Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - November 1, 2005VE, MISCELLANEC3US ~~5 a~-3~ A. Review Landscape plans for Burrell Gourt Subdivision. PAS 3?-s9 B. Review request #o remove a Redwood Tree located at 350 Alder Streei:. VIE, ADJOURNMENT ~ct~olt~s Planning Cornmissian Minutes C?Cta6er 4, ZQ{?S Page 1 City of Central. Point Planning Commission N~inutes October ~]., 2pU~ MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7.0o P.M. II. ROLL CALL; Chairperson Connie Moc~ygemba, Candy Fish, Damian Idzart, Mack Lewis, Scott Mangold, Chuck Piland and Wayne Riggs were present. Also in attendance were: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner; Don Burt, Interim Planning Manager; Matt Samitore, Development services Coordinator and Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician. III. CORI~:NSPONDENCE There was correspondence distributed related to Items "D" & "K",and revised plans . N. MINUTES Commissioner Piland made a motion to approve the minutes from September b, 200. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. Rf3LL CALL. Fish, yes; Idiart, Abstain; Lewis, abstain; Mangold, abstain; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public hearing to consider a Zoning Map A~rnendment application to change the zoning from TOD-EC, Employment Commercial to TOD- LMR, Low Mix Residential for Lot g2 of Cascade Meadows Village, A Planned Unit Development. Don Burt, Interim Planning Manager presented the staff report. Mr. Burt explained that without definitive requirements for a gone change, it would be up to the Planning Planning Commission Minutes C?ctober 4, 24(15 Page 2 Commission to decide to approve or deny the application. Craig Stone, agent for the applicant said that at the last meeting residents spoke up aid stated that they would prefer a residential gone over commercial. Mr. Stone said his applicants are prepared to re-submit a new application for three lots rather than 4 lots, No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the application. The public portion of the meeting was closed. There were questions regarding when Haskell Street would be extended. Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator said that it would probably take ~-,~ years. There were additional questions regarding the marketability ofthe property, that the TC}D- EC coning for this property during the Master Plan approval process was requested with a specific tenant in mind. Commissioner Mangold made a motion to establish findings to support the approval of a zone change from TCID~EC, Employment Commercial to TUI~-L~MR, Law Mix Residential. Commissioner Piland seconded the motion RILL CALL: Fish, no; zdiart, no; Lewis, yes; Mangold, yes; Piland, yes, Riggs, yes. Motion carried. B. Consideration of Findings far denial of a Tentative Plan and a Planned Unit Development on Lot 92 of Cascade Meadows Village. The address is xGg Alta. Lane. Don Burt, interim Planning Manager presented the findings to deny Tentative Plan and Planned Unit Development applications for Lot gz to create 4 fats, per the Planning Commissions directions at the September 6, 200 meeting. There were discussions regarding the applicant's options to resubmit plans far three lots if they denied this application, and how soon they could resubmit. Commissioner Idiart made a motion to adopt Resolution boo, denying Tenfiafiive Plan and Planned Unit Uevelopxnent applications, based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff regorts, in addifiion fio waiving the one year waiting period fio re-submit applicafiions for Lot g2, wifi]E~in Cascade Meadows Village PUD. Co~n.tnissioner Piland seconded fine notion RC?LL CALLz Fish, yes; ldiart, yes; Lewis, yes; Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 24115 Page 3 Mangold, yes; Piland, yes, Riggs, yes. Motion passed. C. A Public Meeting to review a Final Development Plan for Peebe Woods, Phases Ztl & IV, a Planned Unit Development, Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician presented the staff report. She went through the items that would be required prior to the signing of the final plat, explaining that these items could be monitored and enforced administratively. If there were any deviations from the preliminary plan other than those noted in the staff report, this would come back to the Planning Commission. No one came f©rward to speak in favor of or against the development. The public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Idiart made a motion to adopt Resolution 6~a~., approving a Final Development Plan application, based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated ~ the staff reports, in addition to the County requirement to include street names on the final plat to be recorded. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Idiart, yes, Lewis, yes; Mangold, yes; Piland, Yes, Riggs, Yes. Motion passed.. D. A public hearing to consider a Tentative Plan application for the purpose of creafiing $ residential Tots located in a T4D-LMR, Low Mix Residential zoning district, Jackson County Assessors map as 37 2W xoAR, Tax Lot Yq.oo. The address is ~.gog Taylor Road. Don Surt, Interim Planning Manager presented the staff report. There were discussions regarding timing of R~4-W vacation, and the pedestrian pathway location on Mae Richardson's park. Shawn McFadden, applicant stated that they have been involved in meetings with City Staff and this plan is a result of those meetings. Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator explained that the pedestrian pathway was the City's idea, and the applicant had agreed. The school had been notified and did not object to the pathway location. Karolyn Johnson, a resident on Taylor Road lives west of the project area. She thinks the Planning Commission Minuses C?ctober 4, 205 Page 4 pedestrian pathway is an excellent idea. Ms. Johnson expressed concerns £or this property being higher than her property and wanted to be sure that there will be goad storm drainage, No erne else came Forward to comment in Favor of or against this application The public portion o£ the meeting was closed. Commissioner Piland made a motion to ad©pt Resolution 672, approving a Tentative Plan application, based on the standards, fi"indings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff reports. Commissioner Mangold seconded the motion ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Lewis, yes; Mangold, yes; Filand, yes; and Riggs, yes. Motion passed. E. A Public hearing to consider a Minor Partition application to create two individual tax lots. Jacl~son County Assessor's map as 37 2W x.28, Tax Lot 202. K.en Gerschler presented the staff report, explaining how the next three items o£business all tie in with this application. Mr. Gerschler stated that staff is satisfied that this partition meets all of the requirements to approve the minor partition, Mr, Gerschler went through the outside agency comments. Matt Sarnitore stated that the City does not currently have industrial street standards, however the industrial street proposed meets other jurisdictions standards for industrial streets. Mr, Samitore noted that the City is currently seeking a grant for road improvements on Hamrick Road thu East Pine/Biddle Road to Table Rock. Road. UDC3T would be responsible for the design, the City would be responsible for the bid process and project management. I£ the grant is obtained then it would reduce the applicant's responsibility ofthe improvements to East Pine street. Amy Weiser of Neathamer purveying,stated that Umpqua Dairy has read the staff reports and conditions of approval and accepts them. No one came forward to comment in Favor of or against this application. The public portion of the meeting was closed. Planning C©mmission Minutes C7ctober A, 2t11J5 Page 5 Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 673, approving a Minor Partition application, based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff reports. Commissioner Lewis secondedthe motion ROLL CALL. Fish, yes; ldiart, yes; Lewis, yes; Mangold, yes; Piland, yes, Riggs, yes. Motion passed. F, A Public hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan applications for the purpose of allowing the construction and operation of an Umpqua Dairy Facility located within the M-~, Industrial District. Jackson County Assessor's map as ~~ 2W x28, Tax Lot zo2. The address is 32x3 Hamrick Road. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner presented the staff report. Mr. Gerschler stated that the applicant has submitted adequate findings. Staff is in support of the applicant's findings to address the Conditional Use criteria. There were questions regarding protection of the pond and partial location within the floodplain. Amy Weiser, of Neathamer Surveying stated that the applicant has gone through the staff report and is in agreement with them. Brian McQuade of Umpqua Dairy discussed their operation plans for this facility, including hours of operation, services to existing customers as well as new business. No one came forward in favor of or against the application The public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution b~4, approving Conditional Use and Site Plan applications, based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff'reports. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion RC#LL CALL: Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Lewis, yes; Mangold, yes; Piland, yes, Riggs, yes. Motion passed. G. A Public hearing to review a Minor Partition application to create two individual tax lots. Jackson County Assessors map as ~~ 2W x28, Tax Lot 203. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner present the staff report, stating the agency comments heard for Umpqua Dairy would also apply to this application. Pdarrning Cornrrrission Minutes october• ~, z~~s ~~~~ s Amy Weiser, o£ Neathamer Surveying stated that the applicant's would like to correct the Public Works staff report to remove the reference of Umpqua Dairy from Gazelle Investment staff reports. No one came forward in favor o£ or against the applrcation. The public pardon of the meeting was closed, Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 6~~, approving Conditional Use and Site Plan applications, based an the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff reports, Commissioner Filand seconded the motion ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Lewis, yes; Mangold, yes; Piland, yes, RiEggs, yes. Motion passed. ~. A public hearing to review Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan applications for the purpose of allowing the construction and operation of a'I"`rucka%ng 8~ Distribution Facilitywithinthe M-~., Industrial District. Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 aW x2B, Tax Lot 2©,~» den Gerschler, Community Planner presentedthe report going through the criteria to grant approval for a conditional use. Mr, Gerschler explained that the applicant has identified a barbed wire fence. The City prohibits the use of barbed wire and the applicant will have to make changes to the type o£ fence they will use. Amy Weiser, of Neatharner Surveying wanted to be sure the same improvement options available to Umpqua Dairy were also available to Gazelle Investments. Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator stated Gazelle Investments has the same options, No one came forward to speak in favor o£ or against the application, The public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Piland made a motion to adapt Resolution b~G, approving Conditional Use and Site Plan applications, based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff reports. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Lewis, yes, Mangold, yes; Piland, Yes, Riggs, Yes. Motion passed. .Planning Commission llfinutes (Jctober 4, 2Qt?S .Page 7 VII, MISCELI.~~NEflUS Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director stated that: ^ They are working behind the scenes to of'f'er development incentives. ^ David Alvord, Community Planner has resigned. * There is a Citizen Advisory Committee meeting on October ~x, 2ooS to discuss proposed code amendments. * Mr. Humphrey will be making a presentation regarding the Regional Problem Solving recommendations. ^ There were questions regarding the Highway g9 improvements. The City is currently trying to adopt a design in front of Crater High School. * Downtown parking enforcement is in place, parking violations will begin being issued as of October ~, 200. Mr. Humphrey answered questions regarding various project statuses throughout the City, Don Burt, Interim Planning Manager explained the TSP and the States requirements for periodic review. VIII, ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Commissioner Filand secondedthe m©fiion. R.tJLL CALL: Moti©n passed unanimously, Meeting was adjourned at g:x,~ P,M, City of Central Point, Oregon 140 SaThird St., Central Paint, Or 975{}2 543.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 wvrw.c i.certtra{-paint.ar.us CENTRAL POINT STAFF REP(1RT Planning Commission Meeting November 1, 2005 P~~C1Cling ~eP~t"~m2n~ Tam NumpE~rey, AICi? Carnmunity Qevelapment E?irectffr! Assistant City Administrator ITEM NU: OSfl74 ZC Consideration of a Resolution No. 577 approving a request for an Amendment to the Zoning Map from T4D-EC to TC7D-LMR on .48 acres (37 2W ), Cascade Meadows Planned Unit Development Phase III, Thomas and Anna Sunday applicant (05074 ZC}. STAFF SCfURCE Don Burt, AICP, EDFP BACI~GR.(IUND The original approval of Cascade Meadows Village Planned Unit Development (02{102} in March of 2042 designated the zoning for the subject property as T4D-EC {Employment Commercial). The intent was to provide to the residents of Cascade Meadows Village PUD approximately 4,040 sq. ft. commercial employment opportunities in a two story building. Since 2042 the owners of the subject property have been unsuccessful in developing the property for its intended commercial use and are now requesting that the property be rezoned to TC1D-LMR (Low Mix Residential} similar to the abutting properties. ©n October 4, 2005 the Planning Commission held a second public hearing to consider the requested change in zoning. After the public hearing the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution for approval. FINllINGS It was the finding of the Planning Commission that: 1, The Applicant's findings dated June 24, 2405 addressed all applicable criteria regulating a change of zoning from T4D-EC to TC?D-LMR; 2. Rezoning of the property from TOD-EC to TflD-LMR remains consistent with the purpose of the T4D Districts and Corridors as stated in Section 17.E5.010, and will not adversely impact the character or quality of life in the immediate neighborhood; 3, Citizens of the neighborhood supported the change of zoning based on concerns about the economic feasibility of constructing and sustaining an attractive commercial facility; 4. At .45 acres the property will not contribute, or detract, in any meaningful manner from the City's employment base ,or the transit objectives of the T4D designation; and .~ ~ .~ 5. Rezoning of the property from TQD-EC to T4D-LMR will not adversely impact, ar otherwise detract, from the public health, safety, welfare and convenience of the general public, ar the residents of the immediate neighborhood, ISSUES In considering the requested zone change the Planning Commission considered and discussed the fallowing issues and came to the conclusion noted in italics: I. The Zoning Ordinance does not contain any specific criteria an which to judge the applicant's rezoning request. After discussion it was the Planning Commission's determination that withQUt mare specific criteria the Planning Commission could not agree an justifrable findingsfor denial, and that the applicant's f ndings fcrr the zone change were acceptable. 2. The purpose of the Tt~D District/Corridor is to promote efficient and sustainable land development and. the increased use of transit. Is the present T4D-EC designation an efficient use of land, and is it sustainable? It was the determination of the Planning Cammissican that the retention of the property, for commercial purposes was, under the findings presented by the applicant, questionable. ~`he ,feasibility of constructing a commercial building and sustaining the operation of that building is questionable. E~S;HIBITS: Exhibit "A" -- Resolution Na. 677 ACTIC}N: Consideration of Resolution 577 approving a request far an Amendment to the Zoning Map Pram T4~D- EC to TC}D-LMR on .4$ acres {37 2W}, Cascade Meadows Planned Unit Development Phase 111, Thomas and Anna Sunday applicant {05074 ZC}. RECfJMMENDATIt3N: Approve Resolution 677 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the Zoning Map from TC7D-EC to Tt~D-LMR on .48 acres {37 2W}, Cascade Meadows Planned Unit Development Phase III, Tharnas and Anna Sunday applicant {05074 ZC}. ,,, ~- .~ PLANNING CUMMISSIflN RESCILUTIQN NU. 677 A RES4LUTIC)N approving a Zoning map amendment from T(aD-EC to TC~D-LMR on a .45 acre parcel {3'7 2~ 11 CC 5144}, Cascade Meadows Village, Thomas and Anna Sunday applicant. WHEREAS; on October 4, 2445, at a duly noticed public hearing the Planning Commission considered the Applicant's request for a change of zone from TOD-EC to T4D-LMR {the "Application"} submitted by Thomas and Anna Sunday {Applicant}; and WTi-IEREAS; the Planning Commission's consideration of the Application is based on the Applicant's findings dated June 24, 2005 {Exhibit "A"} and the purpose of the TC3D Corridor {Section 1'7.65.410; and WHEREAS; after duly considering the Applicant's request it is the Planning Commission's determination that the Application complies with the purpose ofthe TOD Corridor as set forth in fine Staff Report Dated November 1, 2445; now therefore BE IT RES©LVED; that the Planning Commission ofthe City ofCentrai Point, by this Resolution No. 677 hereby approves the Application based on the f ndings stated in the Staff Report dated £)ctober 4, 2{345. PASSED by the Planning Commission in open session and signed by me in authentication of its passage this I sf day of November 2045. Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST: City Representative PLANNING Ct}MMISSI{3N RESC?LUTION NO. 670 {I0042flo5} ,.~ .... STAFF RFPQRT AGENDA ITEM: ~. ~~~T~~L~ 'C~hT STAFF T:EPURT Naveinber 1, 20C}5 Planning D~par~tmen~ Tom Hum~hrey,AtCP, Community Develr~pment i.7irectort Assistant City Administrator Consideration of a request for a variance from the two car cover off street parking, or in lieu thereof classification as a Class "A" Nancanforming structure located in the Residential ~R-1}Zoning District an Property Identified as Tax Lat 37 2W 1flAC, 78flC}, 413 South Central Valley Drive; Say and Stephanie Hutscll, Applicants, STAFF SOURCE: Ken Gerschler, Camrnunity Planner BACKGRQUND: The applicants' have submitted a building permit application to the City for a master bedroain addition to their home. The house presently has a one car garage and the applicants' are requesting to vary frarn the two-car covered off street parking requirement, and as such is classified as a non-canfarming structure. In addressing the variance request there; are two possible solutions. The first is to consider a variance to the minimum offstreet parking requirement of two spaces. As a variance the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Section 17.80.010(D}. The variance criteria is very restrictive and not often authorised. The second option is to define the structure as a Class "A" nonconforming structure. In accordance with Section 17.56.(}1 C} Nonconforming Uses Currently, the property, as a non-conforming structure, is by default a Class "B" nonconforming structure. Under the Class "B" regulations any enlargement of the structure requires elimination of the nonconforming use/structure. However, as a Class "A" Nonconforming Structure expansion is permitted "...provided such improvement are in accordance with all applicable codes in effect at the time of the improvements". The proposed addition complies with all coverage, height, and setback requirements of the current code. Per Section 17.56.040 the Planning Commission has the authority to designate a nonconforming uselstructure as a Class "A" subject to compliance with the following criteria; 1. Continuance of the existing use or structure would not be contrary to the public health, safety ar welfare, or to the spirit of this title; 2. The continued maintenance and use of the nanconfarming property is not likely to depress the values of adjacent ar nearby properties, nor adversely affect their development potential in conformance with present zoning; 3. The use or structure was lawful at the time of its inception and no useful purpose would be served by strict application of the provisions or requiren~rents of this chapter with which the use or structure flocs not conform; 4. The property is not predominantly surrounded by conforming uses or structures anti, considering current growth and development trends, is not reasonably expected to come under development pressures during the next frvc years; 5. The property is structurally sound, well-maintained, and occupied anal used for the purpose for which it was designed; 6. Continuance of this nonconforming use will not izr any way delay or obstruct the development or establishment of conforming uses on the subject property or on any adjacent or nearby properties in accordance with the provisions ofthe zoning ordinance. FINDJCNGS: The applicant's fzndings of fact {Exhibit "A"} are for a variance from the two-car aft street requirement and address the approval criteria as set forth in section 17.8{}.41{l(D} which state that `°a variance may be granted...where the strict application of the provisions of this title would result in unnecessary hardship", A.s a supplement to the findings staff has included by reference, additional applicant correspondence Exhibits "B", "C" and "U'> of the five criteria that must be met in order to grant a variance the applicant's finding's do not male a compelling argument for approval on two accounts as follows:: The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City, such as beautification or safety. .Finding; The applicant's findings address economic advantages, not beautification, or safety. The addition will be to the rear of the property and not noticeable to the general pudic. 4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same zoning district. ,Finding.• Many of the homes in the general neighborhood are limited to single-car garages. The applicant's situation is not unique. For these reasons the variance should not be approved. 1-lowever; it can be found that the property complies with the Glass "A" Nonconforming criteria as follows: 1. Continuance of the existing; use or structure would not be contrary to the public health, safety or welfare, or to the spirit of this title; p'inding: Continuance of the structure, and expansion of the structure, would be for purposes of use as a single family detached residence consistent with the purpose fthe underlying R-1 zoning district. The addition of a master bedroom will not adversely impact the surrounding residential character of the neighborhood, nor otherwise ~~ adversely affect the public health, safety or eve fare or• the intent cif the R-Z zanirzg , , district. 2. The continued maintenance and use of the nonconforming property is not Nicely to depress the values of adj acent or nearby properties, nor adversely affect their development potential in conformance with present zoning; Finding: The expansion of the structure will Hat depress praper•ty values, or otherwise adversely affect the develapment potential of properties withir2 the general neighbarha~ad. The subject structure, when expanded, will comply with all set back, co~Ferage, and height requirements of the Rrl district. 3. The use or structure was lawful at the time of its inception and no useful purpose would be served by strict application of the provisions or requirements of this chapter with which the use or structure does not conform; Finding: The proposed structure, with asingle-car garage, was initially constructed in accordance with all applicable zoning requirements. ~'rohibitian of the proposed expansion would serve na useful purpose other than to restrict the size of the residence, and subsequent livability. As previously Hated the prapased expansian will comply with all applicable setback, coverage, and height requirements directly applicable to the addition. The property ~ ability to accommodate a two-car garage is , because of the current location of the residence and float plan, void. 4. The property is not predominantly surrounded by conforming uses or structures and, considering current growth and development trends, is not reasonably expected to come under develapment pressures during the next five years; Finding: The property is within a neighborhood that of homes constructed in the same period and containing only a one-car garage. It is unlikely that within the next five years the general neighborhood will experience development pressures that will significantly alter the current character of the neighborhood. 5. The property is structurally sound, well-maintained, and occupied and used for the purpose for which it was designed; Finding: As illustrated in .t4ttachment <`~", the existing residence is structurally sound and in good maintenance, occupied and used as a single family dwelling consistent }vitli the underlying R-1 zoning district. 6. Continuance of this nonconforming use will not in any way delay or obstruct the development or establishment of conforming uses on the subject property or on any adjacent or nearby properties in accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Finding: L7esignatian of the property as a Class "1~ "Nonconforming Structure will not offect its continued use consistent with the R-I zoning district, nor that of any adjacent ar nearby properties. .., ~ ... .~:~SUES: In considering an approval of this variance applicatiozz or a reclassification of a TYt~c "l3" nonconforming structure to a Type "A" nonconfoz-cning structure, the Planning Dcpac•tn~ent idcntif`zes four basic issues as follows: 1. Is the single car garage truly apre-existing situatiozz or is it the result of a conversion to another use? According to the records of .lackson County and the Central Point .l3arilding Department, the house was originally constructed in 197t?. Many of the surrounding hon2es in the neighborhood were constructed during the same period with a single ear garage and there is no indication that there has been a conversion, 2. Can the site accommodate the construction of additional covered or uncovered off=street parking facilities? There is only a six foot side yard distance between the hoarse and the adjoiningproperty lines and based upon these distances, there is not adequate area to construct additional covered parking. While there is the possibility that the present garage could be extended toward the rear lot line to create tandem parking, this may not necessarily be the best solution as the applicants have indicated that they are financially constrained with the needs of six children. There is roam to provide additional uncovered parking by widening the existing driveway and the applicants are willing to proceed with this option. 3. ff the variance is not approved, could the applicant construct the addition to the home? If the variance is not approved, the applicants would not be able to construct the addition. ~€. This structure, with its single car garage, could be classifzed as a Type "B" nonconforming structure since it is apre-existing condition. The code recognizes that there may be situations where nonconforming structures and uses may be permitted to expand without any detrimental impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and when so determined by the Planning Commission maybe defined as Class "A" Nonconforming Uses/Structures. The Planning Commission, per Section 17.56.44~~8~, may initiate a change from Class `B" to Class "~ „.Nonconforming and take action on such an initiation as a non public hearing item. Staff has provided the necessary findings if the Planning Commission elects to consider designation of the property as a Class ".~# ".Nonconforming Structure. E~H1CBl<TS: Exhibit "A" --Applicants' endings Exhibit "B" -Applicants' Project Description Exhibit "C" -Applicants' Photographs Exhibit "D" -Applicants' Site Plan Exhibit "E" --Proposed Resolution ACTION: The Commission may proceed with either of the following options; l . Gansideratian of Resolution Na. , denying the variance from the two car off=street parking ._ . t requirement; 2. Direct staff to prepare findings far approval of a variance; or 3. Consider Resolution Na. ,approving findings as per the Staff Report designating the property as a Class "A" Nanconfartning Structure. REC4MMEl'~D~T~fJN: Direct staff to proceed with the preparation of findings designating the property as a Class "A" nanconfarming structure far the Planning Carrrznissian's consideration per Resolution Na. Umpqua Dairy Tenative Land Partition Variance Page 5 of 5 .. $.w ~7. ~~NT~;A~. VAG~~Ir RG. ~~ QRIV~WAY Ct~NC V1iA~.K fi7EWA~,~ -~E} ~~, p~71..~ fi t ~'~ I i ~~ ~` 1 _,. ,... _ _. _......._ _..., _ I ___. ~ 1 ~~"~ t ~ EXfSTG SFR ~ ~ t ~~ ~t ~- 8~5 ~Q. FT. ~~C~R{3QM~ & t MATER ~ATN ADl~ITIC~N r ~ ~~T~ ~~A~ 37 2W '~ C1AC ~t~'~ TAX ~.OT 78{x(3 ~~~ BEDR~fbMS~ADi~T1C)N Qw~l~~ MFt. & MRS JA`( tiUTS~1.L. 443 S. CentraE Vagey Central Faint, OR 975t}2 i FINDINGS `x~'' :,+ x, 1. The variance will provide added advantages to the neiglal~orlxood or tllc city, such as beautification or safety; t, 'the variance will allaw us to enhance the value o~ our Name and therefore the neighborlYood, It will evcn. benefit the city through increased property tapes. the pra~ect as a whale will increase the beauty of our property and therefore the neighborhood, 2. The variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; 2, 't'he variance will not have any hn.nwn adverse impact on the neighborhood once completed and the addition will be almost or completely invisible from the front. If the hawse had a two car garage right now we wanld he able to hnild our addition outri~hf. 3, The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district; . 3, The variance will continue to utilise the property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. The intent and purpose of the property will not change at all, 4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same zoning district; 4, because the home was already built with a single car garage, and there is no room on either side to widen: it, circurn.stances prevent us from remedying this problem., ~. The conditions far wlxich the variance is requested were not self imposed through the applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, 5. 'I'he conditions for which the variance is requested were not self imposed by my actions, nor the actions of my agents, en~.ployees ar family members. `the garage was iauilt at a time when it was all that was required, 'f`his was never a situation where a portion of the garage was 'rconverted" to a living space, ~~~_ PROJECT DESCRIPTION We would like to add on three bedrooms and a bath so each of my kids can have there own room, and to prepare for sip people getting ready for work or school every mornzog. (fur house yvas built in 1969 with a single car garage. Where is not enough room to add a garage on either side. We love the neighborhood and have great neighbors and would like to continue raising our kids here. t3ur addition will not increase our need for garage space and, in fact, as part of our pro,ect we intend to add another off street parking spot between our driveway and the fence.'~Ve also plan to raise the value and appearance of our home to one of the best in the neighborhood which viii benefit the neighborhood and central ~'oint. Thank you for your consideration, The 1lutselis _,~/- ~ i r ,~~.~f~n ~r~t t ~ ~ `~ .~ xi m_ ~ y ~::-y ~: ."~^"".,~?i ^-.. r Y~ ~~ ~'" f 4 ~'C.Ir-(i~t~~~t ( ~ {~) {7RIVEWAY 7a.3' __~ c I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~' # ~°~ ~ , ~ ~ ~XtST'G SI ~( 1 ~~ ~' ~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~ r-t ~~ t-- I ~~~ ~ ~~ i GaNC WALK ED~WALK~~) El. PALE v~wwnr ; ~~ 3 ~ ~~ 1 ~4 f E ~ ~r- ~~ f ' PROPC}SEt~ 8~5 BQ.FT. ~c'-2~' BBaRt~gM~ & ' fi~ABT~R BATH Ad~IT1C7N ~ ~~~~ ~~.Ar~ ~~.~~ ~~ ~.~ ~ oAc ~Ax ~c~Y ~soo ~ ~ ~ OWl~iER: PRL7PCISED: MR. & MRS JAY I-IUfSELL ~ _ ~ 443 S. Central Vai3ey ~"'"" ~ N 8DR4t?MS AdDt'flgN Central Paint, QR 9T542 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM THE TAO CAR OFF STREET PARI~.ING REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE {Applicant {s~ : Hutsell) {37 2W I OAG Tax Lot '7800) Recitals 1, Applicant has submitted applications for variance from the two car covered off street parking requirement on a 0.22 acre parcel located an property identifzed by Jackson Couzaty as Account 101447$5 in the City of Central Point, Oregon. 2. On, November, 2005, the Central Paint Planning Commission conducted aduly-noticed public hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staffreports and heard testiznany and comments an the application. Naw, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION flF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLO'4VS: section 1. Criteria Applicable to Decision. The following chapters of the Central Paint Municipal Cade apply to this application: A. Chapter 1`7.64, Off Street Parking and Loading B. Chapter 17.80.010, Variances Section 2. Finding and Conclusions. The Planning Commission hereby adapts by reference all findings of fact set forth, in the Gity staff reports, and concludes that the application. and proposal fail to comply with the requirements of the fallowing chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code: A. Chapter 1'7.64, relating to parking requirements when structures are enlarged, required number ofaffstreet parking spaces. B. Chapter 17.80, relating to the criteria for which a variance maybe granted. Planning Commission Resolution No. {11/112005) Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by zne in authentication of its passage this ____ day ofNovernber, 2005. Planning Coznz~ission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this day ofNovember, 2405. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. {1111/2005) ,~ J~,-~. City of Central Point, C?rc:gQn 74D So,T~ird St, Central Paint,C?r 97502 541.56-.3321 Fax 5A 1.664.6384 www.ci.centraE-point.ar.us CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT November 1, 2005 Planning Department Tom Nump}~rey, ~€CP, Community t7evelopment Director/ Assistant City Administrator AGENDA ITEM: Public Meeting to review a Final Development Plan for Phase I of a Planned Unit Development known as San Ignacio Place for property located at 3328 Snowy Butte Lane. APPLICANT f AGENT: Applicant: Myles Comstock {Phase I} Agent: I-fardey Engineering STAFF SOURCE: Lisa Morgan, Planning Tetfrnitian BACKGRC}UND: ^ May 3, 2005, the Planning Conxrnission conditionally approved a Planned Unit Development known as San Ignacio Place Phases 1 & 2 under Resolution No. 645. This approval created 7.2 lots and is located in an R-1-6, Single Far~~%ly Residential District. Phase I consists of 7 lots, Phase 11 consists of 5 lots. FINDINGS; The final development plan far Phase I is consistent with the preliminary plan with the number of lots, lot sizes, and lot configurations. Civil plans have been approved, for both phases. The applicant has met all requirements for final development approval with the fallowing exceptions. These exceptions can be monitored and enforced adrr~inistratively prior to signing the final plat for retarding with the Co~nrnission's conditional approval. Any deviations of the submittals from the approved preliminary plan will require retansideration by fhe Planning Commission. ~lCpchs~ ~pll20t}6 Land Use Filesl05C}443 San Ignasio Final Development PIan~San Ignacio Flare Iainal Development Plan Sta£f Report,doc Page 1 of 2 -~IG EXCEI'TIC?NS; 2. CC & R's -The City has not received, a preliminary copy of CC & R's must be received prior to signing of final plat. A recorded copy must be submitted to the City, with recorded final plat. 2. Improvements -The developer must either bond for these improvements and/ or construct the improvements prior to signing of final plat. The above documents must be submitted and approved by the City prior to final plat signing. This approval for the Final 17evelopment plan will expire and become null and void November 1, 2Q116. EX~IBTTS: Exhibit "A" -Final l~eveloprnent Plan Exhibit "B" -- Planning Resolution No. 679 ACTIiJN; Consideration of Resolution No. 679 IiECQMMENDATION: Conditional approval of Resolution l~lo. 6'79 ~lCpchs3 \p112oCIb band Use Files~t15t~10 fan lgnasi~ Final L?evelopxxtenE Plan`San lgnasio Place Final L~evelopxnent Plan Sta££ lteport.dac Wage 2 0£ 2 Si:JRYEY BY: SUF~YEY .x'012: L.J. Friar dt Rssacra{as, P.C. hsyias Comstacx Consulting Land Surveyprs 876 4Yasf Eighfh Streaf 2975 N7gfiway 66 Ashland, 4R 97520 ,4tadfard. OR 97501 5~a7} 772-2762 jfr, arr9charterrt of _ 1_ __ ` ~ ! ~ ~~ 1 181 2 w~..._ ~___/ ~ ~ 'f~ ~E ` C1 tar F "~C 1 ~'~. . 4dH~ SAN fC~NAG7© PACE arrn; .A .5utdtridoxx .Gx 7,at 7<'" pt Sixo ITutb Orakfrds G p ~ tv caurrtr sum~csvR awls CAPPFA YaxuucNr x .~DCtssx$ts. T at lawted is fh~ S8 Y4 al SbaEl~rtt S r.~rst K27rr X~ crrr of C~utr+ct ~t (} . fII BRICT DISC tfXR 45 FC73 PEit JCESS. IrfaIG7Wik GbtiRt,~ • •. fA. Sjd JRDM PW WI PGS'fIC GM YKD. (..t iYixt4 k ASSOC. PF74 5$K X11, +• fA aje'rNpV rrN wj Pt/.sTiC QW YKO. FM$ER pZ5218p PER 5Ci-i. }(- rD. sja' %roN P(N w/ar.asr+c cnP u}tD. o.ucurwr tSroF~ vert FsFerta. Zyy„ ~ SF'F' 3/&' % 36' NtM! PiN WJ PYASAC CAP YKD. f.J. fRAR k lSSUC. tJ w $6Y Sj$' % 21" AEON P!N Wf PlASllC CAP YKD. LJ. FRi4R k h550C. {DErE$R(0) ~ ~ St7 Sj$' % 3O' UMN PFN Wj ACUY. Gr YKD. LJ. FRkR k As'SbC.{0Ef7:RRfO) cots y # -' f$ ~ F7tFZt StIRYlY Na. $q, .. pFyo kECDRD i ~j ORK%7 r Of77CW. Rf_GQ4DS GF JACK9JN CaVrm: CVPEWN. SChi ., 5TDNEiYiELFI NR 4 F7tt~" F. jfs F28f P) RY EAS CYL PF!$tM^ Nit t' tat a ~ S ~ , rv . 5$u r SROW> $VF7E YaSDOwS SL!&lMSKk4 jfSFbbFS) O ~ ~ % ~ R rNa4~TA AS SNOwN. 5lNIYY xiiR 4GaDx.i MASC T ( C+K YaaCREiS) ~ 6 (j *S ,+CE9F ~ J3CKSCR CRKfIt f17AlES SU&DMSli}N. UNl7 4. (F&I573D) SSK! .. StXFWY $tJFTt ORCT4WD5. ~~ ~~p ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' HASLS OF ?3IsAFi'TNti~ ' ~ ayo W " ~ R fS}32sO {,K'{Sf} AS 57{Of7+ Ni1Cf0N. C£NTERi1RF OF $fXL LWF: rE " ' ~ ~ h r JA ON1f tM' NfASVRYEM ,. fEEt At76: DCtT)sflt !3. 2D03 SGVE' ! tar a tar i ( t'}' i~ I ~ 00 ~ ~ rv'' SSC7b'CS'f ~ _ .. 31337 _. _ .. ~......_v_....v---.-r..~v..`_v_ pA' ~ __. v ' ~ 23 ~ ~i ' 1 I ~ Loz s ,.{~ ~ ~ QDbb Sq FT ~J~+" ~ i a~' p0~' ~ i ~ $ ~~#x 3 ~ ~.+ ~ yF ~~ nt I ~ Paz s ~i ' 4716 S4 fT i ~ sbo~3'n' .b. ~ ~ I ~ SS 77.80 ~ ~ ~ Y' ~ Y ~ w uo so {~ ' ~ ~ f^ ' 8935 S0 FT ~ ~~ ~ j ~ a ~ ~ ~) 4Y ~ ~ ! ~s rr w ! ~• ~ ~ ~ SSiS S4 R ~ ~ I riE5T ~ ~ t $ I f 14.s _ ~ ~' at FDaoD seas w ~ Fo FD #~ r --~ - 138.18 U ~~. JdtRLlX X.(Y 8.12 5.20 - .. - 2s2zD !" 8.24 }i.36 3 37 ! 228.7D xbtx'aYw 320.N Fo ~ rD tD ~ E ~# _ ~~ 2215 $A51S Or BEARINGS Nb?'S3'11'W SOa.a3 BEALL LANE ~, w ~~ 0~ 2Q e'- v ~r t°r 2a D yy ~ F" FS d0 M a sa va ut,.,i s rz Y~~ SN t.. t~~ N F NEftfiBY OECtAR'E TtL1T TMS !S N! rzFCr Carr or Tus aRrcFFUC Farr. ., u v RE 3 7 RE mt. ,4r.~+ oon.s.l. or:.... PRQFESSiONAL ~'ry^ aM+t{r} Yap V papr(x} Namx! ~g .tJt,T iiG° sae ~tACKStiN CWNlY yp~ ~'..._..... ~?,~iaws8s 9lNvftUR w~„w"o >"u a-SO-aF SHEET 2 OF 2 Rtl5 r1AT ff'AS rREFARFO UStNC AN NP458C OESICN.+EF %17N SfbSai INK,!£T WK t)N CaN!!N£}iTA1 .WGrFt2 POtYFSF£R fF[i[. D{2+~if7V t~ S PLANNING C©MMISSI4N RESC?LUTIQN NC). 679 A RESC3LUTI©N conditionally approving a final development plan for a Planned Unit Development known as San Ignacio Place, Phase 1located at 3328 Snowy Butte Lane. Myles Comstock, applicant. '~"1~EREAS, the property is currently zoned as R~1-6, Residential Single Family and the application is consistent with the permitted uses set forth in Title 17, Section I7.68- Planned Unit Developments; and `WHEREAS; The Planning Comzxussion's consideration of the Application is based on the standards, criteria and applicable to Planned Unit Developments and Final Development Plans as set Earth in Title 17 and applicable requirement for lands within a Planned Unit Developments; and WHEREAS; after duly considering the Applicant's request it is the Planning Commission's detezrnination that the Application conditionally complies with the applicable standards, criteria and conditions of approval as set forth in the Staff Report {Exhibit "A"} dated November ~., 2005; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED; that the Planning Commission of the City of Central Pointy by this Resolution No. 679 hereby approves the Application based on the finds and conditions of approval as stated in the Staff Report Exhibit "A"~ dated November ~, 2005. PASSED by the Planning Coxnnussion in open session and signed by one in authentication of its passage this ~Ist day of November 2005. Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: City Representative PI..ANNING CC}l~t]vLI~SION RESflLUTIC}N NC?. 679 {TI012005} r: . City of Central Paint, C)regan 7 4f} So. Third St., Central Point, Or 975U2 547.664.3327 Fax 547.664.6384 www.d.central-point.or.us STAFF REPORT Punning Commission Meeting November 1, X005 Planning Department Tom Humphrey,,+~ICP Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator ITEM NO: OSOI.8 $urseli Court T!P Review of Conditions for Burrell Court Subdivision (Michael Menefee, Anus Construction, Inc). STAFF SOURCE Tom Humphrey, AICP BACI~GROIJND In January the Planning Commission tentatively approved a f ve-lot subdivision known as Burrell Court. As a condition to that approval the Commission stipulated that the applicant must save as many of the existing trees as possible. This requirerr7ent became part of the Planning Cor-imission resolution which is Exhibit A of this staff report (see condition 11 of 1 S). The applicant subsequently hired Richard Hart Custom Pruning to evaluate the trees on site and Mr. Hart created a list of the trees, their relative health and his recommendations to either remove or to preserve those trees (refer to Exhibit B}. In March, Michael Menefee submitted a letter to the Planning Department stating his intentions relative to the trees on his property. Unfortunately, this letter was not challenged by planning staff nor was it brought to the attention of the Director. In October Mr. Menefee had. most of the trees on the Burrell site cut dawn including a `significant' and healthy redwood tree that the arborist consultant recornn~ended he preserve. As a Significant Tree, the CPMC, Section 12,36.0~4(A~ requires that the Planning Commission review and approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for removal of trees. The property owner's actions have violated both the tree ordinance and the conditions of his planning approval, .__...... __ _T._ .. ev~sruacotnr __~_ ~~___..._~_ ~ --8401-6988-- y - - ~ .,. t ~._...~ ~ i'~ j y ~; -..: ~ ... . v _... < .c ' ~'a r-.- -_- It is Mr. Menefee's contention that the healthy trees that were taken down did not enhance the appearance of his subdivision and that a six foot cedar fence would be built as a buffer to the adjacent property (see Exhibit C}. The adjoining property owners feel differently about this and believe that the City failed to hold the developer accountable to agreements that were made at the Planning Commission meeting. --~ - Consequently, the planning staff has brought this matter back to the Commission for their review and direction. Mr. Menefee has been notifed that this item will be discussed and that he will have an opportunity to explain his actions andlor rectify his failure to comply with the previsions of his planning approval. FINDINGS As set forth in Section 16.10.090 and Section I2.36.080 a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for tentative plan shall be based on the following criteria: A. The City may attach to any tentative plan approval given under this chapter specific conditions deemed necessary m the interests of the public health, safety or welfare, including but not limited to the following ... park and recreation improvements. Finding 16.1fJ,tt94; The Commission conditionally approved the Bursell Court tentative plan with the stipulation that the developer employ an arborist and save as many ofthe existing trees on the site as possible. Conclusion .16.36.t1S11(A): The did employ an arborist but he did not follow the recommendations of the arborist to preserve all of the healthy and the more significant trees on the property. B. Every effort should be made to retain existing trees on public or private property as an integral part of the development process. The Planning Commission shall make every effort to modify setback requirements to include existing trees. Finding 1'2.36.fI8Q(F~: The Commission objectively considered the applicant's development design and acted to retain trees as an integral part of the proposal. Allowances were made in their approval to accommodate changes to building layout and retain trees. Conclusion 12.36.45( (A}; The applicant failed to make a good faith effort to follow the direction of the Planning Commission and to retain. the existing trees on his property as an integral part of his development. ISSUES The developer complied with the Comrr3ission's condition to employ an arborist but he did not follow the arborist's recommendation nor did he abide by the Commission's explicit direction to save as many of the existing trees as possible. Failure to follow the Commission's conditions has been detrimental to the public health and welfare. EYHIBITS Exhibit "A" -Planning Commission Resolution No. 635 Exhibit "B" -- Richard Kart Custom Pruning Assessment and Recommendations Exhibit "C" -Letter from Altus Construction ZZC dated March 15, 2005 ACTIUN Consider Tree Replacement and/or Withhold Final Plat Approval Until Compliance is Achieved ..~-- .. RECt7MMENDAT~t3N Require developer to replace every healthy tree that he removed with more znatzzrc trees {a zninin~z~m of 4 inches in diameter} and at a ratio of 2 to 1, laid trees will be required to be maintained for not less than two years. The replacement trees do not include the street trees that are required as part of the landscape plan in condition '7 of 15 izi Exhibit A. r ~,~„ '"' PLANING CC}I~~]VIISBICIN BESC7LUTI(~N N{~. 635 A RESdLUTIaN GRANTING TENTATIVE PLAN AI'PR©VAL Ft~R A " SUBiJIVISICIN°' KN4~TN AB HUBBELL Ct~URT . {Applicant {s} :Altus Construction} {37 2W 11AC, Tax Lot 600} Recitals 1. Applicant{s) has/have submitted an application for tentative plan approval fora .97 acre parcel to create 5 residential lots located at 366{} Burrell Road in the City of Central Paint, ©regon. 2. tJn, January 18, 2005, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted adult'--noticed public hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and. comments on the application. Now, therefore; BE IT RES4LVEL? BY T~ PLA}vNZNG CC~li~21VIIBBI4N 4F THE CITY C}F CENTRAL PtJ1NT, {)R.EG4N, AB FC?LL4WB: Bection 1. Approval Criteria. The requirements for approval of land partitions and tentative plans are set forth in CPMC Title 16 and 17, relating to informational requirements, zoning, lot dimension, access, and similar requirements. Section ~. Find`zng and Conclusions The P'lannu~g Commission finds and determines as follows: A. Tentative Plan Requirements. The application and tentative plan are in the correct form and contain all of the information required by CPMC 16.1(}. B. Area and Width of Lot. This subdivision in a R-1-6, Residential Single Family zone would create 5 parcels: Ali parcels meet the minimum area and width requirements for Tots in the R-1-6, Residential Single Family zone as set forth in CPMC 17.24, and such parcels meet the general requirements for lots contained in CPMC 16.24.050, Planning Commission Resolufiion No. 635 {0ll1$/2045} ~~~r section 3. Conditzt~n~1„Approval. The application for tentative plan for a subdivision herein is hereby approved, subject to the conditions set forth on Exhibits "A", "B" and "C", attached hereto by reference incorporated herein, imposed under authority of CPMC Chapter 16.36. Passed by the Planr~c~g Commission and signed by one in authentication of its passage this ~l8th day of January , ~OaS. Planning Co~nmiss"on ATTEST. i City epresentative Approved by me this 18th day of January , 2005. Planning Comxnissi n Planning Cozn3mission Resolution loo. 635 ~Oll1812005) ..' .... ~~it ~}~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I3~lItSELL COURT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN, FILE 05418 CI~ECK NU~'.CI3ER DESCRIPTION OF CONDITION W __.__m.~~~.--.___._.__._.__._..__~ BOX l of l5 __ The approval ofthe Tentative Pian shall expire in One Year on ~~ January l8, 20U6 unless an application for final plat or extension has been received by the City. 2 of I S _ _ The applicant shah cornpiy with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the deveiopn3ent and construction of HUBBELL COURT 3 of 15 FRONT YARD SETBACK IS MIMM[3M 20 FEET AS MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO TIDE FOUI~Ii)ATION. 4 of I S SIDE YARD SETBACKS ~-12E S FEET PER STORY AS MEASC.:tIt,ED FROM THE FOti-NZ?ATION ©R FROM TI-IE EAVES OF COVERED PORCHES 5 of i S BEAR YAdZD SETBACK. IS I~~~~IM~CJM 15 FEET AS MEASURED FRAM THE FOL:~~DATION 4R FROM "I'kIE EAVES OF C£JVEREL) PORCHES. 6 of 15 SETBACKS FOR SIDE YARDS T`fIAT FACE ANY STREET ,~,RE MII~1I3U1t.TM OF 1 fl FEET. 7 of l S Prior to the issuance of the final plat, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Public Works Director, a landscape plan for the areas designated for landscape rows. The plan shall include construction plans and irrigation plans. These plans shall include details and specifications for the type and number of street trees that will be planted within the landscape rows. Plantings shall comply with Municipal Code 12.36. Tree plantings shall have at least l ~l2" trunk diameter at the time they are planted. All street trees shall be irrigated with an automatic under ound irrigation system. $ of l 5 Pubiie Works De artment conditions must be met. 9 of 1 S Jackson Coun Fire District 3 conditions must be met. l4 of 15 Ro e Valle Sewer Services conditions must be met. IZ of IS Developer shall make all efforts to preserve existing trees. The existing trees on site must be evaluated by a licensed arborist for health attd significance. The arborists report »rust be subntr'tted in the cr' rior to any development o~ the site. 12 0 ~S The rivate drive shall he a minimum widt]i o 2.1 feet. _ ~~ 13 of l S All signage associated }vitlt the project shall eotrrply rvitlt private road standards as set by Prxblic Works. .14 of 15 Access to proposed Lot #.l shall be off cif the private drive. Access to Lot #.2 shall retrtairr off a~'.Brarsell Road: X S of I S Developer shall constrrcct an additional lramrrter head trcrtt around _ on_Lot #S for safety purposes. "" /~~ •.+ ~,~~ ~~ ~- ~~ ...~ U '~ ~. ,s " ~~ January 20, 24015 P~TI3.LI~ 1~C7.~'KS STAFF.I.~.~QRT Td: Planning Commission FRCIM: Public Warks I:~epa~trnent SUBJECT: Public Hearing -Tentative Subdivision far 37 2W ~. IAC, Tax Lot 6411 Bursell Court Subdivision A~~licant Altus Construction 1.414 Pheasant Way Central Point, flR 975{12 Agent Same as applicant P.... r...~.e.-~ Descri~tionJ R~1~6 Zo~...~ . Pur~vse Raberf Pierce T3irectar RiC~C .i3arttetl 5`upervisvr Chris Ciaytvn Deputy llirector Mike bno ~'echnicuxn Greg Graves Technician Karen Raeber Secretary II Ma arita Munoz ~eCTelary I Pmvide information to the Planning Camrnission ~ and Applicant {hereinafter referred to as "Developer"s regarding City Public Warks Department (P`WD) standaxds, requirements, and conditions to be included. in the design and development of the proposed. Gather information from the Develaper/Engineer regarding the proposed development. A City of Central Point Public V~orks Department StaffReport 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. .Exisiirsg Xrzfrrtsfrrccture 1. Streets: This section. of Bursell Road currently is improved. with curb, gutter, sidewalks and bicycle strip. This improvement was done as part of the 13ursell/Kopkinslljreeman hnproverx~ents in 1999. _SS_ <~ l .o _ .~ ~~ ,~~ h~ , ,~,~~ . ~ . of Central Point Public ~V~orl~s De~a~.mcrl~ ~. I3urselt Co~~rt Subdivision 2. Water: `T'here is an existing eight inch water sine in I3ursell Road 3. Stozm Drain: There is an existing l2 inch. storm drain facility izz 13ursell Road. ~3urscll Court Subdivision Special Regztirements 1. Private Drive Standards: The Developer shall construct the Private Drive Standards which are set forth. in the Public ~+1"orks Standard Specifications and Uniform Stazadard Details {Drawing A-IOC. 'the standard ca11s fc~r a twenty-one feet wide street. 2. Driveway Li~lztin~ Plan: The Public W orbs Departrtaent does not recommend standard street lighting for the driveway access to Bursell Court Subdivision. However, the Public Works Department suggests each residence be provided. with an individual driveway lighting system. 3. Storm Drainage Infrastruct~.ire: `the developer shall develop a facility plan far the storm drain. collection and conveyance system, which provides for run-off from and nzn-on onto the proposed development. It is the understanding of the Public Works Depaztzzzent that the storm. drainage infrastructure will be a private system, operated and maintained by the property owners. 4. Fire De~artmerit turn-around: 'The developer shall design a vehicular tzzrzz. around at the end of the private drive, per the standards and specifications ofFire District FIo. 3, prior to Final Plat approval. 5. Public Utility Easement: Aten-foot wide public utility easement paralleling Bursell Road shall be dedicated on the Final Plat. The easement will be shown behind the area dedicated to the City of Central Paint for street widening of Scenic Road Special Requirement 2}. 6. Street Tree Plan: Prior to issuance of the f nil plat, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Public Works Director, a landscape plan for the areas designated for landscape rows. The plan shall include construction plans, irrigation plazas, details and specifications for the trees to be planted within the landscape rows. Plantings shall comply with Municipal Gode Section 1.2.36. Tree plantings shall have at least a 1 /2" tzuzak diameter at the time of installation. All street trees shall be irrigated with an automatic underground irrigation system. Standard ,Specrficatiotcs arzd Goals The Central Point Public `Works Department is charged with management of the City's infrastructure, including streets, waterworks, and storm water drainage facilities. T.za general, the Department's "Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Gonstruction" shall govern how public Facilities are to be constnzcted. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifications from. the Public Works Department. _S~_ ~3urseli Court Subdivision Central Paint Public W arks is caz~xmitted to w€~rking with the Planning Department and developers to assure that all developments are adequately served by public facilities. Public facilities oat owned. or maintained by the City of Central Paint include: Power ~l'P&L), Gas {Avista}, Cammunicatzans {Qwest~, and unitary Sewer {RVSS~. Ln wanking together it is the Depaz~tment's expectatiaz~ that the developers will feel free to call on the Department whenever the standard specifications are not, izt 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, tl~e Department is not obligated to assure a profitable development and will oat sacrifice quality far the sole purpose ofreducing cost to the developer, It is always the developer's obligation to provide the public improvements necessazy, 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. .Uevelnpneertt Plans--.Required Infortnatron E.eview of public improvement plans is initiated by the submittal of 3 sets afplans that are at least ~S°I° complete. The plans shall include those of other agencies such as BCVSA or 7ackson County Roads Departcxnent. Following plan review, the plans will be re~~rned to the Developer's engineer including comments from Public Wanks Staff: In artier #a be entitled to further review, the Appplicant'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, erasion control plan, utility and. outside agency natif ications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traf~'zc studies, legal descriptions and a traffic control plan. Public Works Permit A Public Works Pemit will only be issued after the Depaxtrnent 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 prof ect 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 Directar~. .l3ursell Court 5rcbclivisian -Platys 1. Three sets of plans at 95°I° complete stage are to be submitted for review by the Public Works Department. 2. C3nce approval is achieved the Developer slxall submit four sets of plans to the Public Works _Sh_ ~~~ ~iursell C~rart Siibdivzsic~n Department far construction retards and inspection. 3. The Developer's Engineer shall document changes to the approved drawings made in the field. A mylar and digital copy of the final "as-built" drawings will be required before tlxe final plat application is processed. L'txrseli Court 5ubdivisr'ttn _ Prvtectivn s~f ~xistircg .~'aciliti~s The locations afexisting facilities shall be shaven on all applicable canstrc~ctian drawings for Public Works protects as follows. 1, The exact locations of underground facilities shall be verified in advance of any public works construction, in cooperation with the public ar 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 far alteration or removals, which axe damaged during construction, shall be restored ar 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. I3ursell Curt Sufrdrvisiou - ~1'uter Cannectivn l . Water system designs shall consider the existing water system, master plans, neighborhood plans and appxaved 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 anal be a part of, ar an extension of the City water system. .All requirements afthe C}regan State Plumbing Specialty Cade anal the Oregon State Health Department, as they pertain to Public Water Systems, shall be strictly adhered ta: 2, The City of Central Paint Public Warks Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific information regarding the design and construction of water systei~ci related components. ~3urserl Court`S'ubdivision -Streets 1. The Developer's street designs shall consider the needs of people with disabilities and the aged, such as visuallyimpairedpedestrians and mobility-impairedpedestrians. Everyeffart should be rnade to locate street hardware away from pedestrian locations and provide a surface free ofbumps and cracks, which create safety and mobilityproblems, Smooth access ramps shall be provided where required. All designs shall conform to the current American Disabilities Act (ADA} or as adopted by the Oregon Department of Transportation (CC~DOT}, _S~_ Hassell Court subdivision Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The detemaination of the pavement width and total right•o£ way shall be based can the operational needs for each street as determined by a technical analysis. The tech~ucal analysis shall use demand volumes that reflect the maximum number of pedestrians, bicyclists, parked vehicles and motorized vehicle traffic expected whe~z the area using the street is fully developed, Technical analysis sha11 take into consideration, transportation elements ofthe Comprehensive Plan, TOD, neighborhood plans, approved tentative plans as .well as existing commercial and residential developments, All street designs shall lac coordinated with the design of other new car existing infrastructure. B'urseXt CourtSubdivisi~rn --Biotin Urain 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 chatztaels 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 far 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 of4regonDEQ, DSL and ODFW and United. Mates COE and consistent with APWA Storm Water Phase lI requirements. ~, 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, .8ursell Court Subdivision -Required Submittals l . All design, construction plans and specifications, and "as-built" drawings shall be prepared to acceptable professional standards as applicable, the Developer shall provide copies ofany permits, variances, approvals and conditions as maybe required by ether agencies, including, but not limited to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife {DFW}, Qregon Department of Environmental Quality {DEQ}, Oregon Division of State Iands {DSL), Uregan 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 galley Sanitary Authority {BCVSA~, and Jackson County Road and Park Services Depa~-trnent {JC Roads}, DSL and ALOE, 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 PWD. 3. During construction, any changes proposed shall lac submitted in writing bythe Developer's Engineer to the City Public Works Department for approval prior to installation, _~~_ ..~T~.. aru E ii~ E b 1 ~ lijjj[! 7 p~~yy iY ~ ~ t r ~~ x ~~~ hnrt~fi ~ 4t~f'Ap; wNpr ryt y[ xwweA N tM R fi x i CT[ . /M+qO +N~a Sryv~ YtiKr+'scK, ~ lC~t i ~ t Ri i+~*K k'w{wv Mn MRC roV. ti ~! t1I~D s.~m~c ... '{~ZyyW_ s ' CRY lTSCT ~Y~ ~ Cu-.+ rn~+.e ~ n+sx,. .a,.»...K..-.... ~.r,~.a......,, BU.FsSEL~ CCJtJR3' Goe.t.a to te. tr c zf~ or sM st rsrx tetx r'..s[ urrr .t cemt wrnt fxetn+n Lbvn{r, o~nn. ff~7PXlNS' t2dAD -- ~. - a.. -- ~ 4-- __ ~~_ -_ _ ~• _ - ' - ~- ~ t l r i[ x .... _._ ~, _ _ _ s _....... F .. F ~'~' _ T'q, q f _. _ - _ rq ~ f 1 !~ a,-.;. ~v~~~~~`t~~~~ .~ ecs 3¢~~~~ T'?-$9 3 is ! .~ "."..~ ~ ~ „ ~ ~ r`:j ~',~~ , 1 . , ~.. Pr:... f, ;ry A r., f ~ '<,~ . _ ~ ~.,..~ ~ , ~ . r r '~ ,' } ~.~ "" Af' ~`,~,. ~ ,~ ~`-' ~. r f~: s • ~ F~~ ,R , < 3 ~;, ~, ~~' tc /+~! ~~, /,r i ~' ,``~'v l t', ~ .~. ~ .,~. ~ ~ , °~7-° e a.'' ( ,~ - /. f:! ~ l - _ ~ '3 ~° J C.~ t .. , ~' ,, , _ '~ fit... ~c ! t .'''Y`"C.. k °.er*+ n / jJ (.:; ~ j ~ ~, ~ ~ ~.s ~`'~ . tm.`~.. ~"t- "~ ,; .. ~,! j1 ~, ~' ~~a.. r+.~r. ~,. ~^-e, i •„~~„ ~~i ~ .1:~"w. /~~ ~'~ii~f L :' "~..~...i 9..R. ~ 4.. ~ ~ ~ ;.~"~ ~"`9 i ~~ Y ~ V ~ ; r ~_7 ~: ~ ~ e'er s ~d MARCH 15, 2t1O5 RE. HUBBELL COURT TO THE PIANNINO DEPARTMENT OFCENTRAL POINT: IN REGARDS TO THE REQUESTED TREE PLAN FOR HUBBELL COURT I HAAVE ENCLOSED SEVERAL PICTURES OFTHE TREES IN QUESTION AND AS YOU CAN SEE TREY ARE NOT IN GOOD CONDITION AND WOULD NOT SERVE AS A HEALTHY ADDtT~ON TO PURPOSED SUBDIVISION. ALSO ENCLOSED ARE PICTURES OF OTHERTREES AND SHRUBS AND AS YOU CAN SEE THEY ARE NEW GROWCH AND IN OUR OPINION THEY WOULD NOT ENHANCE THE APPEARANCE OF OUR SUBDIVISION. FURTHERMORE A SIX FOOT CEDAR FENCE WILT, BE BUILT AS A BUFFER TO ADIACENT PROPERTY. IN CONCLUSION NO TREES WILT. BE SAVED IN EXCEPTION OF THE TREES ON FRONTAGE OF LOT #~. SINCERELY, MICHAEL MENEFEE PRESIDENT-ALTUS CONSTRUCTION, INC. .. ~~,.- icy f C~~enr-l cair~t, C~r-on 7~p Sc~.Tl~ircl St,Centr~rl f'oir'tt,Or ~~75C?2 5~1.G6~t,3321 Fax 5A1.bfi~d,fi:3t3~# wv~ru~r.ci.tentr~l-Faoir7t.csr.ars ~r~' i~ ~i M Planning +Commision IVlee;ting l~'ovember l , 2005 Inr~ir~ p~M r~ It~rrr kiairrri~l7rt~y.l~IC:,1 C. c~ttCrrrasr7ity C)a:uc>Ic>~Pr7wc~+3t l.~ir(~c tar/ t~ssi~,tKarrt {. ity Atfrtlirri5irx3tr>r 'TlC : 05p74 '~' Consideration of a Permit for removal of a tree located at 3S0 Alder Street {+~harles .lohnson, applicant). S F~' U C .Don , AICP, EDFP iN i S As set forth in Section 12.36.OS0 a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a permit for tree removal shall b based on a of the following criteria: A. The tree is unsafe, dead, or diseased as determined by a certified arlaorist. Verification oCtree health may be required, at the expense of the applicant, by a certified arl?c~rist acceptable to the city; Finding I.2.36,45(I(A): As a result of the tree's proximity to the fc~~~r-plex, and its growth characteristics, it is only a natter of tune before the tree will become a l~ax;ard to tl~e adjacent structures, and inevitably the safety of the inhabitants. The applicant's certified arborist leas concluded that the tree's location and sire presents an unsafe condition {Exhibit "A"), Cancrrasr`arz X2.3S.l~SU(A): A certified arborist has found the tree to be unsafe and its removal is consistent with the criteria as set forth in Section 12.36.{35q~.~~. B. The tree is in conflict with public izmprovements. Fr'ndrrrg .I2.36:45f?{B}: The tr~e~ i.s teat in er~nflrct with any public impr~vem~nts. Conclusion 12.36.f1S4(B}: Not applicable. ~. The proposed removal or pruning is part of an approved development project, a p€~blic improvement project where zoo alternative is available, or is paz-t of a street improvement program. Finding 12.36.QS(1(C}: The tree is nat part cif a development prvpvsal. Conclusion 12.36.(lS4{C): Nc~t applicable. ]CSSLTES The tree, by definition, is a Significant Tree of a species known for growing quickly and to a significant size. Presently, the tree is healthy, but has outgrown its location and is impacting the structural integrity of surrounding buildings and potentially the safety and welfare of the residents. Time will only aggravate the situation. EXHIBITS Exhibit "A" -Letter from Beaver Tree Service ACTII4N Consideration of Tree Removal Permit (}S- l El_p 1 RECtJMMENDA.TI©N Approve Tree Removal Permit OS-14-(?l ~39r'~1/20F5 22:52 ~~ Y F'AGS' ~2 J~~~~ Y ~~r~i. Cl~.xe~c~'VVange ~~ tf to ~- City of Central ~t- l S5 S. 2zrd Street Central Pt. flR. 9`~S(}2 t~ctaber 2S, 20C}5 To whvrz~ It Wray corteern. Mr. Charles Johstson awuex oftlte ~rrperty lQCated at 3SQ ,ft.lder 5t. Central Pt. would like perrnissiau to z~emove the ~.edwood tree at tk~at location. Tl~e roots are damaging #l~e t~eighbcrx°s dz~ivevYay and will darr~age the apas~.zraent busldit~g and fc~undatic~rt ire the near future, lVlr. Johnson is also aoncerzrnecl about the elderly tenants who si# in the front yard near this tree. Branches could break bff gz~d possibly cause serious or even fatal injuries if the branches fall ofF suilcing srrrneane. It``you have any queatiaz~s Tease dt~n't hcsAtate to call e a# S41 ~ 664.1614 gar 821-8'~33cc11. Slttcerely, Clarence V. ~!Tartgl "'-"'----~--~-~-----..- Cert~~ed Arbc~ris Beaver Tree Service cc: Charles .tahnsfln 27th Wilson Read • Central Point, bR 97Sf32 F~tone: 541-664-161 • Fax; 5~1rb6S-8S8 ~~~