Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Commission Packet - April 1, 2003
CITY OI+ CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA April I, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 567 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland -Candy Fish, Don Foster, Paul Lunte, Rick Perry and Wayne Riggs III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of March 1 I, 2003, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VL BUSINESS Pgs . 1-17 A. Public meeting to review a site plan application that would allow the consriuction of two four-plex structures near the intersection of Manzanita and Third Streets in the HMR, High Mix Residential District. The parcel has been identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7800. B. Public meeting to review a fence variance application for properties located within the Pgs. 18-27 Brookfield Estates Subdivision. The applicants are requesting that fences be constructed within a special stream setback area that has been established adjacent to creeks within the City. The subject parcels are located in a R-1, residential Single Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W l OBB. C. Review of recommendations concerning the urban reserve areas identified as "CP2" and Pgs. 28-34 "CP3" VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Pc04012003 City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT APPROXIMATELY 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chairman Chuck Piland, Rick Peny, Candy Fish, Paul Lunte, Don Foster and Wayne Riggs were present. Also in attendance were Matt Samitore, Community Planner; and Ken Gerschler, Community Planner III. CORRESPONDENCE There was correspondence received relating to Item D. IV. MINUTES Commnissioner Lunte made a motion to approve the minutes from the Febivary 18, 2003 meeting. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Perry; yes, Fish, yes; Lunte, yes; Foster, yes; and Riggs, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public hearing to review an application for a lot line adjustment and tentative subdivision that would create 21ots on a 0.94 acre parcel at 3606 Bursell Road. The parcel islocated inthe R-I-8, Residential Single Family zoning district and is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W 11AC, Plawaing Commission ndinntes d-fm~cls l1, 2003 Page 2 Tax Lot 400. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner; presented the Planning Department Staff report. A portion ofthis application is related to a separate application for a Planned Unit Development known as Kensington Corut, by way ofa lot line adjustment. This lot line adjustnent enables the Kensingon Court Planned Unit Development to have two additional lots, and was processed administratively bythe City. Mr. Gerschler, explained that the improvements as required by the Public Works Department would be minimal. The City has not yet received recommendations from BCVSA or Fire DistrictNo. 3, and ask that the developer be required to meet their recommendations as well with approval ofthis application. There were no comments. Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adoptResolution 564, approving the amended Tentative Plan application fora 21ot partition at 3606 Bursell Road, subject to meeting requirements from BCVSA and Fire District #3 ,and staff recommended conditions of approval (Attachments C and D). Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion passed unanimously. B. Public hearing to review an application for a Planned Unit Development, known as Kensington Court, on a parcel of property located near the intersection of Pittview Avenue and Bursell Road. The subject parcels are located in a R-1, residential Single Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W 11AC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. Ken Gerschler, presented the Planning Department Staff report. Mr. Gerschler explained that the homes will be 1 and 2 story. With a 21 foot wide residential road, there will not be parking allowed on the street. It has yet to be determined whether the no parking restriction will be conveyed by painting the curbs or by posting no parking signs. The developer has provided adequate driveway space and recessed garages to allow for plenty ofparking. This road will be a public road so that it can be built to City standards. There are significant setbacks, with rear yard setbacks of 20 feet. The PUD has been requested in order to move the buildable portion ofthe home up to as much as 10' from the front property line. The developers have also included a 6 foot wide pedestrian pathway to allow access to the potential development of a park on a parcel located adjacent to Kensington Court. Pittview Road is County maintained and the City is cwTently working on ajurisdictional transfer of Pittview Road, with the County funding some ofthe upgrade costs for paving to City standards, prior to this h~ansfer takingplace. Commissioner Fish asked about the lighting. Mr. Gerschler stated that the lighting will be Plarvaiiag Canmiiss~or~ ;4/inu~es A4arch ll, 2003 Page 3 similar to the TOD standards. Mr. Gerschler added that the developer has built several subdivisions and has the ability to complete this project. BCV SA docs have sewer facilities in the area, acid will need to see plans to determine the best way for this development to connect. There is a proposed storm drain located in the northwest corner. This does not appear to be a problem area for storm water pooling. Mr. Samitore, Community Planner; added that Scott Cochran came in earlier asking about a homeowners association. Mr. Gerschler will be checking with the City attorney regarding the laws for homeowners associations and CC & R's. Mike Thornton of Thornton Engineering addressed the commissioners. Mr. Thornton stated that he supports the City's staffreports. He is asking for flexibility with the Public Works Department for the geometry of the street, because they may need to shift the position one or two feet either way. Mr. Thornton spoke about the storm drain and said they will certainly do their part to make sure that there will be adequate storm water drainage. He also expressed that they prefer CC & R's to maintain quality standards and construction within this development. Mr. Thornton stated he was under the impression that they could do straight curbs, however they are willing to be flexible with the type of curbs. He feels confident with putting in straight curbs, since there will only be one builder and driveway placements should not be a problem. Commissioner Fish stated that she prefers straight cuc•bs to the rolling curbs. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to adopt Resolution 565, approving the Tentative Plan for Kensington Court, subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachments C and D) Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion pass unanimously. C. Public hearing to consider a tentative plan fora 321ot subdivision known as Cedar Park located East of U.S. Highway 99 and South of Miller Estates Subdivision. The proposed development is located in the TOD-LMR, low mix residential district and have been identified by the records of the Jackson County Assessor as 37 2W 03B, Tax Lots 700, 800 and 900. There were no conflicts of interest, or ex-parte communications. Matt Samitore presented the Planning Department Staffreport. This proposed development is in the TOD- LMRzoning dishict,with aminimum of 21 units, maximum of 42 units, and a minimum of 13,200 square feet open space. In this design, the developer has dedicated 29,518 square feet of open space through out, with 32 proposed units. The zoning provides the developer with the ability to add 10 more units within the subdivision. Some open space will have nut trees and other open space sites will have fruit trees, along with cedar pees as a symbol ofthe Cedar Park name. The applicant did master plan the development, since it is required ofany development over 5 acres. The Planning Stafffeels it is a good conceptual plan, since they did not have cooperation from some ofthe neighbors, to know what the neighbors would be doing Plarveirag Conmrission dlinufes March I [, 2003 Page ~ with their properties. The applicants are asking that the alley abutting Miller Estates to the north ofCedarParkbe aprivate alley way. All the other alley ways will be public. Access is of concern, the road along the southern portion of Cedar Parkwill have some issues to resolve. Highway 99 is ODOT jurisdiction, and requires 650 feet between roads accessing the highway, therefore they do not support the southern road. In addition ODOT will require an approach permit. It does meet the City requirements for road spacing onto an arterial road, and the City is currently working with the State for thejurisdictional transfer ofHighway 99. Mr. Sunitore spoke with OSP about a possible alternative access road and they would not be very supportive of an access road leading to OSP storage and evidence area. Also, with the southern road, the developer owns '/2 of the proposed road, 2 other portions are owned by other people, Mrs. Malcom and Mr. & Mrs. Beck, which will need to give ROW dedication to the City for development. Any fees to upsize infrastructure would have to be paid by the developer. Mr.Gerschleraddedthatthedesignhasatrafficcalmingeffect. The applicants are increasing density with open space. There will be a path meandering around the development, along Griffin Creek leading to the downtown business district. It is a well thought out design and represents what the City hopes to see of other developments. Mr. Dan Davis, member of the Cedar Park Group spoke on behalf of the development. Mr. Davis answered Commissioner Lunte's earlier question as to whether the existing trees have been inventoried, and they have been by Galbraith & Associates. They will be preserving as many ofthe existing trees as possible that are compatible with the development. The Commissioners asked aboutthe open space, and if ury of it will have playground equipment Ifthe need arises, and they see thatthere are a lot offaniilies moving into this development, then there certainly would be playground equipment placed in open space. Mr. Samitore added that some ofthe SDC fees collected for this development could probably be designated to playground equipment. Mr. Wally Skirman addressed the Commissioners. Mr. Skirman lives in the triangular shaped property identified south ofthe development on the conceptual plus. He expressed concerns about water drainage from this development and does not want to be left in a bowl of water. He also has concerns with BCV SA. Mr. Samitore answered as it stands now, storm water drainage will have to be able to stand up to a 10 year flood event. If the new FEMA study shows that this is in a flood plain, then the developer would have to build to a 50 or 100 year flood event. All utilities will be stubbed out to his property when the Beck property develops. Chairman Piland had asked when improvements would be made to Scenic and Highway 99. Mr. Gerschler projected in 3 years, but development trends will also be a factor. The bridge across Griffin Planning Canmiiss~as ~I(inutes March ll, 2003 Pale 6 decided to start developing theirproperty, at which time the County assessor would come out and re- evaluatethe value of their property. hi the history ofCentral Point, no property owner has been forced to annex into the City or forced to develop. Even ifcertain areas were to become part of the UGB, they would have to annex into the City to receive City services, and must be contingent with another property thathas already been annexed into City limits. Zoning would remain the same as it is now, until it became annexed into the City. Good agricultural land was determined by soil testing, with the results coming back as a Type 1 or 2 classification. The areas for potential growth were chosen by the City of Central Point at the request ofthe State. These areas were chosen based on potential growth within the entire region in the preliminary stages. All ofthese areas will be considered by public hearings, and could change once it these areas go to the State level for final decisions. Also, ifincluded in the UGB, and being annexed into the City, there would be additional public hearings regarding the development of same properties. Commissioner Lunte made a motion to continue the meeting past 10:00pm. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion pass unanimously. After hearing all the information, and public testimony, the Commissioners decided to post-pone a recommendationtothe City Council, until further review. Chairperson Piland, suggested a study session for Commissioners regarding Regional Problem Solving (RPS) to be held on April 15, 2003 at 7:OOpm. VII. MISCELLANEOUS None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT CommissionerLuntemadeamotiontoadjoumthemeeting. CommissionerFostersecondedthe motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. PLANNING DEPAR'T'MENT STARK' 12EPORT HEARING DA"CE: April 1, 2003 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Matt Samitore, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing -Site Plot Review for 37 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7800- Two Four- Plex Buildings Owners Francis & Maria Orozco 100 Esther Way Central Point, OR 97502 Agent Bryan Camarena, Camarena Construction, Inc. 151 Esther Way Central Point, OR 97502 Pro er Descri tion/ 37 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7800 - 0.27 Acres total. Zoning: HMR, High Mix Residential Sammarv: The applicants have requested a Site Plan Review for the construction of two 4-Plex buildings in the TOD-HMR, High Mix Residential zoning district. The two story buildings planned for construction are designed for residential uses only. Authoritv• CPMC 1.24.050 vests Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public meeting and render a decision on any application for a Site Plan. Notice of the Public Meeting was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060 (Attachment "A") Applicable Law: CPMC 17.65.010 etseq. - Exhibit B TOD Districts and Corridors -HMR -High Mix Residential CPMC 17.64.010 et.seq. -Off Street Parking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval Discussion• The applicants have requested that the Planning Commission review a site plan application that would allow the construction fo two 4-plex buildings within the HMR, High Mix Residential zoning district. Nonnally, this type of Site Plan is reviewed at Staff level only because the lot is Q .Y. a vacant tax and does not effect the access to the property. 1n this circumstance the applicant's site plan is shows the placement of the building zero lot line construction be allowed along the westerly property line in order to have more suitable apartment sizes. Zero Lot Line construction is allowed in the zoning disri~ict, but only if approved by the Planning Commission. The nearest building is approximately 10' from the current property line. 1n discussions with the Building Department, staff is asking that the building be moved one foot from the property line in order to have the entire over-hang of the building on the subject property. This would make the eastern most setback four feet six inches. All other setbacks meet the minimum requirements for the district. The Site Plan meets the TOD Design Requirements and Guidelines for architecture, landscaping, and parking requirements (Attachments B &C). The Architecture of the building features bay windows, architectural features, differing siding types and windows, and a pitched roof. The property must have a landscape and irrigation plan that indicates approximately 1617 square feet of landscaped area. The current site plan indicates approximately 1690 square feet of landscape space on the tax lot, plus an additional 1148 square feet of landscaping iu the Public Right-of- Way on Manzanita Street. The parking requires 12 parking spaces, 6 of which must be covered. The applicant is proposing 13 spaces, 8 of which will be covered. The additional Soff-street parking spaces will be compact. The code allows for twenty-five percent of the parking be allowed to be compact. In this case it would allow for three spaces. Staff has recommended to the applicant to differ from the standards to get additional parking on the site. In this case trading one standard parking spot for two compact. The effected agencies have been notified. No correspondence has been received by the Planning Department. The Department of Public Works has submitted a staff report (Attachment D). The applicant will have to pave the portion of the alley way that borders the property, pay the public works for that amount of money involved in paving the alley, or bond for those improvements. The applicant must also dedicated a 10' Public Utility Easement bordering the alley way. The parking lot must be designed by an engineer. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 17.72.040; A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction fo walls on the site in such manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such a matter to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the maintenance of existing plans or the installation of new ones for the purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ The site plan shows landscaped areas distributed throughout the project area that satisfy the requirements of the TOD zoning districts. ~k B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ Primary access is shown to be taken from the alleyway located at the rear of the parcel. Pedestrian access is proposed from Manzanita Street. C To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such matter as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in such a matter as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The Central Point TOD Design Requirements and Guidelines require that 12 parking spaces be provided. The applicant has met this with covered parking 8 covered parking spaces located near the buildings and 5 additional uncovered parking spaces. D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traffic control signs and devices and that they are compatible with the design of their buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ Any signage proposed for the property will require a separate building permit and must meet the TOD District Standards. E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire facilities to such a standard as for this reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; ^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any requirements of Jackson County Fire District No. 3. The district will require a set of blueprints to review in conjunction with the fire code. The Public Works Department has also stated that the construction drawings illustrate hydrants, air valves and service connections. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The project p-•esented by the applicant is in compliance with the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code subject tot he recommended conditions of approval (Attachment "C") G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ^ The apartments are designed to be aesthetically compatible with the TOD District. The Commission selves as an architectural review committee and may require ~~ design improvements that it believes will improve the appearance of the project. Recommendation Staff recommends that he Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Notice of Public Hearing B. Site Plan C. Structure Elevations D. Public Works Staff Report E. Planning Department Conditions of Approval C1 ~y of~ Cc.n l gal Po_lr1 C PL~INNING /~L;P~(li'IMlsN7' Tom t[umphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner' Matt Samit.ore Community Planner Dave Arkens Planning Technician Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: March 11, 2003 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING April 1, 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 a site plan application for a two four-plex buildings to be constructed on a parcel of property located at 323 Manzanita Street. The subject parcel is located in the TOD High Mix Residential (HMR) Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W03DD, Tax Lot 7800. The Central Point Planning Commission will initially review the site plan to determine if the proposed development meets the requirements of law. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for site plans are set forth in Chapters 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations 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, April 1, 2003. 2. Written comments maybe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the v~ 155 South Second Street • Central Point, OR 97502 ®(541) 664-3321 • Fax: (541) 664-6384 82.a~ , 31-3' 30.0' 3~~3' Y O 0 L~^IVVblJV9NV ~ ~~~ v t1 ~ r UNCOVERED ~ (n UNGOVEREO ~i° COMPACT Pa.¢KVNG { ~~ GOMPAG7 PA¢KING . 2 SPACES - B' r i~ a - , 1 ~ ~ 2 SPADES - 8' x 1E' --- - -- L -- - - ~ .o. - 4-0. i G'-0' 4'G' I ~ ~ CAR PORT COVERED PARKING B SPPGE5 . 9' x 19' Z A WALKWAY I I Q ~ PROPOSED I § 4 -PLEX n-0 se I i LNVDSGAPING Q i PROP©~ED G- -PLEX w k ~-0' S-G• 82.5' ~ F LP.NDSGAPING E { { SIDEWALK LaIVDSGAPifvG ', i-' O O 323 M~N~,~.NIT~O ST. ~'~' CENTR/-~1- POINT, OR a CONTINUOUS METAL GUTTER ~. a O O ~ O O ~ ~ 0 [~ L.J ,-CONTINUOUS METAL GUTTER -n -, t~lOt2~'N ~L `/~T f ~1~1 2X8 BA~~ RAF'T~R METAI. DRIP, 1'YPfGAI.: r~ ~N'C ~L ~ ~I It 11 lilt i 9111 ____-- (3=A,5T ~L~YATION SIMfL.AR) ~6 Manzanita 8-Plex 3/28/2003 1 CITE' OF CENTRAL POINT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT icanti Francis & Maria,Orozco 100 Esther Way :Central Point, OR 97502- :Manzanita B~PIex Project. 323 Manzanita Street, Central Point, Oregon: TOD-TMR 372W03DD Tax Lot 730' 8-Plex {8~Residential Units).. laps: 8-Plex'Harkey Homes P.O. Sox 3393 - Central Point, OR 97502 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 Proposed Site Plan for an 8-Plex development located on Manzanita Street. 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. Manzanita 8-Plex 3/28/2003 2 2. Alley/Street Improvements: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that the Developer be required to design and construct street improvements along the Southerly property boundary, including but not limited to curb, gutter, landscape rows and sidewalk (consult the T.O.D. design manual for specific guidelines). The Developer will also be responsible for improving the City alley, which parallels the Southerly property line for the entire length of the subject property. The Public Works Department would prefer the Developer compensate the City of Central Point for the expense of the required alley improvements, thus allowing the City to improve the entire length of the subject alley when funds become available. 3. Public Utilify Easements: The proposed site plan provided by Harkey Homes fails to identify a 10-foot wide public utility easement bordering all lots in the proposed development. The Public Works Department recommends coordination between the Developer's engineer and surveyor to create the necessary easements for utility provisions relative to the proposed development. If the proposed development is unable to provide a 10-foot wide public utility easement along Manzanita Street a 10- foot wide public utility easement may be provided along the Northern property boundary. 4. Private Drainape/Parkinp Lot: It is mandatory the proposed parking lot be designed by a civil engineer registered in the state of Oregon. Furthermore, a site drainage plan meeting all the warrants specified in the City of Central Point Public Works Standards for Construction is required. General 1. 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. Manzanita 8-Plex 3/28/2003 3 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 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. 6. 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 DEQ. 7. 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 notjust 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. 8. 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. ~~ Manzanita 8-Plex 3/28/2003 4 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 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 reflect or 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. Streets/Traffic ^ EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE • Manzanita Street (Jackson County Jurisdiction) Classification -Local Street 1. 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. Manzanita 8-Piex 3/28/2003 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 ^ 12-inch Storm Drain (Manzanita Street) Developer's engineer shall develop a facility plan for the storm drain collection, retention, and 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-year storm 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. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. Private storm drain infrastructure will require a plan review by the City of Central Point L Manzanita 8-Plex 3/28/2003 6 Plumbing Inspector, a plumbing permit, and on-site inspection by the Plumbing Inspector. Sanitary Sewer 1. 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 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 (Manzanita Street) 1. 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. 4. 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. I Manzanita 8-Plex 3/28/2003 7 Site work, Grading, and Utility Plans 1. 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 Tines 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. ~. ATTACHMENT F, PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on April I, 2004 unless an application for final plat or extension has been received by the City. 2. The site plan must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. The building must be moved a minimum of one foot from the Westerly property line. ~@ PLANNING DEPAR'I'MEN1' STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 1, 2003 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Matt Samitore, Commw~ity Planner SUBJECT: Variance to allow fences to be constructed in the stream setback area in the Brookfield Estates Subdivision (372W I OBB). Applicants: Mahar Brothers Construction 3018 Gary Drive Medford, Oregon 97501 Summary: The applicants wish to vary from fence requirements in order to allow for fencing to be constructed in the flood setback area. The subject parcels are zoned R-1-8, Residential Single Family. Authority: CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review and decide, without a public hearing, any application for a fence variance. Review is being performed in accordance with CPMC 1.24.050 (Attachment "A"). Applicable Law: CPMC 15.20.080 et seq. -Fence Variances CPMC 17.24.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Two-Family District CPMC 17.60.090 et seq. -Special Setback Requirements Discussion: The applicant has been working with the City of Central Point and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to come to an agreement to allow for fencing to be constructed in the flood setback area. The Current ordinance states that all structures must be setback twenty-five feet from the top of any stream. A fence is considered a structure in the City's Zoning Section of the Municipal Code. When the stream setback ordinance was approved in 1998 there were was a conflicting section regarding the definition of a structure. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not view fencing as structures, unless it is a permanent block wall. The definition of a structure in the Flood Hazard and Mitigation section of our code states: "Structure" n:emts a walled and roofed building rock+ding a gas or liquid storage tank that is principally above ground. ~. In the zoning section of Municipal code a structure is defined as follows: 17.08.380 Structure. Structure means arrything construed or built which requires location on the ground or is attached to something having « location on the ground, including swinunirrg pools, covered patios, fences curd walls; but not including nornta[ plruzs m:d lanrlscapirrg materials, paved outdoor areas, walks, driveways, and similar inrproventettts. City Staff has received numerous complaints about the fencing near creeks since the introduction of the ordinance. In re-writing the Fence Ordinance (Attachment B) staff has worked with the Building and Public Works Departments to come to a reasonable solution to allowing fencing in the setback area. The resolution is a fence ordinance the meets all of the departments goals. Fences will be allowed within the setback area as long as they meet all of the provisions of the new code. Fencing must be setback five feet from the top of the bank, must be built in rernoveable panels that are no greater than eight feet wide, must have twelve foot wide gates in- between properties, and no block or retaining walls shall be built in the setback area. In re-writing the Fence section of the Municipal code staff has tried to clean up this section of the code. The new ordinance protects the City of Central Point, by still allowing for equipment to access the creek and periodic maintenance, as well as give developers and future property owners flexibility in developing their back yards. The new fence ordinance will also include sections that deal with side yard setbacks and definition on where height of fencing is to be measured. It is staffs hope. that the new fence ordinance will reduce the need for variances and provide the citizens of Central Point the privacy and protection they desire. The applicants have submitted their findings (Attachment C) and staff has received an email from Joe Weber, FEMA Region X, stating that the fence provisions are `fine' as long as they are not allowed within any designated floodway (Attachment D). Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law A variance maybe granted if findings are made as follows: I. The strict application of the provisions would result in unnecessary hardship; or The strict application of the Ordinance for this application would not appear to create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant, however the Planning Department recognizes that the privacy and protection of the applicants has been compromised by the large setback and the placement of the homes on the lots. The applicants believe that due to the restriction of fences, home owners, theit• children, or pets are at a higher risk for injury. They also believe that the strict application of this ordinance does not allow for normal use of the property. 2. The following considerations will either result from a granting of the variance or the following considerations do not apply to the rcqucsted application: a. The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city, The variance if approved would allow a reduced likelihood of firture privacy related conflicts between neighbors as this area develops. b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city, The location of the fence may not necessarily provide any additional beautification to this neighborhood or city, however the work being proposed is an attractive solution for this variance. c. The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the city, The fence would provide additional safety to this neighborhood, it would allow the applicants a greater sense of security and privacy from rivo steep stream banks. d. The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city, The fence will likely provide additional protection and privacy to this neighborhood since the fence is allow for an area to be enclosed that borders a steep stream bank. e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. Notices have been sent to surrounding property owners explaining the variance request and the Planning Department has yet to receive comments concerning the application. f. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. Fences like the ones proposed by the applicants are commonly constructed in residential neighborhoods in the city Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: Approve the fence variance application based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or Deny the proposed Variance application; or G: \P t a n n i n g\03 O l I. wp J Continue the review for the Variance application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments: A. Notice of Meeting B. Draft Fence Ordinance C. Applicant's Findings of Fact D. Letter from Joe Weber, FEMA Region X G:\Pi an n in g\03 O I l .wpd i6a .~,. CI ty o.~ Cen t.z~al ~' Po.zn t PLANNING DL'PAI~TMENT Tom Hwnphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Matt Samitore Community Planner Dave Arkens Planning Technician Notice of Public Meeting Date of Notice: March 11, 2003 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATiTRE OF MEETING April 1, 2003 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Begumiug at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a request to vary from the fence requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code within the Broofield Estates Subdivision. The development is located in a R-1-8, Residential Single-Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W I OBB. The Central Point Planning Commission is being asked if fences within this development can be installed within twenty-five feet from the top of the stream bank of Jackson and Horn Creeks: At the meeting, the Commission will review the documentation submitted by the applicant and will decide whether or not to grant the variance. Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission may request review of such action by the City Council. Such a request must be filed in writing to the City Administrator no more than seven (7) days after a notification of the decision is given to those parties whom provided comments to the Planning Commission. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for fences are set forth in Chapter I S of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to fence variances. 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, April 1, 2003. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Ball, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 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 testsmony 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. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 292. 155 South Second Street ®Central Point, OR 97502 ®(541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 I1L~,I'~L~I I~~_J Chapter 17.57 Fences Sections: 17.57.010 Chapter Application 17.57.020 General Regulations 17.57.030 Fences in the Stream Setback Area 17.57.040 Prohibited Fence Types 17.57.050 Violation-Penalty 17.57.010 Chapter Application. This chapter will apply to all zone classifications within the city as listed in Title 17 of this code. All of the provisions of Chapter 12.20 and Title 17 relating to the location and placement of fences are also applicable to fences affected by this chapter, provided that the special setback requirements of Section 17.60.090 will not apply to fences. (Ord. 1781 2, 1997: Ord. 1674 (part), 1992). 17.57.020 General Regulations Fence Regulations R-L R-1 R-2 R-3 CN C-2 m C-4 C-5 M-1 M-2 Fence Permit Required Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Front Yard Setback For 6' Fence 20' (a,b &c 20' a,b &c) 20' a,b &c 20' a,b &c) 20' a,b 8c) 20' (a,b &c 10' a,b &c) 10' a,b 8c 10' a,b &c 10' (a,b &c Sideyard Setback 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' Rear Yard Setback 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' Corner Lot 0' (b 0' b 0' b) 0' (b 0' b) 0' b 0' b 0' (b 0' (b) 0' b) Barriers For Pools d) (d) (d) (d) d (d d) d) (d) d Masonary Walls, Retaining Walls, or Fences over 6' in hei ht (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) Setback for Gates 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' Variance (f (f) f f f) (f) f f) (f) (A) 42" High maximmn fences allowed within front setback area. (B) No fencing will conflict with the site distance requirements set by the Public Works Departnent. (C) Fence height will be measured from the finished grade on the side nearest the street. (D) Barriers around swimming pools, as required by the 2000 State of Oregon One and Two-Family Dwelling Specialty Codc Appendix B; and the 1998 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Appendix Chapter 4; (E) Fences more than six feet tall; Masonry Wells; Retaining walls more than four feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall; and Retaining walls, any height, supporting a surcharge. (F) Requests for fence variances shalt be made by application on such form as designated by the city administrator and will be reviewed in accordance with Chapter ].24. ~t 17.57.030 Fences in the Stream Setback Area A. Fences are allowed within the building setback for properties abutting a stream as long as they meet the following criteria: I. Fences are prohibited inside a floodway as designated on the Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for Central Point. 2. A setback of five feet (5') from the top of the stream bank is required for all fencing. This allows for periodic inspection of the creek cham~el by the City. 3. Fences built paralleling the creek must be built in removable sections. A maximum section width is eight feet (8'). 4. Twelve feet (12') minimum gates must be installed in-between properties that border the creek. 5. Irrigation systems should be designed to allow for Public Works Vehicles to navigate in the setback area. 6. Irrigation systems, fencing or other objects that are damaged in a flood event by the City of Central Point will not be replaced by the City. B. Prohibited Fencing in the Stream Setback Area. 1. Block or retaining walls. 17.57.040 Prohibited Fence Tvnes A. Barbed Wire Fencing, or other like material, which creates an unreasonable or unnecessary risk of injury. 17.57.040 Violation-Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this chapter will, upon conviction thereof, be subject to the general penalty. Upon discovering any violation of the restrictions imposed by this chapter, except a violation of Section 17.20.020, it will be the duty of the city administrator, or his designee, to give written notice of the violation to the person in possession and control of the premises on which the offending fence exists or is being constructed, with a demand that the same be forthwith made to conform to this chapter. Upon receipt of such notice, the person responsible for ht structure will be deemed to be guilty of a separate offense for each day during which the fence is thereafter permitted to exist in violation for the restrictions of this chapter. a ~~ Matthew Samitore Subject: FW: fencing in the setback area, City of Central Point, OR -----Original Message----- From: Weber, Joseph [mailto:Joseph.Weber@fema.gov] Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 2:05 PM To: Matthew Samitore; ~B EIER Ann' Cc: Atkinson, Denise Subject: RE: fencing in the setback area, City of Cent r. al. Point, OR Matt, This fine with the revision prohibiting fences in then floodway. For your information Denise Atkinson is now our NFIP representative for Oregon. She has been with FEMA for many years and has worked with the NFIP for many of those. I am now the Acting Regional Engineer for the NFIP. In the future, please call Denise for program related issues regarding the NFIP. But if you have technical questions regarding engineering aspects of the NFIP, they should be addressed to me. Sincerely, Joe Weber, CFM Federal Emergency Management Agency Region X Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division 130 228th Street SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 Phone: 425-487-9657 Fax: 425-987-4613 E-mail: joseph.weber@fema.gov ti ~~ i PLANNING DEPARTMENT IVIEMORANllUM DATE: March 28, 2003 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Matt Samitore, Community Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Future Growth Areas CP -2 and CP-3 around Central Point. Background The Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) has been facilitating an RPS process to assist Rogue Valley jurisdictions in determining appropriate land areas for future growth and the expansion of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB's). The RPS process is supported by the State Department of Land Conservation and Development (DECD) and most of the Commission is familiar with the details of this process and the anticipated outcomes. One of the goals in the RPS process is to preserve valuable agricultural land therefore, Committees have been looking at soil conservation maps and discussing the relative value of the agricultural properties as part of the Urban Reserve analysis. In an effort to acquire a wide range of citizen input, planning staff is once again enlisting the support of the Commission to review the attached material, take public input and formulate a recommendation to the City Council. The City has conducted open houses and a survey in the past to obtain public input. Amore recent survey is being conducted by RVCOG. Less that 200 people have responded to date however a summary of the survey results are included in the report (Attachment B). Discussion Area CP-2 This area is located in the vicinity of Gebhard, Upton and Wilson Roads and consists of 914 acres. CP-2 has a mix of soil types and land uses. The large parcels nearest to Bear Creek have been identified, by the RLRC, as important agricultural land and should be preserved. There are also 99 acres of flood plains associated with this area. The vast majority of CP-2 is located within land that is not prime soils and has been subdivided in the county. The Commission has already recommended this area once before. The City Council agreed with the Commission on the majority of the area, but decided to cap the area at Gibbon Road and exclude Gibbon Acres at this time. '~ Area CP-3 This area is defined as the area to the South of CP-2 taking in all of the land surrounding the Jackson County Expo. It includes the Naumes property that had an UGB expansion proposed on it several years ago, as well as the land currently owned by Jackson County near Gebhard Road that was at one time being considered for a Regional Park. Most of the area is defined as EFU, or exclusive farm use. Approximately 70 acres has been identified by the RLRC to be preserved as fame ground. The conunission has also approved this area before. Originally, the arcajust included the Naumes property bordering E. Pine Street. The City Council decided to expand the area to include the properties surrounding the expo to provide better urban form. Action The Planning Commission is encouraged to invite public input, ask questions of staff and area residents and formulate a recommendation to the City Council regarding prospective Central Point },n'owth areas CP-2 and CP-3. Attachments A. Public Notice of Meeting dated March 11, 2003 with associated maps. B. Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) Survey and Results. ~~ Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: March 11, 2003 Cl ~~ OI G~E'.l:Z ~;1'~~c~ 1 I,o~ n L PL,~INNINC DL'P~I>?TM {,N'I' Meeting Date: April 1, 2003 and April 10, 2003 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall I55 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING 'I'ons Plurnphrey, NCP Planning Dircx;tor Ken Gerschler Community Planner Matt. Samif.ore Coanrnunity Planner Dave Arkens Planning '1'cchnician Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission and City Council will review possible future growth areas for Central Point. The Planning Commission will review the proposed area and hear public comment on April 1, 2003 and the City Council will review the proposed area on April 10, 2003. The area to be reviewed is located South of Gibbon Road, West of Table Rock and East of Upton Road. A map is provided on the back of this notice. The City of Central Point is requesting comment on this area from it's current property owners. The discussions at both the Planning Commission and City Council will only be for possible future growth areas for Central Point. No formal Land Use Decision will be made at these meetings. 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, April 1, 2003. Written comments maybe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 2. 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. 3. For additional infonnation, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 291. 155 South Second Street O Central Point, OR 97502 O (541) 664-3321 O Fax: (541) 664-G384 5 i.~1 < ~ y 1\i - i a r- ~~ ~ ~> > is ~ ,. -~ ~ - 6 ~' f ~ u ~ I ~ ~ _- r I I , ~ ~F yNrS~ ~ ~ ~ '~~ t ~ I i i ~ 1- ."zQQ,GS, t ,~~'a.{o `'~'~ s{ ~` ° '~ a^ s' C- I i i I I I I r: ~,~a,s'S?:~~ ``'~w'F.m ,~ ,~ -~ -~ ~ ~ . ~ I ~ I I I ~'~~ Central Point ~~~' ~f ~,~~ ~_~ a I I `'' •` ~~, ~ . ~ ~ ~ --_-_1__! I i f 1k u ~ ~;,, ., a ~ ~ i ~ i I ~ L~ P01Cnha1 i ~ `~, a ~h~~.~ -~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ Growth Areas ~ a . I, -EiS~',s~~„~"'~'K ~`3°Fi ~`in ~ I ~~! ~ mowa.aH.. v~ozmecro.m-ae.:\ \ _ _ <A, ~`+'SE~~rYs~~" a:~a~ ~ ~ t F~ ~~ ~ r ) ~r ~ L ~ J u.i}.. n m "Ju'wn2 C`W. .. ~.~.5 N n£•w ~ i f~I-T' .iIJT -. r ~ ~•2 ~ Q.2 ~.4 MISS DMA 12 MARCH 1003 C ~. y o_f CYcrz l r~a1 Col~~~ ~ PI,1(NNLNC Dl;'P~i.Ti'7ME'NT Tom Ilu~nphrey, AK;P Planning llirect.or Ken Ger•SChler Communil.y Pl<-Anner Matt, Sarnitore Conununit.y Planner Uave Arl<ens Planning 't'<;chnician Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: March 11, 2003 Meeting Date: April 1, 2003 and Aprit 24, 2003 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission and City Council will review possible fixture growth areas for Central Point. The Planning Commission will review the proposed azea and hear public comment on April 1, 2003 and the City Council will review the proposed area on Apri124, 2003. The area to be reviewed is located the South and East of the Central Point Fairgrounds. A map is provided on the back of this notice. The City of Central Point is requesting comment on this area from it's current property owners. The discussions at both the Planning Commission and City Council will only be for possible future growth areas for Central Point. No formal Land Use Decision will be made at these meetings. 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, April 1, 2003. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 2. 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. 3. For additional infonnation, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 291. e~ 155 South Second Street 1 Central Point, OR 97502 ®(541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 a~~~~~~~ ~ ~ _>> iii _~_~~ _ I~ ~ - ~ 1_-~ ~~ ~ 0 ~a 0 o _ _ iJ -_-'-~--_L_ O W N N ~~~ yea ~' ~ ~ 1 Z- : ~ n i- D ~o~. ~~ ____ .-. .._ 3 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ti. 1 ~ ~ ~O d i a ~ a o N~z D ~ ~ "' ~ ~T a a N ~ ~ ~_ O ~ .g } N W ~a9 ~aa~/ ~~ ais p2103103" Question #3 testion #2 ~ no growth idea stow growth ~r9et tt ~8 rnod. growth of very fast growth omewhat 29 aery 6 extremely 131 responses to date Question #4 39 not imP°rtant 63 somewhat imP°rtant 24 very imP°rtant 5 Question #11 14, stion #1 Que 23 GP 1 11 1 MD 11 MD 5 f 9 AD t MD 5 13 g MD 3 MD 6 PH 4 1 TA1 4 EP3 CP 1 3 Ep 4 AD1 3 GP2 EP 3 a .1K 1 2 JK 2 3 2 MD 1 2 2 JK 4 2 2 TA3 2 2 MD 4 2 2 MD 5 2 2 GP 5 2 n MD 8 ~ PNS 1 Gp3 GP 3 i PH 1 CP 5 1 MD 3 JA2 1 Ep 1B 3 Mp 10 ~ Mp 12 MD 2 1 Mp 2 TA2 1 MD7 EP 4 N,p 9 pH 2 pH 3 TA1 2' 1 1 1 1~ 1 1 1 Quest+on #5 7 not imP°dt i~mPortant 21 somewha 102 very imP°rtant Question #6 24 don't care 28 none 79 too much already slight increase moderate increase big Increase Question #7 1 don't care $0 6 less than $50 $50 20 $100 54 $150 32 $200 Question #8 1 don't care 26 no 14 maybe 17 yes 34 15 18 Question #9 56 1 na be 44 8 maY 27 25 yes 98 can keep this valley livable SURVEY QUBSTt01`1S ro ect, likely do you think it is that we how we have right now • in the future, more about this P 1 eople as much it grows 2) After learning with twice as many P had a choice of how and beautiful even tch You I've) from county inwfi or the part °f the ood agricultural land 3) if Your city t to see? it is to Protect g Quid you like think what w how imP°rtant do Y°u don t grow into s future, they q) 1n planning for our valley' een cities so being built on? aintain a buffer of rural land betty snake the most of the land w+thtn think it is tom Ynents 5) How imP°rtant do You a have to and apart other? s ace, we m Y lexes, townhouses, each and open P smatter tots, duP to conserve farmland in the use of Tonal open 8) if we re gom9 much of an increase le with to achieve this? octant re9 ou be comfOrtab es to purchase imP our cities. How would Y within our cities end a year in additional tax e willing t° sp akin9 How much would You b share decision-m tl what it 7) including bu{fersj? might not get exac Y space ( Quid plan cooperatively and cities sh even if it means that each c+ty think that neighboring 8) Do Y°U certain growth issues, for the future? responsibilities on lannin9 to get involved in p T sense to you? prefers? enough opportunity have ake the MQ5 ~ pO you think citizens seem to m g) areas from the maps ST sense to you . rowth ake the t-EA Which of the potential g the maps seem to m 10) rowth areas from 11) Which of the potential g