Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - February 18, 2003CITY Oh' CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGh~NDA February 18, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. ~ fl ~ Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 562 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDF,R II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland -Candy Fish, Don Foster, Paul Luntc, Rick Perry and Wayne Riggs III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of January 7, 2003, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS A. Public hearing to review an application for a tentative subdivision that would create 4 PAGES 1 - 5 lots on a 0.94 acre parcel at 3606 Bursell Road. The parcel is located in the R-1-8, Residential Single Family zoning district and is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W 11AC, Tax Lot 400. Item to be continued. B. Public hearing to review an application for a zoning map amendment that would replace PAGES 6 - 21 R-1-10, Residential Single Family (10,000 square footminimum) with R-I-8, Residential Single Family (8,000 square foot minimum) zoning. The tax lots are located west of Hanley Road, south of Diego Court and east of Grant Road on Map 37 2W lOCB, Tax Lots 1900, 2100, & 2220. C. Public hearing to consider a tentative plan fora 38 lot subdivision known as Pheasant PAGES 22 - 26 Creek Estates located west of Hanley Road, south of Diego Court and east of Grant Road in the R-1-10, Residential Single Family zoning district on Map 37 2W IOCB, Tax Lots 1900 & 2200. D. Consideration of the Final Development Plan for Birchfield Village PUD and subdivision PAGES 27 - 43 located on the northwest corner of Beall Lane and Circlewood Drive in the R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district on Map 37 2W 12CC, Tax Lot 6300. VII. MISCF,LLANEOUS VIII. AllJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2003 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT APPROXIMATELY 7:10 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chairman Chuck Piland, Rick Perry, Candy Fish, Wayne Riggs and Don Foster were present. John LeGros and Paul Lunte were absent. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; Matt Samitore, Community Planner, and Ken Gerschler, Community Planner III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Fostermade a motiontoapprove the minutes from the December 3, 2002 meeting as presented. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Perry; yes, Fish, yes; Foster, yes; and Riggs, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCF,S There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public hearingto review an application for tentative subdivision thatwould create 4 lots on a 0.94 acre parcel at 3606 Bursell Road. The parcel is in the R-1-8, Residential Single Family zoning district and is identified in the records of Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 ZW 11AC, Tax Lot 400. Planning Commission Mimdes Jarnamy 7, 2003 Page # 2 There were no conflicts of interest to declare or ex-parte communications. Planning Department Staff recommended to postpone this item until the next meeting scheduled for February 18, 2003, in order to encourage the applicant to collaborate with au adj oiuing property owner to create abetter in-fill development. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to postpone the Tentative Plan application fora 4 lot subdivision at 3606 Bursell Road until the February 18, 2003 meeting. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: 1'he motion passed unanimously. B. Public hearing to review an application for a Conditional Use Permit that would alloFV an addition to be cm~structed onto the Fire Station at 600 South Front Street. The parcel is located in the TOD-GC, General Commercial zoning district on Map 37 2W 11BC, Tax Lot 5500. There were no conflicts of interest to declare, or ex-parte communications. Mr. Samitore presented the Planning Department staffreport. He explained that there is TOD overlay zoning for this area, and all civic uses under under a CUP. Landscaping requirements are 15% coverage and, theirplan for landscaping is at 12%. This is due to the need for large vehicles to maneuver, and the Public Works Department'srequirementsforasidewalkalonglnStreetandHighway99. Mr. Samitore feels that with this in mind, Fire District #3 made their best effort to meet the landscaping requirements under the circumstances. Mr. Matt Small,addressedthePlamringConunission. He had questionsregardingthePublicWorksStaff report and requirements for two meters, street lighting, and storm drainage. Mr. Samitore, clarified those items, stating that the staffreport template is basically for new development and these items would not apply to this addition. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to adopt Resolution 562, approving a Conditional Use Permit including the recommendations of staff (as modified )to construct an addition onto the Fire Station located at 600 South Front Street. Commissioner Foster secondedthe motion. ROLL CALL: The motion pass unanimously. Planning Cornnrission dfinutes January 7, 2003 Page # 3 VII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Modification ofFinal Development Plan on Lot 32, (663 Shadow Way) insidethe Cedar Shadofvs PUD to construct a 3 story home. Planning Department Staffpresented the requestofMr. Dallas Page to modify the final developmentplan to construct athree storytownhouse. After discussions regardingthe history ofthis development, and this issue coming up before, it was decided to deny the request to construct a three story home. Mr. Page joined the meeting late, and was invited to add ury comments he had, however declined the opporhmity. Commissioner Fish made a motion to deny the request for a modification to the Final Development Plan located inside the Cedar Shadows PUD. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion pass unanimously. Mr. Humphreypresented amapto identifypotential in-fill development. Hediscussedtopicscovered iu the Public Works and Planning Department meeting and recommended thatpotential policies need to be made. Mr. Humphrey wants toencourage in-fill development and gave some good examples of some successful building. VIII. ADJOURNMENT CommissionerLuntemadeamotiontoadjotu-ithemeeting. Commissioner Perrysecondedthe motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M. PLANNING llEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT IIEARING DATE: Febniary 18, 2003 TO: FKOM: SUBJECT: Owner/ Applicant: Aeent: Pro er Description Summary Central Point Planning Commission Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director Public Hearing -Zone Map Amendment for 37 2W l OCB, Tax Lots 1900, 2100, & 2200 Duncan Development, LLC, Mike Duncan P.O. Box 5656 Central Point, Oregon 97502 Mark & Susan Rode 3411 Hanley Road Central Point, Oregon 97502 Douglas McMahon/Hoflbuhr & Associates 3155 Alameda Street # 201 Medford, Oregon 97501 37 2W l OCB, Tax hots 1900, 2100, & 2200; 11.7 acres The proposal involves a Zone Map Amendment to change the zoning on three tax lots from R-1-10, Residential Single Family (10,000 square foot minimum lot size) to R-1-8, Residential Single Family (8,000 square foot minimum lot size). The subject property is located west of Hanley Road, south of Diego Court and east of Grant Road. Authority CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review and make recommendations to the City Council on amendments to the Zoning Map. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with State law (Attachment B). Applicable Law: CPMC 1.24.010 et seq. -Public Hearing Procedures CPMC 17.88.010 et seq. -Amendment Zone Man Amendment The applicant, Mike Duncan is requesting that the zoning map (Attachment A) be amended to create a residential density that is slightly greater than the one currently shown on the City's zoning map. ~1 The current zoning on Mr. Duncan's property is R-1-10 which allows the creation of a 10,000 square foot minimum lot. The new zoning, R-1-8 is still a single family zotung district but allows the creation of 8,000 square foot lots. The subject property is adjacent to other R-1-8 zoning and the change in the minimum lot size would actually be a better utilization of land. Property owners are discovering that it is easier to develop in-fill projects if the lots are a little smaller. It also allows them to recover their cost associated with the construction of various public works improvements. Tax lot 2l 00 is owned by Mark and Susan Rode who did not initiate this zone change nor has their property been annexed to the City. Planning staff believe that it makes sense to include their tax lot in the zone change rather than create an island of R-1-10 zoning. As long as the Rodes are in the county their property will be subject to the SK 2.5 zoning standards. Once they annex they will have the option of subdividing their property into 8,000 square foot lots which should be more desirable to them. Given the fact that the Comprehensive Plan is a general Residential designation, it was not necessary to amend it. The only thing the Commission is being asked to do is change the zoning district and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. The Department of Lvrd Conservation and Development (DECD) was notified of this proposal 45 days ago and has not responded in writing. Staff assumes that the state will concur with our proposal to modestly increase the residential zoning density on this property. Findines of Fact: The Planning Department offers the following findings; 1) the subject property is bounded on two sides by R-1-8 zoning; 2) Eight thousand square foot lots are a better utilization of land than Ten thousand square foot lots and will prolong the development of land for residential use in the UGB; 3) all three tax lots in question should be similarly zoned; 4) there is no adverse benefit to amending the zoning district. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Platming Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the lone Map Amendment, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the record; or 2. Deny the Zone Map Amendment, being unable to make the required findings of fact. 3. Continue the review of the subject application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments: A. Area Map with Current and Proposed Zone Changes B. Notice of Public Hearing ~~ R-1-8 IZon Ct. R-1-8 ZonM~ a ~-- Proposed Zoning R-1-8 Pheasant Creek Zoning I noon nOr~nr~nna I T(.. 22~~ R-1-10 zs a m c ~ z~o~asc v G~ty of Central' Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Matt Samitore Community Planner Dave Arkens Planning Technician Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: January 29, 2003 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING February 18, 2003 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Begizuung at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review concurrent land use applications for a zone change and a tentative subdivision that would create 40 lots on two tax lots which total approximately 11.38 acres. The parcels are located in the R-1-IQ Residential Single Family zoning district and could be re-zoned R-1-8. They are identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 372W l OCB, Tax Lots 1900 and 2200. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Zone Change and Tentative Partitions are set forth in Chapters 16 and 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street pazking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. 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, February 18, 2003. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, ] 55 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 04 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 cleazly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 292. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Corrnuission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the applications. 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 tentative subdivision application with a condition that the tentative subdivision is contingent upon the approval of the zone change by City Council. C Subject 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ®(541) 664-3321 ®Fax: (541) 664-6384 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 18, 2003 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Matt Samitore, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing - To consider a Tentative Plan fora 38 lot subdivision in the vicinity of the intersection of Diego Court and Hanley Road in the R-1- 8zoning district (372W lOCB Tax Lots 1900 and 2200) Ap lin cant/ Owner: Duncan Development, LLC, Mike Duncan P.O. Box 5656 Central Point, OR 97502 A egret: Douglas McMahon/Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc. 3155 Alameda #201 Medford, OR 97501 Summary: The applicant has submitted a development proposal to subdivide two existing tax lots into 38 residential lots. 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 Tentative PIan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Aaplicable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Single-Family District Discussion: Pheasant Creek Estates is one of the last large pieces of developable land on the westerly side of Central Point. A lot of development has occurred in this area over the past few years. This has included the Country Meadows Subdivision, Mitchell's Landing, and Rosewood Estates. The plans for Pheasant Creek Estates have undergone quite a few modifications from the original concept submitted to the Planning Department. The original plan had a road connecting with Diego Court. Staff favored this option because it provided an interconnection alternative between the subdivisions which is a policy of the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) listed in Attaclunent C. 06 Unfortunately, a land deal with the Developer, Mike Duncan, and the new land owners of 531 Diego Court could not be made. Once the option for connecting the subdivisions was no longer available, the developer submitted the current drawing with a cul-de-sac instead of a through street. The neighbors on Diego Court have submitted a letter in opposition of any road connecting onto Diego Court (Attachment D). In order to encourage alterative modes of transportation a pedestrian access way is proposed between lot 26 and a new park site. The City typically uses a minimum of 400 square feet of open space per unit to be dedicated as open space or park space before it is annexed into the City. In this instance city staff agreed to the 12,000 square foot park because of other large dedications ofright-of--way along Grant and Hanley Roads. Jackson County Roads and Parks and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority were notified of this application, but have not submitted any requirements. This property currently has water rights with Rogue River Valley Irrigation District. The developer must resolve the issues with there water rights prior to final plat. The Planning Department has reviewed the tentative plan for compliance with the City's Zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. The area is designated for low <lensity residential development and has a proposed zoning of R-1-8, which is an 8,000 square foot residential lot minimum. The 38 lots that comprise Pheasant Park Estates range in size from 8,525 to 15,655 square feet. The Public Works Department has provided their comments, recommendations and requirements for this application (Attachment D). This subdivision will be the first outside of the Transit Oriented Development Zone to have landscape rows with street trees. The cul-de-sac bulbs will also be landscaped and have unique parking refuge. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Staff suggests the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as applicable to the project and necessary for its approval. The project site is located in the R-1-8, Residential Single-Family Zoning District and increases residential land nse efficiency in this area. The proposed tentative plan for single family residential development is a permitted use in the R- 1-8 zoning district. The zoning in tum 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 ofutilities and services (Comprehensive Plan, Page XII-12). 2. The project consists of a tentative plan application for the subdivision of approximately 11.00 acres for the purpose of developing asingle-family residential subdivision, Pheasant Creek Estates. The total number of lots proposed for the subdivision is 39, one of which is a park site. o~ The proposed single-family subdivision meets the density requirement for the R-1-8 residential zone which is a maximum of 4.5 units per acre. Each lot within the subdivision meets the requirement of the City's subdivision and zoning codes for residential lots as well as the specific requirement of the R-1-8 zone. The tentative plan includes all information required by CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. 3. Tire Planning and Public Works Departments have reviefved 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 E and F. Recommendation: Staff recommends that eh Planning Commission take the following action: I. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the tentative subdivision subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment E); or 2. Deny the tentative subdivision; or 3. Continue the review.of the tentative subdivision at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments: A. Reduced Copy of Tentative Plan B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Excerpt from Central Point TSP D. Correspondence from neighbors E. Public Works Staff Report F. Planning Department Conditions of Approval O° `` - N 1'' . - ,. ~C nN~j~ ,uw+ ~ .-g'C :Y ~~' , -6 7a~ O Pn. ~~ ~knstor~ ~ t '~---:?",`°, ~~ra~E~~ ~g~j„';xr~.-;; ~. 4 TENTATNE pl'~`ES 5 ~T~ ~ 11 ^= ~ .~ ~ ~' TATS ~" ~ `~--__~.-~=="%' f ' PHEASANT CREEK ?"&1~-L--- .- LOCATED IN: WM., t 4 T3TS, R2W, ~i ~~e ~~'~'^• `°~' OF SECTION 70' Al POlM' "~n ~p THE SW THE ClN OF CEN OREGON ~,_.__.__ " K ~ as I {N yACK50N COUNTY. ~ ze rr....• ~' r " " ~! yy - , ~ ~. ~zvk ~ S.a,,,E°. ~ I FOR: ~.:®-~, -~--,..~-a "' '~~~~ "`~ a~ ~` m~ GAN OEVELOPMENT5, L,LC :z ^ '"._~._ Icy, ,, °° u..w..w~. 1 :p11N 25 gOUTH FRO 5657REET `i ~`~: z°^+`~+~" t ~ y, to 'I' 1 P PPOINT,XOREGON 47502 ~~ CENTRAL 665-5263 ~~ Ps r ~`;c~ < ~~., a' 11 ,ate .zs :' ask "~ yk+T, I ' i ~ ~ ! :r ~ .` i :f ri ~yoe e>:. Q ~ f ~ ~ Wt 1 j9 ~' }...n u < °' yec4„ 'Lat'40' , V 92 f 1 A { '_ .,__ ± _ f & ASSOC4ATE5, INC' OREGON 6D 1 ~ i ~~ a A 1 _......_.. l r Q ~ 1 ~ n ~ u~ 7SW' F ~^ 4 ~- , ~ ~ e + ;~,~;; '" _ ;g ~.a ! .. om .- t ° ' _ _ _ _- - _. :~ ...r 3155 Atl,MERA U4 4EET ~2Dt MERFORD No00. 1953 (50.1) 774 C. McMAHAN FEBP A Y 12. 2003 8Y: DOUGi.AS ~ DATE-'• SCALE: t _ NTS NOTE: TTHAT WtS P40nDfDcT04HOFFBUHR AND ASSOL~~INC. BY OUNGN pNEIAPMESYTS, LLC. ~^' ems; aN~1°~ 1p3023TEN1b.OWv) v~~~ Cz ty of Central Po.zn t PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Matt Samitore Community Planner Dave Arkens Planning Technician Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: January 29, 2003 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING February 18, 2003 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 concurrent land use applications for a zone change and a tentative subdivision that would create 40 lots on two tax lots which total approximately 11.38 acres. The parcels are located in the R-1-10, Residential Single Family zoning district and could be re-zoned R-1-8. They aze identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 372W l OCB, Tax Lots 1900 and 2200. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Zone Change and Tentative Partitions are set forth in Chapters 16 and 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street pazking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. 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, February 18, 2003. Z. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 20 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 cleazly 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 PROCEDi7RE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staffreports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and heaz arguments on the applications. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Conunission may approve or tentative subdivision application with a condition that the tentative subdivision is contingent upon the approval of the zone change by City Council. 2 C Subject 1 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ®(541) 664-3321 t Fax: (541) yb4-osu~ ,4 e- Streets Goals, Objectives and Policies GOAL # 6: PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS THAT SERVES THE MOBILITY AND MULTIMODAL TRAVEL NEEDS OF THE CENTRAI, POINT URBAN AREA. Q5j«tizel: Decdap a jai-ct; hierard~ical s}3tem ~stra~s and bighze~z~s tlxu prorid~ foroptirral mbilityforall trawl mxleC ~ tlu Caural Patin urt'aznaraz Policies: The Caty shall fulfill its system wide travel capacity needs through the use of multiple travel modes within the public rights-of-way. 2. The Gt}~s street system shall contain a grid network of arterial streets and highways that link the central core area and major industry with regional and statewide highways. 3. The C"it}~s street system shall contain a network of collector streets that connect local traffic to the arterial street system 4. The Cityshall classifystreets and highways within the Central Point urban area based on how theywill function within the overall system, based on volume, speed and points of access. 5. The Gryshall periodicallyreview and revise street design standards. The Ciryshall consider incorporating traditional neighborhood design elements including, but not limited to, planting strips, m;n;mum necessary curb radius, alleys and "skinnystreets" in standards. 6. To facilitate pedestrian crossing, discourage through traffic, and reduce speeds, local sweets shall not be excessive in width. However, local streets must have sufficient width to provide emergency access. 7. As practical, the City should integrate traffic calrning techniques into city sweet design standards to reduce automobile speeds within new and existing neighborhoods. 8. The Gty shall maintain sweet surfaces to achieve maxunum pavement life so that road conditions are good and pavement maintenance costs are m;n;mi~ed. .pG 9. The Caryshall discourage cul-de-sac or dead-end sweet designs whenever an interconnection alternative exists. Development of a modified grid street pattern shall be encouraged "for connecting new and existing neighborhoods during subdivisions, partitions, and through the use of the Street Dedication Map. 10. Improvements to streets in addition to those in or abutting a development maybe required as a condition of approval of subdivisions and other intensifications of land use. Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 41 A Altac~lvrwd'D February 10, 2003 City of Central Point Planning Department Central Point City Hall 155 South Second St Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Re-zoning of Map 372W lOCB, Tax Lots 1900 and 2200 Attention: Tom Humphrey We, the undersigned, live on Diego Court and purchased our property here because it was on a cul de sac with no through traffic. We definitely object to any street intersecting with Diego Court. The creation of an intersection into Diego Court would create a dangerous situation with so much traffic turning into Diego Court just after the sharp corner where Pine and Hanley come together. It is difficult enough for the families living on Diego Court to turn on and off Hanley Road. Can you imagine adding a whole subdivision using this intersection plus the many people who would use it as a shortcut to their homes on Grant Road or to the Mormon Temple. than to wind into a street that is so clos to a very dangerous curve. ~c~~~I.~r~~~ Cly e & Marguerite Buckles ~mee Alseth 53oDiego Ct unaz Warner Cent, OR 97502 510 Diego Ct /~/l _ Central Point, OR 97502 This proposed subdivision is a large piece of property and certainly there are less intrusive places to put a street. It would be much safer and less congested to create a street half way between Diego Court and Beall Lade Tom & Wendi Lehman 545 Diego C[ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ ~ ~s Stephanie Mannings 543 Diego Ct Centel Point, OR 97502 D 1 J Zakour 541 Diego Ct Central Point, OR 97502 13 Pheasant Creek Estates 2/14/2003 1 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFF'REPORT Purpose Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS The following items are specific Public Works infrastructure recommendations identified while reviewing the Tentative Plat for Pheasant Creek Estates. Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. streets, water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems, natural drainage systems, etc.) will not interfere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of current infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure, or will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as approved by (as applicable), the regulatory agency, utility owner, and/or property owner involved. 14 Pheasant Creek Estates 2/14/2003 2 Streef Layout/Section: It is the understanding of the Public Works Department that the Developer intends to construct a Local Street, including two cul-de-sacs, a connection to Grant Road located near the northwest property corner, and a connection to Hanley Road located near the southeast property comer. The Developer's engineer should consult the City of Central Point Standards & Specifications for construction regarding the requirements for street sections, right-of-way width, curb & gutter, sidewalk, landscaping rows, wheel chair ramps, and all other necessary street design guidelines. 3. Right-of-Way Dedication: The City of Central Point Public Works Department is Recommending 10 feet of right-of-way dedication along both the east & west proposed development's boundaries. The east & west development boundaries border Hanley Road & Grant Road respectively, both are unimproved Jackson County Roads which require right-of-way dedication for future improvements. 4. Grant Road & Hanley Road Improvements: The Developer of Pheasant Creek Estates will be responsible for "half-street" improvements to Grant Road & Hanley Road where the proposed development shares a boundary with each of subject roads. The improvements include, but are not limited to, street section, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, an irrigated landscape buffer, bike lanes, street lighting, storm drainage, and traffic delineation. No immediate plans to improve either Grant Road or Hanley Road exist. However, the Developer will be responsible to construct their required improvements to accommodate future improvements, compensate the City of Central Point for the cost of the required improvements, or establish a bond for the estimated construction cost related to the required improvements. 3. Public Utility Easements: The Tentative Plat for Pheasant Creek Estates clearly identifies a 10-foot wide public utility easement bordering all lots in the proposed development. The Public Works Department Staff recommends coordination between the Developer's engineer and surveyor to create the necessary easements for utility provisions relative to future development located on the east side of Pheasant Creek Estates. 4. Storm Drainage Infrastructure: Astorm drain connection for the proposed development exists in close proximity to the northern property boundary. This connection was stubbed-out for future development and is recommended by the Public Works Department as the point of connection to the existing City of Central Point storm drain system. The Developer's engineer shall develop a facility plan for the storm drain collection and conveyance system which provides for run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development, any future development on adjacent properties, and any areas deemed by the City that will need to tie-into the proposed development's storm water collection and conveyance system. Acknowledging Pheasant Creek Estates storm drain system will be a public system, operated and maintained by the City. Suitable easements for storm drainage infrastructure will need to be dedicated to the City for alignment, construction, and maintenance of the necessary storm drainage infrastructure. An appropriate system will need to be designed for a minimum 10-year storm event, designed to the City of Central Point Public Works Department's Standards & Specifications for construction. 5. Water System: The City of Central Point Public Works Department is recommending three connections to the existing City of Central Point water distribution system as well as the upsizing of the proposed development's water lines. The location of the three recommended connection points are as follows: ~~ Pheasant Creek Estates 2/14/2003 3 ^ Connect to the existing 12-inch ductile iron water line located at the intersection of Grant Road and Grey Hawk Way. ^ Connect to the existing 12-inch ductile iron waterline located near the north property boundary. (Within the boundaries of the 10-foot wide pedestrian walkway.) ^ Connect to the existing 12-inch ductile iron waterline located at the intersection of Beall Lane & Hanley Road. The connection located at the intersection of Beall Lane & Hanley Road will require an additional 435- feet of 12-inch ductile iron waterline to be constructed outside the limits of the proposed development. However, the City of Central Point will negotiate compensation with the developer for the construction of this waterline. Furthermore, the City of Central Point will compensate the developer for the necessary upsizing from 8-inch ductile iron waterline to 12-inch within the limits of Pheasant Creek Estates. The City of Central Point will be reimbursed for the additional 435 of waterline and the necessary waterline upsizing, as future developments are constructed adjacent to the proposed waterline along Hanley Road. 6. Rights of Ways/Easements: If applicable, the Developer shall provide a Statement of Water Rights (on a City approved form), for any affected properties. For properties determined to have water rights, the developer will coordinate with the State Water master the re-allocation of any waters attached to lands no longer irrigable as a result of the proposed development. General All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD (and Building Department, as applicable) for approval prior to implementation. 2. The Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals and conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEO), Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), affected irrigation districts, and ODOT. 3. Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form (produced on Mylar~) and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD~, or other form as approved by the City PWD. 4. "As-built" drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved construction plans that identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations, spot elevations identified on drawings, road alignment, water lines, valves, and fire hydrants, water and sewer lateral stationing, modifications to i6 Pheasant Creek Estates 1/14/2003 street section, manhole and curb inlet locations, street light locations, other below grade utility line locations and depths, etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on Mylar~) or an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD~ compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. 5. All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. At least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of which shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer. If applicable, all existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures, clear and grub materials, and other deleterious materials shall be removed from the site and either recycled or properly disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the DEO. Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable]) should be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.E. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five (5) feet from the edge of the easement. If two or more City owned utilities are located within an easement, then a minimum 20-foot width should be required. Easement dedications in final deeds or CC&Rs need a statement, which should clearly indicate that easements must be maintained with suitable, all-weather, drivable vehicular access to City public infrastructure facilities, as determined by the City PWD. Prior to the City PWD final approval of the construction plans for the proposed improvements, the following should be submitted: / A copy of written approval from Fire District #3 of the final street and driveway layout, site access, fire hydrant placement, and water system improvement plans for the proposed development. / The plans relating to the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the appropriate signature blocks should be completed on the plans. / A copy of written approval from Jackson County Roads Department regarding highway/county road improvements (as applicable). 9. Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, top of banks, ditch/channel inverts, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed development's infrastructure will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submittal for final approval. 10. Overhead power lines. If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, Owest, and Charter Communications, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities within the proposed development to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with the 2'7 Pheasant Creek Estates 2/14/2003 5 conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer. 11. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and-vertically) on the construction plans and as-built drawings. 12. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a drawing of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Mylar~ and in an acceptable electronic form in AutoCAD® format. The Final Plat shall be tied to a legal Government corner and the State Plane Coordinate System. The Final Plat shall either reflector be later modified to reflect any applicable "red-line" changes noted in the construction "as-builts", at the discretion of the City Administrator or his designee. 13. If the proposed development places structures within the 100-year floodzone, the Developer's engineer will be required to explain and provide detail as to what affect the placement of these structures will have on the floodzone; what affect it will have on the floodplain elevation and floodzone boundary; and what affects the modification of the floodplain elevation and floodzone boundary will have on the exiting and proposed facilities, and properties surrounding the proposed development. As applicable, the Developer's engineer shall determine the existing Base Flood Elevation contours and illustrate the existing boundaries of the floodplain and floodway fora 100-year storm event on the construction plans submitted for the proposed development. StreetslTraffic ^ EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE • Grant Road (Jackson County Jurisdiction) Classification -Collector • Hanley Road (Jackson County Jurisdiction) Classification -Minor Arterial Construction drawings for this Tentative Plan shall include a Street Lighting Plan/Driveway Lighting Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City PWD or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. The construction drawings shall include clear vision areas designed to meet the City's PWD Standards. 2. The Developer's engineer shall, at the cost of the Developer, evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the driveway/street section designs to accommodate the expected loads (including fire equipment) to be traveled on these driveways. If a public street, then the City of Central Point Public Works Department Standards & Specifications will stipulate the design of required street section. Storm Drainage, Irrigation Improvements ^ EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ^ 24-inch Storm Drain (northern property boundary) Developer's engineer shall develop a facility plan for the storm drain collection, retention, and 1~ Pheasant Creek Estates 2/14/2003 6 conveyance system (SD System) which provides for storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (either surface run-on or culvert or creek/ditch conveyance), any existing or future development on adjacent properties, conveyed storm drainage, or surface water flow, and any areas deemed by the City that will need to connect-into the proposed development's SD System. The system should be designed to adequately drain a 10-year storm event without surcharging or should provide adequate storage to prevent surcharging 2. Roof drains and under drains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain lines, and shall drain to the street. 3. Any discharge points of the storm water facilities shall be designed to provide an aesthetically pleasing, useful, and low maintenance facility, that are designed to mitigate erosion, damage, or loss during a 100- yearstorm event; and that mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these types of facilities. 4. Prior to City PWD construction plan review, the Developer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the SD system, which shall incorporate the use of the City PWD's rainfall/intensity curve, and City approved run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, pipe roughness coefficients, etc., that are used in the engineering calculations. The developer's engineer shall further provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations and flow line plots for public storm drains. Plot HGL on a profile or provide a separate profile drawing that indicates the HGL on the profile. Pipes should maintain cleaning velocity (minimum 2.0 feet per second) and have adequate capacities without surcharging during the design storm. 5. Storm drainpipe materials shall be PVC, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with watertight joints. Provide concrete orsand-cement slurry encasement where required in areas of minimum cover. 6. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. Sanitary Sewer All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design, construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEO, 1990 APWA Standards Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. 2. The construction plans and the "as-built" drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals. 3. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary approval, will forward the plans to BCVSA for completion of the review process. Upon completion of the review by BCVSA, completion of final revisions to the plans by the Developer's engineer, and following the final approval and signature on the construction plans by BCVSA, the Public Works Director will approve the plans in final form. 4. All testing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be done in accordance with BCVSA 19 Pheasant Creek Estates 2/14/2003 requirements, at Developer's expense. The Developer shall provide BCVSA and the City with test reports, TV reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance. Water System ^ - EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE 12-inch Waterline (Grant Road) ^ 12-inch Waterline (Diego Court) Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for backflow prevention. 2. The Developer's engineer shall consult Fire District #3, and comply with any and all suggestions regarding fire protection. 3. Each building shall be served by a separate water meter. Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and location of all water mains, hydrants, air valves, service connections, and other appurtenance details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD. 5. Water system shall be tested in accordance with City PWD Standards and requirements at Developer's expense and must be approved by the City. 6. Specifications for the design and construction of the water system shall be in accordance with City PWD standards. Site work, Grading, and Utility Plans Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. 2. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building or structure. 3. Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company, which reflects all utility line locations, crossings, transformer locations, valves, etc. 4. Utility locations must be accurately included on the as-built drawings, or as a separate set of drawings attached to the as-built drawings. ~~ ATT'ACFIMENT F PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit to the City a copy of the proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) for Pheasant Creek Estates Subdivision. 2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements imposed by affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the development of the Pheasant Creek Estates Subdivision. 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 Pheasant Creek Estates Subdivision. ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: February 18, 2003 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Matt Samitore, Community Planner SUBJECT: Final Development Plan -Birchfield Village P.U.D. Ap La •cant/ Owner Paul Grout P.O. Box 8210 Medford, OR 97504 Pro er Description/ 37 2W 12CC, Tax Lot 6300 - 0.90 acres total. Zoning: R-2, Residential Two-Family District Summary The applicant, Paul Grout requests that the Commission review and approve the Final Development plan for Birchfield Village Planned Unit Development. The site was preliminarily approved in July of 2002 by the Planning Commission (Attachment A) AQplicable Law• CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. -Planned Unit Development CPMC 17.24.010 et seq. - R-2, Residential Two-Family Discussion• CPMC Chapter 16.68 describes the requirement and application process for Planned Unit Developments. Initially, the applicant submits a preliminary development planwithmaps describing lot configuration, property boundaries and a schedule of planned completion dates. If the plan is approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant is allowed a period of six months to provide the City with a copy of the Final Development Plan demonstrating that all of the conditions and requirements of the Preliminary Development plan have been met. The Planning Commission will compare the preliminary and Final Plans and decide whether to approve or deny the plan submitted. The City Council will review the Commission's decision at the subsequent meeting. The preliminary development plan for Birchfield Village P.U.D. was approved by the Commission on July 2, 2002 subject to certain conditions of approval described in the staff report, the conditions of approval, and the minutes (Attachment B). 22 It is staffs determination that all of the conditions of approval 17ave been met or satisfactorily modified. The applicant has submitted architectural renderings to improve the facade for the existing dwelling making it more compatible with the new homes (Attachment C). The preliminary building plans for the new homes show architectural designs that are better than what was submitted earner (Attachment D) . The driveway for lots six and seven is a shared driveway that is spaced adequately from the intersection of Circlewood and Beall Lane. The main driveway is twenty-four feet wide as requested by the Commission. A grassed and fenced tot-play area has been shown on the landscape plans. No play equipment has been shown for the tot area. The remaining items to be discussed are items that were changed because ofrecornmendations from the City's Engineer and Fire District No. 3. Special concrete "grass-pave" was to be used on lots 1,2,3 and 8. The Engineer requested this be changed because he did not believe the grass-pave blocks would be able to withstand the amount of vehicular traffic that would cross over them and because the general weight of moving vans and emergency vehicles would structurally damage the blocks. Fire District No. 3 has requested that the western most carport be eliminated. The elimination of the carport will provide for a full twenty foot (20') of clear space for fire vehicle movements. Staff is recommending that the carport be moved to an alternative location. A valid Home Owners Association must be formed prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The Public Works Department has submitted a memo stating that all ofthe engineering requirements have been met (Attachment E). Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the final development plan, Resolution No._based on findings offact and conclusions of law contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set fort in Resolution 551 and this staff report. 2. Deny the final development plan based on findings of fact articulated by City Staff; or 3. Continue the review of the final development plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Original Site Plan, Final Plat Application, and Landscaping Plan. B. Staff Report, conditions of approval and minutes . C. Existing Dwelling Facade Improvements D. Proposed Architecture for Dwellings E. Public Works Merno ~~ 171.84' r______ ~ r- 'I 46 1 J I 1 -- 1 1 1 I I I. LOT 4 I 1 ~~ - LOT 1 I° L. I~ I 1« F------ I I iG. I I ~ ' I' 1 I 0~" 1 l__~__66_____1. 4 1 i L_________~_J ~, r___________~ I I ~ - r___________~ y". it LOT 2 j _i I I . is LOT 5 ~_ ' 1 1 46 h I L .__J _ -~ E_____46Y ~ _~_ 'G' r___________~ ~ '. _ . ` Yom" I 1 jN LOT 3 j. ~ l L?~ v ' 1 .____ i " '~ is I I g g i s I'. ~ e1 .1- ~y "ll . - q1 LOT 9 _. r <6 _ I ~ LOT B IN 1 I Ex L______,,.___ 1 R?' I ~ i.'. ~ ~ % H45iN I . O " F D - ~\~ . .. .Irt4 ~.. N q ~ i - :.QW c5' I ~ O p -'.3. O Q /-1 ~ h O i ~ LOT 10 ~ " !ti ~ ~~ _ ~'~ ~ IS I ~ I _____ f____ I 46 i ~- : . ~ a 1 ' ;~ I LOT 6 ' ~ r ~ V I I I L c,> q ___-_______ ,C -, J 1 L' I pN ~ O~~ I t 1 :. 1 Ip LOT 7 ry t I o1` ` STREET DEDIGTION BEALL LA11~E 79%tOB ~ bQ $Q. BA.3 aR3 ta0r laa 40x1a6 M84 +abxtl< L_.___ J UPPER FLOO1~ DIy`NgING ql~ 6-.sm~st 55%N~ GAPAGE ~ ra1cR J~ BIRCHFIELD VILLAGE ~ TENTATIVE P.U.D. PLAN n LOCATED 7N: PROPOSED STRUCTURES FQ.EI "beill mM m+PtOA..{ ,4~.tachn~~ Ori9inaL TeH#~#erc Tl~ DINING llVING ao.aa nro><+ao CnFnGE ~ +a+onwa I 1 r.___7 _ _i I 1__ `_ MAIN FLOOR j~ ~~ N895]48~E 17161'~~ (EASt, Vt84) ((((589+5Tii'E, 17 t93')))) 25 6t~t9t _ . i ^~. _ 33.90, _-~ i R .76.80' P ' 5' ., ^ I LOT i ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ LOY 4,_ ~ 0 7818 Sf,t $ t5t WIDE SEWER m 2372'$.F.t " 4 ' ~ NE EASEMEM ~ 6 .~ 8 m `N89'.52'68'E~ fi0 116' _,. ~ hi.- II :' N89'ST48'E 76.80' 1 1` ° ° t o e z ~ >v COT 2 $ a - ~ ~,, o $ ~! ~T ~ 0 8 . 1789 S.F.4 :~ . ~ 230 S.f.f ' S ~ ~ ~R ~ ~ zti 8 I I N89'S7'48'E 59.t2C -4 ~ ` _ - ~ I z~` t, .I ~ N89'ST48'E-'76.80' P _t• 11 ' 't .]. ~ - i5' WIDE WATER LOT 3' ~ UNE FASEMFM ~ 9 f ~ ° .$ ,L~ 775 . S.F. o Q ~ \I ~' T~ ~ 15' WIDE SEWER T , 1 WES ENT U E EASE N M .4 THIS MONUMENT IS A WRNESS o ~~, /MONUMENT TO THE SOUTHWEST ~ ~ W / CORNER bF LOf 3. LURNER , ~ - - - - , - -. 8E435 Sf53'30'E, OAJB' ~~+sp. 1 1, 'S8T20'00'E 29.34' _ 'S5=-~6~Jk, N89`57`48'E 75.80' ~ ' ' ~ - n E, 58134 . ~ ' N893T48 3.Fb ` ~, , _ 2g n 8962 -- - - w2i20.£. i~ ~ CAR- .~ajo0 ~ `~~ - P ' PORT 3.T " "\ ~ 2.00 ; . y~ ~ ` [OT 9 - I - 62-' \ ' SNI ,' \ 6671 $,F.t` N89'STOTW, 6~~~2 /" Z $ - 5 t 1 19.9}' I/ ~LENTERUNE 10' WIOE~~ m • . &SEMEMTORMORAJN \N' r - i I iO - W ~ ~ ~ ~ SHOP/STORAGE U ~ w~ ~ L07 10 /~ _ ~~ ? ~ 13249 'S.F.t ~ m ~ {LOT 1Q 15 A P:U.E. AND ALSO \'~ ~ h ,I , P ~ 4I b COAfMON AREA PND'1NGRESS- 7 ~ ECREB$ EASEMEM BENEFlTING \ • i1J ~ '' ~ }.2 7.5.. LOTS 1' THOUGH 9.)' ~ o 1 ~' p 7.5' N89'ST071v 76.314' i I .. ~I I ~ g f :;I j tOT 6 n ~' '2442 S.Ef \ I ' s:0 I n m -. NeB'20IOOW 66,675' ~ 5 _ 1, ~ ~ - a \ , 54.775• ~ .11.90:". p' -~ `V N89'STOTW 76.314' 0 1 ~--~.._15' WIDE SEWER a ~ LOT 8 '''w z - ~ I LINE EASEMENT f I ~ ~ 2276 S.F.t o .I- LOT 7 - i ~ ( n .28$2 $.F.t I ~10'AUE---- •~ ~ ~ r J\70'PUE __- I 55.30' 38.50' ` I 76:3ta' t N89'ST07"W 1JO.I ta' • - ^" >IO.oo' AREAr6EtNG DEDICATED FOR ADDITIONAL BEALL LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY. o ' 1]0344''.(110.40') --~ N89'S707"W (N89'S4'30'W) --. -------~---BEALL-LANE -- 569'$J'0TE 7771]' ((589'56'05"E, 77].3]')) (589'S6'30'E) EASEMENTS A Current Title Report shows no easement. O dd 1 o e B ` O = n j w « ~ $ ~ mb i Qqq m o r ~ ° ~ ~ ~ m ~ J .. $ ~ m ~ o 8 C1~ I `1 1 1 1 I 1 x= • _ S.N, U.1 tilit tilit. T,eiep 5¢we Line: BE ( (( ((( _! _ 25_00 ~ITW. POINT ' ' II 0 °oi 2 5 ~iaat p~a.¢-,qvP JRVEY NARRATIVE TO COMPLY W4TH 0 R S 209 250 ride tract descr'~bed in Instrument No. 02-43890 O.R. into 10 P.U.O. ncluding common area. ~; .' r~_ 2 NEE rlna~c.~ l rk~L,~r~~P~sriz~ I'1z~~cr+L.rn;~~. ,y E Jy~' f' -C'- >~ i lv "' f Q:Y , ~"~ /~,Ii ~}, o ~~,~ ~/ r' t! - U~ i ~ I -I ~ .~ _ry N 1J . ~~=Llt~lii`> LI(`7ifAN li~k S6A~. Re41~,~5 ~.~ O~ P-~p(j ~.Ml_v;~ V.\ EA`~y ~Fl.uU 3 C-AS1Et'J.~ (~r1'~ F- ~, p f ~cLIS Get F1A CE1~I Sl`1.-._.-~_. I ~'2p CItL, Mii~. .~ .I I ~D Lai yY71VFT1L`I (-~M'?'J'_'__~y~ ~ .-~~.. s~ ' `Y" i 'i ~a ~f> - .?.6. SUt7 GYL °L~l1AL. ~~~'~ CCU ~~J:fS V'vi:.:D:.:1n6nti lC^' _. _ ,.., ,,,_ r..~ F~.UWc1Ll t\i G 1~llP i i u;Ntf~ 13112Ek~WA I !~L `AL. _+ r ~. ._Zi.~ NATURAL 5YSTE.1ViS PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE July 2, 2002 TO: Central Point Planning Commission ~C~ZjtPI/Z~~ FROM: _ Matt Samitore, Community Planner SUBJECT: Preliminary Development Plan- Birchwood Village P.U.D Ap lip cant/ Owner: Steven and Debbie Childs 484 Beall Lane Central Point, OR 97502 Aeent: Paul Grout P.O. Box 8210 Medford, OR 975041 5ummarv• The applicant has submitted a preliminary development plan for a Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of 9 single family lots. These will be stick built homes that resemble the cluster developments in the Transit Oriented Development zones. Covenant, Codes and Restrictions (CC&R's) will govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the common open space and landscaping within the PUD. The PUD is being pursued because it allows the applicants more development flexibility with lot area, driveways, and an existing house. The applicant is trying to build to the R-2 zoning density, work with a deep dimensional lot, and introduce single family housing variety. Authority: CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a preliminary development plan for PUD's. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibits B). Applicable Law• CPMC 16.10.0] 0 et seq.- Tentative Plans CPMC 17.68.010 et seq: Planned Unit Development CPMC 17.24.010 et seq: R-2, Residential Two Family District CPMC 17.60.010 et seq: General Regulations CPMC 17.64.010 et seq: Off Street Pazking 27 Discussion• The applicant was granted an Administrative Variance in order to proceed with this PUD (See Attachment B). Usually, PUD's must be at least an acre in size. With a 10% Administrative Variance this allowed the .90 acre pazcel to be processed as a PUD. The applicant considered using the Conditional Use Application which allows for a cluster home development, but it does not allow for either the density or the housing the applicant and the City are seeking. The applicant, Paul Grout, is proposing the development of eight new single family homes in the R-2, Two-Family Zoning district. Currently, one single family home is located on the lot. The overall density of this PUD is 9 units an acre which is less than the 12 units per acre allowed in the R-2 zone. The homes in this plan will consist of zero lot line attached and detached homes. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 8 would have a front yard setback of two feet, with a private driveway of 30' to 35' which will allow for other pazking and vehiculaz turning. Lots 7 and 8 would have a setback of five feet on the Beall Side, instead of the typical 10' setback. The properly to the North and West of the site is currently zoned R-2. Property to the east and South (Medford) is zoned and R-1-6. Most of the azea is developed as single family homes. There are currently no improvements on the Circle Wood Drive or Beall Lane frontages of this property. The public works department is requesting ten feet ofright-of--way along Beall Lane for the future development. Sidewalks and street trees will need to be added to the perimeter of the development along the street frontage. The applicant intends to construct one main driveway into the development which will access off of Circle Wood Drive. Public utilities will be contained within the road and the easements identified on the tentative plan. Pre-design meetings should be held with Avista Utilities, Fire District No. 3 and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority to work out issues related to easements and the placement of fire hydrants and pipelines. The applicants are proposing to satisfy on-site parking requirements by providing two covered spaces per lot. One attached garage for each unit, as well as one carport. If acceptable, this arrangement would satisfy the requirements specified in Section 17.64.040. Landscaping has been shown on the site plan. Irrigation for the trees will be addressed by the individual home owners. The landscaping and tree's in the common area will be maintained by the tenants of the existing home. Area residents have submitted a letter in opposition of the Planned Unit Development. The residents are opposed to the higher density development near their existing single family homes. They have also questioned the reasoning for the PUD and the added traffic to the intersection of Beall and Circle Wood. The R-2 zoning was adopted by the City in 1983. The R-2 zone typically allows duplex development. ~~ 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 0 The Corner lot has limited access because of the designation of Beall Lane as Collector Street. Trying to develop this lot in a typical fashion would be difficult because of that designation and its depth. The PUD will allow for a higher density zoning within the R-2 district and allow for a cluster concept which is a Conditional Use in the R-2 zoning district. The administrative Variance allows for the size of the PUD to be smaller than the typical l acre. This is a reasonable "in-fill" proposal. Criteria to Grant or Deny a PUD In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standazds from section 17.68.040: A. That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of this title; ® The applicant's preliminary development plan proposes single family dwellings in the context of attached and detached homes similar to others in the community. The housing types will be similar in nature to the larger single fauvly homes built in the area and owner occupied. The overall housing density is less than the maximum in the R-2 zoning district. B. The proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the objectives of the zozung ordinance and other applicable policies of the City; >d This proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals to the degree it ensures adequate housing will be provided; contributes to the variety of housing offered and promotes higher density zoning. Birchwood Village promotes clustered housing and other designs that will potentially minimize the need to expand the urban growth boundary by encouraging a higher density than what is typically been developed in Central Point. Zoning code objectives can be met if recommended planning and public works conditions are satisfied. 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; ®I The preliminary development plan is consistent with R-2 zoning. The fmished homes will be similar in nature to the Single Family homes in the district, but will have smaller lots associated with the houses. The self-contained nature of the development will have little impact upon the liva}~ility of surrounding neighborhoods and are actually expected to make it more attractive. Property 30 management and covenants will govern the maintenance and overall appearance of the PUD. D. That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they are financially able to carry out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete said construction with a reasonable time as determined by the Commission; 0 Neither an economic feasibility report nor market analysis has been performed to staff s knowledge. However, smaller single family houses are in demand elsewhere in the City at Central Point East and Twin Creeks. A development schedule has been submitted indicating that the applicants intend to complete construction within a reasonable amount of time. 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 pazking; ® There are five driveways proposed for Birchwood Village off of Circlewood Drive. One of the driveways will serve as the main driveway for the development, which will have five homes that nse it for ingress and egress. There will be three other driveways that will access one car garages off of them. One of those driveways, Lot #7 will need to have a combined driveway with Lot #6 in order to meet the Public Works Standards. The external and internal circulation will not adversely effect neighboring properties. F, The commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed; 6 There is no commercial development proposed in Birchfield Village. Ci. 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 in Birchfield Village. H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; ® The preliminary development plan depicts an open space area and the planting of street trees. The current location of significant landscaping is not depicted on the plan. I. The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area; ~~ ~ The Birchwood Village PUD is compatible with the surrounding area to the extent that it maintains a similar architectural style of the homes across Circle Wood Drive (refer to building elevations). The homes developed to the east of the PUD are within the R-1-6 Single Family Zoning District. These homes are on larger lots and are zoned for lower density. The PUD will not have the same lot size as other homes in the area. The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land; ^ The development will result in a more efficient use of public services. Tt is also is a good use of the R 2 zoning district which wilt help delay the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the preliminary development plan for Birchwood Village Planned Unit Development. 1. Adopt Resolution NQ_, approving the PUD Preliminary Development plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment ); or 2. Deny the proposed Preliminary Plan; or 3. Continue the review of the Preliminary Development Plan at the discretion of the Commission. Exhibits: A. Application and Exhibits by the applicant B. Public Works Staff Report C. Administrative Variance Application D. Correspondence E. Planning Department Conditions G:U'lanning\02026.wpd 32 RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A final development plan, containing in final form the information required in the preliminary plan shall be submitted to the City within six months of approval or by January 4, 2002. 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 Oregon Uniform Fire Code and Structural Specialty Code. 3. The applicant shall submit fmal pazking, 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 of tree's, shrubs, and ground cover that will be planted and the irrigation for the common space. 4. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&R's) or any comparable agreement governing the use, maintenance and continued protection of the PUD as part of the fmal development plan. 5. The applicant shall schedule and attend pre-design meetings with Avista i3tilities, Fire District No. 3 and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority to more specifically identify utility easements and the placement of fire hydrants and pipelines and other utilities. 6. A suitable landscape and irrigation plan needs to be submitted showing the types of tree's that will be planted and the irrigation for the common space. G:~Plann ing102026.wpd E~ 7 City of Central Point Planning Commission July 2, 2002 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, Don Foster and Wayne Riggs were present. John LeGros, Rick Peny and Paul Lunte were absent. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey Planning Director; Matt Samitore Community Planner, and Dave Arkens Planning Technician. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was correspondence for item A. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 18, 2002 meeting as presented. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, yes and Riggs, yes. Motion passed unanimously. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public hearing to review an application fora 10 lot subdivision known as Birchwood Village Planned Unit Development (PUD). The subject property is located near the the intersection of Circlewood Drive and Beall Lane in the R-2, Residential Two-Family zoning district on Map 37 2W 12CC, Tax Lot 6300. Tom Humphrey Planning Director, gave an overview of the Comprehensive Plan and the different zone classifications, along with the tables for maximum residential density in each zone. He also stated that there are a number of single family dwellings built within R-2 and R-3 districts which encourages sprawl. The State will begin to ask how the City has used all zones, which could effect future requests for UGB expansion. 34 City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2002 Page 2 The City was approached several months ago regarding the development of the mentioned property. The PUD alternative, increases the number of units per acre, which would allow better use of land, satisfy the density issues with single family lots,and be amore appealing design style without detracting from the existing homes in the surrounding area. The common area (Lot 10), will be the responsibility of individual home owners through CC & R's, and a homeowners association. Public Works, BCVSA, and Fire District # 3 have all been involved from the onset to make their recommendations. An application forAdministrative variance (Exhibit "C")was approved, to allow for the lot size being .90 acres, instead of the minimum one acre, for PUD's. Additional PUD criteria is outlined in the Staff Report. This proposed PUD will reduce the cost of utilities and services. It will also reduce the number of flag lots. Paul Grout, agent for the Owner/Applicant, stated that his intention is to build charming, upscale, open single family dwellings with a courtyard area. He does not want to put in duplexes. He believes that on a scale of 1-10, this development would bean 8. Some homes will be attached, some will be detached. Lots 6 & 7 will be attached and share a driveway. The lean-to on the existing house will be eliminated to keep with design. The new design also incorporates the reccommendations of Fire District # 3. Don Bilberry, of 151 Woodridge Drive, expressed concerns with parking, whether or not the garages were single car, and whether there would be an adequate play area for the children. It was explained that the homes will have single vehicle car ports, in addition to single car garages. Tom Humphrey explained that conditions can be made to provide some play area in the open space. Mr. Bilberry also wondered if this project will interfere with the widening of Beall Lane. There will be a total of 72 feet, with 2 travel lanes, curb, gutter and a turn lane. It was mentioned that the existing paved area of Beall Lane is currently only 24 feet. Erv Tipping, of 157 Woodridge Drive, objected that it had even become a PUD. He stated that looking at it realistically, with the width and height of the proposed homes, there would not be room to plant trees as a buffer. He feels that the designs distributed by Paul Grout were deceiving, because there appears to be approximately 3 feet to plant the trees, unlike the drawing. He also shared the concerns about vehicles having the room to maneuver. Mr. Tipping does not like the design at all, and doesn't believe the development is compatible with surrounding homes. c~ Ciry of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2002 Page 3 Don Malloy, of 1355 Circlewood, is an adjoining property owner. He wanted to know the price range of these homes. Though Mr. Grout has not conducted a fair market analysis, he estimates these home will be in the $139,000 - $145,000 price range. Mr. Malloy is concerned about 60 feet of building being 5 feet from his home. He also wanted to know about on street parking. Mr. Malloy said that this is already a very busy, dangerous corner and it is very difficult to turn from Circlewood onto Beall Lane towards Medford. Melvin Coffin,is the owner of a 1 acre parcel at 520 Beall Lane, and a''/z acre parcel at 508 Beall Lane. His property borders the West side of proposed development. Mr. Coffin , is concerned about traffic issues, does not like the parking idea. He also believes that when Beall Lane is widened, it will bring traffic even closer to homes. He feels that the design is too confining, and does not go well with their area. However, Mr. Coffin does not object to duplexes. The possiblity of children getting into his pond is also of concern to him. He disagrees with cramming people in, and feels that more thought could go into this. Chuck Piland, asked Mr. Coffin if he was aware that his property is also zoned R-2. Mr. Coffin stated that he would never build like this, and that he wants to see something fit better into their area. Daren McKendree, of 158 Woodridge Drive, expressed a concern for a different income level moving into the area, he will be surprised if these proposed homes sell for over $115,000, or if the homeowners will take care of their yards. Mandi Hopkins, of 1380 Circlewood, stated how concerned she is with the additional traffic and what she will be seeing for a view from her house. Mrs. Hopkins does not want to look at covered parking, a flashing light or stop sign. She wanted to know why they have to abide by their CC & R's only to have more people move in with their own CC & R's to follow. Mrs. Hopkins said that the fees paid to build her house paid for Forest Glen Park down the street, and it's for their use. She sees nothing but a trailer park or row houses when she looks at this project. Tom Humphrey, explained the SDC fee's, and how they contribute to community parks, also that home values city- wide have increased in 2 years. Mrs. Hopkins responded that the value of their homes has increased due to the homeowners in her area and their efforts. Kathy Bilbery, of 151 Woodridge, is also concerned about the kids walking to Howard School, and how dangerous it is. Mrs. Bilbery stated that a sidewalk should be part of the builders proposal. Jessica Prins, of 1106 Circlewood Ct, stated that her main concern is maintenance. She would like the proposal to include a maintenance agreement to match their own. 36 City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2002 Page 4 Paul Grout responded to the concerns that had not already been addressed. He feels that these homes offer a lot of diversity, and are not entry level homes. The average price for existing homes in this area is $150,000 - $160,000. The house for sale by the park is listed at $240,000 - $250,000. Matt Samitore Community Planner, added that Cedar Shadows is a similarsubdivision and those homes range from $141,000 - $169,000, he feels that Mr. Grout is right on with his estimated market value. Mr. Grout also believes that single family homes will help with surrounding homes value as opposed to building duplexes. Mr. Grout was asked about the existing home. He stated that it is a 1920's home that was remodeled in the 1960's and is listed with the County Assessors office as a 1960's home. It has a concrete foundation, a heat pump and new roof. The lean- to on the right side of house will be removed. Mr. Grout then addressed the possibility of a tot lot and is open to looking further into it. He admitted not giving a lot of thought to this before, because he had expected the children to go to largeropen spaces like Forest Glen Park. Everything in the PUD will be landscaped. Commissioner Fish would like to see a play area for the 3 - 6 year olds. These will all be 3 bedroom homes and will target families, since seniors probably will not be interested in stairs. Duplexes would not work well with the existing home on property or those along Circlewood. Commissioner Piland closed the public portion of the meeting. Commissioner Fish stated that homes built to R-1 densities in R-2 zones do not promote smart growth. She wants a tot lot located on lot 10. The driveway for lots 6 & 7 should be moved North, be at least 24 feet wide. The Home owners Association should have enough money set up in reserve for the up keep, until a house is sold. Commissioner Fish is also in favor of single family homes over duplexes. Commissioner Piland said the sidewalk on Beall would be a part of the Beall Lane expansion and improvements. He would like to look into a yellowflashing pedestrian light or caution sign. CC & R's are no guarantee whether the home is old or new, but home ownership does make a difference in up keep. Commissioner Foster is uncomfortable with this PUD, and asked if there will be an Association to control issues like paint, etc. 37 City oFCentral Point Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2002 Pale 5 Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 551, approving the 10 Lot subdivision known as Birchwood Village PUD, subject to staffs recommended conditions of approval, and 1). Common fencing be used throughout the PUD; 2). Special concrete "grass-pave" be used on lots 1,2,3 and 8; 3). a tot lot be added and fenced; 4). Lots 6 & 7 share a common drive; 5). The driveway on lot 10 to be 24' wide; and 6). The applicant will build units at or better than the elevations he has shown. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt the resolution. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, no; Riggs, yes; motion passed. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey Planning Director, addressed the Planning Commission, and asked them if there is any thing they would like to see Planning research and bring back to them. He explained that the Planning Department is trying to take a proactive approach. There will be a fence variance coming up for August, but will try to resolve administratively. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 9:33 P.M. ~~ xb'#a'XS' :f'IQ7rN r ivy ccuFi~EO calf _ ao«(j.IVtryEY'~.~ ~J / am Fi~u+ xXb FASCIA ~ Ix - 5 BARGE Bo 9 Y ^ FAFE ENTIRE e cNmneY wr ~.ArncE ax6 ~ PGeT V (NP ]> \ FF- GRADE aa•e K~x cHI~rY ~ _. _ rR`18CULPnl~D ta4° ]Xb FAFA:4A l 1 1 11 l-• BARGE BD B FACE ENURE cN1YWEY W/ LATiiGE 4X6 / v pp6r /TYP ]) \ kF- tAOE RDCK p{~p EA57 ELEVATION o~T(oN OPTION 2 1 wocE S Y __._,~ ~~ GLIEr1T: U P 8 48 GIRGLEWOOD MEDFORD, OR 975(DI FAX (541)89D-4'112 Dt24WPi 8Y: (GN 30RS HOLLY 8T MEDFORD, OR (54(71'12-1841 GOPYRIGFIT ©2moJ2 SCALE: 1j0"=}~_O° DATE: 8'29'02 pREL11"f•: 4 DRAFTER: STEVE woGE vll Iliflill ~ ,Q.tnta~at L ad'M4'X8. 9YLUiH BLOCK CHItNEY 36~ 9CW.PN;PED CQ'9' O 3W+F48CIA 3'hva WWE Ix rmP ~~I III/ II~ ~~ P ,/ LJ lJ Ll I ILJI FIJI ~~ II I \'1I ~ 1~=.Ilt.t~~llt SIDING iKa 81DIf x 1 ~K J GLAG4 BLOCK EX(STiNCx EAST ELEVATION i '190 Dllts CLIENT: PAUL GROUT Sd8 GIRCLEtU00D MEDFORD, OR 9'1501 DRAILN BY: NORTNIUEST DESIGN 314 S HOLLY ST MEDFORD, OR C9d1I"(i2-1841 COPYRIGHT ©2002 SCALE: Ise", I'-0" DATE: 1-30-02 PRELIM: EXISTING DRAFTER= STEVE GRADE ATTIC VENT PER OUAJER I X 2' R5.-~ TRIM CN I X 6' RS, TRIM ON 2 X' 8' FASGIA SD. I: ~12 ~~ra -m' O.N. (tYP.) 1 X 4' R5. TRIM EsEVEL SIDINCs PER OUINER I X ID' R5. TRIM i~'~~ I 1 X 12' R5. TRIM ~~ FIN15~+ --~ ~ lsRADE ~ ~~N T ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~N SGALE I/4' = I'-emu' 41 COPYRI Federal Copyri ~~ THIS STAA~r FOR THIS' A~~~~ ~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Public Works Department INTEROFrICE MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHRIS CLAYTON SUBJECT: BIRCHFIELD VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT DATE: 02/13/2003 Commissioners, The City of Centtal Point Public Works Department has reviewed the final development application fox Bixchfield Village, and is prepared to offer an endorsement after an explanation of the following revisions to the preliminary development plan. 1. The preliminary plans delineated the use of "grass pavers" as a base for vehicular traffic from the end of the minimum access drive to the planned units. After reviewing the preliminary plans, both Public Works Staff and Hammond engineering expressed concern regarding the durability of the proposed "grass pavers". The Public Works Department coordinated with the developer's engineer to design a resilient asphalt surface including a standard section. 2. Fire District #3 requested the second revision that included elimination of an existing carport to create a full 20-feet of cleats space for emergency vehicle access. 3. The third revision to the preliminary development plan related to the driveway access to lots 6 & 7 of the proposed development. Given the proximity of lots 6 & 7 to the intersection of Beall Lane and Circlewood Drive their driveway accesses were combined, creating a safe distance between the subject intersection and the proposed driveway. 4. The final revision involves the driveway approach from Circlewood Drive to the Birchfield Village minimum access drive. The preliminary development plan outlined a distance less than the required 24 feet. The final development plan has been amended to reflect the required 24 foot driveway apron. 42 Includuig the above-described revisions to the preliuunary deg*elopmcnt plan, the City of Central Point Public Works Department is recommending approval of the I3irchficld Village final development plan. Thank you, Christopher Clayton Senior Public Works Technician 43 2