with thefew minor deviations Hated above. Some deviations are normal and to be expected from the time a Master Plan is approved to when the development actually occurs. Criterion ~ The project consists of a Tentative Plan application for the subdivision to subdivide approximately 5Q.85 Acres into 155 lots known as North Village ~7a Twin Creek Phase I & II. North Village a~ Twin Creeks 1'h 1 & 11 Staff Report Page 5 of 6 ~~ ~.: Planning Department STAFF REPCJRT CE~T~CAL TomFlurr~phrey,A1CP, ~~"`~~~~ Community Cleveiopment Directorl '~/ Assistant City Administrator .T~iseussivn: The total number of lots proposed %s within the minimum and maximum density range for the zoning designation of LMR, how .Mix Residential. The minimum density is 6 units per acre with a maximum density caf 12 units per acre. Criterion 3 Chapter 16.1U outliiues the supplementary information that must he submitted with a Tentative Plan. application to consider approval. l?iscussivn: The Planning c& Public YYorks L7epartment have reviewed both the Tentative Flan for the proposed subdivision and the findings offact. ~S'taff has determined that the project meets all City standards and requirements subject to the recommended conditions of approval as found in Attaclirnents `.U' crnrl `E Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No ~ approving the tentative subdivision subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Attach~nents~ A. Notice of Public Hearing B. Copy of Tentative Plan Phase i & II C. Park Prototype Designs {Packet Park & Neighborhood Park D. Public Works Staff Report E, Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval North Village r~ Twin Creeks Ph I & II Staff Report Page i~ of 6 ~~ ~ify o~ ~er~fr~al Point ~ , ~#~~~~~ ~ ~E~TFCA~- PLANNING DE'PARTNI~NT ~~ ~ 1 Tam Humphrey, AtCP Community Development Director Ken Gersehler Community Planner Dave Alvard Camrr-unity Planner Lisa Niargan Punning Technician Notice of Public Hearing Date of Notice: Augus# 15, 2005 Meeting da#e: September 8, 2005 Time: 7.00 p.m. {Approximate} Place: Central Point City Nall 155 S. Second Street Central Poin#, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning at the above time and puce, the Central Paint Planning Commission will review a Tentative Plan application for the purpose of '150 dwelling units. The subject property is located within the Twin Creeks Master Plan area, and identified as North Village at Twin Creeks, Phase I & ll. The zoning consists of TOD-C7S, Open Space; TQD- LMR, Low Mix Residential, and is identified on the Jackson County Assessors map as 37S 2W 3B, Tax Lots} 1000, 1801, 1802, 1003, 1800- and 37S 2W 3C, Tax Lots 100 and 102. The property is located south of Scenic Avenge, north of Taylor Road, east of Grant Road, and west of US Highway 99. Pursuant to URS 197.783 {3} {e}, failure to raise an issue during this hearing, in person or in writing, with sufficient specificity to afford the decision-makers and the parties an opportuni#y to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal based on that issue. NOTICE TO IVIORTGAGEE, ~IENHO[.dER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE IT MUST BE RPOMPT~Y FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. This notice is being mailed to property owners within a 200 foot radius of subject property, CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for a Tentative Plan application review are set forth in Chapters 16 & 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Information and conditions ~3 or zr3e praJeci approva~. PUBIC COMMENTS 1. Any person interest in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 6, 2005. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, C}r. 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 the applicant are available for public review at Gity Nall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon, The Gity File Number is: 05076. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at {541 } 504-3321 ext 292. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the application and technical staff reports. The Commission, will hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application, Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above, At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Tentative Plan application as submitted, City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planninr~ f'nmm'secinn r-laricinr~e ~~ ~~ {rTT' i Si7M7[ 1117RM1 #RRCNIY ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~.'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,r'"'"Krv~ia~ srarr 3 ~, aiC -~ ,,r :ti ~ ~ --.__ 1 ~ ~~ f ~~ ~w ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~p 1 ~"f i _ ~ s ~ „ ,~ 11~ f s "" O ~ '~ ai a~ ~ to f~~/~ zr tM~ " t~ r ~.' ~' ~i {,,,~rte ,/,, I ~ ....... ~ _ -T' ~' ~ I ~ ~ `~~ 1 9 ~~ t~~ f i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~.. ; A BasketBeall Courts B Open Play Field C Children's Play Ground t) Tennis Courts E perlrrseter Walk and S#reet Trees ExhiUit 24, Narrlr Cammarrs Neighbnrhaod Park Pratotype Plarr KeY A primary Architectural Focal Point lw Open t.zwn and/or Children's (Such as pergola} Play Area B Water Feature and Flowering Perennials F Flowering Trews C Oak Bosque Seating plaza {Raard Game Area) C} paved Promenade rhiGit 23, Narrlrerr: Oaks Neig&Garltoad Packet Park Protaryr~e Ptarr ~iR" ~ ,: #sev A Water Quality t Detention Area B i3ufter Planting C Paved Path Exhibit 22, Norttr¢rrr flaksT~~ig~rbarhooef Prerk PratatyPe Plan ~~ ~~ ;. ~~ f) Softlaaii t Basefia## F#sid ~ Chi#dren's Play Area and Play 5#ructure Public Works L7e artmerrt '' ~' CENTR~,.~ ~~ ~~T ;, PLIB.~IC` YVDRKS ~`T~~'P` REP4R~' June 27, 2445 TO: Planning Department FROM: Public Works Department ~,~~rn~,~aG ` ~' Bob Pierce, ©irector Matt Samitore, Qev. Services Coord. SUBJECT: Tentative Subdivision for 37 2W 3B, Tax Lots 1644, 1601, 1642 1603 and 37 2~V 3C Tax Lots 100 and 142 The North Village at Twin Creeks, Phases 1 and 11 Applicant Twin Creeks Development CO, LLC P.O. Box 35'77 Central Point. OR 97502 Proner~ Descr- i~ationl T©D-LMR and TC}D-C}S Zoning Purpose Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant {hereinafter referred to as "Developer"} regarding City Public Works Department ~PWD} standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. A City of Central Point Public Works Department Staff Report is not intended to replace the City's Standards & Specifications. Staff Reports are written in coordination with the City's Standards & Specifications to form a useful guide. The City's Standards & Specifications should be consulted for any information not contained in a Public Works Staff Report. .Existing Infrastructure 1. Streets: Haskell Street and Buck Point have recently been completed as part of additional phases of the Twin Creeks Master Plan. Haskell Street is designated as a collector in the City's Transportation System Plan, All other streets within the Twin Creeks Area are local streets. fi55 South Second Street Centraf Poinf, C}R 975C?2 ~ 54fi.664.3329 ~ Fax 547.664.6384 ~~ 2. Water: There are existing twelve inch water lines in Buck Point, Twin Creeks Crossing and Haskell Street. All other streets within Twin Creeks are eight-inch water lines. 3. Storm Drain: There are several storm drain basins that are currently designed in the Twin Creeks Development Area. The North Village at Twin Creeks, Phases I and II Tra, f~c When the Twin Creeks Master Plaza. was approved in 2000 the city and the developer agreed to a set of development triggers far street infrastructure improvements. A Traffic Impact Analysis {TIA) was completed for Twin Creeks Crossing in 2000, which was how the development triggers agreement was established, The Developer and City have been collaborating since the annexation and have improved all of the triggers except for two. The first improvement was for the intersection of Haskell Street and West Pine Street which was completed in 2001. This improvement allowed the developer an additional 1000 Average Daily Trips {ADT). fln average a standard single family home generates R.55 ADT per day. With this improvement the developer was allowed to construct Griffin Oaks Unit ~, Phases 1, 2 and 3. There was approximately 351.1 ADT over the allowed trigger improvement with these developments. The Planzaing Commission allowed this carryover of trips to the Phase 2 improvements because state txansportation money and City System Development Charges {SDC's} had been allocated to the Phase 2 improvement, The Phase 2 Improvement was the improvement to highway }9W {Front Street) and Pine Street. The improvement was completed in the fall of 2004. With this improvement the developer is allowed an additional 5760 ADT. The developer has already been using this ADT with the construction of Jackson Oaks Phases 1- 5, Griffin Oaks Phase 2 and Twin Creeks Crossing. The first is the improvement of Taylor Road from Silver Creek Drive to Haskell Street. Taylor Road from Silver Creek Drive to Griffin Creek Bridge was completed in 2004. The City is plaaraning on implementing this improvement of the connection of Taylor Road and Haskell Street this fall. The additional development of Taylor Road will be completed by upcoming land use decisions. There were no set ADT associated with the Taylor Road Improvements. The last improvement to be corrapleted is a new rail crossing. The rail order has been submitted to the Oregon Department of Transportation Rail Division and is in process of getting approval. Without this crossing the developer is limited in the amount of average daily trips {ADT} from Trigger 2. Per Development Trigger 2, which was the improvements ter Front/Pine Street, the developer is able to generate up to 5760 ADT per day. Table 1.0 below indicates that with this subdivision approval and the approval of Twin Creeks Crossing Phase 2 the developer will have approximately 1111 ADT available fear additional land use development. This table is subject to change based on additional high density development proposed within existing or proposed subdivisions which do not have specific site plans at this time. 155 Soufh 5eoond Sfreet Cerrtra~ Point, 4R 97502 ~ 5~ ~. 664.3321 ~ Fax 541.664. fi384 Tabie 1.4 Traffic Trigger Accounting for Phase 2 Improvements TOD Triggers Transportation Improvement Phase 1 Improvements to Haskell @ Wes# Pine 1000 ADT Subdivision Unifs Type Total At7T Grim Oaks Unit 2, Phase 1 83 Single Family Dwellings {9.55 ADT} 825.85 Griffin Oaks Unit 2, Phases 2 & 3 55 Single Family Dwellings (9.55 ADT} 525.25 Total ADT €or Phase 1 1351.1 Carry ©ver to Phase 2 Trigger 351.9 Phase 2 improvements to Highway 991PinefTaylor 5760 AdT Subdivision Units Type Total ACTT Garry Aver Balance €rom Phase 1 Single Family Dwellings (9.55 ADT} 359.1 Jackson Oaks Phase 1 12 Single Family Dwellings (9.55 ADT} 114.6 Jackson Oaks Phase 2 27 Single Family Dwellings {9.55 ADT} 257.85 Jackson Oaks Phase 3 25 Single Family Dwellings {9.55 ADT} 238.75 Jackson Oaks Phase 4 20 Single Family Dwellings {9.55 ADT} 191 Jackson Oaks Phase 5 18 Single Family Dwellings {9.55 ADT} 171.9 Griffin Oaks Phase 3 2fl Single Family Dwellings {9.55 ADT} 191 Pine Street Station 6 Single Family Dwellings {9.55 ADT} 57.3 Pine Street Station 62 Senior Housing {2.15/Unit} 133.3 North Village, Phase 1 (Proposed} 83 Single Family Dwellings {9.55 ADT} 792.65 North Village, Phase 2 {Proposed} 66 Single Family Dwellings (9.55 ADT} 630.3 Twin Creeks Crossing Phase 2 72 Single Family Dwellings {9.55 ADT} 687.6 Twin Greeks Grossing Townhomes {Proposed} Estimated 68 Single Family Dwellings (9.55 ADT} 649.4 Williams Partition 3 Single Family Dwellings {9.55 ADT} 28.65 McArthur Court 8 Single Family Dwellings {9.55 ADT} 76.4 JansCourt Sub. (Proposed} 8 Single Family Dwellings {9.55 ADT} 76.4 Total ADT Phase 2 4648.2 Total ADT Available 1911.8 Cvrrrlr"tivns ufApprtrvrxl 155 South Second Street ~entra! Point, C.~R 97542 ~ 541. fi64.3321 ~ Fax 541.664.6384 /t~~ 1. Right-of way L}edcation: The Developer shall dedicate rightMofw-way as shown in the tentative plan application. 2. Street Tree Plan: Street Trees shall be planted in accordance with the Twin Creeks Master Plan. 3. Fiber E7ptic letw4rk -Applicant shall install a minimum conduit for the future fiber optic network throughout Central Point. Standard Specrficatr"vns unc~ Goals 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. Central Point Public Works is committed to working with the Planning Department and developers to assure that all developments are adequately served by public facilities. Public facilities not owned or maintained by the City of Central Point include: Power {PP&L}, Gas {Avista}, Communications {Qwest}, and Sanitary Sewer {RVSS}. In working together it is the Department's expectation that the developer will feel fine to call on the Department whenever the standard specifications are not, in the developer's opinion, adequately meeting the needs of the development. The Department will listen to the developer's concerns and work with the developer to achieve the best outcome. However, the Department is not obligated to assure a profitable development and will not sacrifice quality for the sole purpose of reducing cost to the developer. It is always the developer's obligation to provide the public improvements necessary, as determined by the Public Works Department, to serve the development. The Department and the developer also have an obligation to assure that public facilities are constructed so that other properties are not adversely impacted by the development. Uevelaptrrent Plans -Required Informatirtn Review of public improvement plans is initiated lay the submittal of 3 sets of plans that are at least 95°l0 complete. The plans shall include those of other agencies such as RVSS. Following plan review, the plans will be returned to the Developer's engineer including comments from Public Works Staff, In order to be entitled to further review, the Applicant's Engineer must respond to each comment of the prior review. All submittals and responses to comments ;must appear throughout the plans to be a realistic attempt to result in complete plan approval. Upon approval, the Applicant's Engineer shall submit {4} copies of the plans to the Department of Public Works. 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 and outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a traffic control plan, 155 South Second Streef Gentral Paint, QR 9T542 ~ 541.6&4.3321 ~ Fax 541.664.6384 ~~~ Public YT'arks Permit A Public Works Permit will only be issued after the Depaz~tment Director approves the final construction drawings. After approval, the fees associated with the development will be calculated and attached to the public works permit. Ail fees are required to be paid in fzzll at the time the Public Works Permit is issued, except Public Works Inspection fees. After project completion during the final plat application process, the Public Works Inspector will calculate the appropriate amount of inspection time to assess the developer. Before the fznai plat application is processed the developer must pay the relevant inspections fees and bond for any uncompleted improvements {as determined by the Public Works Director}. T"he Nt~rth Pillage at Twin Creeks, Pleases I and II -Plans L Three sets of plans at 95°lo complete stage are to be submitted for review by the Public Works Department. 2. Once approval is achieved the Developer shall submit four sets of plans to the Public 'Works Department for construction records and inspection. 3. Tine Developer's Engineer shall document changes to the approved drawings made in the fzeld. A mylar and digital copy of the final "as-built" drawings will be required before the f nal plat application is processed. Tlie 1YQrtlz Pillage at Twin Creeks, Phases I and II - Protectr'nn v„ f Existing T `t~cilities The locations of existing facilities shall be shown on all applicable construction drawings for Public Works projects as follows: 1. The exact locations of underground facilities shah be verif ed in advance of any public works construction, in cooperation with the public or private utilities involved. 2. All existing underground and surface facilities shall be protected from damage during design and construction of public works projects, 3. Any existing facilities not specifically designated for alteration or removals, which are damaged during construction, shall be restored or replaced to a "same as" or better than condition, at the expense of the Developer. 955 South Sec©nd Sfreef Cenfrai P©inf, QR 975t?2 ~ 541.664.3321 ~ Fax 541.664.6384 t ~,,yi 4. Suitable notice shall be given to all public and private utility companies in advance of construction for the purpose of protecting or relocating existing facilities. The Narflr Village at Twin Creeks, Phases ~ and II -Water Cvntrectivrr 1. Water system designs shad consider the existing water system, master plans, neighborhood plans and approved tentative plans. The Developer, Engineer and Contractor shall provide the necessary testing, exploration, survey and research to adequately design water system facilities, which will connect to and be a part of, or an extension of the City water system. All requirements of the Qregon Mate Plumbing Specialty Code and the C7regon State Health Department, as they pertain to Public Water Systems, shall be strictly adhered to. 2, The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific 'information regarding the design and construction of water system related components. The .North Village at Twin Creeks, Phases I and IX -Streets The Developer's street designs shall consider the needs of people with disabilities and the aged, such as visually impaired pedestrians and mobility-impaired pedestrians. Every effort should be made to locate street hardware away from pedestrian locations and provide a surface free of bumps and cracks, which create safety and mobility problems. Smooth access ramps shall be provided where required. All designs shall conform to the current American Disabilities Act {ADA} or as adopted by the C)regon Department of Transportation (tJD4T}, Qregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, The determination of the pavement width and total right-of-way shall be based on the operational needs for each street as determined by a technical analysis. The technical analysis shall use demand volumes that reflect the maximum number of pedestrians, bicyclists, parked vehicles and motorized vehicle traff c expected when the area using the street is fully developed. Technical analysis shall take into consideration, transporkation elements of the Comprehensive Plan, T(JD, neighborhood plans, approved tentative plans as well as existing commercial and residential developments. All street designs shall be coordinated with the design of other new or existing infrastructure. Tlie Nartlt Village at Twin Creeks Phases I and I.l -Storm brain 1. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer's Engineer to investigate the drainage area of the project, including the drainage areas of the channels or storm sewers entering and leaving the project area. if a 955 South Second Street Central P©in~, C3R ~75~}2 ~ 549.~ifi4.3329 ~ Fax 5~9.&64.fi38~ I1~„3 contiguous drainage area of ,given size exists, the engineer may use information that has Formerly been established if it includes criteria for the drainage area at complete development under current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. If the City does not have such information, the engineer shall present satisfactory information to support his storm sewerage design. The engineer shall also be required to provide all hydrology and hydraulic computations to the Public Works Department that are necessary to substantiate the storm sewer design. The storm water sewer system design shall be in conformance with applicable provisions of Oregon DEQ, DSL and ODFW and United Mates Ct~E and consistent with APWA Storm Water Phase ff requirements. 2. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific information regarding the design and construction of storm drain related components. The North Vitlage at Twin Creeks, Phases I and II-Required Submittals 1. All design, construction plans and specifications, and "as-built"' drawings shall be prepared to acceptable professional standards as applicable, the Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals anal conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlzfe (DFW}, ~}regon Department of Environmental Quality {DEQ}, Oregon Division of State Lands ~DSL), t~regon Department of Transportation ~{~DC}T} approval for storm drain connection and easement, landscape berms, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACC7E}, affected irrigation districts, Bear Creak Valley Sanitary Authority (RVSS}, and Jackson County Road and Park Services Department (JC Roads}, DSL and ACcJE, as applicable wetland mitigation). 2. Fire District No. 3 must approve ail streets and water improvement plans in writing prior to final review by City PWD. 3. During construction, any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Developer°s Engineer to the City Public Works Department for approval prior to installation. 955 South second Sfreet Central Point, ©R 975(}2 ~ 541.664.3329 ~ Fax 549.6&4.6384 ~~ la~~"^+*Xl ~'~a~~nii~4,.}.~ ~:~€~~~~~~ c~~~tc~~~~ 1Zecc31~-~~lt.~~~~~c~ C'c~~tt~~.#i~»~~ c~~ ~~~~)7_tj~;_<Il 1 of 7 1'rit)I~ ic) #ilz~~l }~1~31 Zj~prs~~-~1., #l.~t~ ~~}~~?~icar~t s~l<~13_ ~;~~b~~)ll #~~ il?c~ ~.~lft' <7 C(?1?S' ()~ lllc 1)I'ol?o`~('t7 C()Vt'11tI11tS, Colltlif:loll5 3ilt~ 3•(~~lrictic>3~s {C_'C' ~ K':;) f()r 1'lIa<~(~ l ~~ ll C~1 ()rtl~ ~,%i~las~t' ~'> l.~ti~in Crt°t~a~; 2 cif 7 _ Tl~c ~Ihl)lic~Il~t sl~al? col7lhl~~ ~,~~ilh zlll Ix~quia-c;~7~c,lif~> o~ <~1~lt~clcc~ lrublic t3~t~l~cit~-; ~Inci utilities ati th(~1• l~t>rtilill tc) the dt~~,~t~lohl~~calZt t>f~ Ph~~s<~ 1 z~ 11 of tlu~ ?~{31~t11 Vi11~1~;e ~r' `I'~~~i3~ ~'~•t~t~,':s. l~'.~~iticlu~t~ ()9 (-ol:~~l~lizlnce ~~hall btu sul~l~~ilc~tl f(~ the Cifz- ___~>rit~r lt~ filial ~~l~Zt ~i~)~~r-c)v<~1. of ? '1-l~lt, a~~~lic~lr~t s]Za11 c;ol?~hl~~ ~,~,~ith all. federal, 5i~7te ~~r~~l l~~~al Ie~tllc~ll{1]ZS, titc~iltla I'l~ti z~lltl. Y't'ill9lt't'111t'llfs ~3~~~)~1i:~1~?lI' ~.l) lllt'. t~t~~~t~k~ ~Illtnt al~~! coT~sthut tiorl of 1'ha~f~ '1 & ll 4 cif ~ The applict~nt shall sl~~l_~l~~it hlar~s itl~~l~tif_~~il~~; what ~ht~v il~t~rlc~ to dc~ 4~t th(~ i1~tel~si~clic)l~s ~~ hcl~e lraffit_ c.il•clt~~; ~ti~t~rt~ ori4?f11a~T~ ~~l~opo~~~tl ~-~riO~` to tillal f~lai ~l~~l~t~ti aL._ c~f~ Thy a~~~~~ical~lt i1ltt~i~tfs to subll~it a `~il(~ Pl~~ll r'~phli(,afion fur the tit ~ t~lo~~17~e11t of Lot ~Z {~'~~~ociatiol~ l:c~c•rt~alioi~ ~~t•ea} 6 0~` 7 ~I~h( ~~hl:~lit,,ttlt shall t l~~I•ifti~ ~~-hat fht i- il~tentl to i~t) at the %ntt~~r~5t~clion ()l I I<ISkt~l~ ti{rt~(~f c4~ f~itirt~r Rule Strt~et <~ii~ce Ellis :is idez~ti#it:cl il-t the h~~astc7• Pl_al~ a~; iz.~c~ltrclinl7 a s<=con~l~~l~y caz~~i7itll7i[~' ~ate1~'a~- ant-l secc)nr~~Ir} ecmunullif~,~ 1~oc~~11 p(~int, ~1`loI' ft~ ~l~?~)I'ol~',c"~Z C9~ ~~c~~ i~1.~it. -----.. Z of l lle af~plic ant sh~I 11 4;ra~:~t~l '1 ' ~f the ~c.3t~V c-n ~rtc. sitlt~ cif -l~ISI<(~11 Sfwl:eet ~•c~;i c)f I:i~~er Run. Street ~ a tei~or~~r~- Vc'hic°ular tt3rn ar~~i~r~. 1 P 4`~ s /`` Phase II Planning Department STAFF REPORT Tom Nurnp€~rey,A1C~? Community C7eveloprnent pirector/ Assistant City Administrator TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ken Crerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Twin Creeks, Phase 11 ~=-~"'~~~ t i~'2~ DATE: September 6, 2405 J Ant~Iicant/Uwner: Twin Creeks Development L.L.C. P.Q. Box 3577 Central Point, Or, 97502 Agent: Herb Farber/ Farber Surveying 431 C3ak Street Central Point, Qr, 97542 Authority: CPMC 1,24.050 vest the Planning Cor~unission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Tentative Plan, Notice ofthe Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 124.464 {Attachment `A'} AnUlicable Law: CPMC 16.1.0.414 et seq. _.. Tentative Plans CPMC 17.65 et seq. -~ T©D Districts and Corridors Discussion• The applicant has submitted a Tentative Plan application for the purpose of subdividing approximately 20.06 acres into 77 lots as follows: • 72 lots are for residential use; • 21ots are dedicated for open space; • 3 lets for parks, Twin Creeks Phase 1105475.doc Page 1 of ~ 1~ Pfanning Department STAFF REPC3RT ~~~ 1 ~/"1,~ TomNu~i~rey,AiCP, ~}~'"`~~~"~' Community Development ~}irectorl '~`/ Assistant City Administrator The zoning within this entire area is ofMMR, Medium Mix Residential and OS, Open Space and the MMR designation allows an increased density when compared to other residential cots within the Transit-Oriented-Development. Table 1 in Chapter 17.6S.C}SO identifies that development could include zero lot line, attached row homes, mufti-family plexes and condominiums. There is also a potential for same limited eorrunercial activity in certain situations. The Master Plan {Figure 1}depicts how the area is intended. to develop. Figure 1 ~: ~ ~ ~ ,ors ~10r~~2 Village, P~1. ~ & ~~ - Twin Creek Xing Ph. II - Twin Creels Phase II t}5(~75.doc Page 2 of 4 <2 Fg 4$i 31 ro su 21 71 47 9T S7 65 ag ga X92 X92 $Y4 551 SW ~~ t51 5~5 t,5~3 ~~~ Planning Departrnen~ STAFF REPORT ~ENTRAL. Tomi"iurnphrey,ArCP, ~~~ ~~ Community ptevelapment €~irectar/ ~w•~ Assistant City Administrator The Planning Department has reviewed the Tentative Plan {Attachment `B') for compliance with the TOD Design Requirements, Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan. The area is designated in the TOD Master Plan for low mix residential and open space. The Tentative Plan is substantially consistent with the Master Plan, with the following deviations: Minor Deviations - Elimination of Traffic Circle at the intersection of Haskell Street & Golden Peak Drive. - Elimination of Traffic Circle at the intersection of Haskell Street & Boulder Ridge Street. - Elimination of Traffic Circle at the intersection of Grouse Ridge Drive & Haskell Street. - Elimination of Traffic Circle at the intersection of Grouse Ridge Drive & Boulder Ridge Street. - Elimination of Traffic Circle at the intersection of Buck Point Street & Haskell Street. Uiscussinn: During Tt7D meetings it was agreed upon that there is not a need to have additicanal traff c circles. {Refer tv Attachment `l7' - C'vnditican # 4) Outside agencies have been notified of this Tentative Plan. Fire District # 3 has verbally commented as noted above. All agencies are familiar with this Master Plan and will continue to work with developer in the design of infrastrc>cture. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Staff suggests the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as applicable to the project and necessary far its approval: Criterion I The project site is located in the TC}D-MMR, Medium Mix Residential and T4D-OS, (J-pen Space zoning districts and increases residential and mixed use land use efficiency in this area. T)iscussivn: The proposed Tentative Plan meets or exceeds the requirements for this zoning district f©r this Twin Greeks neighborhood known as Twin 'reeks, Phase II. The zoning is consistent with the Tt~D Comprehensive Plan Map designation. This application is substantially compliant with the approved Master Plan, with the few miner deviations noted above. Same deviations are normal and to be expected from the time a .master Plan is approved to when the development actually occurs. Twin Creeks Phase 11 fl5t37~.dac Page 3 of 4 ~~~' Planning Depar~.r~en~ STAFF REPORT Tom I-iump~~rey,AICP, Community Dev~iopment Director/ Assistant City Administrator Criterion 2 The project consists of a Tentative Plan application for the subdivision to subdivide approximately 20,06 Acres into 77 lots known as Twin Creek Phase 11, Uiscussivn: The total number of lots proposed and development potential an several of the larger lots designated as "row houses" is within the minimum and maximum density range for the zoning designation of 1t~IhfR, Low 111ix Residential. The minimum density is 16 units per acre with a maximum density of 32 units per acre. Criterion 3 Chapter 16.10 outlines the supplementary information that must be submitted with a Tentative Plan application to consider approval. Uiscussian: The Planning c~ Public T3lorks Department have reviewed both the Tentative Plan for the proposed subdivision and the findings of fact. ~`taff has determined that the project meets all City standards and requirements subject to the recommended conditions of approval as fi~und in Attachments `~`' and s~ ; Recommendation; Adapt Resolution No ,approving file tentative subdivision subject to the recommended conditions of approval, Attachments A. Notice cif Public Hearing B. Copy of Tentative Plan C. Public Works Staff Report D, Planning L7epartment Recommended Conditions of Approval Twin Creeks Phase 11 4~507S.doc Page 4 of4 1~ City cif Cer~fr~a~ Poinf ~:_ ~~~~~~ ~ f`~ ~~ ~E~T~A~- pc.Anrrv~rv~ ~FPARrM~l~vr PO ~~T Tam Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Rave Alvord Community Planner Lisa Morgan Planning Technician Notice of Public Hearing Date of Notice: August 'l5, Zt}t}5 Meeting Date: September 5, 2005 Time: 7:Ofl p.m. {Approximate} Place: Central Point City Hall 155 S. Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a Tentative Plan application for the purpose of creating 57 dwelling units. The subject property is located within the Twin Creeks Master Plan area, and identified as Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase 11. The zoning consists of T4Q-C}S, Open Space; TaD- MMR, Medium Mix Residential, and is identified on the Jackson County Assessors map as 37S 2W 3C, portions of Tax 1~ots 1 flfl and 1 fl2. The property is located south of Scenic Avenue, earth of Taylor Road, east of Grant Raad, and west of US Highway 99. Pursuant to C1RS '197.753 {3} {e}, failure to raise an issue during this hearing, in person or in writing, with sufficient specificity to afford the decision-makers and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal based on that issue. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, L.IENHO~DER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 2'15 REG2UlRE5 THAT !F YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE !T MUST BE RPOMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. This notice is being mailed to property owners within a 2flfl foot radius of subject property. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for a Tentative Plan application review are set forth in Chapters 15 ~ 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Information and conditions of the project approval. ~~~ PUBLIC C©IVIMENTS 1. Any person interest in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision ' may submit written comments up anti! the close of meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 6, 2085. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Gentral Point, Qr, 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 the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. The City File Number is: 05075. 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 292. SUMMARY OF PR4CEDllRE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the application and technical staff reports. The Commission, will hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Tentative Plan application as submitted. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. .~._~.~ ,-~X got 1 ffa ~~ L~1JJ ~~~ crs /~/ ~~~I~~-~~i~: >I~> ,~~, K .. ~. Q -„ K ~~~,~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ y zz ~ ~~ 11~\ Y~ .lF~. ~t ~w ~~ ~o ~~ ~~ ~ }~ I X11 1 ~~ t `~~ ''~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~*~ a~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~. ys : ~ ~~ -~ z ~ ~ z ~ ~ z ~ "' ~, ~ ~ x ~'' pp ~1~ ~ 47 Z .~~„ l i /n+~' Public Works C?epartr»ent CENTRAL POINT P~TBLI~' i~iT4.i7!KS ~`TAFF ~'EPQRT August 10, 2(}05 TO: Planning Department FRAM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: Tentative Subdivision for 37 2W 3C, Tax Lets 100 and l02 Twin Creeks Crossing Phase 2 A~atalicant Twin Creeks Development CQ, LLC P.Q. Box 3577 Central Point, QR 97502 Propex Descritationl TGD-MMR and TQD-QS Zoning Purpose ~7t'~t..?l~t;'h~11 ~.. Bah Pierce, director w Maff Samifare, pev, Services Caord. Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant thereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding City Public Works Department {PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to tae included in the design and development of the proposed. Lather information from the DeveloperlEngineer regarding the proposed development. A City of Central Point Public Works Department Staff Report is not intended to replace the City's Standards & Specifications. Staff Reports are written in coordination with the City's Standards & Specifications to form a useful guide. The City's Standards & Specifications should be consulted for any information not contained rn a Public Works Staff Report. Existing Infrastructure 1. Streets: Haskell Street and Buck Point have recently been completed as part of additional phases of the Twin Creeks Master Plan. Haskell Street is designated as a collector in the City's Transportation System Plan. All other streets within the Twin Creeks Area are local streets. 2. Water: There are existing twelve inch water lines in Buck Point, Twin Creeks Crossing and 155 South Second Street Central Paint, fJR 9 ~'5D2 ~ 541. fifi4.332 ~ ~ Fax 541. fifi4. fi384 Ili Table I .~ Traffic Trigger Accounting for Phase 2 Improvements Phase ~ tmprovements to Highway 991PinelTa for 5760 ADT Subdivision Units T e TotaIADT Car fiver Balance frarn Phase 1 Sin le Farnil Dwellin s 9.55 ADT 351,1 Jackson Oaks Phase 1 12 Sin le Famil Dwellin s 9.55 AdT 114.6 Jackson Oaks Phase 2 27 Sin le Famil dwellin s 9,55 ADT 257.85 Jackson Oaks Phase 3 25 Sin le Famil Dweliin s 9.55 ADT 238.75 Jackson Oaks Phase 4 24 Sin le Famil Dwellin s 9.55 ADT 191 Jackson Oaks Phase 5 18 Sin le Famil dwellin s 8.55 ADT 171.9 flriffin Oaks Phase 3 24 Sin le Famil dwellin s 9.55 ADT 191 Pine Street Station 6 Sin le Famil Dwellin s 9.55 ADT 57.3 Pine Street Station 62 Senior Housin 2.151Unit 133.3 North Villa a Phase 1 83 Sin le Famil Dwellin s 9.55 ADT 792.65 North Villa e, Phase 2 66 Sin le Famil dwellin s 9,55 ADT 634.3 Twin Creeks Grossin Townhomes 67 Sin le Famil Dwellin s 9.55 ADT 639.85 3769.6 Tout ADT Available 4990.4 Canditivns vfApproval 1. Right-of--way Dedicatit~n: The Developer sha11 dedicate right-cif-way as shown in the tentative plan application. 2. Street Tree Plan: Street Trees shall be planted in accordance with the Twin Creeks Master Plan. 3. Fiber optic Network -Applicant shall install a minimum conduit far the future fiber optic network throughout Central Paint. St~ndardSpec (cations and Gerais 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. 155 South Second Street Central Por'nt, C7R 97542 ~ 541. fifi4.3321 ~ Fax 541. fifi4.6384 11~ Haskell Street. All other streets within Twin Creeks are eight-inch water lines. 3. Storm Drain: There are several storm drain basins that are currently designed in the Twin Creeks Development Area. Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase ~~ Traffic When the Twin Creeks Master Plan was approved in 200 the city and the developer agreed to a set of development triggers for street infrastructure improvements. The Developer and City have been collaborating since the annexation and have improved all of the triggers except for two. The first is the improvement of Taylor Road from Twin Creeks Crossing Haskell Street. The City is planning on implementing this improvement this falUwinter. The last improvement to be completed is a new rail crossing. The rail order has been submitted to the Oregon Department of Transportation Rail Division and is in process of getting approval. Without this crossing the developer is limited in the amount of average daily trips (ADT~ that can be generated from this subdivision. Per Development Trigger 2, which was the improvements to Front/Pine Street, the developer is able to generate up to S'7~4 ADT per day. Table l A below indicates that with this subdivision approval and the approval of Twin Creeks Crossing Phase 2 the developer will have approximately 1990 ADT available for additional land use development. A Traffic Impact Analysis {TIA) was completed for Twin Creeks Crossing in 2000, which was how the development triggers agreement was established. The City will not require an additional T1A as part of this application. 955 5oufh Second Sfreef Cents! Point, {JR 975Q2 a 549.664.3329 ~ Fax 549.fi64.6384 ll,~ Central Point Public Works is committed to working with the Planning Department and developers to assure that all developments are adequately served by public facilities. Public facilities not awned ar maintained by the City of Central Point include: Power (PP&L}, Cray {Avista}, Communications {Qwest), and Sanitary fewer {RVSS). In working together it is the Department's expectation that the developer will feel free to call on the Department whenever the standard ~peeifications are not, in the developer's opinion, adequately meeting the needs of the development, The Department will listen to the developer's concerns and work with the developer to achieve the best outcome. However, the Department is not obligated to assure a profitable development and will not sacrifice quality for the sole purpose of reducing cost to the developer. It is always the developer's obligation to provide the public improvements necessary, as determined by the Public Works Department, to serve the development. The Departrrtent and the developer also have an obligation to assure that public facilities are constructed so that other properties are not adversely impacted by the development. Uevelapment Plans -Required Infr~rmativn Review of public improvement plans is initiated by the submittal of 3 sets of plans that are at least 9S°lo complete. The plans shall include those of other agencies such as RVSS, Following plan review, the plans will be returned to the Developer's ~ engineer including comments from Public Works Staff. In order to be entitled to further review, the Applicant's Engineer must respond to each comment of the prior review. All submittals and responses to comments must appear throughout the plans to be a realistic attempt to result in complete plan approval. Upon approval, the Applicant's Engineer shall submit {4)' copies of the plans to the Department of Public Works. In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and profile far streets, water, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, storm drainage calculations, storm drainage basin map, erosion control plan, utility and outside agency notifications and approvals, The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, Legal descriptions and a traffic control plan. Public N'nrks Permit A Public Warks 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 axe required to be paid in full at the time the Public Warks Permit is issued, except Public Warks Inspection fees. After project completion during the final plat application process, the Public Works Inspector will calculate the appropriate amount of inspection time to assess the developer. Before the final plat application is processed the developer must pay the relevant inspections fees and bond for any uncompleted improvements {as determined by the Public Warks Director), Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase II -Plans ~ 55 South Second Street ~ Central Paint, C?R 975tJ2 ~ 541. fifi4.3329 ~~ Fax 54 ~. fifi4. fi384 ~I~ 1, Three sets of plans at 95°lo complete stage are to be submitted far review by the Public Works Department. 2. C}nce approval is achieved the Developer shall submit four sets of plans to the Public Works Department for constriction records and inspection. 3. The Developer's Engineer shall document changes to the approved drawings made in the held. A mylar and digital copy of the f nil "as-built" drawings will be required before the hnal plat application is processed. Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase I~ - Prvtectivn of Existing .Facilities The locations of existing facilities shall be shown on all applicable construction drawings far Public Works projects as follows: 1. The exact locations of underground facilities shall be verified in advance of any public works construction, in cooperation with the public or private utilities involved. 2. Ali existing underground and surface facilities shall be protected from damage during design and construction of public works projects. 3, Any existing facilities not specifically designated far alteration or removals, which are damaged during constriction, shall be restored or replaced to a "same as" or better than condition, at the expense of the Developer. 4. Suitable native shall be given to all public and private utility companies in advance of construction far the purpose of protecting ar relocating existing facilities, Twin Creeks Crossing, Phase II -- Water Connection 1. Water system designs shall consider the existing water system, master plans, neighborhood plans and approved tentative plans. The Developer, Engineer and Contractor shall provide the necessary testing, exploration, survey and research to adequately design water system facilities, which will connect to and be a part af, or an extension of the City water system. All requirements of the Qregon State Plumbing Specialty Code and the Oregon State Health Department, as they pertain to Puhlic Water Systems, shall be strictly adhered ta, 155 South Second Street Centro! Paint, UR 975172 •549, fifi4.3329 ~ Fax 54?. fifi4.6384 ~~ 2. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted far specific information regarding the design and construction of water system related components. Twin Creeks Grossing, Phase II -Streets l . The Developer's street designs shall consider the needs of people with disabilities and the aged, such as visually impaired pedestrians and mobility-impaired pedestrians. Every effort shauld be made to locate street hardware away from pedestrian locations and provide a surface free of bumps and cracks, which create safety and mobility problems, Smooth access ramps shall be provided where required. All designs shall conform to the current American Disabilities Act (ADA} or as adapted by the Oregon Department of Transportation {ODOT}, Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The determination of the pavement width and total right-of=way shall be based on the operational needs for each street as determined by a technical analysis. The technical analysis shall use demand volumes that reflect the maximum number of pedestrians, bicyclists, parked vehicles and motorized vehicle traffic expected when the area using the street is fully developed. Technical analysis shall take into consideration, transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan, TOD, neighborhood plans, approved tentative plans as well as existing commercial and residential developments. All street designs shall be coordinated with the design of other new or existing infrastructure. Twin Creeks Grassing, Phase I1' -Storm Drain It shall be the responsibility of the Developer's Engineer to investigate the drainage area of the project, including the drainage areas of the channels or storm sewers entering and leaving the project area. If a contiguous drainage area of given size exists, the engineer may use information that has formerly been established if it includes criteria for the drainage area at complete development under current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. if the City does not have such infoxrrtation, the engineer shall present satisfactory information to support his storm sewerage design. The engineer shall also be required to provide all hydrology and hydraulic computations to the Public Works Department that are necessary to substantiate the storm sewer design. The storm water sewer system design shall be in conformance with applicable provisions of Oregon DEQ, DSL and ODFW and United States COE and consistent with APWA Storm Water Phase 11 requirements. 2. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific information regarding the design and construction of storm drain related components. Twin Greeks Crossing, Phase II -Required Submittals X55 Soufh Second Streef ~ Central Point, CJR 975{72 a 549.684.3321 ~ Fax 541.884.6384 11 f3 1. All design, construction plans and specifications, and "as-built" drawings shall be prepared to acceptable professional standards as applicable, the 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), Qregon Department of Environmental Quality {DEQ}, Clregon Division of State Lands {DSL), bregon Department of Transportation {QD47T) approval for stoma drain cazanection and easement, landscape berms, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers {ACCE), affected irrigation districts, Bear Creak Valley Sanitary Authority {RVSS), and Jackson County Road and Park Services Department {JC Roads), DSL and ACflE, as applicable {wetland rnitigation~. 2. Fire District No. 3 must approve all streets and water improvement plans in writing prior to final review by City PWD. 3. During construction, any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's Engineer to the City Public Works Department for approval prior to installation. 155 South Second Street Central Point, 4R 975C?2 ~ 541.&64.3329 ~ Fax 541.664.6384 11 ~` Attacl~.ment frDrr Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval Twin Creeks Phase li MCP File 507~~ 1 of 4 Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit to the City a copy of the proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions CC c~ R's for Phase 11 of Twin Creeks 2 of 4 The applicant shall comply with all requirements of affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the development of Phase Il of the Twin Creeks. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City prior to final plat a royal. 3 of ~ The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the develo went and construction of Phase 11 4 of 4 The applicant shall submit plans identifying what they intend to do at the intersections where traffic circles were originally ro osed rior to final lat a royal. I