Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - September 7, 2004CITY OF CEN'1'I2AL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Septemb{e}r 7, 2~0y04 -~~7yy:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 623 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland ,Christopher Brown, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Paul Lunte, Connie Moczygemba, and Wayne Riggs III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of August 3, 2004, Planning Commission Minutes VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS A. A public hearing to review an application for a tentative subdivision to create 19 lots (with one designated as open space) within a Planned Unit Development. The subject parcels are in the Pages t-38 R-1-6 and R-1-8, Residential Single Family zones and are identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W lODC, Tax Lot 200 & Map 37 2W l ODB, Tax Lot(s) 9100, 9200 & 9400. The properties are located west of Snowy Butte Lane, north of Beall Lane and adjacent to Griffin Creek. B. Public meeting to review an application for a minor land partition application that would create a total of 3 parcels. The subject parcel is in the R-I-6, Residential Single Family and is Pages 39-a8 identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as being Map 37 2W 11BA, Tax Lot 1400. The property is located on the west side of Freeman Road (460 Freeman Road), north of Cedar and south of Ash Street. C. Public hearing to review Planned Unit Development, Tentative Plan and Conditional Use applications that would amend the previously approved Beebe Woods Planned Unit Development by including a 4'~ phase near the northwest comer of the project. This proposed 4°i phase would add five additional lots to an adjacent tax lot and would not change any other rages a9-87 elements of the original P.U.D. approval. The subject parcel is in the R-2, Residential Two Family District and is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W O 1 CB, Tax 200. The properties are located on the east side of Hammrick Road (4460 Hammrick Road), north of East Pine Street and south of Parkwood Village Lane. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Pc09072004 ~ugust 3, 2004 Minutes City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2004 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. IL ROLL CALL: Chairman Chuck Piland, Christopher Brown, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Paul Lunte, Connie Moczygemba, and Wayne Riggs were present. Also in attendance were Ken Gerschler, Community Planner; and Lisa Morgan, Planning Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Gerschler distributed copies of the library plans for the commissioner's information only; the plans were not related to any items on the agenda. IV. MINUTES Don Foster made a motion to approve the minutes from July 6, 2004. Commissioner Moczygemba seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Brown, abstain; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Lunte, yes; Moczygemba, yes; and Riggs, yes, Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. A public hearing to review an application for a tentative plan for the purpose of creating 19 lots (with one designated as open space) within a Planned Unit Development. The subject parcels are in the R-1-6 and R-1-8, Residential Single Family zones and are identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W lODC, Tax Lot 200 & Map 37 2W lODB, Tax Lot(s) 9100, 9200 & 9400. The properties are located west of Glen Way, north of Beall Lane and east of Hanley Road, adjacent to Griffin Creek. THE APPLICANT IIAS REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO TIIE SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner explained the applicant's desire to continue this hearing to the September 7, 2004 meeting. He explained that the applicant is looking at reconfiguring some lots and roads. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to continue this hearing to the next meeting. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Brown, yes; Fish, abstain; Foster, yes; Lunte, yes; Moczygemba, yes; and Riggs, yes, Motion passed. B. Public hearing to review an application for a Conditional Use Permit that would allow Albertson's to continue operating an outside garden sales area. This property is in a C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District and is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W 12B, Tax Lot 1100. The property is located at 1360 Plaza Boulevard off of Freeman Road and Oak Street. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner presented the staff report and gave the background on how this request for a conditional use originated. He stated that he had gone back to the original application for Albertson's submitted in 1996 to do some research. The outdoor sales area was not part of the original application that proposed a community shopping center. They have a caged in area at the south end of the store, which has been used for sales and eventually over time expanded to the front of the store under the covered porch area. Mr. Gerschler explained that when the code was codified in the 1980's, some of today's market trends were not specifically mentioned or even thought of. This is where a conditional use permit could be granted by the discretion of the Planning Commission provided that the criteria could be met. Mr. Gerschler read each of the findings and concluded that the proposed continued outdoor sales activities on this site would not provide any significant adverse effect on surrounding properties. He emphasized that if approved, only items that have prices and are available for immediate sale could be in this outdoor sales area. It is not to be used as a storage area. The outdoor sales area would be limited in size to the fi•ont covered area of the store and 12 parking spaces (which is the number of parking spaces above the minimum required spaces for the size of the store). Albertson's currently has only used up to 10 parking spaces located in the front southern portion of the parking lot for outdoor sales. There were discussions ou how this would affect events such as sidewalk sales, firework stands and Christmas tree sales, etc. Don Kennedy, Store Director for Cenh~al Point Albertson's expressed the store's wishes to comply. He stated that sometimes Albertson's will buy truck loads of seasonal items to sell. These are the products that they use the proposed outdoor sales area for. These items are typically there for 6 weeks. Jackson County Health Department does not allow Albertson's to have food items outside for sale, such as cases of soda or canned goods. Mr. Kennedy stated that events like the firework stands was a good point, and if necessary, he could have the parking spaces used for outdoor sales cleared out to accommodate these private seasonal vendors. Mr. Gerschler explained that existing parking spaces are for Albertson's only. There are parking a .eas for the other future uses. David Painter of~enEr first said that this conditional use is setting a precedence for future conditional use permit applications. He feels that there should be proportionality limits set as conditions. The Commission discussed the value of creating a list of items allowed to be sold as part of the conditions of approval. A list was created, which brought up more questions. If we were to limit the items that could be sold, how would that affect items such as vending machines and other similar types of activities? Who would be responsible for ensuring that only what is on the list is actually be sold, etc? Joe Thomas of om first felt that we should eliminate the condition allowing the use of 12 parking spaces for outdoor sales to allow for future growth. He would also like to see the outdoor sales in one area for pedestrian safety. Becca Croft of n ra om stated that creating this list ofpermitted products should havebeen considered with the original Albertson's approval in 1996. All Albertson's appears to be asking for is permission to continue using the outdoor sales area, not what can or can not be sold in that area. Chainnan Piland closed the public portion of the meeting. In further dialogue between commissioners, it was decided not to create a list of products that could be sold as part of the conditional use permit approval. They felt doing so would create more problems and raise more questions for interpreting what products fall into what category of allowed items. Commissioners asked that the list started as Condition #4 on attachment `C' be removed, and to stick with the original recommended Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 622, approving an application for a Conditional Use Permit allowing Albertson's to continue using an outdoor sales area, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion passed unanimously. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Gerschler informed the commissioners that the Planning Department hopes to have the Land Use Planning.• Beyond Basics seminar will be scheduled for sometime this fall. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Moczygemba seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF KEPOR'I' MEETING DATE: September 7, 2004 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing - To consider a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative 191ot subdivision known as the Snowy Butte Meadows PUD. The subject property is located west of Snowy Butte lane near Griffin Creek in the R-1-6 and R-1-8 zoning districts (372W10DB Tax Lot 200 and 372W10DB Tax Lots 9100, 9200 and 9400) Applicant/ Owner/A~ent: Dale F. Clark 1980 Sky Park Drive, Unit "C" Medford, OR 97504 Summary: The applicant has submitted a preliminary development plan to create a PUD and subdivide four existing tax lots into 18 residential lots and 1 park open space area. 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 Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060 (Attachment A). Applicable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Single-Family District CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. -Planned Unit Development (PUD) Discussion: The applicant, Dale Clark is presenting a tentative development plan for an 18 lot residential Planned Unit Development to be known as Snowy Butte Meadows. The project area is located west of Snowy Butte Lane and east of Griffin Creek. Parcels in this area have not developed because of an agreement established in 1991 between the City and property owners on the southerly extension of Snowy Butte Lane. This portion of Snowy Butte is a narrow 20 foot wide road that was dedicated to the Public in the early 1900's. Due to the limited capacity of the road, the City and residents agreed to restrict subdivisions until the road is improved. The City also installed a physical barrier at the Timothy Lane intersection to curtail cut-through traffic from the newer subdivisions. \\Cpchs 1 \city wide\Planning\04029.doc The property owners along the narrow Snowy Butte Lane extension have been in contact with the City and are now prepared to dedicate additional right-of--way and pay for improvements to the road. The City Council rescinded the 1991 restrictions when local residents agreed to proceed with their own improvements. Snowy Butte Meadows is the first subdivision application on Snowy Butte Lane and it has been introduced as a planned unit development. The applicant believes that unique conditions exist that dictate the use of a PUD rather than a conventional subdivision (refer to Attachment B). CPMC 17.68.010 states that the purpose of the planned unit development is to "gain more effective use of open space, realize advantages of large-scale site planning, mixing of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation by allowing a variety of buildings, structures, open spaces, allowable heights ands setbacks of buildings and structures". Snowy Butte Meadows is located in R-1-6 and R-1-8, Residential Single Family zoning districts which require 6,000 and 8,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. The portion of the project zoned R-1-8 would includes PUD lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and the elongated parcel identified as open space along the banks of Griffin Creek. Given the configuration of the property, the individual lots would not meet the code for standard subdivisions (depth, width, etc) and that is why a PUD is being pursued. Generally, standard subdivisions have setbacks of 20 feet for the front lot lines, 5 feet per story on the side lot lines and 15 feet for rear lot lines. There is also a maximum aggregate coverage of 40 percent per lot. The applicant's have proposed that the PUD allow flexibility and have submitted documentation in Attachment B that include findings to demonstrate how Snowy Butte Meadows would function and meet the intent of CPMC 17.68. The preliminary development plan (Attachment C) has proposed lots that range in size from 3,587 square feet to 9,078 square feet with a majority of the lots being 5,000 square feet in size (excluding private street right-of--way). The lot area requirements could be met if the area of the new streets were included in the calculation. The PUD takes its access from Snowy Butte Lane with an approximate 48 foot wide private road right-of--way named Virginia Drive. The road way and open space along Griffin Creek have been designated as a separate tax lot. However, the Commission has the option of making the road an easement across most of the lots. Originally the applicant submitted the map with an easement because the City has approved this type of arrangement in the past. If the easement is used, the developer gains flexibility in measuring his setbacks from the front lot line. In this situation the Planning Department could allow the habitable portion of each house to be located closer to the road at 10 to 15 feet while the garage would be 18 to 20 feet from the front lot line (as it is in the TOD). The easement encumbers the property owners to maintain the road and pay the taxes. Public Works prefers the private easement arrangement to the separate tax lot concept. The alternative that is preferred by the applicant depicts the road as a separate tax lot. In this case the Planning Department would still measure the setback from the property lines which would be located at the edge of the private road rather than the centerline as shown in the previous plan. The applicant is proposing individual building envelopes for each new home with reduced setbacks but the lot size is considerably smaller. The smaller lots may not be acceptable to the Commission and the applicant is aware that this option may cause the number of lots to be \\Cpchsl\city wide\Planning\04029.doc 2 reduced to meet area requirements. The PUD does meet the maximum residential densities for the R-1 zone which is six (6) units par acre. A lot line adjustment will need to be completed on adjoining properties at 3303 and 3365 Snowy Butte Lane (Attachment "C") to bring the maps into compliance with the preliminary development plan. The new configurations will meet the minimum lot requirements for the R-1- 6, Residential Single Family District. The applicant has been in contact with the property owners and will obtain the necessary forms from the City. The applicant has provided a landscape plan (Attachment "D") that includes trees and shrubs that are acceptable to the City's tree list. Each plant and tree will need to be of adequate size and be irrigated to ensure that they will thrive. Proposed lots 1,2,3,4,5,13,14, 15 and 19 are located within the 100 year flood boundary. Each of these homes will require special construction techniques and flood insurance. The applicant has provided typical building footprints on Attachment "E" that correspond with the building elevations and statistics in Attachment "F". The Public Works and Building Departments have provided their comments, recommendations and requirements for this application (Attachments H and 1). Rogue Valley Sewer Services was notified of this application and has submitted correspondence. Jackson County Fire District Number Three met with the City and the applicant and the agency is satisfied with the proposal. The applicant will need to provide the District with a complete set of plans and meet any requirements that maybe assigned. Findines of Fact and Conclusions of Law Staff suggests the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as applicable to the project and necessary for its approval. The project site is located in the R-1-6 and R-1-8, Residential Single-Family Zoning Districts and increases residential land use efficiency in this area. The proposed tentative plan for a Planned Unit Development is a permitted use in the R-1-6 and R-1-8 zoning districts. The zoning in turn is consistent with the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan map designation. The Comprehensive Plan encourages innovative residential planning and development techniques that would help to increase land use efficiency and reduce the cost of utilities and services (Comprehensive Plan, Page XII-12). 2. The project consists of a tentative plan application for the subdivision of approximately 3.73 acres for the purpose ofdeveloping asingle-family residential subdivision, Snowy Butte Meadows. The total number of lots proposed for the subdivision is 19, one of which is an open space area along Griffin Creek The proposed single-family subdivision meets the density requirement for the R-1-6 and R-1-8 residential zones which is a maximum of 6 units per acre. The lots within the subdivision meet the requirement of the City's subdivision and zoning codes for residential lots as well as the \\Cpchs I \city wide\Planning\04029.doc specific requirement of the R-1-6 zone. The tentative plan includes all information required by CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. The Planning, Public Works and Building Departments have reviewed both the tentative plan for the proposed subdivision and the findings of fact and determined that the project meets all City standards and requirement subject to the recommended conditions found in Attachments H, I and J. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the tentative PUD plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachments H, I and J); or 2. Deny the tentative PUD plan; or 3. Continue the review of the tentative PUD plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments• A. Notice of Public Hearing B. Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions C. Tentative Plan and Lot Line Adjustment Maps D. Landscape Plan E. Flood Map and House Footprint (Typical) F. Typical House Elevations and Statistics Ti. Map of Existing Structures and Demolition Plan Public Works Staff Report ~ I. Building Department Staff Report J. Planning Department Conditions of Approval K. Correspondence \\Cpchsl\city wide\Ptanning\04029.doc 4 ~?'~ i {6CYV'l~C'N~~,,~• CI tay of Central Pozn t PLANNING DEPARTML'N.T Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner David Alvord Community Planner Lisa Morgan Planning Secretary Notice of Public Meeting Date of Notice: July 13, 2004 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING August 3, 2004 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a Tentative Plan application for the purpose of creating 19 lots (with one designated as open space) within a Planned Unit Development. The subject parcels are in the R-1-6, Residential Single Family zone and are identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W l ODC, Tax Lot 200 & Map 37 2W l ODB, Tax Lot(s) 9100, 9200 & 9400. The properties are located west of Glenn Way, north of Beall Lane and east of Hanley Road, adjacent to Griffin Creek. The Central Point Planning Commission will review the Tentative PUD application to determine if all of the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. If the Commission determines that the application meets the City's standards, an approval could be issued. Pursuant to ORS 197.763 (3) (e), failure to raise an issue during this hearing, in person or in writing, or failure to raise an issue 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, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. This notice is being mailed to property owners within a 200 foot radius of subject property. 5 CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for planned unit developments are set forth in Chapters 16 & 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Information and conditions on the project approval. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 3, 2004. 2. Written comments maybe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 292. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the application and technical staff reports. The Commission, at their discretion, may decide to hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. If allowed, 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 Planned Unit Development as submitted. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. 6 155 South Second Street A Central Point, OR 97502 a (541) 664-3321 A Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~ 4 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION ) FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ) ON PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF ) SNOWY BUTTE LANE AND NORTH OF ) BEALL LANE; THE SUBJECT SITE IS ) DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR'S MAP NOS. ) T.37S-R.2W-SEC. 10DB, TAX LOTS 9100, ) 9200 & 9400 WITH T.37S-R.2W-SEC. 10DD, ) TAX LOT 200; DALE CLARK, APPLICANT; ) SNOWY BUTTE MEADOWS, PLANNED ) UNIT DEVELOPMENT. PROJECT. ) RECITALS: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Owner Applicant- Dale Clark Heritage Development 1980 Unit C, Sky Park Drive Medford, OR 97504 Property 37-2W-10D6, Tax Lots 9100, 9200 and 9400 Description- 37-2W-10DD, Tax Lot 200 Acreage- 3.97 gross acres 3.60 net acres Zoning- R-1-6, 2.75 acres and R-1-8, 1.20 acres Land Use- Detached Single Family Residential F~ ~~i~~ ~~~ ~ ~ 2ooq Cfry fJF CErVTRq,~ PpIM-r 1 7 NARRATIVE: The purpose of this application is to establish a private road and to request an exception to the lot area standards for the land use designation present, R-1 single family residential via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. The purpose of this PUD application is to identify the residential lots with the existing mature trees and physical features, Griffin Creek, that inhibits the development of a public road within the project. This process affords both the City and the Developer assurances that the land use deviation is agreed upon and established by a review process. The attached site plans adequately defines the proposed residential uses for the property. The applicants have submitted a landscape plan, in conjunction with this PUD application. The applicant will provide landscaping in accordance with the Central Point Parks Department for the street scape along Virginia Drive, and adjacent to Griffin Creek. The nature and planned use of the proposed Snowy Butte Meadows PUD is to provide for a detached single family residential development. The ownership of Snowy Butte Meadows PUD is held bythe applicant, Dale Clark. The maintenance of the common area Lot 19 (private roads and open space area) will be the responsibility by owners of property within the project, and the costs will be accrued with the mutual access and maintenance agreements that will run with the PUD. A copy of the Homeowners Association and CC&R's will be submitted with the Final PUD Plan for review and compliance. The proposed development schedule is to construct Snowy Butte Meadows PUD, in its entirety, as soon as the infrastructure is in place for the development. The common areas will be constructed with the development, to ensure that these facilities are available to the residences. There are no phases for the Preliminary PUD Plan. The total net acreage for the Snowy Butte Meadows PUD site consists of 3.60 acres. 2 8 CRITERIA: The Application procedures and Criteria for a planned unit development are listed in Section 17.68, Central Point Zoning Ordinance (CPZO). The criteria are: Section 17.68.010 Purpose: The purpose of planned unit development (PUD) is to gain more effective use of open space, realize advantages of large scale site planning, mixing of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation by allowing a variety of buildings, structures, open spaces, allowable heights and setbacks of buildings and structures. A PUD should have a harmonious variety of uses, utilize the economyofshared services and facilities, and reduce municipal costs of operating and maintaining services while insuring substantial compliance with the district regulations and other provisions of this code. Discussion: The purpose of this PUD application is to allow for the open space feature that reflects Griffin Creek to be preserved and maintained as a neighborhood and community asset. The creation of an open space feature ensures that the maintenance and natural aspect of the site ensures that the maintenance will be provided by the home owners thru the CC&R's. As a part of the open space area a "bio swale will be created which may introduce wetland aspects and wildlife. With the development ofthe site when considering the open space features as a part of the project, a deviation to the lot area standards are being requested with this application. The density ofthis project and all otherdevelopment standards for the R-1 district are in compliance with the zoning districts and only the design of the site due to its irregular shape and location adjacent to Griffin Creek justifies the PUD review. The use of private street right of ways that will include landscaping, bicycle lanes and sidewalks will be constructed by the developer of the project and maintained by the CC&R's/Homeowners Association. The provides an economy of shared facilities for the project, and no additional costs to the City for maintenance. Finding: The City finds that the purpose of this PUD application for Snowy Butte Meadows, is consistent with this section of the Code. The provision of private streets that will be maintained by the property owners does not impose a financial responsibility onto the City and the shared facilities also provides for an economy of scale. Section 17.68.020 Size: A PUD shall be on a tract of land five acres orlarger, except that a PUD maybe on a tract of land of more than one acre but less than five acres if the planning commission finds, upon a showing by the applicant, that a PUD is in the public interest because one or more of the following conditions exist: A.) An unusual physical feature of importance to the people of the area or the community as a whole exists on the site, which can be conserved and stillleave the land owner equivalent use of the land by the use of Planned Unit development; 8.) The property orits neighborhood has historical character ordistinctive features that are important to the community and that could be protected or enhanced through use of a PUD; C.) The property is adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of a planned unit development of similar design as that proposed and the developmenfs would complement each other without significant adverse impact on surrounding areas; D.) The property is of irregular shape, with limited access, or has unusual dimensions or characteristics which would make conventional development unreasonably difficult and expensive. Discussion: The subject property does not meet the minimum 5 acres requirement, however, the proposed PUD does satisfy 17.68.020(A), (B) & (D). (A) The site does contain Griffin Creek within its boundary and is identified as natural feature that is of benefit to the community for open space areas. This open space area incorporates the visual benefit for the pedestrian/bike path and as part of the Flanagan Park area. The open space area will be preserved and the proposed lots can be developed with the PUD standards of the Code. The proposed residential uses could be equivalent with the area set aside for open space if they were not present. There are no density bonuses needed or proposed, the PUD is to simply allow for the lot area standards to deviate from the Code due to the area preserved for open space. 4 10 (B) Again, the site does contain Griffin Creek within it's boundaries. Griffin Creek is a natural feature that is important to the community. This can be substantiated with the fact that on the west side of the Creek a multi use path and open area has been provided to serve the neighborhoods in the area and the City as a whole. The PUD allows this area to be enhanced, preserved and maintained by the residents of Snowy Butte Meadows. (D) As described on the PUD plan with the boundary lines, the site is of irregular shape and size for development as a conventional subdivision. The southern quadrant reflects a "pie shape" that renders a portion ofthe site non-developable and the presence of Griffin Creek with neighboring developments inhibits future street connectivity. Finding: The City finds that the subject site does not contain 5 acres and is of irregular shape for development. The City also finds that the site does contain Griffin Creek within its boundaries and that the area will be preserved for open space uses that will be a neighborhood and community benefit. CONCLUSION: The City of Central Point concludes that the site does not consist of 5 acres and that with the natural feature present along with the irregular shape of the site justifies this PUD application, in compliance with Section 17.68.020 CPZO. Section 17.68.040, Criteria: A PUD shall be permitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards and procedures of this chapter. In the case of a use existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and classified in this chapteras a PUD, a change in the use orin lot area, oran alteration of structure shall conform with the requirements forPUD use. To approve or deny a PUD, the planning commission shall find whether or not the standards of this chapter, including the following criteria are either met, can be met by observance of conditions, or are not applicable. A.) That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of this title; 11 Discussion: The site plan identifies the most efficient development of the land that integrates the available land for residential purposes and open space areas with the existing surrounding land uses. The only exception requested is to the lot area standards of the Code. Lots numbered as 3, 4, 5, 7-14, 17 & 18 do not meet the minimum area standards for the zoning district. If the development area was a conventional subdivision being of a rectangular shape, this would allow for the same number of lots with the development of streets that would not need an exception to the area standards of the Code. All other standards of the Ordinance for development will be in compliance. Finding: The City finds that the development of Snowy Butte Meadows is not practical as a standard subdivision as the property configuration and location inhibits development along Griffin Creek along with the existing land use pattern and street connectivity or lack there of. B.) The proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the city; Discussion: The subject property is zoned for single family residential purposes (Low Density) consistent with Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. The Low Density designation allows for the R-1-6, R-1-8 and R-1-10 zoning districts. The purpose of the R-1 districts is to provide for a stabile urban low density development while promoting and encouraging the environment suitable for new residents. Development of urban areas will provide additional housing opportunities for the future residents of the City. The policy of the City is to encourage well thought out developments within the boundaries of the City to accommodate the future residents without enhancing sprawl or need for expansion of the UGB. Finding: The City finds that development of Snowy Butte Meadows and the proposed uses is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site and that the uses are also consistent with the zoning ordinance and policies of the City of Central Point. 6 12 C.) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have minimal adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area; Discussion: The location of the site is bound by Griffin Creek to the west, Snowy Butte Lane to the east, with urban residential development to north, just north of Beall Lane. The size of the tract consists of approximately 3.97 gross acres. The proposed use of the site is single family residential. Livability - Lands to the north and west are currently developed to urban low density residential standards, similar to the subject proposal. Land to the east and south are currently developed to suburban residential standards by Jackson County, however, these lands are currently in the City and have R-1-6 zoning. The proposed uses on the subject property are identical in character to the existing urban uses. With the similar uses proposed, no impacts on livability are anticipated. Value- The value of the surrounding properties may increase with the development of the site due to the improvements on the subject site along with the enhancement and preservation of Griffin Creek. The proposed use is identical to the surrounding area, thus, no impacts on value are contemplated. Appropriate Development- The properties to the north and west are developed appropriately to urban standards consistent with the zoning standards. Lands to the east and south are currently developed to Jackson County standards and have frontage along Snowy Butte Lane from Beall Lane. Any future development of these lands will not be adversely impacted from the subject site and design of the project. Findina: The City finds that lands to the north and west are developed to urban standards, consistent with the zoning ordinance and that the lands to the east and south are currently developed to County standards. The development of the subject property will not have a significant impact on Livability, Value or Appropriate Development to the surrounding lands. 7 13 D.) That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they are financially able to carry out fhe proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete said construction within a reasonable time as determined by the commission; Discussion: The developer for the project, Dale Clark, has received financing approval to construct the project in its entirety. It is anticipated to have final PUD plan and final plat by spring of 2005. At which time construction within the Snowy Butte Meadows would occur during the summer of 2005 with completion of the project by the end of 2006. Finding: The City finds that Dale Clark the developerfor the project has approval for financing to start and complete the projectwithin a reasonable time frame. E.) That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking; Discussion: The development of the project will not have a significant impact on the transportation system in the area. Snowy Butte Meadows will construct 18 new dwellings that will generate approximately 172 ADT based on the ITE Manual 7~h Edition. It is anticipated that approximately 50% of the trips will travel north along Snowy Butte Lane via. Glenn Way to Pine Street. The balance of the trips generated may go south to Beall Lane via Highway 99. There will be no impacts on the local transportation system in the vicinity. Finding: The City finds that the generation of approximately 172 average daily trips will not have a significant impact on the local street system and that there is sufficient capacity existing to accommodate the development. F.) That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed: 14 Discussion: Not applicable. There are no uses proposed that deviate from the underlying single family residential zoning. The proposed uses are for residential purposes exclusively. Finding: The City finds that the proposed use for the project is strictly residential and that this standard is not applicable. G.) That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; Discussion: Not applicable. There are no uses proposed that deviate from the underlying single family residential zoning. The proposed uses are for residential purposes exclusively. Finding: The City finds that the proposed use for the project is strictly residential and that this standard is not applicable. H.) The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present: Discussion: This PUD application is proposing to enhance an open space natural feature that reflects Griffin Creek. Griffin Creek is to be preserved and maintained as a neighborhood and community asset. The creation of an open space feature ensures that the maintenance of the area will sustain Griffin Creek as natural aspect. As a part of the open space area a "bio swale will be created which may introduce wetland plant species and small wildlife. Apart of Lot 19 includes the Griffin Creek corridor which will be maintained by the Homeowners Association and CC&R's. Finding: The City finds that the project does include a natural feature, Griffin Creek, within its boundaries and that the Homeowners Association will preserve and maintain this area in a natural state. 15 l.) The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area; Discussion: This PUD application is not proposing any non-permitted uses. The only proposed use is single family residential, consistent with the surrounding Comprehensive Plan designation and the R-1 zoning. The proposed uses are identical and compatible with the surrounding existing and planned uses. Findina: The City finds that the proposed use is single family residential, consistent with the zoning district and surrounding residential uses. J.) The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land. Discussion: The permitted uses for the R-1 district are: Single-family dwellings; Public and private schools; parks and recreation facilities; churches; and Planned Unit Developments. This PUD is proposing Single family dwellings and a recreational facility along Griffin Creek. There will be no greater demand on the public facilities than the permitted uses listed. Findina: The City finds that the proposed uses being single family residential with an open space area for recreation is a permitted use and that there will be no greater demand to serve the site with public facilities. CONCLUSION: The City of Central Point concludes thatthis PUD application forSnowy Butte Meadows is in compliance with Section 17.68.040 CPZO, in that this proposal is consistent with the zoning district for density and due to the natural feature present, Griffin Creek, the only exception to the Ordinance is the Lot area for the R-1 districts. All other development standards of the Ordinance will be met. Griffin Creek has been planned as an open space feature for a recreational area creating a neighborhood and community asset. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding uses and zoning districts, thus, no adverse impacts on surrounding lands are contemplated. 10 16 Section 17.68.050, Preliminary development plan: A preliminary development plan shall contain a written statement and maps and other information on the area surrounding the proposed development to show the relationship ofthe planned unit developmentto adjacent uses, both existing and proposed. Discussion: Submitted with this application are the site plan maps with the applicable standards for development, including Top of Bank for Griffin Creek and the 100 yearflood plan boundary based on the FEMA mapping. The standards found in Chapter 8.24, Flood Mitigation, and Chapter 17.57, Fences, will be address during the construction phase and permitting process. All proposed uses and locations for the development of Snowy Butte Meadows are in compliance with these Chapters. The site plans clearly reflects the proposed uses and locations for development consistent with the Central Point Zoning Ordinance. The submitted Preliminary PUD plan along with these Findings of Fact have addressed the applicable standards of the Ordinance and Section 17.68.050 CPZO. Finding: The City finds that this application for Snowy Butte Meadows PUD has addressed the site plan standards of the Ordinance and has identified the applicable information required for review. CONCLUSION: The City of Central Point concludes that the applicant for Snowy Butte Meadows PUD has identified the existing and proposed uses on the submitted site plans and has prepared Findings to demonstrate compliance with the Ordinance criteria for review, consistent with the standards of Section 17.68.050 CPZO. 11 17 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: The City of Central Point can conclude that this application for a Planned Unit Development has addressed the applicable criteria as outlined in Chapter 17.68 CPZO and thatthis application is in compliance with the Central Point Zoning Ordinance, Central Point Comprehensive Plan, and state law. With the attached documents and information in hand, the applicant respectfully requests approval of this application for a Planned Unit Development for Snowy Butte Meadows. Respectfully Submitted: Dale Clark 12 18 ~,, SNOWY BUTTE MEADOWS PRIVATE 18 LOT SUBDIVISION REVISED LOT SIZES JULY 29, 2004 =---'- o LOT e S OPEN SPPGE 8` R`~. O 44N tR = O SiM Wn NN• >NI qn m 0 © 8 nti0 pry. 3}fY RR rav p. § O am> pa O 3[W pry, r „,~ _=~--`e- SNOWYg~E ..5>r- YAM uR +K R a®„n ~ v O E tisN pn 4 m© 0 WI µR ~3 pR~ S.~W pR© O R>~pR S.M. qn d s ® n ao5n pn k t ai©n x~ S~®R ~ px~.. e1 _~ ~,.~ i CRAPMC SCALE 4~--~i~--LJ--,._i vsT~ u ~LTf{ ~.oT' I'+ ~ a ~ N Y m ~o 5~°~ ~z~ W 7 ~ m QQ °m ~N Z ~ w 'S(~Zo Q O a ~~W~ W~~~ f" Q j O ~~N W N ?OQ{-o z>o~ N~J~ J 0 ~~~'~ I~ N ~~~ +~ G ~~~i ~'o~c~ oz 1 W GAKAGE Z g ~ W m ', o z r-+nus~ ~ _ ~,~" a'"Q ~,~,w,~~\e~ =,v,y .Py IZ {.U ~ -- z i GARAGE g t W ~ ! m FiausE z to ~ M ( _ O M ------------------ - - ---- --------- -- -- .._ v ~/'-'v~ ~K~ its^~ f~f/ aw1~ 19 mss"'...... gAPH1C SCA~ \' .~, / M~~`~~W ,,~~ rr 'UT~E ~p ~sroN ~~~, 1- / V g ~ ~ ~~ ,v PLANTING NOSES "V ' O 1RWCPtIA'~'rv'~~ GP, Jd MutLH.3 8 NATYc SD,L PND sE PUZ£R i 5 v ~~ aLL P4AN~5 WEE ~iEPMM£tA~P~~Gps Batl•µa g-S~W~%~ DD CiE%C£ED R PB PR~vp,TE nnuzE PEA MµiVFp ~t P,tSR2~ ~p a~RBAR'6 MULCH W ~ p%MNIWM ~ C t0P5P g~, GTHERS K p~RETH~CCR REOUSREM'ENTSEES & SNRU85 GAPSS W'_iR E54^~ D4 N ~~ UrNEEN PI PPS y ~, 4RDPO~tA~ES 41LPSL I ~1 GRP55 WtlfiEES~~CN eErxEH AWeIR{RD 'R`'PoNi(lEP 20Nf SpPC'i,. OQ~a += . ~oS~'~!~~~.~ n~ O ~ O ~ ~ VNGP. RUyagRC PUB6EE. 4RONAE 5U p~tpDDW t CH ~~Gpµpµ MW.LEPLREH ft ~~E Ptl~ ~ro~5 OF SIEEVcS FDR tPNDRCP4E CDN'RtACiCR 4RDtM1DE^~ G1AtCPt ~~S UltDER Ptt RPR95LAPE. PADNp%M1JDE PN] PIAEE PR E 57~ HDLt~P nDUW~~ © ~ ~AEWN CRP E ode ® ~ , ~E n H0 { tPHhD V EN LI. ES'LD'16 POPD ~ P' ~ ~yyggl. 4OSP P'NE R£ CEDAP ~ iR0P0 'i ~ f , 33 L~ ~ `-' V pP: RMF HP~ ~NL(,N NEPIIP~ B~PCH ` ~ ` , PM i Q. PtNA~tl ~grRiNKIER T~ ". a a A ~ '1 a AP O REtYRCn - © HM ~i fl R HP ~~~~D NKtER zoxC '„ Aw~"s,Rn 'sPa ,~ RM ~~ 8 i, ; F H DL RSD ,,.. ~~ i _ .. PI ARP ~K~ P,VEA RDC< AA,NAIAD - P,,~,p RnCA roPoP tDNE~ O Y a 6N 0~ ~t~. ~;o~ o~ Zg Q w a~ ~~ a? 07..0 Q ~~ ~ N ~-_YY° O W 7Ne N a Z ,~~~o =tea ~~~ ~~~ '. m ya~, '~ ~~~~ ~~a rJN~~ ~U~F"_ f^ A J SNOWY BUTTE MEADOWS PRIVATE 18 LOT SUBDIVISION REVISED HOUSE LAYOUT JULY 29, 2004 NOTES HWSES TNAi IRE WRHIN THE GLOW PLAA'. Wfl1 9E RAISEp f FOOT ARO~£ HWSES 410W ON iH15 q,µ µE fIXt g2MNICAL PURPOSES CNLY. GRAPHIC SCALE V , ~ \\\\~~~II~/// yN ..r ~ M1 . Q O 0 N Y ~ a p )) 6 Q N ¢ b 5~°~ ~i~o w~om Q ~ W ~~' ~~ Z ~' ~ tAOpo 3 cn ~. ~ oog° wmr~~ wN~" t- _ j0~ mmQ ~F-~c Z>~~ fD~O~ .~ aLL~ o' ~~~ ~ ~~~ SNOVJI' BUTTE LANE 7~~ (~ Mpg w 2~}o F " oobao House Plans and Duplex Home Plan Designs ~ Plan #89939 Page 1 of 5 www.HomePlanFinder.com Plan # 89939, Order Code GHG55 Af~orc3able Three-bedroom starter Qr P.etirernent E-iorno ® Offers efficient floorplan and maximizes square footage. Skylit foyer spills to a vaulted living and dining room. ® High vaulted ceiling, open floor plan and picture window visually enhance the spaciousness throughout this area. Country kitchen features a center preparation island, abundant counter space and sunny breakfa~ area with sliding glass access to the rear garden. ® Master bedroom boasts awalk-in closet and bathroom with whirlpool spa. ® Two additional bedrooms, or one bedroom plus den, share a skylit three-piece bathroom. ® Two additional bedrooms, or one bedroom plus den, share a skylit three-piece bathroom. 1..IVi@'14,~ ~4'~af~C~ $$) ®QPP1~ ~Od3_f1_~~~0_CtPi~ ~P'deP9N"i~ inf® Main: 1424 Bedrooms: 3 basement Plan can be asset®sra6~es~ Total: 1424 Full baths: 2 crawlspace f%rEc Half baths: 0 Width:40'0" Order Code:GHG55 Carstalls: 2 Depth:55'o" ~a~a~ee'~?" The "living area" square foofiage is for fhe finished space of 4he home. £SQi'?5t'e 3c%i^73 ~'.~u^f:~^tYI;':'.. r:i,2;^.S i~t~E'S "~ i~l;~~;c?SS} Prices in USA dollars l1 fi:£3ts ti': Roof frame Truss 8 set pkg, (Recommended) 5560.00 Wall thickness 2x6 4 set pkg,_ (Min. construction pkg) 5520.00 Maximum roof height 21' 6" 1 set pkg,_ (Study Package) 5480.00 Roof pitch. (front to back) 7/12 Repro master (vellum) 5720.00 f2pofpitch (side to side) 7/12 Mirrored Reverse 555.00 Roof Ipad.(Liye) 32 Ibs Additional sets 555.00 Roof load (Dead) 10 Ibs Material list $75.00 To ordee ~8an ~~~~ ~~ ~s~~~r r ~~d~: ~H~~~; ~a~6 ~p-~4~-4~~~ oa. ~~3-~'~~-gE~44 w~~•w.l-lumcE'IanPinder.com c 1994-20(14 Abbisoft (louse Plans. Inc. http://www.homeplanfinder.com/factsheet.asp?pla@89939&ordercode=GHG55 6/8/2004 T House Plans and Duplex Home Plau Designs ~ Plan #56038 www.l-fomePlanFinder.cOrn EAiving area(~q fk) R®c~rra~ ~®uba~~tiean~ ~r~erirag iraf® Yagc 1 of / Main: 666 Bedrooms: 3 crawlspace Plan can be oa~~t®n'aize~ Upper: 812 Full baths: 2 slab Prioes Total: 1478 Half baths: 1 Width:27'0" Order Code:GNG55 Car stalls: 2 Depth:50'10" ®rc6~r The "living area" square footage is for fihe finished space of the home f.;a'~S]:~s.r~<4.'i(33~ SL° i'ii.%rtfl B?3 Pig ~ 4°%~C'stc;j°(;~j Prices in USA dollars A€52£D4rS~ Roof frame Stick 8_se(pkg, (Recommended) $475.00 Wall thickness 2x4 4,set,pkg. (Min. construction pkg) $435.00 Roof pitch (primary) 8/12 ~. set_pkg. (Study Package) $400.00 Roof load_(Live) 45 Ibs Repro master (vellum) $560.00 Mam floor ceiling height 9' Autocad.DWG, Autocad.DXF $960.00 Upperfloor. ceiling height 8' Right Reading Reverse $50.00 Garage jsq feet) 458 sf Additional sets $40.00 Porch.(sq feet) 125 sf Materiallist $125.00 Tea oroier piara °~~if~~$ s~r€3~:e €~s:,d~: ~~9~~~, ~;aiB ~0O~~~6m4~a0~ gar ~0~~~~ 4~6$4k~ o°~rw J-IumePlanPinder.cum.r~1994-2004 Abbisoft [louse Plans. Inc. http://www.homeplanfinder.coxn/factsheet.asp?play x56038&ordercode=GHG55 6/8/2004 ~! House Plans and Duplex Home Plan Designs ~ Plan #89829 w4rvw.Homei'lan~ir)der.com Page 1 of 5 Plan fk 89829, Order Code GHG55 Tc~~~ /~E"Cheri ~n~r'~ ® Tall arched entry introduces a three bedroom design well suited for a corner lot. ® Raised foyer spills into the sunken living with corner positioned fireplace. ® Archway leads from the foyer to the dining room. ® Island kitchen, with abundant counter space and pantry, serves a carrousel breakfast bay. ® Large family room is open to the kitchen and breakfast room. ® Master bedroom offers a window seat, walk-in closet and bathroom with shower. ® Two additional bedrooms share a main bathroom with soaking tub. hiving area(~q f#) ~®®rras F®~sn~a~pn~ ®rd~rin~ irsf® Main: 1613 Bedrooms: 3 basement Plan can be c~s~®rraiaea~ Total: 1613 Full baths: 2 crawlspace Prio~~ Half baths: 0 Width:40'0" Order Code:GHG55 Car stalls: 2 Depth:56'6" S2ra~er ~l' The "living area" square footage is for the finished spa ce of the home. if'3E$s;eC°k~F3 D2^€iif?n$33a,a Roof frame Wall. thickness Maximum. roof height Roof pitch (front to back) Roofpitch (side to side) Roof load (Live) Roof load (Dead) °Ys S? aw G'S<:~P,i~) Prices in USA dollars Stickliruss 8_set pkg.. (Recommended) 2x6 4 set pkg., (Min. construction pkg) 20' 4" 1 set. pkg. (Study Package) 712 Repro. master (vellum) 712 Autocad.DWG, Autocad.DXF 32 Ibs Right Reading Reverse t01bs Additional sets Material list 5615.00 5575.00 5530.00 5800.00 5900.00 5145.00 555.00 $75.00 h c~ trf•der piers ~8~~2~ order rode: i~t-~fa~,a, r;aii 800-~~ ~~~~~~ €~r A9~•~~`~~,~~44 www.Flomel'lan Pindcr.com ~w 199d-2004 Abbisoft I-lousc Plans. Inc. http://www.homeplanfinder.com/factsheet.asp?plar~9829&ordercode=GHG55 6/8/2004 ~, d House Plans and Duplex Home Plan Designs ~ flan #89933 www.Homel~lanFincler.corrt Page I of 7 Plan # 89933, Order Code GHG55 Sweeping ~:t~rue~i S~:aircase ® Angled entry opens to a vaulted foyer with sweeping curved staircase; plant ledge Tines the railed gallery which views the foyer below. ® Foyer spills to the sunken living room tall palladian window accents the living room's vaulted ceilil o Graceful archway framed by decorative pillars introduce the trayed ceiling dining room. ® Efficient U-shaped kitchen is open to a sunny breakfast bay which has abuilt-in desk and access ' the rear patio. ® Master bedroom boasts a tray ceiling, walk-in closet and bathroom with whirlpool spa, his and he vanity and shower. ® Second bedroom has a private balcony and shares a main bathroom with the third bedroom. ® Media room offers an optional wall closet and may be used as an extra bedroom or guest room. diving ar~a(sq f&) Rooms ~czaAS~d~Biieans ®rdering info Main: 1416 Bedrooms: 3-5 basement Plan can be ~an~tn¢~i~eel ................... . Upper: 1206 Full baths: 3 crawlspace ~ri~~~ Total: 2622 Half baths: 0 Width:40'0" Order Code:GHG55 Car stalls: 2 Depth:57'6" ®~~~a ' The "living area" square footage is for the finished space of the home i~~%%3S'=Z3 s,^.C; J.~': (i2t:3$?C.~tSSD?i5 >'^Iu r; ~- C?S~~2jS; Prices in USH dollars fSa76JM3 n': Roof frame Truss 8 setpkg, (Recommended) 5710.00 Wall thickness 2x6 4 set pkg. (Min. construction pkg) 5665.00 Maximum roof height 2T 6" 1 setpkg. (Study Package) 5620.00 Roof pitch (front to back) 7/12 Repro. master (vellum) 5935.00 Roof pitch (side to side) 7f72 iVli«ored Reverse 555.00 Roof load (live) 32 Ibs Additional sets 555.00 Roof load (Dead) 10 Ibs Material list 575.00 T ~ o~~~t• ~alara #~9~;~~ or~~;r ~od~. ~;1~$~; ~~aii ~t?fl.~-I~e~..~r~t~~ tas• ~EI~~~7~~6844 ~aw~a.tiomePtanPinder.can ;S= I I94-20(M Abhiso ft House Plans. Lic. http://www.homeplanfinder.com/factsheet.asp?p1a~89933&ordercode=GHG55 6/8/2004 i~ House Plans and Duplex Home Plan Designs (Plan #89895 WWw.FiomePianFinder.col~rl I I I ~~ I ~~ I 11 L' i - L r ilf J ~. ~,. Page 1 0l' b ._.._., rte, t .. y'i:%h Plan # 89895. Order Code GHG55 ~p~cio(~s i..iving ~~~ce ® Spaciousness is enhanced throughout the living, dining room and foyer by the high vaulted ceilinc and open floor plan. e Open end fireplace and planter ledge adorn the living room. ® Gourmet kitchen offers awalk-in pantry, spacious angled counter and sunny breakfast room. ® Family room has warming fireplace and sliding glass access to the rear garden. ® Den, positioned close to a full bath, can easily double as an extra bedroom or guest room. e Master bedroom boasts a vaulted dormer window seat, roomy walk-in closet and bathroom with raised spa and twin vanity. Living area~~q fk~ &Zo®rn~ ~~~r~d~~~~n~ ®rdering inf® Main: 1195 Bedrooms: 3-4 basement Plan can be caast~_m_~s€9 Upper: 893 Full baths: 3 crawlspace Pries Total: 2088 Half baths: 0 Width:38'-59' Order Code:GHG55 Car stalls: 2-3 Depth:57'10" ®reler kl" The "living area" square footage is for the finished space of the home ,.v'SS:.&1,e~:tt3rf S?J.,,.,.........'"s"s f?;±e~ .c;e. `~2:f=` ~,?2fs~; Prices in USA dollars l1;'1: s,.s'I$ Roof frame Sticklrruss 8 setpkg. (Recommended) 5660.00 WaII thickness 2x6 4 setpkg. (Min. construction pkg) 5620.00 Maximum roof height 25' 1 set. pkg. (Study Package) 5575.00 Roof pitch (front to back) 6/12 Repro mister (vellum) 5870.00 Roof pitch (side to side) 6/12 Mirrored. Reverse 555.00 Roof load (Live) 32 Ibs Additional sets 555.00 Roof Ipad (Dead) 10 Ibs Material list 575.00 T~ s?t° nix ~Sia~ ~°•~~;~~ ~ o~•~~r ~P~ri„~. ~~~~~, ohi>I ~Q~a-w~ a-463 sir 3Q~-~7~-~~~Ed www.l InmePlanFinder.com k--, 199<I-2009 Abbisoft house Plans. Inc. http://www.homeplanfnder.com/factsheet.asp?p1a~~89895&ordercode=GHG55 6/8/2004 SNOWY BUTTE MEADOWS 372W 10 D D (T. L. 200) & 372W 10 D B (T. L. 9100, 9200 & 9400) O 0 ^ o _. 372W 7 ODD i• ,i' T. L. 200 372W10DD ~~ T.L. 100 I I T.L. 101 372W 10D6 FENCE TO BE REMAIN T.L. 9300 HOUSE TO REMAIN wWw w w w w w >aoo' c o w '' 372W10D6 T.L. 9400 TREE TO BUILDING i0 BE REMAIN REMOVED R FENCE TO BE~ REMOVED T.L. 9200 -~ TREES TO BE --. 5 REMOVED J VINYL FENCE i0 BE REMOVED & RELOCATED 70 BACK OF PROPERTY SNOWY BUTTE LANE r-- T.L. 91 OD ING TO BE cRHPHIC SCALE ~~~i LEGEND FOR HOUSE W ~ WINDOW C = CMAGE D = DDDR WOODEN FENCE TO REMAIN T.L. 9000 T.L. 8900 c w w v w w D w -BUILDING TO BE REMOVED WOODEN FENCE TO REMAIN T.L. 8800 HOUSE TO STAY z o~ 2Y ~ 4 Z a p 0 ~rn 0~ U z ¢ r ~,o$ gp^ o~f~ O WONT 3NW° o~~- ~~Fg Wm~~ ~NW~ 0 = m ~ ~ }y r Z >F'F Z>X~ (A~Wp d W z~` b~~ i ~~ i r '° i i ~~~~ July 6`~, 2004 Snowy Butte Meadows 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 (BCVSA). 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 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. Development Plans -Required Information Review of public improvement plans is initiated by the submittal of 3 sets of plans that are at least 95% complete. The plans shall include those of other agencies such as BCVSA or Jackson County Roads Department. 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. Public 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 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). Snowy Butte Meadows -Plans 1. 'T'hree sets of plans at 95% complete stage are to be submitted for review by the Public 31 July 6`h, 2004 Snowy Butte Meadows 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. 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 the final plat application is processed. Snowy Butte Meadows -Protection of Existing Facilities The locations of existing facilities shall be shown on all applicable construction drawings for Public Works projects as follows: 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. Snowy Butte Meadows -Water Connection 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 of the City water system. All requirements of the Oregon State 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 Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific information regarding the design and construction of water system related components. 32 July 6°', 2004 Snowy IIutte Meadows Showy Butte Meadows -Streets The Developers engineer should be aware that certain alternate street standards for the Transit Oriented District and Transit Oriented Corridor might apply to the design and construction of streets in specific areas of the City. These alternate standards are fully described in the Central Point TOD Design Requirements and Guidelines. 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 Oregon Deparhnent 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. 2. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific information regarding the design and construction of street related components. Snowy Butte Meadows - Stortrt 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 annexed 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 States COE and consistent with APWA Storm Water Phase II requirements. 2. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted 33 July 6`h, 2004 Snowy Butte Meadows for specific information regarding the design and construction of storm drain related components. In the interest of storm water quality management. The City of Central Point Public Works Department would encourage the developer's engineer to implement best management practices in relation to the proposed developments storm water infrastructure. Snowy Butte Meadows -Required Submittals 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 maybe required by other agencies, including, but not limited to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) approval for storm drain connection and easement, landscape berms, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), affected irrigation districts, Bear Creak Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and Jackson County Road and Park Services Department (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 by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's Engineer to the City Public Works Department for approval prior to installation. 34 a ~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF RiPORT APPLICANT: Name: SNOWY BUTTE MEADOWS Location: Snowy Butte Lane and Virginia Drive City: CENTRAL POINT State: OR. Zip code: 97502 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Planning file no. 04029- Private 18 lot subdivision BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: 1. Applicant, agent and contractors must comply with all current State of Oregon adopted codes. 2. If a private storm drain system is proposed it must be reviewed by the Central Point Plumbing department. 3. Any private street lighting must be reviewed by the Central Point Electrical Department. 4. Provide the building department with a Geotechnical report as required by OSSC 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 encounter4ed. 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 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. Developer and/or contractor shall comply with OSSC chapter 18 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 practice. 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 Official shall be submitted before a building permit will be issued. 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. 35 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF RF,PORT page 2 -Snowy Butte Meadows 6. 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 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 8.24.120. This is not a plan review. This report is preliminary and compiled solely for use by the Central Point Planning Department for use in preparing the Planning Department staff report. Central Poipt Building Department By: Dated: June 18, 2004 nedetti 36 ATTACHMEN'T' J PLANNING T)EPARTMT~NT ItECC3MMENDTaT) CQNT)ITIC}NS QTi APPRt3VAL 1. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit to the City a copy ofthe proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions ACC&Rs} for Snowy Butte Meadows PUD within one year's time, or September '7, X005. 2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements imposed by affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the developmcnt of the Snowy Butte Meadows PUI~. Evidence of such compliance shall be submitted to the City prior to final plat approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the development and construction of the Snowy Butte Meadows PUD 1~Cpchsllcity widelAlanning~04{}29.doc ~~ ~~~2~~~~e4 1~:~s cc~ .. June 2~}, ~0~4 ~~ ~ ~~~ 4 9 ~~~~ ~ ~~~ Laratic~zx: 7:~8 West Vz~as tta~ad, Ce~stral Faint - ~iaing.A.ddress: ~'Q. fox 31.00, Centzal paiz7~t,C3F2.97502-{}t)D.~ 'iel. (541.} Gds-63U0 ar (5Ai) 779-41ti4 i~.A~ (~~€1} 664-7~t71 ivivvr_RVSS.us ~,ex~ Gerschler l~`,A.~ G64-63 8A~ City o~'Central Pt~ixtt Planning L1e~artment 155 South Second Sheet Central Point, Oregon 9"752 Re: Snc~~vy Bute N.~eadows, Fide #04029 Dear den, There is an ~ inch sewer uaain can ~nc~wy Butte La~ae .nd it's c~,tension which t~~aix~ated a~pro~iznately 30~ feet ~o~ ot" Beall Lane. 't'his sewer main has adequate capaczty 1_~ serve the pro~ased development. The plazas do nc~t clearly indicate where the ~rc~~ject is, otlaex Haan that it is pn Snowy Butte sane. ~ carp. prr~vide ;mare speci~ZC in~'~~snatic~n on sewer; availability with a betfier idea o~whexe the project is located. S~cerely, ~~ Carl Tappert T,~zs'~xict Engineer ~:1T7~.`~"'.A.~AGENQ~S~C~~TT~`TIPLAT~ThIGiSU.]~D~IS~Tt~~T1£14~29r~~;'C}~V'S~BUTTE,L'-QC 38 PLI~III~I~ ~~PA~t'~'N~~I~T STAFIC` R~PC~I~T li~~~T~I~IG D.t~.T~; September 7, 2004 Tom: Central Point Planning Commission 'R~l~: l~.en Gerschler, Community Planner S CT~,~~CT: Public Hearing - To consider a tentative plan fora 3 lot land partition behind the home at 4601 Freeman Road {372W11BA Tax Lot 1400. lica~tl ®wner. Guy and Gloria Castellano 2869 Pennington Drive Medford, Oregon 9'7504 Agent: Dan Castellano 2869 Pennington Drive Medford, Oregon 97504 Summa~-y: The applicant has submitted a development proposal to subdivide 0.50 acres of land into 3 residential lots. This tentative plan is located within a R-1-6, Residential Single Family zone. Autharit~ CPMC 1..24.(}50 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Tentative Plan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Appli+cabie I.awt CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. Tentative Plans CPMC 16.36.01.0 et seq. Major and Minor Land Partitions CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. Residential Single Family District CPMC 17.60.010 et seq. Special Setbacl~ Requirements )Discussian~ The applicants, Guy and Gloria Castellano are requesting that a 0,50 acre parcel at 460 Freeman Road be partitioned into 3 separate parcels {Attachment A). CPMC 17.20 requires that lots have a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. These area requirements can be met by the applicant provided that the Planning Commission allow the applicants to use a 20 foot wide shared access easement that is located along the northerly lot line of the parent parcel. The shared access easement would be considered as lacing part of proposed parcel 2 but all three parcels would use the easement. ~9 ~ r ~~a~`I )r";i;()1711(1('11~.~;i 1}lclt ~~l(''I~~£!(iiltllr? t,t)I1i1T11 til(~il [cl~i.`. r;?13e f~~~hfw ~C)~~O1~V1T1`r ~?%fTt)il`;'. - ,. .-.,, ~. s~L~(.l~l~ ~~~i1.?~i?lit)11 i~t),~~ ~1~71~id>ti'i?lr' [}i(' ; i;i,~<ll?VC, ~,'lillf)1 r.;f,'tlCi l~c3t[l;li.i(1 t)I -? Tax Lc~t 14~Ji~ W~!t~~LCt iv the recoz?l~l~i:~~li~~~ (:c,;tciiizara:> c~? ai~i)rc)~ ai {;~2l~~ch1~?~rlt:~ Cr anc~ ~}> car T~ur~y t1[~., ;~1°c~pc~se{l T< <1~<~fiiue NCin~ r ~ . ~ it i'~)1 ~iii~)?~; i~r ~. GC)?lii±"tl.t~ }1eTeV1e ()ftilc Lt;il~a~]'~.'t~ ~,11r1r)i:° ~.,i] ICa I'v.i iti?1 +i ?Itc~ ~1tiC;S`e~2t}il c~fthe i....~}~~.~.~.~ S ~ i i ~Tl. .>a~ ~. I~i)t?c'(, of I'tl~:>iicllc:;;~ri.~ ~'l~>r~nii74J i)~,t~aru~~~rit }~r:;c o~711nc1~il~(1 ~'(,~. ICi :~ ~~ ~-~f.~~h~~rova~ E. Cc~~?lrr~c,~~l~;(~?-c)rtl(Z~"•',,~~]~~Siiic(l'~~?tl~i)c]-3~tnd.~acks~+nCc~untyTt.o~:dstF'ar~s t1CPCFI~ 1lC"~I'i'"~' W1I~F1'[' I .;~'~. ti i1 C;',f~gQ33.l~t,~C ~ ~. TENTAfiI~.ts .LA.N.I? PA.Rfilfil4N PLA fi Loaafed in fke N.1f'. IJf of Sec 1~ T.3?~, i~27Y alrY. ASH srRCEr City of Gents! F'olnt Jea&a~n Couzxfy, Oref7ox~. suaJECr ~ PROAER7Y crzwe smEri- .,~ ~ ausv araErr YlGtN17Y AtAP N07 TO SCALE ~ ~~ 11 f cFrre7rAt A+orEs _~ ~ r' cpxtnctas a-r-a .t'8t31FT~S'1d f(J(tndNS ~ mrAL ~ - x£u£ sv. Fr. M ois .~ ~ Hraaam at' aesx>.<ansu cots ~ s avEraec~ eor srzs - rrtt sp rr &Sr5 OE BEAR£NCS CEN7ERL£NE OF f7iE'EMAN ROAD PER SURVEY N0. J7820. ELEVAnON AC7t1}1: FEA{A RM2 AS SHOWN ON CENTRAL AO£NF RRM PRNEL ~ j4t0042 t700tG. EFFEGiiYE OA7E .IANLARY £4, 7382. ~` C7 3 ~' rs as 3a ! a as rH Y o ~ CEt~AR STREET REO1S£EREO TEN7AnVE AAR£TflON PLAT ++~r :ti +~_+ ~" sav3a xo w ..... ...". -. '- "- .,". 57tus ~ `"" - PROFESSIONAL 372prrW£T8A TL£400 s~ _~. LANb SURVEYOR ____WW cn.zn.~ ~ ~ € rYR AfEOFORA ~R 975R4VEN£tE. SL+FI£ L ~av*', ~rr fa acrcr sr. 198R ,outs ~ xmas L.J. FRIAR k A550pA7E$ P.C. xamna~ a m~'eem:.rae sw~~r~~o n was xW: wrov„ RFN&NN. WSE a-so-as S{! 7 -YAY Rt (t'ji tl. fAAa R lESJatg1; C,G YOW ,~y $h601 7 01 1. Ee6939~55`w x24.At etas "` SiiAREO ACCESS EAS£NEH FdR PA@CELS 1 k 2 k PUE € g - mm~~~ ~ NS 3936W ia0 57 ~ 1a ' ~ ='p AscEL 2 ~ AAaG s I ,~ PAftCE{, 1 7 3 Sa FT ~ Eax7 S F7 eWt Sa FT ~ `"7 ~ tar n ~ s E ' N must tx1+ ~ to g ~ 7O &431 5.79 4x9.7 SS936~3a`W R29.iG A'lC"I'A~HMENT ~ P~.ANN1rN~ DEPAR"ll'MENT CONDIi'~'~~N~ ~JF AI'IP~.~?VAIL 1. The approval of the Tentative Plan shall expire in ono year on ~eptezxxber '7, 2~U5 unless an application for final plat or extension has been received. by the City. 2. The project must corr~ply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. ~1CPCNSItCTTY WIF?E1PL~NP~II~C~1o~o33.r)OG ~J~ Caste ano M ino~r and Partition ~1 t o~ ~''~.~ t~~ 1 Palms ~ tf ~ P.~AN..IVIN~ .L1.,~'PA RTML'.N~T Tom T~umPl~rey, ATOP Tlanning T~irector Ken Gerschler Community T'lanner T~avid ATvord Community Planner T~ave Arkens G1S `Technician Visa Dorgan Planning Secretary notice a-f I1~Ieeting Date of 1`~otice; August 1~, 2fl44 Meeting Date: Tune: Place: NATURE ©F MEETING Septerr~ber '7, 2004 7:00 p.xn. {Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a minor land partition application. that would create a total of 3 parcels. The subject parcel is in the R-1-6, Residential Single Family and is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as being Map 37 2W 1 IBA, Tax Lot 1400. The property is located on the west side of Freeman Road {464 Freeman Road}, north of Cedar Street and south of Ash Street. The Central Point Planning Commission will review the minor land partition application to determine if all of the requirements of the Central Point 1Vlunicipal Code can be met. If the Cor~unission determines that the application meets the City's standards, a tentative approval could be issued, subject to conditions of approval. Pursuant to (JRS 19'~.'~63 {3) {e), failure to raise an issue during this hearing, in person or in writing, or failure to raise an issue 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, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CI3APTER 215 REQUIRES TRAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDET) TO TIIE PURCHASER This notice is being mailed to property owners within a 204 foot radius of subject property. CRITERIA FCIR DECISIC}N The requirements for miner land partition review are set forth in Chapters 16 & 17 of the Central Paint Municipal Code, relating to General Information and conditions on the application approval, PUBLIC C(7MMENTS 1. Any person interested in commenting on the above_mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close ofthe meeting scheduled far Tuesday, September'7, 20{}4. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Paint, DR 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, C}regon. Copies of the same are available at IS cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at {541) 664-3321 ext. 292. SUMMARY QF PRt'3CEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the application and technical staffreports. The Commission, at their discretion, may decide to hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. If allowed, 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 minor land partition as submitted. City regulations provide that the Central Paint City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. 155 South Second Street Central Point, © 7502 ~ (541 664-3321 ®Fax: {541) 664-6384 ~8~ 3~'20~i4 ~~:26 826456~a JCFD~ B~fS C]FC PAGE ~1l~2 A~.tn: men GerscbleX Planner ~aC~CSC~n Caun~jt ~~~°+~ I~is~ri Nt~ S 3 3 3 Aga-~~ Road V~l~i~e Cif C~~ ~ 97~t~3-.C~?'S Cs~~.~ $z~-7xo~ ~vmice~ ~5~-~.~ ~z~^~5s6 ~~Fa~c Project: Cas~ellax~a ~'a~tition # t14p33 ~ ~~ ~~~~a • ~~~ ~ff ~'i~re P#istx~ict #3 Cvxx~-;xa.ents; ,F~ approved hzm around would better serve tb~7"ts pzojes located at lot #1. The dz'stax~.ce a~travel lxt tb.e 2ti ~o©t d~.ve lane appears to exceed ~5 feet. The ~~ could be incorpoxated ix~ the d.~veway en.~rances to lot ~. ~ 2 as drawn. A residential spri~~er system in house #1 may eli~at~ tie ~~ at`ound re~uuireznec~.t. ~lE'as~ Gall l~ydll h3V8 Qll~s1~QS1S. ~,~~~oT~ ~~ ~ 1~eputty Pi~'e lVlaxshal 2- 4~ August ~, 2004 08f ~4/~~04 ~4: 1 f ~~ ~ ,A,ugust 4, 2(}x}4 541€aEiEa41 f'1 f'1 t~lt~ rHtaC. ezzJ erz l..ocation: 138 wit tr~as P.o~d> Cenbr~at Point - M~i1.ia8 Ad~fress: P.o, l6ox. 313i}, C.entrat Point,0~'. 975Q'2-Cid{i5 'i'e1. {54.1) 6fi4-63{4 ~sr (541}?79-41A4 P~.~ 4541? 664-717] www.tzvS~.ns ~~ Gerschler l~~ 664-6384 City a£ Cerkt~al, Point Planning bepa~aezzt 15S youth Second Stxeet Central Point, C}xegozt 97502 X2e. Caste~,ano Partition, File # 04t?33~~'~' i~e~r ~ozt, RVS does not have any records o£how the existing h©use can Parcel 3 is s~zv~d by sa~itaz'y sewer. There is no sewer main wzthin l~`zeen~ala Road at this location.. We suspect that there is a service lateral which extends either to Cedar Street vz to .A.sb. Stxeet. ~ either case the service does not ~.eet cutrrent standards for sewer service, ~ a cox~ditio~ of approval ;for the proposed Partition the existing sewer service should be improved to meet ctuxent standards. Se~vex sexvice to kaxcels 1. az~d 2 ~nnst be constructed ~ accoxdarice with R,VS standards. This will likely require name form of main line canstructio~. and may regnire acquisition of easements acxoss ~,eighbarirzg properties. Feel .free to call me at 664-5300 if you have any fix~ther questions. Sincerely, --~"~~~ Carl Tappert, P.E. District Engineer ~. ~ - ~/w ~.:1't~ATA~A.GENCIE~ICE~dTI.''~'l~E'~..A:3.~tG1PAR'T~TIC33~1C~~fl33 -C.~S.STEI..L.~.NQ.U CSC 47 ~8I3~2~~4 X2;35 1541776295 ~7ACKSL71~ Gtv7U1~~"`f RF'~ t'~1~E i~11~1 ~=~ = JACKSON COUNTY x~u~s JLtly ~~z ~~}~~ attention: Tam Nurnphrey City of Central Point Planning 'I55 South Secand Strew Central Point, 4F~. 975Q2 RE: Partitiar~ Gaff Freeman Road K acounty-maintained read. Planning File: Q~t~33. Qear Mr. Humphrey: Roads Erie ~`tieancycr, P~ TYOffiC &~'}sve?aprrteitt ~n~inc~er 20[7 Rntelnpe Rg9d W hiEe ct#y, C7F2 97"x03 P~'c011~: {544) 77A-6230 Fix X541) 77Q-E~295 niameyett~jeckr~ma~un tyr.ar~ v~4t^ri.jack~nncnunfy.~r~ Thank you for the app©rtunity to comment an this application fora 3-Parcel Partitian off' Freeman Road. Roads and Parks has the fallowing cornrnents: '1. UVhen developed, the applicant shall submit cpnstructi©n drawings to Jackson County Reads and Parks and obtain county permits if required. We recommend na direct access to Freeman Road. If y©u haue any questions or need further information feel free to cal( me at 774~6~3fl. Sir~c rely, Eric Niemeyer, P~ 'Traffic & development Engineer t:t~r~gineerin~v~~~r~Eopmenttc~~'~~s~ct~~€~T~o4o33.wpd 48 ~eebe ~oods, prase ~men~ment to Previous ~} ~pp~rove~ p U D Y'~x a i ~ °a` k;3a4~" ,u` t"Ill1':Li i'~Ullit t'~;Illllit;r~?y l.,:U~.l ?3 i~;iC)I1 i T~r~ ~111rr1~)I~rry;11C;~', COtliillilrl~.~! I7c.1 t1(>+;r>>cllt ~i~~i~`~ct~rr ~.I1 ~ . '~~`.Gz)rl(1}tit)r~r11 i J:~~:. ~i°i:,r(:rti . c 1'Irir;~ ,rtttl l'l~ilrrlc~1 TTl;it f~cvc~lo~>i;r(°rlt ii~~ ;il~lg°i~~~~lr ,8~~ ~ ~ i21~ i[l, ~,~~ nt l i -_,_„_, __.-_, ~.~}. )gyp ~~ I _. _ --. ~r ~~:~~, 1 ___ __ ~ J ~- t?(~l'ciOil c~.Ic,r~,lt~r I_at'~Ot1 ;,-~~ - ------ .. _ 1~'CIO Il~lcln'ich 1~Or3.(l, -- ..... - ..._.. ~i.',~-'~~~' ~1$l~! 1 ~)l()11~ Lek :~.*r5()CI~~C'S~ ~.irC~. ` f(lti ~,eliYl.i:'Cl' ,-~li;i]11C- ~~"t)(T('E"~: R~~~r,~ ~ ~_p~t,~c)q~% 7 2~,~'i l 1 C'E~ ''a~ Lt'~t 2t10 - (}.~ Acres ~~Br~i~~;}_o. -, F~.~c'cz~iirll "I ~~;xt~-~amilyl:~~strict ~,", l t7C ;t{7~?ll(.'tllll 1]~r~, tir1151-i~iliL.'il 'v<'1Y1pL1S 1~iCi(f USA ?j?'})11C,1IIli)?l~ ?`c"7 t11'11CI1C~ ~' ;!)'i;i%I~~1~5V 1(?~lt't1t'C~ ~~r-'iil]ilrlil.!'j !}C'~``iaQ}?17~L,1r1 1)11Ci 1{)r' it 1'~'S1C}C'I"lir~rl 1"7~ it7liCi? Ct)1"111Y111t77t~,% S[?Cl Sll[~Li'i4'1S;QY1 1C1~(3Cy'i~ t.1i CC}?L' ~'~!'' ~Ot~S, l,l~e ~?'?1i`ili}`:[1C;1~ iliCi>vl1SCS ltlti OVC'1-i-l~ t1Cll 1tzC` i.ilCl ~1'(311U!ii;1i }lC <1C1~li~)Q1i U~ }>1'(` rnorc lc)ls icy hrin~ t11. ._ " ni.~n)?x~r' c)I ~itl<~I~ 1rr»i lv t,llit5 i;) tlt~ i?eZ ~lc)1)rr~c^r:t l,a ~? (~~ ;:c)r~r (?21, _. °~..t~1~Rrr~~~i~e4 CPL`~`~C 1,~ x.020 vests t~z~; }'Ia,~n,1t~ ~>~~11~(~.s:o;r ~`,'itir :)1; rrt~t}~orily [:7 E-cold a public ea,-ia~ end rY;rlt1C+1' <r {1C~t;~l.flCl Olt c ll}' ithp}1C11i101"1 }t)1' 211?t-CllllltllrV (li;l'~'}0}?t31~~,1 Z~?2t C1 C~r~ ~ el.iG71111114!U ;11?t.111S1t)il ~1~c'12'I iltli" 11 i:()ft(j;l()tisii lltii' 1?;~I`I1':,i ;1})~)}lt'<iilC~i1. ~'CUC{: Q1 t}1~' k)!Jllll(', 17~~t'ITI~~,'~':1 rti;~r err zicc;c).~n~~r tit it!r (.`I'1'1_t~ 1,2.ur~+J. (1 ~<:}~ ~crt ,1~. 'A i;: ~.s~'4~': ('{~1;1~ ~ . ~ {_1.1a r ~1 ~~ sef.~.- "1'[?(li !(i~;0 i'1~4'"1S ~1';~,'1{. ! 7.2-?.{)? () i;l eC~.- ~ ~" 1~~ti;t{ ,tti<il r1"'lb't)-{ lirl} 2StrlCt (:'1'ti'{R" 17.8.Oli"":? et sccl, i'i~:irlr~;;+: l_;~r?it l )~; ~':()?)t'~.~!rt ~':'~1~ 1'7.'7.010 et seg.- C'~)rlc;ili4>i~<{? 1 .~;e >',;rtlri_t 4 discussion: The City approved a preliminary develapznent plan far Beebe Woods in May 2{}03 and the fzrst of four final development plans (one per phase} has also been approved and is under construction. This proposal is an amendment to the original plan and adds Phase N which. further subdivides the Layton property. The agent far the applicants tCraig Mane & Associates) has prepared and submitted an extensive report which staff has reviewed and endorses tree Attachment B). The Commission is encouraged to read through the applicant's report to arrive at their canclusians. This is a straight- forward proposal and one that was actually contemplated during anginal discussions about Beebe Waads. There is not a lot far planning staff` to add without being redundant. Conditional Use Permit CPMC 3.7.28.030 lists Planned Unit Developments as a conditional use in the R-2, Residential Twa-Family Zoning Distract. Required Findings far a Conditional Ilse Permit ~`onditional uses require special consideration so that they may be properly located with respect to ... the zoning title and them- ef, feet on surrounding prvpertics. The Planning Commission in granting a Conditional Use Permit must find as follows: A. That the site far the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code. ^ The parcel for this proposed amendment has an area of 4.87 acres. The proposal is consistent with the Central Point R-2, Resfde~tial Two-Family zo~iag district requirements. and the Comprehensive Plan housing density for this area. ^ The applicant is creating S tax lots, increasing the overall number of lots in Beebe Woods to 147. The residential density for the R-2 coning district is a maximum of 12 units an acre. In this case the applicants could build up to 116 units. The proposal is targeting an owner occupied market, B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street ar highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffzc that is expected to be generated by the proposed use. ^ The lots will take their access from Live (7ak Loop, New trips are expected to disperse evenly between Brookdale Drive and 4akview Avenue. C. That the proposed i~se will have na significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. 50 ® The p~•oposed development if approved would provide a Tess ox• equally intense development to adjoining properties on the north and south. Single story, attached single fa~€niIy homes will border single family detached homes along the northern boundary. D. That the conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. ^ Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority confirms that sewer service can be provided to the site. The private street system is acceptable to Fire District #3. Planned Unit Development A preliminary development plan has been approved for this site and this is a simple amendment to that plan. An application for final development plan must be submitted within six months of this approval. CPMC 17.~8.t}IO states that the purpose ofplanned unit development {PUD} is to gain more effective use of open space, realize the advantages of large-scale site planning and the mixing of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation. This is achieved with this amendment. The proposed PUD amendment is a single family residential development and consists of five lots. lJach lot will be constructed with either a single family `attached' or a `detached' residence and each dwelling will provide adequate parking. There will be limited but sufficient on-street parking on within the development. Strict Convents, Codes, and Restrictions {CC&R's) will be written and enforced for the development by a Koine Owner's Association who will maintain common, areas, private streets anal the park. The Public ~V'orks Department has reviewed the preliminary development plan for compliance with the City's water, storm drain and transportation standards. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Size of `~'~T.1~ site A PUD shall be on a tract of land five acres or larger, except that a PUD may be on a tract of land more than one acre but less than five acres if the planning commission finds, upon a showing by the applicant, that a PUD is in the public interest because one or more of the following conditions exist. A. The property is adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of a planned unit development of similar design as that proposed and the developments -would complement each other with significant adverse impact on surrounding areas. ^ The site is adjacent to the Packwood Village PUD which is also zoned R~2 and includes attached single family, owner- occupied homes on smaller tax lots. 51 B. The property or its z~cighborhood has historical character or distinctive features that are important to the community and that could be protected or enhanced through use of a PLID; ^ The applicants are constructing residential homes within an existing residential neighborhood, The homes will be similar in design and architecture to the surrounding homes. The PUD will allow for single family dwellings to be constructed that would preserve the neighborhood character. C. The property is adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of a planned unit development of similar design as that proposed and developments would complement each other without signifzcant adverse impact on surrounding areas; ^ The project is adjacent to the Packwood pillage and Brookdale Gardens PUDs and will have similar lot size, house size, and architecture. D. The property is of irregular shape, with limited access, or has unusual dimensions or characteristics which would mare conventional development unreasonably difficult and expensive ^ The lots are part of an unusual configuration and an in~-fill redevelopment area. The lots are surrounded by a secondary arterial, an existing collector street and a private local street. Criteria to Grant ar .L>eny a P~T.~ In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from section I'7.68.C?40: A. That the development of a harrrzonious, integrated plan justifzes exceptions to the normal requirements of this title; ^ The applicant's preliminary development plan proposes 5 single family dwellings. The housing types will be consistent with the zoning district and developments to the north anal south but will differ from the single family, large lot dwellings to the east. B. The proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the City; ^ This proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals to the degree it ensures adequate housing will be provided; contributes to tlxe variety of housing offered and promotes higher density zoning. The project promotes alternative housing designs that will potentially minimize the need to expand the urban growth boundary by encouraging a higher density project near the downtown. Zoning code objectives can be met if recommended planning and public works conditions are satisfied. This type of development only a tentative plan review iii newer T4D sections of the Central Point Municipal Code. 2 C. The location, size, design anti operating characteristics of the PITD will have minitrzal adverse impact on the livability, value ar appropriate clevelapznent of the surrounding area; ^ The preliminary development plan is consistent with the zoning in the surrounding area. The proponents have stated that the development will pravrtle a quality living experience far C'etttral Pc~irrt residents that are presently underserved, D. That the proponents of the P~E..ID have demonstrated that they are financially able to carz'y out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months ofthe final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete said construction with a reasonable tune as determined by the Commission; ^ The applicants have a successful history of building homes in the valley and intend to start construction as soon as possible. E. That traff c congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan far proper entrances, exits, internal traffzc circulation and parking3 ^ All of the units will eventually access onto Brookdale Avenue and Hamriek flood, a secondary arterial, ar onto Oakview Avenue and Meadowbrook Irlrive which can handle the existing and proposed vehicle trips. F. The commercial development in a 1'UL~ is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate eomznercial facilities of the type proposed; ^ There is no commercial development proposed within this development. G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; ^ There is no industrial development proposed within this development. Il. The P7C.TU preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; ^ The preliminary development plan depicts private, 25 foot streets which allow for larger green areas, street trees, and internal walk ways, ~. The P~CJC7 will be compatible with the suz~raunding area; ^ Beebe Wood Village is compatible with the surrounding area to the degree it is innovative, oriented toward an owner-occupied market and provides a quality living experience, The development is similar in design, architecture, and lot size to Parkwood Village. This proposal is a simple amendment to Beebe Woods Village. 53 S. The PI..TD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land, ® The development will x•esult in a more efficient use of public services and will eventually encourage the t~se of walking paths and other alternative forms of transportation, Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the preliminary development pion (amendment) for Beebe Woods Village, 1. Adopt Resolution No.~, approving conditional use permit, preliminary development plan and PI.TD boundary expansion for Beebe Wood Village, Phase IV, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set fart in the staff reports; or 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit, preliminary development plan and PL.1D boundary expansion. for the Beebe Wood Village, Phase 1V based on findings of fact articulated by the Commission; or 3. Continue the review of the conditional use permit and preliminary development plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A, Notice ofPublic fearing B. Applicant's Staff Report C. Planning Department's Recommended Conditions of Approval 11Ck'CllsliCl`TY WID~I~-'LAN~I]~G144(?34.DOC J~~ s CI ty of Central Poln t .1~.L,.~NNIN~ I~.L'P~ I~~'.~.L'N~` Tazn Humphrey, ~ICP Planning l~irectar Ken. Gersc;h]er Cornrnunity Planner David Alvord Camrxaunity Planner Dave ~lrkens Gl~ 'Technician Lisa 1'vlorgan Planning secretary notice of ~1~Ieet~ng Date of Notice: Augusti ~.7, 24a4 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE C}F MEETING September 7, 2004 7:00 p.m. (Approximate} Central Point City 1-lall 1~5 South Second Street Central Point, C?regon Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a Planned Unit Development, Tentative Plan and Conditional use applications that would amend the previously approved Beebe Woods Planned Unit Development by including a 4`'~ phase near the northwest corner of the project. This proposed 4'h phase would add five additional lots to an adjacent tax lot and would not change any other elements of the oxiginal P.U.D. approval. The subject parcel is in the R-2, Residential Two Family District and is identified in the records of the .lackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W O1CB, Tax Lot 200. The properties are located on the east sick of l~-Iammrick Road X4460 Hammrick Road), north of East Pine Street and south of Silas Road. The Central Point Planning Commission will review the applications to determine if all of the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. If the Commission determines that the applications meet the City's standards, an approval for the 4~~' phase could be issued. This action is discussing whether the City should allow a 4''' phase to be added to the previously approved Beebe Woods Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission will not be discussing issues relating to the approval of the previous phases. Pursuant to {SRS 197.763 ~3} fie), failure to raise an issue during this hearing, in person or in writing, or failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the decision-makers and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preelud~~.ri appeal based on that issue. NfJT~CE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENH©LDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS C~IAPTER ZIS REQUIRES T~~AT 1F YOU RECEIVE rI'~:IZS NOTICE IT MUST I3E PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO TI-IE I'URCIIASER, This notice is being mailed to property owners within a 200 foot radius of subject property. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for the review of Planned Unit Developments, Tentative Plans and Conditional Uses are set forth in Chapters 16 & 1 ~ of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Information. and conditions on the application approval, PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 20(14. 2. Written comments pertaining to the proposed Phase IV of the Beebe Wood P.U.D. maybe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hali, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 9'7502. 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 e related to Phase IV of the Beebe Wood P.U.I). 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 Kali, 1.55 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at {541} 664-3321 ext. 292. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications and technical staff reports. The Commission, will hear testimony from the applicant, prapanents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony ar 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 applications as submitted. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about ail Planning Commission decisions. ~6 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 9'7502 ~ (541} 664-3321 +* Fax: (541} 664-6384 -U ' ~$~oa~~~_J_1J l ~ BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL. POINT STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF A PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT QF A REVISED PUD BOUNDARY FOR THE APPROVED BEEBE WOOD PUD, ON LAND OWNED BY ERMA AND CORDON LAYTON, LOCATED EAST OF HAMRICK ROAD AND NORTHWEST OF LIVE OAK LOOP IN THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON Galpin, LLC ; Applicant PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAV11 Apptlcants' Exhibit 1 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION Land use matters covered in this application package {entitlements for Beebe Wand Village a Planned Community} involve approximately 0.871 acres. The land, presently owned lay Erma and Gordon Layton, is located east off I~amz~ck, northwest of Live Oak Loop, north of Biddle Road and south of Beebe Road in the City of Central Point. Applicant Galpin, LLC has the written authorization by the owners of the property to seek approval by the City of Central Point for the following entitlements: ^ Planned Unit Development {PUD} Boundary Revisions r Conditional Use Permit ^ Tentative Plan for a Padlot Subdivision Development2 Specific authority exists in Oregon law to ale consolidated land use applications. Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes {ORS} 197.763, this application package was deemed complete under the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code {CPMC} at the time the applications were first subrriitted. ' The entire Beebe Woad PUD is approximately 9.65 (8.78 acres far the original Beebe Woad PUD + 0.87 acres for the subject property}. ~ Padlot develap~nent is governed by Central Paint Zoning Qrdinance {Zt7) 17.60.210, which provides that padlots are exempt from the lot area, width, depth, yard, setback, and lot coverage requirements. Craig A. Sfona & Associates. Ltd. ~ ~ Page 1 of 25 Juty 20tl4 Beebe Wood Planned Unit Developmen# Amendmen# Gity o€ Central Point, Oregon Gafpin, LLC: Applican# PRfl,~l~c-r 1NfiC3RNlt~-T1C31~1 The following background `information pertains to the this project. Project ~Iictrrity and History The property is located within the City of Central Paint" s ac.nawledged ~.lrban Grovrth Boundary on land located east off Ham~~ick Road, north of Biddle Road and south of Beebe Road. In 2003, the City of Central Point approved the project then called, Beebe l~ac~d a .Planned ~'amrnunit~. Since appt'c~val, applicant has slightly changed the nartae ref the project and it is no~v called, Beebe YVr~od Village a Planned ~`ornmunity {also called herein, Beebe Wood Village Planned Unit Development ar Beebe Wood PUD. Since approval, applicant has submitted improvement plans and construction of the infrastructure has been completed in some portions of the development. Applicant recently submitted a final subdivision plat for Phases I and ~ of the project, which is the southerly portion of the approved PUD. Final Plat approval was granted for Phase 1. Final Plat approval for Phase 2 is pending. Protect C)vervietnr Beebe Wood PUA Amendment will add and is intended to be a fourth phase of Beebe Wood PI_TD. Phase ~ will consist of 4 attached din clusters of two units} Single Family Dwellings and one detached single-family home on individual, all to be on individual lots that comprise 0.87 acres, a density of 5.74 units per acre. Applicant seeks here to amend the boundaries of the Beebe Wood PUD to include the subject property in the PUSS and make it part afPLTT) Phase 4. ^ The subject property is to be developed with four attached single-family dwellings and one detached single-family dwelling and these are to be developed as part of the already approved Beebe Wood PAD. Applicant intends that the san~ze design features that which were made conditions of the approval of Beebe Wood Pte, be established as part of this amendment. 'These include provisions for two-story buildings with no windows far those buildings that abut the Parkwoad Village development located north of the subject property. Noosing Housing: Proposed housing consists of site-built two story dwellings. Four of the dwellings are attached in clusters of two. There is one single family dwelling which already exists and it is intended to be preserved and placed on a separate lot. Lots vary in size from 2,1352 to 1.9,689 square feet. The attached dwellings will be constructed using azero-lot line configuration where a common wall of the units will be shared. The new attached dwellings Craig A. Stone & AssoaEates, t_#d. ~ Page 2 ,tuty ~oo~ Beebe Wood Planned i3nft Development Amendment City ai Central Paint, aregan Gaipin, LLC: Applicant era intended to be entry-level affordable housing. The existing home wilt remain. The new dwellings will be of two-story configuration. The existing borne is single story. The design of the dwellings wilt be contemporary architecture consistent with already approved phases of Beebe Waod PUD. Each dwelling will have a garage designed for two automobiles. The dwellings that border Parkwaod Village will be designed so that no windows will be on the second story portion of the buildings. Dwellings typical of those proposed, are shown in Exhibit ~. Typical dwelling lots are shown on the tentative plat map in Exhibit 4. Project Entry Ingress anal egress to Beebe Woad PUD, will not change as part of this application. Access will be from Qakview Avenue located at the northeast corner and at Brczokdale .Avenue located centrally on the south boundary of the PLID property. Access to the proposed new parcels will be Pram Live Qak Loop. l~lo direct access is proposed from I-Iamrick Road although the existing access serving the existing home is proposed to remain. Hamrick Road Project Eranfa~e Hamrick Road is improved slang the west boundary of the PI.TD properties with bike paths curbs and gutters. The existing vinyl fence will remain. The fencing wilt serve as visual screening and provide sound attenuation for the future residents of the subject PEA, ltehicuiar Circulation and Access The existing network of private streets will remain unchanged. The pxoperty will be served by a .fully gridded network ofprivate streets that will be constructed to the city's Transit Cariented Development ("T(~D"} standards for Courtyard Lanes. The streets will be 27 feet wide, which will accommodate two eight foot travel lanes and an eight foot parking strip. The remaining three feet will be dedicated to rolled curbs and gutters. Pedestrian Access The existing network of pedestrian paths will not change as part of the application. Pedestrian access will be provided by concrete walkways that traverse the conzrnon open space areas and that are intermixed throughout the development. fee, Exhibit 3. There will also be concrete paths fihat connect the driveways to the front entries of each dwelling. Sidewalks will be provided along the frontage of the subject property along Hamrick Road. RELEVANT SUBSTANTNE APPRQVAL CRITERIA The criteria governing the land use actions as described hereinabove for the R-2 Zoning district are set forth below: Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. ~ ~ Page ~ July 24©4 Beebe Wood Planned Unl# Development Amendment City of Central Point, Oregon Gaipin, LLC: Applicant A. When the spacing between main t7rrildings is Tess than the spacing which would be required between buildings developed under this rlaapter an separate parcels outside a PkJD. other design features shall provide; light. vc;ntilatiar~ anti other characteristics equivalent to that obtained from the SpaGirlg StcindarCts. E3. Buildinc}s. off-street ;~arkinc~ ar~cf loadir~q feaciiifies. open spaces, lar~dsc~pinc~ ancf screeninc3 shall conform to the specific, stt}nciarcls «f the zonirxi district within fifty te;et of t#7e baunclary liners of the development. C. The planning commission may approue !~€,ilding he:ic~hts greater than those nutt~orized by the zoning district. The applicant shall cfernonstrate than 1. The s€,bject buildinc~(s} will not be: within one hundred feet of abutting residential property: 2. The increase in height will reduce the prices of dwelling units offerecS for sale or rent: and That additional nat,aral open space will be preserved ar additional common recreational areas will be provided. C}. The buiEding coverage for any PI.JD shall not exceed that which is permitted for other construction in the zone. E. When a PUp design would require cxceptians to the regulations of the subdivision title. the planning commission may grant those conditions as part of tl~e Pk.1p. Tentative approval of the preliminary development plan of a Pl~D shall also constitute tentative approva! of a tentative p#an under Chapter 1.#(l it the materials are presented in the manner prescribed by subdivision title. '17.68.Og0 Accessary uses in a planned unit development B. Private ;'ark 17.b8.t t0 Common open space. A. Open areas may be accepted as common open space within a planned unit development ## these requirements are met: t. The location, shape, size and chaaracter of the common open space is suitable for the planned development; 2. The comrrton open space is appropriate 1 development, considering the PUD's size, the number and type of dwellings provided: ~ the scale and character of the planned unit density, expected population, topography and 3. Common open space will be improved for its intended use, although common open space containing natural buildings. structures and improvements in the common open space shall be appropriate to the uses proposed far the common open space; 4. The development schedule coordinates the #mprovemen# of the common open space and the consfructian of buildings and other structures in fhe common open space with the construction of residential dwell#ngs in the planned unit development: 5. if buildings, structures or other improverrrents are to be made in the common open space. the developer provides a bond ar other adequate assurance that the buitdings, str€rctures and other improvements have been camp#eted according to the cfevelapn7ent plan. f3. C.anci shown an the final development plan as common open spare shall be conveyed under one of the following options at planning co,~7missiar~ discretion: t. Ta a p€,blic agency which agrees to n}aintain the common open space and any buildings. structures or other improvements which have been placed on it; Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. ~ ~ Page ~ ,July 20L#4 Beebe Wand Planned unit Development Amendment Gity o€ Central Point, Oregon Galpin, LLG: Applicartf To an assocutian of owners or tencar)ts. created as a nonprofit corporation under tl-,e laws of the state. which shal# {;ciapt ansl imt)c>se articles of incorparatior) and bylaws and adapt and impose a cleclarr~tinn of covc:r~ants and restrictions an the common open space that is acceptable to tl)e planning earn{nissian r)s providing for the continuing care of the space. Such an assaciatior~ sl~al# br.. formed and c;or7tinued far the purl)ose of r3iaintaining the common open space. t~ommon open space not conveyed to a pzri.)IiC agency shall be in addition to anc} riot in lies, of thr; #anri dedicr~tiat~ ar ter: rrgr,ired in Gina;)ter 'I:~.2C3. C. Con7mon open space nay c>r-rly be 1)ut to rises spet;ifir:d in the fined deve#c~pment plan. No change of use allowed by amendmer7t may be; cor~siderect r~s a waiver of any of the covenants limiting the use of common open space areas. /ill ric}hts tc} c,r~tr]rcr~ tl~esc; covenants against zany use f)erE~ritted are expressly reserved. D. I# cornman open space is not conveyed to a public ac}envy. the covenants governing the use, improvement and maintenance c>f commnn open space steal! authorize the city to enforce their provisions. Cc~rlditiona! Use Permits The criteria governing the approval of Conditional Use Permits are set forth in Chapter 17.76.{J4~} and provide: 17.76.Q4{} Findings and conditions. The punning commission in granting a conditional use permit shall #ind as follows: A. That the site for ttae proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and #ot requirements of the subject zoning district and ail other provisions of this cads; B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate in size and condition to e#fectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use; C. That the proposed use will have na significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. do making this deterrr~inafiion, the commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements an the site.; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings and structures; wails and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs; D. That the establishment, maintenance ar operation a# the use applied far will comply with local, state ansl federal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety ar genera! welfare of persons residing or work]ng in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be defrin)ental ar injurious to the property and improven)ents in the neigi)harhoad ar to the general welfare of the community basest on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of this saction; E. That any conditions requires! for al)praval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and rrray include: 1. Adjustments to #at size or yard areas ras needed to best accommodate the proposed use: provided the lots ar yard areas conform to the stated minimum dimensions far the subject zoning district, unless a variance is also granted as provided for in Cf~apter 17.801. ~. Increasing street widths, modifications in street designs or aslditian of street signs or traffic signals to accommodate the traffic generated t)y the Imposed use. ?. Adjustments to off-street I)arking requirements in accordance with ar7y unique characteristics of the proposed use, -i. Regulation of paint of vehicular ir7c}ress send egress. Graig A. Stone & Associates, Lfd. ~ ~ Page S ,luly 2e04 Beebe Wood Planned Unit Development Amendment City of Centrat Point, Oregon Calpin, LLC: Applicant ~. Requiring 1ar~cfSCapinc{, irric{atian sysfen~s. tic}f~fir~c~ ar~el a f~ra~erty r~~~air~terianr;e I~rogran~, r?. Regina#ion of signs <}ncS thc;ir locos#ic~ns, Requiring fences. 1ae:rrs~s, walls. lar~cisCapin{t to ir~clucie trae:s and shrubs, Or other devices rsf organic, or artificirai cantposition fo eliminate ar reciue.~; the affects of noise, vibrations, odors. visual incomprstil~ility ar oti~er ur~rtesirable effects on surrounding prc7partic;s. t. Rear,#atian of lime of opera#ians for c,f~rtain types of uses if their operations nay advE,rsely affect privacy of sleep of pc,rsans rt;sidirsci nearE~y or athennlise conflict with afi~er' cor~smunity ar neighhorhaod functions. t). Establish a time f~eriod within whit#i ttae subjact land use must Eye developed, ! (). Requirement of a bond or other actequ;af~; assurance wi#hin a specified pariod of brae. I I. Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the pubiic health, safety and general welfare. 1' In consicier'rng an appeal of an application for a conditional use permit far a home occupation, the planninc} can~n~ission shall review the criteria listed in Section 17.6C1.19C1 {{ord. 1684 §72, 1993; flrd. 1615 ;5~. 2989: Qrd. 1533 §1 2984: (ord. 1436 §2{part}. 1981 }. IV EVIDENCE SUBMITTED 1NITH THE APP~.ICATIQNS --- Applicant has submitted the following evidence with these applications: Exhibit 1. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (this docurz~ent} Exhibit 2. PUS Plan Exhibit 3. Landscaping Plan Exhibit 4. Tentative Plan Exhibit 5. Aerial Photograph Exhibit 6. Zoning Map Exhibit 7. Typical Dwellings Renderings Exhibit 8. Approved Beebe Wood PUD Plan Exhibit 9. Completed Application Forms and Power of Attorney Craig A. Stone & Associates, L.td. ~ ~ Page ~ July 2004 Beebe Waal Planned Unit Development Amendment City of Centrat Point, Oregon Oalpin, LLC: Applicant V STIPULATIfINS tJF APPLICANT Applicant, Halpin, LLC, herewith offers the following agreed to stipulations that it anticipates will be appended, as conditions, to approval of the applications: 1. Utility Lines: Ail utility lines will be placed underground, except utility vaults, which will be placed above ground in the vicinity of the sidewalks as specified by Pacific Corporation {the regional supplier of electrical service}. 2. Street Trees: The type and general location of street trees will be consistent with the Landscape Plan {Exhibit 3}. 3. Lighting: Lighting will be installed to meet the requirements of City. 4, Signs: Applicant will apply separately for sign permits, pursuant to the Central Point Sign Code. 5. Dwelling Architecture: The architecture for the proposed dwellings is depicted in Exhibit 7. However, applicant herewith wishes to reserve the right to make architectural changes and the city will ensure that the same will comply with the city's applicable requirements when building permits for each dwelling or dwelling cluster are sought. The buildings bordering Packwood Village will not have windows on the second story portions of the building. f. Zero-Lot-Line Development: Applicant herewith wishes to place the single-family dwellings adjacent to one or both side property boundaries as zero-lot-line dwellings. 7. Timetable for Development: The construction of dwellings in Phase 4 will coincide with development of the infrastructure to serve Phase 4 of Beebe Woad PUD. A Final Plat has alxeady been recorded for Phase 1 and construction of dwellings within that area will occur in the upcoming months. A Final Plat application for phases two and three will be forthcoming in the next few months. After infrastructure is completed for phase four, a final plat will be filed with the city. 8. Landscaping Irrigation: All common area landscaping will be served by an automatic underground irrigation systern with sufficient backflow prevention devices. 9. Exterior Lighting: All exterior pole lighting shall be shrouded so as to prevent light from directly shining upon adjacent lands. 1 {l. Signs: Any project identification sign later proposed by applicant, will be sought under separate permit and comply with all sign regulations of the city. Vi Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. ~ J~' Page 8 July 2DCt4 Beebe Wood Planned Unit Develaprnent Amendment City of Cen#ral Point, Qregon Galpin, LLC: App€iCan# PRt~PC3SE© P1NI~INGS C}F FAC7 The Planning Commission finds the following facts to be true with respect to this matter. i. Uwnership and Authorization for Applications: The property is owned in fee simple by Gordon and Erma Layton. Gordan and Erma Layton have duly executed powers of attorney that enables Galpin, LLC, in its names, to seek and acquire the land use permits sought herein. The power of attorney also authorizes Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. to function as the authorized agent of Galpin, LLC. See, Exhibit 9. 2. Description, Size and Value; Lot Boundary Adjustment: 'The property is identified by the Jackson County Assessor as Tax Lot 200, on map 3'7-2W~OlCB. The property has approximately 0.8'7 acres. According to the records of the Jackson County Assessor, the property has a land value of $92,245, and improvement value of $1.4'7,St10. Tax Lot 2110 is partially developed with asingle-family dwelling. 3. Location: The subject property is located east off Hamrick Road, north of Live flak Loop and South ofBeebe Road in the corporate limits of Central Point, 4. Comprehensive Planring and Zoning: The subject PUp properties are designated Medium Density Residential - 12 UnitslAcre on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Tlae subject property is zoned Residential Two-Family (R-2}. The R-2 zone permits single- family dwellings. 5. Water Facilities and Services: There is an existing 12-inch water line within the Live Oak Loop private road common area and a 16Winch line within the Hamrick Road right-of~--way. The existing lines are owned and maintained by the City of Central Paint. Uses within the development will be connected to the municipal water supply via these service mains that will generally be within the private streets within the PUI~. The City of Central Paint purchases water for its municipal system from the Medford Water Commission. According to Medford Water Commission engineers, the Medford system presently serves a population of +/-50,000, including customers outside the corporate limits of the City. The present maximum daily use is 4~ million gallons per day (MGD}. The present source and distribution system has an existing capacity of 55.5 MGD. There is an additional water source capability of 35 MGI~ available. The present facilities are estimated by the Medford Water Utility to be adequate until Year 2050, 6. Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Services: Presently the subject property has direct access to existing 8-inch sewer line is located within the Hamrick Road rights-o£ way and a 5 inch sewer line is located within the Live Oak Loop private road common area, The sewer lines are awned and operated by the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (~`BCVSA"), Sewerage wastes are treated at the Medford Regional Water Reclamation Plant, which is awned and operated by the City of Medford. Uses within the development will be connected to BCVSA sanitary sewer lines. Craig A. Stone & Associa#es, Ltd. ~ ~ Page 8 Su{y 20t1A Beebe Wood Planned Unit tevelopment Arnendrnent City a€ Central Point, Oregan Galpin, LLC: Applican# According to Jim Kill of the Medford Engineering Department, sewage wastewater collected and transported by the Bear Creek Interceptor is -treated at the Medford Regional Vijater Reclamation Plant. Mr. Hill serves as the principal staff person in charge of operations at the regional plant which is located near Bybee Bridge where Table Rock Road crosses the Rogue River. The plant serves the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA} and the cities of Central Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix and Eagle Point. A portion of the service charges levied an customers are allocated to treatment costs. The Regional Rate Committee as established in the September 23, 1985 Regional Sewer Agreement is authorized to set treatment charges and rates for the regional system. The charges and rate structures are reviewed annually by the Regional Pate Committee, and rate adjustments are made as necessary. Systems development charges are allocated to plant expansion. Monthly service charges levied on customers are allocated to treatment costs, equipment repair and replacement, and plant upgrades to meet changing regulations, The regional treatment plant was constructed in 1969-197{1. The present average dry weather plant capacity is 20.0 million gallons per day {MGD}. The peak hydraulic capacity is 60 MCD. Plant capacity was doubled between years 1980-1990 through several incremental expansions. A treatment plant facilities plan, developed in 1992, established a capital improvement program to meet growth need to Year 2010. Average dry weather flow into the treatment plant was 13.2 MGD in 1988, increasing to 14. i MGD in 1994. Existing 1997 flows are anticipated to be approximately 18.0 MGI~. The population receiving sewer service in 1988 was ']7,4'5. Sewer connections since 1988 have increased the residential population served by sewers to approximately 94,000. The regional plant has a capacity for a population equivalent of approximately 115,000, including commercial and industrial flows. The population forecasts by consulting engineers Brown and Caldwell, including analysis of rural as well as urban population densities, estimate the ultimate population that the plant would serve at 190,800. 7. Storm Drainage. There is an existing 12 inch underground storm drainage pipe located in the common area of the private road Live C}ak Loop, The subject property gently slopes and drains from east to west. Storm waters from the impervious surfaces within the proposed PUD will be transported via underground pipes and diverted to the storm drainage line in Live flak Loop. prom there, storm waters flow in a southerly direction with ultimate discharge into Bear Creek. 8. Streets and Traffic: The following facts relate to nearby streets and traffic: A. Access: The property has two points of access. The subject property will have access out of the Beebe Wood PIJD from flakview Avenue to the East and Brookdale Avenue to the South. Internally, Live Oak Loop will serve the subject property. B. Street Ownership and Ciassifzcation: Meadowbrook Drive, flakview and Brookdale Avenues are City awned and maintained streets. Meadowbrook Drive is classified by the City of Central Point as a collector street. The City classifies CJakview anal Craig A. S#ane & Assacia#es, Ltd. ~ ~ page ~~ July 2004 Beebe Wood Planned Unl# Developrnen# Arnendrnen# City of Central paint, Oregon Ga3pin, LI.C: Applicant Broakdale Avenues as local streets. Live C3ak Loop and all other streets within the Beebe Wood PUD are privately owned and maintained. C. New Traf~e Loading: Based upon the source reference, Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers {5t'' edition) single-family dwellings produce traffic at the rate of 9.55 vehicle trips on an average weekday. With 4 additional housing units, this project will produce 38 new vehicle trips on an average weekday. Approximately 10 percent of these, or 4 trips will occur during the p.m. peak hour. At its approval, the Beebe Wood PUD was estimated to produce 974 vehicle trips on an average weekday. The total combined vehicle trips, including those for Phase 4, is 1,412 trips. 9. Electricity; Natural {Gas; Telephone; CATV; Cellular Telephone; The subject property is served in adequate capacity by Pacific Corporation {electricity}, Avista Utilities, Inc. {natural gas}, U.S. West {telephone} and CATV. 10. Solid Waste Disposal; Recycling: Solid waste collection, storage and recycling is provided by franchise through Rogue Disposal and Recycling, Inc. 11. Topography: The subject territory is nearly level with a slight grade that drains the property from east to west. 12. Permitted and Proposed Land Uses: The proposed residential uses within the R-2 zone includes five single family attached homes and one single family detached home. The single-family homes will be constructed on individual lots, each having between, 2,452 to 19,6$9 square feet. l3. Dwelling Density: Maximum density under the present zoning designation of R-2 is 12 dwelling units per gross acre. At maximum permitted density, the 0.8'7 acre subject property could be developed with 14 dwelling units. The proposed development has 5 total housing units, for a total density of or 5.'74 units per acre. One of the housing units, the single family dwelling now exists. 14. Operating Characteristics of the PUD: The following individual uses within the Planned Unit Development will have the operating characteristics noted below; The single family dwellings are intended by applicant to be owner-occupied and will operate as will any other housing unit, the characteristics of which is a rr~atter of common knowledge. l.S. Value and Appropriate Development: It is herewith the testimony of applicant's agent, Craig Stone, that the based upon the location, size and design of the PUD, that it will produce no greater than minimal adverse impacts upon the value of land and improvements s 107 residential single family units x 9.55 = 1021 ADT and traffic frorrz the existing single family dwelling is included in this figure. Cra"rg A. Sfone & Associates, Lfd. ~ ~ page ~ g Juty 2009 Beebe Waod Planned Unit DeveEopment Amendment City of Central tao'sn#. aregnn Galpin, t.LC: Applican# and appropriate development in the abutting a~xd surrounding area. Stone's conclusions are based upon the following considerations: • The PUD proposes appropriate screening in the form of fencing and/or fencing and landscaping around the west and earth perimeter, ^ Dwellings along the earth boundary, adjacent to an existing single-family residential subdivision (Parkwoad Village}, will all be of two-story homes designed so that no windows are allowed on the second story of the dwellings. • The subject property has a circulation system that is safe, adequate and convenient. ^ There is nothing about the PUD and the uses proposed which produce any adverse impacts other than thaw that are common and customary to urban development. While this project will produce additional traffic loading, the same is an anticipated and necessary product afplanned urbanization. ] 6. Surrounding Land Uses and Development: Based upon Exhibits S and ~, the following land uses are found to exist upan properties that are adjacent to the subject property: A. North: There is a new, existing subdivision located north and adjacent to the subject praperty. The subdivision lots average approximately 3,(lflC} square feet. Dwellings occupy the subdivision lots. B. South: Land to the south consists of the approved Beebe Wood PUD. Construction of the infrastructure has occurred and the City of Central Paint has approved a Final Plat application far Phase 1 of the subject praperty. C. East: Land to the east consists of the approved Beebe Woad PUD. Construction of the infrastructure has occurred and the City of Central Point has approved a Final Plat application for Phase 1 ofthe subject property. D. West: Land to the west {across Hamrick Road} is vacant land plar~.ned and zoned for commercial use. A recent Walmart application has been denied far the praperty, To the west (but further earth) there are large acreage parcels developed with single-family dwellings, 1111 PRtJPt}SED CQNCL.USIQNS QI° LAW The following conclusions of law are based upan the findings of fact in Section VI and the evidence enumerated in Section N, and has been prepared so that the same may be adopted by the Planning Commission in support of the pending applications: Craig A. Stone & Associates, t.#d. ~ ~ ps~e #~ July 2fl04 Beebe Wpod Planned unit Revelopment Amendment City o€ Cents! Point, Oregon Ga€pin, LLC: Applicant Criterion 1 R-2, residential Two-Ferrrily 13istrict The criteria governing tine approval of Develapmt>nt in r:n R-2 Zoning District are set forth in Chapter 17.24 ar~d pravidc: 17.2d.Q2fl Permitted uses. 't"he follawinct uses rand their accessory uses are permitted in the R-2 district: F. Qne, single-family dwe€Iinc1 17.f8.090 Accessary uses in a p€anned unit development B. Private Park 17.2d.fl3p Canditianal uses. The fogavring uses and their accessory uses are permitted in the R-2 district when authariaed by the planning commission in accordance with Chapter '#7.76: G. Planneef unit developments in accarclance with Chapter 17.68 Conclusions of Law: The Punning Commission concludes that the proposed dwellings, while attached to one another in clusters of two, are single family dwellings which are permitted uses in the R-2 zoning district. The Planning Commission concludes that Planned Unit Developments are conditional uses in an R-2 zone. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law herein support the approval cif a conditional use permit for the purpose of approving a Planned Unit Development. Based upon the foregoing findings cif fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1 because all of the contemplated uses in this project are permitted or conditional uses that have been appropriately authorized pursuant to the relevant substantive criteria contained in the Central Point Zoning Ordinance ~ZC3}, Planned Unit Clevelopment 17.68.C32fl Sire of the Planned unit development site. A PUt~ shai€ be on a tract of land five acres ar larger, except that a PUD may be on a tract of land or more than one acre but less than five acres if the planning commission finds, upon a showing by the applicant, that a PUD is in the public interest because one or more of the fallowing conditions exist: G. The property is adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of a planned unit development of similar design as that proposed and the developments would complement each atl~er wi#hout significant adverse impact on surrounding areas; 17.68.40 Criteria to Gram ar Deny a PUD. Criterion ,~ A. That the development of a harmonious. integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal retluirements of t11iS title: Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. ~ ~ page ~ ~ Juty 2flD4 Beebe Wood Planned Unit Ctevelopment Amendment City of Cen#rai Point, Cregon Galpin, LLC: Applicant Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed PUD is an integrated harmonious plan for which the only proposed exception is use of a private street to provide access. Based upon the findings of fact in section VI, the evidence enumerated in Section 1V and applicant"s stipulations in Section V, the Planning Commission further concludes that the PLiD plan has justified this exception to the normal requirements of the zoning ordinance ----- Title 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code in compliance with Criterion 2. Cri#erion 3 B. Mlle i7roposal Will be rOnSiStent With the f;Ot1117rehenSiVE' 171an, tl'3e ot)jectivP.S Of tl18 zoning ordinance and other api~Eical~le policies of the city: Conclusions of Law: The fact that Criterion 3 requires consistency with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan does not mare all goals and policies decisional criteria. See, Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 4r LUBA 450, afl'd 96 4r App 645 {189}. 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 Planning Commission concludes that the following comprehensive plan goals and policies are appropriately construed and apply in this instance as approval criteria under .Bennett u. City cif .Dallas and those which are not cited and addressed below, are not, in this instance, approval criteria: Noise Policy 3. the City sha9l reclu#re property owners to rrraster Man land use and design of new developments to control and minirr~ize noise through sr.rCh recluirernents as site orientation, buffering, distance separation, insulation, or other design features. Conclusions of Law: The proposed project has been master planned and approved by the Planning Commission. The Phase 4 portion of the project has, as its only potential source of noise, the dwellings themselves. Moreover, applicant has proposed substantial landscape screening and fencing to separate and buffer the adjacent lands located outside the project boundaries. See, Exhibit 3. The existing six foot tall solid vinyl fence will produce sound attenuation. The Planning Commission concludes that these mitigation features seek to control and minimize noise through use of the measures enumerated in Noise Policy 3. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the land use applications are consistent with Noise Policy 3. Parks and Recreation Policy 2: To provide an ectrrital~le distriixrtion of recreation facilities throughout the Cornr~7~rnity to c~r~sure the easiest possible access ley ~~11 local resir3ents. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the approved Beebe Wood PUD has already proposed a private parr in the southwest portion of the development and Craig A. Stare & Associates, Ltd. ~ ], Page 14 July 2004 Beebe Wood Planned Ur#lt Development Amendment Ci#y of Central Poin#, Oregon Galpin, LLG: Applicant open space thraughout. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this project will provide for an equitable distribution of recreation facilities in this portion of the community. The Planning Commission also concludes, based upon the plans in Exhibit 2, that while the planned private park facility will be maintained y the owners of the project, it will be available far use and enjoyment by the general public. As such, its location at the southwest corner of the property, will make the park more accessible to people who live outside the project boundaries. For these reasons, the Planning Commission concludes that this project provides for an equitable distribution of recreation .facilities throughout the Community azzd will ensure the easiest passible access by all local residents in conformance with Parks and Recreation Palicy 2. Parks and Recreation Policy 3: Try enhant;e neighl:~orhood and Go,nm#,nity quality by prgviding for development of attractive. functional, and accessible iaarks and open slaace areas thraughaut the Gity. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the plans in Exhibit 2, the Planning Commission concludes that the planned park facilities within the already approved project are attractive, functional and accessible, and comply with the requirements ofParks and Recreation Palicy 3. Site Development Policy 1: Ensure that all new deveioprnent is in conformance with Gity cedes, as well as applicable state and federal requirements. and Site Development Policy 4: Ensure thror}gh the lalan review process that all proposed developments are consistent with the Comprehe;nsiue Plan and are of the highest possible quality. Conclusions of Law; Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Site Development Policies 1 and 4 because the proposed development is in canforrnance with City codes and applicable state and federal requirements and are of the highest possible quality. In instances where there are exceptions to the strict regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, the same have been specifically authorized as part ofthis Planned Unit Development. Site Development Policy 5: Ensure that proposed development plans will not create obstacles to the €uture development of adjacent parcels. Concluusions of Law: Property north, south and east of the subject property, are fully urban developed as single family residential subdivisions. Land to the west is Hamrick Road. As such, the proposed develaprrzent plans will not create obstacles to the future development of adjacent parcels, in compliance with Site Development Palicy 5. City Street Development Policy 7: Include considerations o€ bicycle and pedestrian facilities in all street improvements and in the design o€ nevv streets. Conclusions of Law: All planned private streets within the PLTD, are improved to the city's TOD standards for a courtyard lane. Common area greenways are planned with concrete pathways far pedestrian use. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of City Street Development Policy 7, Craig A. Stone & Associates, Lid. 7 ~ Page 95 July 2004 Beebe Wand Planned Unit Development Amendment Cify of Cen#ra! Poin#, Oregon Gaipin, L.C*C: Applicanf Summary Cr~z'kciusions off' Lar~v: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 2 because the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the city. Criterion 4 C. The i[~eation, size, design ar~d operating characteristics of the PE~C} will have minimal adverse irr~~act are the fivat~ility, value Or at~prapriate develoE7mer~t nt the surrounding area; Conclusions of Law: The location of the PUD is shown in Exhibit 2. The size of the PLTI~ is established in the Findings ofFact in Section VI as being 9.b5 acres total including 0.87 acres that is proposed to be added to the existing PUI7 as part of this application. The design of the PUD is shown in the plans at Exhibit 2. The operating characteristics of the PUI~ are set forth in the Findings of Fact in Section VI. As to liveability, in McCoy v. Linn County, l6 4r LUBA 295, 3£11-302 (1987), off d 90 Car App 271 X1988), it was held that a similar standard required the fact finder to identify the qualities and characteristics which constitute "livability°' and determine whether the proposed use will cause more than a minimal adverse impact upon those. Based upon the evidence, the Planning Commission concludes that the qualities and characteristics that constitute "livability," in this instance, include a relatively quiet environment that is free from excessive traffic and unsafe conditions. The Planning Commission concludes, based upon the evidence and the location, size, design and operating characteristics of this PUD has herein established), that it will produce no greater than minimal adverse impacts upon the relatively quiet environment, which does not have excessive traffic or unsafe conditions, for the following reasons: The subject property and surrounding area is planned and zoned to acoomrnodate urban residential development, By its nature, some noise is produced by urban residential uses that, the Planning Commission concludes, are neither excessive nor offensive. The Planning Commission also concludes that levels of noise typical of an urban residential area, are not adverse impacts which more than minimally affect the liveability of the surrounding area. 2. As above described, the subject property is planned for urban residential development pursuant to the Central Point Comprehensive Plan.. No change ar amendment to the plan is required or proposed for this project. Moreover, traffic levels associated with the various forms of planned urbanization have been taken into account as part of the legislative enactments that adopted the plan and its implementing ordinances. As such, the Planning Corr;mission concludes that the levels of traff c that will result from this project are neither unplanned nor excessive. And, the impacts upon the surrounding area that will be produced by this development, will not result in impacts upon liveability that are greater than minimal. Craig A. 8fane & Associates, ~#d. ~ ~ Page 16 Juty 2{704 Beebe Wand Planned Unit Development Amendment City o€ Centrat Point, CYragon Galpin, LLC: Applicant 3. Based upon the design and layout of this project {as shown by the plans in Exhibit 2} the Planning Commission concludes that it will not produce unsafe conditions that more than minimally produce adverse impacts upon the liveability of the surrounding area. A.s to appropriate development, based upon the Findings of Fact in Section VI, the Planning Commission concludes that all adjoining lands have been developed with urban uses. The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts these f ndings of fact and conclusions of law made for plan Site Development Policy 5 and concludes, herewith, that the approval fff this project will not produce a greater than rrtinimal adverse impact upon the appropriate development of the surrounding area. As to value, based upon the Findings of Fact in Section VI, the Planning Commission concludes that the approval of this project will not produce a greater than minimal adverse impact upon the value ofproperty and improvements in the surrounding area. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4 because {based upon the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD~ it will produce no greater than minimal adverse impacts upon the livability, value or appropriate development of land and improvements in the surrounding area. Criterion 5 D. That the proponents of the PUD have demanskraked that they intend to skart construction within six months of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes. And intend to complete said car~struction within a reasonat~le time as determined by the commission; Conclusions of Law: Based upon applicant's stipulation in Section V, the Planning Commission concludes that applicant intends, and has already demonstrated, that construction of Phase 1 of this project has begun and that final plat approval has been granted by the City of Central Point. The subject property will be added to the Beebe V~ood PUD, which has already been approved by the City of Central Point. Therefore, the Pla:kaning Commission concludes that the PUD is consistent with Criterion 5. Criterion ~ E. That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstral~ie provisions in file plan for proper entrances. exits, internal traffic cirCi.rlation and parking: Conclusions of Law; The Planning Commission concludes that while this project will produce additional traffic upon nearby streets, the traffic levels are neither unplanned nor do they constitute traffic congestion in the context of Central Point's urban environment. These applications do not involve changes in comprehensive plan map designations or zones, nor do Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. ~ ~ Page 17 July 2QO4 E3eebe Wood Ptanned UnEt DeveEopment Amendment City of Central Point, Oregon Galpin, LLC: Applicant they contemplate unplanned housing densities. The Planning Commission also concludes, based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, that the design of the project includes demonstrable provisions for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the PUD is consistent with Criterion 6. Criterion 7 F, That commercial development in a Pt1D is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate comrr~ercial facilities of the type proposed: G. That proposed indr3strial development will tae efficient and weil-organized with ~~dequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes from the evidence that this proposed development contains neither commercial nor industrial development. Therefore, compliance with Criterion '] is established by reason of inapplicability. Criterion 8 H. The PUI] preserves natural features such as streams a~~d shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, it theses are prese{~t; Conclusions o#' Law: Based upon the findings of fact and the evidence, the subject property does not include any natural features (such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain). There are, also not jurisdictional wetlands present on the property according to the National Wetland Inventory. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the PUD is consistent with Criterion 8 by reason of inapplicability. ~~~~~~~~~~~x~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~x~~*~~~~~~~~~ Criterion 9 The PUL} wil! be compatit~ie with ti,e surrounding area: Coit~clusions of Law: The surrounding area is depicted on the recent aerial photograph attached as Exhibit '~. As shown on Exhibits 5 and 5, the surrounding area consists of detached single-family dwellings on individual lots, located to the north of the subject property. To the East and South is the exr'sting Beebe Wood PUD. Phase 1 of Beebe Wood PLTU has been platted and housing on the parcels is expected in ~.C}{~4 and 2{I{}S. Land to the west (across Hamrick Road) is presently vacant and planned for future commercial use, Existing residential development in the area is consistent with the residential housing densities and housing types anticipated by the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. '~ ~ Page 18 July 2{04 Beebe lNood Flannel Unit Development Amendment City of Central Paint, Oregon Galpin,l_LC: Applicant comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance produces and anticipates a planned mixture of housing types and densities and the Planning Commission concludes them to be appropriate and compatible with the development planned to occur on the subject property. Moreover, based upon the Findings ofFact in Section Vl: The PUD proposes appropriate screening in the form of fencing andlor fencing and landscaping around the west and north project perimeter. ^ Dwellings along the north boundary, adjacent to an existing single-family residential subdivision, will all be of two-story construction, There will be no windows along the second story of the buildings, so as not to infringe upon the privacy of the existing adjacent yard spaces. The sulaject property has a circulation system that is safe, adequate and convenient. • There is nothing about the PUD and the uses proposed which produce any adverse impacts other than those that are common and customary to urban development, ViThile this project will produce additional traffic loading, the additional traffic is an anticipated and necessary product ofplanned urbanization and is not incompatible with the surrounding area. Therefore and based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and applicant's stipulations in Section V, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed PUD will e compatible with the surrounding area in compliance with Criterion 9. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>xx~~~~~~~~~~x~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Criterion 10 J. Th€; PUC? wi(I reduce need far public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for khe land. Canclusians of Law: The findings of fact in Section VI, describes the levels of public facilities and services that are available and necessary to serve the subject property. The Planning Commission interprets Criterion 1(? to require a showing that the need for one {or more} public facilities and services is reduced by the PUD (in comparison to other permitted uses}. The Planning Commission also concludes that public facilities and services consist of sanitary sewers, public water, storm drainage, streets and transportation and utilities, their installation, maintenance and upkeep. This PUD is to be served by private streets. As private streets, there will be no requirement for future maintenance and upkeep at the public expense. As such, this PUD will reduce need for future public street facilities maintenance and upkeep services. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land in compliance with Crite~~on l t~. Craig A. S#one & Assacia#es, €.td. ~ ~ Page 19 Ju4y 2004 Beebe Woad Planned unit CJeveiapment Amendment City of Central poinf, Oregon Galp`rn, LLC: Applicant ~s~*~k~k~k~s~k~~~k~k~Y=k>2=~=k~sk~~k~=~~~k~~~k=k~k~*~k~k~k~k~k~k*~~k~k~ Criteri©n 'f ~ 17,68.Qi3Q Exceptions to zoning arrc# st~bdivisiort titles. The lalanning cor~~issior~t r~~ay a!!ow excet~tions within a ~'UD for ctin~er-rsiorts, site coverage. y~~rc# spac<;s. struc!ure l~t~ighis, distances between structures. street widths or off-street i~arkii~g anc# loading facilities differincf fror~a flu} specific star~ciarcls for the zoning district in which the PUD is located. Exceptions shall be based upon the appiicar~l's c#ernpr~stt~atior~ that the objectives of the zoning and subc#ivision titles of this code will be achieved. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that this project, in general, seeks few exceptions to the normal requirements of the city's zoning and subdivision titles. Far areas where exceptions are sought, the Planning Commission concludes as follows: The proposed dwellings are permissibly attached single-family dwellings. There is further authority to attach the dwellings as part of a padlot development, which this is. Specifically, padlot development --~ pursuant to zoning ordinate 17.6(}.214 ---- is permitted in the R-2 zone and expressly requires the dwellings to be attached. Moreover, as a padlot develaprnent, the development is exempt from the lot area, width, depth, yard, setback, and tat coverage requirements that otherwise apply within the R-2 district. 2. The ordinary provisions of the zoning ordinance require each dwelling to have two off- streetparking spaces in a garage or carport. In this project, each unit has atwo-car garage with driveway apron space for two additional vehicles,. The Planning Commission concludes that sufficient parking is provided to meet the objectives of the city's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this exception is permissible. 3. The proposed streets, which internally serve the lots within this project, are private streets that permissibly deviate from the typical standards of the city. An additional exception is by way of the location of sidewalks. In this project, the sidewalks, rather than provided adjacent to the streets, are provided between the housing units, The Planning Commission concludes that the planned sidewalks provide for appropriate pedestrian circulation that is consistent with the objectives of the city's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this exception is permissible. 4. Based upon the foregoing fmdings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11 because, where not otherwise permitted by the padlat provisions of the zoning ordinance, the exceptions to the Zoning and Subdivision titles of the Central Point Municipal Cade have been demonstrated to achieve the objectives ofthe said Cade Titles, Conditional Use Permr"t Criterion 92 Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. ~ ~ pogo 20 July 2004 Beebe Wood Planned Uni# Deueloprrten# Amendmen# City of Centrat paint, Oregon Oalpin, PLC: ApplEcant i 7.76.C1~0 FincJirzgs ancf conditiarzs. l"Izc., tzlanninc} cc3nznzissiorz in f~rtarztincl a conditional use }aermit shall find a5 follows: A. That the silo for the prapaseet use is actecluate in sizr; ancf shape to <zccofzzrzzocfK~te the use ar~c~ #o meel ail other etevefop{zzerzt anti iat re Ci~.rirE;nzenis of tine subject caning cfisirict ancf aEt other provisions of this code;: Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that, ether than exceptions from the typical standards of the Central Point Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision C)rdmance that are permissible and which have been approved as part of the Planned Unit Development, this project meets all other development and lot requirements of the subject R-2 zoning district and all other provisions of the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission also concludes, based upon Exhibits 2 and 3, the Findings of`Fact in Section VI and applicant°s stipulations in Section V, that the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 12. Criterion 13 E3. That the site has ade;cluate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adet~uate in size and condition to of#ectivcly accanznzadate the traffic that is expected to be generated by ilze proposed use; Conclusions of Law: As set forth in the Findings ofFact in Section Vl, Phase 1 of the subject property development, has adequate, existing access to Oakview and Brookdale Avenues, paved city street with curbs, gutters, concrete sidewalks and streetlights. Oakview connects to Meadowbrook Drive and Brookdale will connect to Meadowbrook Drive and Hamrick Road, both streets that are fully improved to urban standards with asphalt paving, curbs and gutters. In the case of Hamrick Road, it also has designated bicycle lanes on both sides of the street. Based upon the findings of fact in Section VI, the Planning Commission concludes that with development of the planned streets in Beebe wood PUD, this site {Phase 4) has adequate access to a public street which is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed PUD revision, which includes five dwellings, four of which will be new.. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 13. Criterion 14 C. That the propasecl use will have no significa€zt adverse effect an abutting property or the f}ermined use thereof. In making this determination. the commission shall consider the larapased location of improvemerzis on the site, vehict€lar ingress, ectress ancf internal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings and structures: walls ancf fences: landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs; ~ The original Beebe woad PUb was estimated to generate 974 vehicle trips a day. The subject property is estimated to generate 57 additional trips, far a total of 1fl31 avexage vehicle trips a day, Craig A. Stony & Assoclstes, t.td. ~ ~ Page 21 July 2gQ4 Beebe Wand PEanned Utnif t~evelapment Amendment Cify of Central Poinf, Ofegon Galpin, C.f.C: Applicanf Conclusions of Law: Zn its consideration of the application, the Planning Commission has examined the potential for adverse impacts upon abutting properties and reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. Location of Improvements: The locations of the planned improvements are shown on the plans in Exhibit 2. There is nothing in the location of the improvements that serves the praduce impacts {which rise to the level of significant} upon any abutting property or the permitted use thereof 2. Vehicular Ingress and Egress: The locations of planned points of ingresslegress {access} are shown an the plans in Exhibit 2. The property has two paints of access: 1}From Live Oak Loop by way of Oakview Avenue {which was stubbed into this property to accommodate its planned extension) by way of Meadawbroak Drive, anal ~} by the Broakdale 3Jrive west to canned with Hamrick Road. There is nothing in the location of ingress and egress far this project which will produce impacts {that rise to the level of significant) upan any abutting property or the permitted use thereof 3. Internal Circulation: The planned internal circulation system is shawn on the plans in Exhibit 2. The Planning Coznmissian concludes from the evidence that the circulation system is adequate and appropriate to transport vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. There is nathing in the internal circulation fox this project that will praduce impacts {that rise to the level of significant} upon any abutting property or the permitted use thereof 4. Setbacks: The locations afthe planned improvements are shawn an the plans in Exhibit 2. While not required of padlat developments, the planned dwellings generally observe the otherwise required setbacks of the R-2 ~onzng district and are appropriate. There is nathing in the planned setback of buildings that serves the praduce impacts (which rise to the level of significant} upon any abutting property ar the permitted use thereof. 5, Building Height: The design of the planned dwellings are shawn in Exhibits 2, 3 and 7. There is nothing in the planned setback of buildings that serves the produce impacts {which rise to the level of significant} upon any abutting property ar the permitted use thereof. fi. Walls and Fences: There is an existing solid vinyl fencing along the west and north property boundaries. The existing fencing separates the subject property from the existing urbanization, which is contiguous to the subject property. There is nathing in the way of fencing {ar walls) which serves the produce impacts {which rise to the level of significant} upon any abutting property ar the permitted use thereof ?. Landscaping: Based upon the Exhibit ~ Landscaping Plan, all portions of the property not occupied by dwellings, streets, driveways and pedestrian paths, is intended to be fully landscaped. There is nothing in the planned landscaping which serves the praduce impacts {which rise to the level of significant) upon any abutting property ar the permitted use thereoF Craig A. Stone & Associafes, Ltd. ~ ~ Page 22 Juty 2004 Beebe Wood Planned unit gevelopment Amendment City of Central Point, Oregon Galpin, ~l_C: Applicant 8. 4utdaor Lighting: Applicant has agreed to stipulate that exterior polo lighting will be shrouded sufficiently so that it does not cast direct light upon adjoining properties. ff the exterior pole lighting is shrouded pursuant to applicant's stipulation, there is nothing in the planned exterior lighting improvements that serves the produce impacts (which rise to the level of significant} upon any abutting property or the permitted use thereof: 9. Signs: The Planning Commission concludes that no signs are proposed at this tirrte. Applicant has agreed to apply separately for sign permits and to comply with the regulations of the city. If the city's sign regulations are observed, there is nothing in the way of signs that will produce impacts (which rise to the level of significant} upon any abutting property or the permitted use thereof. 10. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion l4 because the proposed project will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof, based upon the Planning Commission's consideration of proposed location of improvements on the site, vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation, setbacks, height of buildings and structures, walls and fences, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and signs. Criterion 75 t7. That the establishment. r~aintenar~ce ar operation of the use applied for w191 comply wifh loco#, state and federal hea#Eh and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety ar general welfare of persons residing ar working in the surrounding rreighf~arhoods and will not be detrimenta3 or #njt~riotas to the property and irrrproven~tents in the neighborhood or to the genera€ welfare of (he community #~ased an the review of those factors #isted in subsection C of this section: Conclusions of Law: Plans for the proposed project are shown in Exhibit 2. The "operational characteristics°' of this use -- a planned padlot developmentlPlanned Unit Development --- are set forth in the Findings of Fact in Section VI. .Based upon the evidence, the Planning Conunission concludes that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the planned project will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations. Therefore this project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and irprovements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community. fn. reaching this conclusion, the Planning Commission has fused its conclusion on the proposed location of improvements on the site, vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation, setbacks, height of buildings and structures, walls and fences, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and signs. Criterion 96 Craig A. Stone & Associafes, t.td. ~ {~ Page 23 July 2004 Beebe Woad Planned Uni# Develapmertt Amendmen# City of Central Point, Oregon Calpin„ LLC: Appkicant E. That any conditions regt,ire[I for apf7roval of the Bermit are cleen~ed necessary to protect the public health. safety and general welfzrre and na~~}, include: 1. Adjustments to lok size ar yard areas as needed to best aacorrrmodate the Broposed use: provided ti?e lots or yard areas conforr~~ to the stated r-nlnir~~um dir'nensions for the subject zoning district. unless a varir:3ncc; is also grantecJ as pravicfed for in Chal:}ter 17.801, 2. increasing street widths, rt7c>elific:atior~s in strc;r;t designs or addition of street signs or traffic signals to accamrnadate the; traffic, generated by the proposed use, 3. Adjustments to off-street Barking requirements in accordance with any unique characteristics of the proposed use; 4. Regulation of point of vehicular ingress and egress, 5. Requiring landscaping, irric~atian systems. lighting and a property maintenance program, 6. Regulation of signs and their locations. 7. Requiring fences, berms, walls. landscaping to include trees and shrubs. ar other devices of organic ar arkificial composition to eliminate or reduce the effects of noise, vibrations, odors, visual incompatibility ar other undesirable effects an surrounding properties. 8. Regulation of time of operations far certain types of uses if their operations may adversely affect privacy of sleep of persons residing nearby or otherwise conflict with other Corrtmunity or neighborhood functions, 9. ~sta~lish a time period within which the subject lane! use must be developed, 10. Requirement of a hor~d ar other adequate assurance within a specified period of time, 11. Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, 12, (n aansidering an appeal of an application for a conditiana! use permit for a home occupation, the pfannir~g comrziission shall review the criteria listed in Section 17.60.190 {C}rd. '#684 572. 1993: Ord. 1615 555, 2989: C7rd. 1533 51 2884: C7rd. 1436 52{part}, 1981).1 Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that these provisions, listed among the approval criteria, do not operate as tests prerequisite to approving an application. Instead, the previsions simply enumerate the various topics for which the Planning Commission is entitled to impose conditions. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 16 by reason of inapplicability. V111 ULTIMATE C{~NCLUSIONS The Central Point City Planning Commission ultimately concludes that the proposed land use applications which seek approval off: 1} a Planned Unit Development {PUD}, 2} a Conditional Use Permit, and 3} Tentative Plan f©r a Padlot Subdivision Development are compliant with all of the relevant substantive standards and criteria contained in the Central Point Municipal Cede and other standards in state and federal law. Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. ~ ~- page 24 July 20{?4 Beebe Woad Planned lJni# Developmen# Amendmen# City of Central Point, Oregon Galpin, i_i_C: Applicant Respectfully submztted on behalf of aplalicax~t: Cft.A.I~ A, S'T~}NE & ASSCaCI~TES, LTD. Craig A. 81one & Associates, C_#d. ~ ~ Page 25 Jt~Iy 2004 Dated: July 23, 2003 ., ~ ... `~. S ~ ~' j ~, ',. ti I! r . ..~ I~.r ~ I .e.. ._ ._ S ~. ,. , ~ A ~~ ~ ti ~ x1~, _ 3 P~4Q4g4~~ T_ . .~ ' 0 U.~~ Cf` .. 4 .. .. Tr~v~c"' L~~Eh:i~ ~ r r _ .wog ,urr mer,. Rm aNe .cJ r`-nc c»roxx nnr^e+a' ~~~ ~ . - y. .• . rcec. v..;Y mN+r cm~c ~c<r tnP.„e~ r,c^~c cc<,.vrc,~..Re .,,,,nr_ ...~ ,_uex+w+*ms-os _ ~, rcr, rcaacrt,xFa +wcrxc::.x,u,~ r>mc.cc~~.ac-.-:.n.re cr~av~^c. Frc..,xrc me ',, .............~. .-. m,^.~.~........~~ ...._....... _.....__...W.r ~. r.ca ce~.co . ~y irca,!xaA}rro~nei rvRnYa!'Y'u'JC[.S.Tt~i~,'i+WRR. R?IY~ . ty Yrautyam:.«c:e:.rn:A Ona u+xarucacmccac+r~.«xun ' ++IXGd i:uGJw B.RKVL 4[2LY, C' 1'Of ~qt M.+3 Q ^its':.:~^C.-Wtt.CGY.i$+1G~LFr~~~'f.G,Jt tu,L'SX:T .4N+trtnl4 ` ~ [^TR,4.P t.`C*T RC+~>}^fi GMYM'rA}.. NP'bC^'£!i.YYlnih 4rttry ~~~ ~~~ NbiE: S~E F'R~Y€OIiSLY A~P3~*G7YEC? ~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~"~~~ o ~~~~ ~ 11ff3~~/,~tp~~~~y~~T~F p~~y}~~I ~ 1 ~E f~ ass /"~I V WM '4/~e~'l~4I ~f ~~. rJC51C~~~SY: N++IC.E3-+,E1.. ~1r~~c.~, i'ta.-2Q5~a ~~ ter} Q'} G1AmmehrtkfrSfiitno-Uglbwr ~IifmtWe+14~.Mfik4M hfM tVy,J%tYV7ttGtI7 tJ, g7#?AkN 2SOt7~ 78^ rBC tBC ~ 1pC 7D„ 3z2rr18C•3aGD 2600 2500 2sD4 220D 7GC r~C C 1~230u^ 18C 7BC 7LrC JDD tP.D 'BD 4 2700 2Ct70 79G0 7&QO 77pJ 1~II0~ tP.C SaG7 °e ,.~~. 75G0 ifiGS SGi1J ~ ~ 15JI1'i/fWtJG7IJ ~' Y'ILLACE 1..4N~' I I tic ~ y _ _ .... "at _ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ TJ2v77AC-.:GGU u, o ~ '" "~'~ '`" ° at a 1 t n ~ ~ '-~ ~ ~ rpAk3F~ f( o t "L...... _--._.-,..._ o ~ `v ~ Q ck Chi m t~"+ o o i. t ~ Not W Scale g chi ~ :~: ,._.~._, u: .. .- ... ~.__ x __ ?0~, '' ° o o ^ o c+. f r -yr n 11 p ......._....1 ~ ax ~ sF- .-Ft -. ,:a _... _ .. ..t W ~ ~ 34S j`f r Imo- "z: _^'F p ~ ~ a 1 { i ,.., _ 505 ___._._~ _..-. f07 ~µ 1 E 9 q ~ I d rya `V i t,;,.AL._.~.....~~t,i:j_ ~.1~ 6 7 a 6 9 so tt Ia s3 u; [~t~. ~ _~~~ ~ - 1 ~. j .; ~._ 1 co' _.LT3atSc. 4 ~+ ~ ................ ,. ~. i ~ ce • "„~ `= Yzcini£y Map ,: ~". 11 ;.~::. ~~~" X HASE 3 C'~ p 6's 5R 1 5a .~` ....5.::..... ai ~. ...1aa t.... .- '• .. ~ °a o legend I ~ ! ~.._..m..._.i..........`.,.. ~'.. x cvRnct~ ztlksrc: sR.z.s ti ~ ~ as „ za 2s „ az 21 an ~ 19 ~ s9x9o~ ' 15 sa ~ asr: s (cENrxnL rro,N`z} C~ ' 2G ~ IRRIC. OC5r: ROSU£ VAt.LEY iRRtOATR}k 0157. ry ` -' Y°-s{:-~-'~_- pr z~ ~ y t?rllS"Vf~' Tf° flRalecT ,wee s..7 ,~ +/_ ;ca~,au:snS .~, I( ~` ~f ~ ~ °; _J}., W_ " Atrt.'tVlJC' rL e.Ba.lsoa.lsw e.ss a: +t- {nssessoRS xaca} x1 ~ 7 a7 r G3 ~•Zh~:[ -• APPR6X L4CA73QN 9F ~ C ~ ~ ; j7:~' i F. ,22 ~:~~~RT~ f EXiSTINC whTCR t:NC i ' •'~., - .. ... t:...... t i .: '3i 32 33 Sa 43 a --^~.._.. AGPROU. L9",.asi0v Of ...30 3G g '{ r ~ISTINO SLVt5ARt SEWCR ~... ,.... G.a,`;_`.;~...... .. _... 35 34 3 38 aF ~ LmE 1 v! ~•-~ :p'pR0%. L0^.tT:ON Of ~k ~-~ '.....''' S.(" ~~--> c, E%tS'itk0 STORU aRUN ! ~~ ~` t [~. f j q• mane ahpl*rt ofa in sgearc feet. ~ ~ I C }'~ jj _ aG as E ~ n~ R41 o~pa sa ~t Oaf 8fmprl5Spn3 mp pDArox~m4lp. +.. 1 PHASE 2 ''~ ~v 1"~60' YERTICI,E coxrRaL t¢4sEO Ox OI 3 pC4'r a 9EkCM>iARK £S£VATAN PER [ BG 59 ~a I CT'! 4£ C(Fri'RV, flQ:N7 bA:Uu 41 M {( 39 as •11I~-•~•_ O~COCAFEO ATNTH£ SWK CtlRNSRENT ,„y "~f ,~~,~ i~'•'~ Tu .` ...._^--^«~ a!i 57 ~ i 3J7Vl7Cl_.350P flF aEERE RpAO & RIOCiwnr nvE. ~ ~ ~ GO ~ 5G 5v Sa S3 52 5I 5G ^_.._..._~ Con"1'0t3R 1 ~~„ ~'C.,,. •••. •••• b8 1NTER+"A1: 2 FE}.7 ~ i~,-; i 1 ~ aG ~ laf Areas ~ SS ~7 r"'~ &1 " 'x ~ at ~ ..^-y c *J' tx27A7 SGF~~q Ft gg ppgg~~S SS~~ F~t SS-2460 SS Ft 82-192 '^... "i ~ i [ar<:t3 ~$ 22.t 5 SC Fi ~Sd;gBQ *.q Ft 56. 2 Sq R -.. r •'... t ~{ v, 47 ,......,. 3-20~ 7 S Ft 2229 SR Ft 83»2244 SR f ~ 6.2065 S ft 3t- p 57-2100 54 Ft 8a..3p2g 5p FI R 2041 5q Ft Sg-2220 Sq £{ a5-x894 S4 Ft s-> S-[57B Sq Ft ~~«2t00 Sq Ft 59-1942 Sq £t es«27,75 Sp Ft i b•2 tat Sp Ft 229 Sp FS GOxt7Ce Sp Ft 87.21&1 Sq fl y.} ca '72Yrt (.'q-,jt GO 7.2138 5R Ft St»2t96 ~'~ G9 ? 72 " Sq Ft Sa..ztsQ :~-""- ~ ~ 8x R08G S Ft 35-2160 Sq Ft 88»2tab Sq F! t ~ 73 7a 86 9-2051 Sq Ft 3S«1200 ~ Ft 82`2229 Sp fi 89.1205 5q fl ! Ilff 7a 7G 77 ~ 7$ ?!? $Q IIJ `4' 1G-2096 Sp F: 37«21G0 Sip Ft Us~'Aa0 Sq {S 90- 113 ~ Ft `f""r. -}. ° t $I tl i 2160 S it 9t»2236 ~ f• +-•., ..?{7..•., ii-2t02 S Ft 38« t2 q 2t60 Sp A 85x228a Sq F4 92-2122 ~ R 13-22726 Sp Ftx2220 Sq FS 6a«th40 $ F; 93. ~t 1 ~ ~~~~~ " ~" 7S r, SC 5896 5q F! 57.2100 SC F; 44 t2g8 Sq F; i (-„g G2 - ii»1472 54 R i4x27p8 SR Ft 5SS-2220 5$4q F! 9p5g 2134 5q Ft '-~,~ ~• BJ SS«2220 q Ft i4X2tb8 54 Ft 702400 q4 Ft 97.. i77~it~1lgb q £ {{ G~ Cf' 372}y7 t q R h 7i «t9 SR Ft Rg 2i ,G fi 2 P 5Ct` 5QA G7..33 rJf) 2gg ~gg?S ~qp FS 4(.», ~ ~"q F4 2?g pp196 gg4 tt 9'J-7 Sbb S FI '~,..,-~~ 6 P[~ASE .[ .GF'` ~ i4-YFY ft 2255 fl 73«7.19A Sp Et t~«7.286 54 Fi OQ ` ~ p tl' 22.2454 4 ft 9-}7SS SO Fe 7S.t724i S~q Ft 192.~R@6 Sq fi !I ~ 23w iaap $q tt 50.2220 S~q Ft YT«2?52 S Ft 14i,~.2t50 SR Ft _ m 24+.2188 Sp Ft 51. t2(N7 SQ fl a . 54 as tzao 5 F . Ioz IG1 1AO zs-2t7s sq Ft szxrt69 s FS °5x' S4 t ~'~ ` - ~~ zs-taro 54 Ft 3-2tstl s4 Ft g7~s-z1Tn ~p rt _ SR Ft 9A A8 M 97 a 9G 95 V 27«2Si9 5q FS 5A«2160 S4 FS Eft«2~~0 Q F! tS0?=20a~ 9 t 94 93 92 9I 90 n $0 8b . II7 8$ -~ 372v,+rCA-39GD ,,C._.._..._=t_._._.I~..>- _:~.,_ ~,: ~._ ~» ~ ~EVISEI3 ~`EN'I'ATIV~ PLAN ~r2rl.G-J3oG i ' t t BE E ' ~ - -- --- EBE W40D VILI~AG •~ 16 75 t , ~ [ , t ", _~,._......,. 1 t a ~LAxN~n caa~t~urvz~~ -_, c 1 ~q 1 ~,j ' i 1 ' 1 1 i e .wt n ~.J7C1D Ga ~3~ ~ C i ' ' ~~ ~ t t t 1 t ' I t 3 IV ! ~ 1 ~ f t ti„ LOCA?'ED IN~ &!?t~OKL?A~.E GA~'D~NS J ~ ' 8 t ~ ~ ~ . / t t [ ~ ~ O NMP !f4 OF TH£ Sh' YJ4 6F SECTION S 1 ~9 -,.._..__ ' t I t 1~~~jy~aEL T~NTAI•I~1~~ i ' t 3 1 C7 TONHSHIP 3'7 SOUT}3~ RA?+IGE 8 WEST 'N131AME77'E MERtD3AN ., _.-1__..___L _____L___.~_y ~ t ~ C t J r ~~ i ~ [ 7 ~ t 1 ~ t t ~ CITY AF GENERAL POINT 3ACKSON COL'N'Fy. ORRGON I t 1 rv ~-_.._....r_._.._..:__.___.i_____.`c_____-i__--_--+___ __.__x_ 'a~* 37 21Y 1C -- T3, i400. 1500 Sc i600 ~_______________ BRtiOH'17AL~ D12. (aROaoser~ Exr~NSroN} -__._ b q RlCXARA TEMpbIN IANA SURY$Y1NC REetSteaea 327WrC-7200 ____,._..___-.,._ 4 C iU3~ ?O. ypX 7956 899-203p ,{tCy,S ]ryt4tt~ OREC9N pROFESSNSf:AI, ~f nN ______._.._~__-_..,._____. _~_ .._____ _..__..___.. DATE• JUNE 27 2004 tr,ND suavGroR _€ rt rTI.B: "4P 4At lttac27.dxY" L 0 .GON p RICkARR G: T£pPLtk~ PCkR: GL.PIN LI.C .......,.2..3511 P.O. SOX $271 t+t' OfR4tr.+.,t r.7areEs MEAFOF{A, OR. 97501 vNt 30, 200+ PAGE 2 OF 2 ~B~ebe lNood PUD ~ s~~~ect g~~~aa~ Tax dots Source: Jackson Gounfy GIS Servioes EXfll~1 ~ 5 ~ ~ 37 -2W-C~'1 CB, Tax ~.ot 2U0 Appli~an~: ~.A. Gatpin Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Medford, Oregon ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ Date :July 1 ~, 2i1~4 t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.____ ~~ ----- J__ .~_.__....-~ .._..... ~ . fir-' ~ `~ _----" , ~Ortlrt~ S7tY R~mt.S © Seb;ers,8arndary ~~ 7ue 4ets CeF~ral Point Zming Ras Single-Famay 6.900 sF Cets ~~ Res Sing:aFnmity S,9p9 st LO[s ticsitlenfia Mvwp;yxEm~ly R9s:6ontitl Twp.REmtiy ~~ Ttevrovgntaro Ce+nmorciea l7snct ~~ 7ovrisf R Qitcn Piot Llttnc{ exhibit 6 F~t~n~ng ~~~ 3~ -2W-Cl1CB, Tax Lc~t 200 App1"rcant: C.14. Galpio~ Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Medford, 6regon C3ate :July '{6, 2E304 ~~ vrE a Source: Jaokson Counfy G!S Services ADO f} ~b4U fsBO# ~:_° Attach7nen~ «C}~ RECQMMEN1lED PLAI`~N~NG DEPARTMENT C`~C?1tiIlliTIt~NS QF APPROVAL 1. A final development plan, containing in final form the information required in the preliminary plan shall be submitted to the City within six rr~onths of approval or by March 7, X005. A six month extension may be granted by the City upon the applicant's request and for good cause. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations including, but not limited to, the Qregon Uniform Fire Code and structural specialty Code. 3. The applicant shall submit final parking, landscaping, lighting and sign plans to the City for approval as part of the final development plan, A suitable landscape and irrigation plan shall show the types oftree's, shrubs, and ground cover that will be planted and the irrigation for the development and maintenance of public greenways and the private park. 4. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions ACC&R's} or any comparable agreement governing the use, maintenance and continued protection of the PUD as part of the final development plan. ~~c~c~~s~~~r~rv w~n~~~.~~~~~~~0~0~4.~oc 87