Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - March 11, 2003CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA March 11, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. Q E"`a Q Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 564 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 February 18, 2003, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS A. Public hearing to review an application for a lot line adjustment and tentative Pgs. 1-15 subdivision that would create 21ots 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. B. Public hearing to review an application for a Planned Unit Development on a parcel of property located near the intersection of Pittview Avenue and Bursell Road. The subject Pgs. 16-33 parcels are located in a R-1, residential Single Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W I lAC, tax Lots 300 and 400. C. Public hearing to consider a tentative plan fora 33 lot subdivision known as Cedar Park located East of U.S. Highway 99 and South of Miller Estates Subdivision. The proposed Pgs . 34-51 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. D. Review of recommendations concerning the urban reserve areas identified as "CPI" Pgs. 52-62 and "CPS". VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Pc03112003 City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2003 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT APPROXIMATELY 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chairman Chuck Piland, Rick Perry, Candy Fish, Paul Lunte, Don Foster and Wayne Riggs were present. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; Matt Samitore, Community Planner, and Dave Arkens, Planning Technician. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was correspondence from Garry and Stephanie Mannings of 543 Diego Court. This item will be discussed with Item C. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 7, 2003 meeting as amended to indicate that Commissioner Fish made the motion to adjourn and not Commissioner Lunte. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Perry; yes, Fish, yes; Lunte, abstain; Foster, yes; and Riggs, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public hearing to revieFV an application for tentative subdivision that would create 4 lots on a 0.94 acre parcel at 3606 Bursell Road. The parcel is in the R- 1-8, Planning Connnission Minutes FeGrumy I8, 2003 Page # 3 east of Grant Road in the I2-1-10, Residential Single Family zoning district on Map 37 2W lOCB, Tax Lots 1900 and 2200. Matt Samitore presented the planning staff report. Mr. Samitore stated that the park size would remain at approximately 12,000 square feet. There is no ordinance in place for the R-1-10 zone which would force the developer to set aside more park land. The developer, however, is granting land for both a park and additional right-of--way on Grant Road and Hanley Road. Commissioner Lunte asked if the park would be built first instead of waiting for the development to be completed. Mr. Humphreyrepliedthat the developer ofCascade Meadows, along Beall Lane, will trydeveloping the parks first, but there is no standard in place to build park land first as opposed to building homes first. This maybe something we need to change in the future. Mr. Samitore mentioned that the water rights on these lots will need to be discussed with Rogue River Valley hrigation District and any management or buy out of those water rights betaken care of before the final plat is signed. No correspondence was received from Fire District #3. A Fire District #3 representative will need to look at the queing in each cul-de-sac before construction begins. Correspondence from neighbors on Diego Court indicate objection to a through street off of Diego Court. Mr. Duncan, the applicant, has changed the design to construct a cul-de-sac bulb instead of a through street at the northeast side of the development. The water system to be built must be looped and any water line constructed past the border of the development on Hanley Road wouldbereimbursedtothedeveloperbythecity. CornmissionerFish suggested that access be made to tax lot 2100 from Pheasant Creek Drive instead of having additional access points to Hanley Road. Mr. Humphrey replied that the developer of Pheasant Creek Estates has no control over how or when tax lot 2100 will develop. He also stated that there are two access points for tax lot 2100 to Hanley Road already. Mike Duncan, the applicant, P.O. Box 5656 in Central Point, stated that there is no phasing with this development and that all details should be very nice. There will be additional landscaping throughout the project and he reassured the Commission that the park will not go undeveloped. Tlie CC&R's will address the cul-de-sac parking be for visitors only. Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adopt Resolution 562, approving the tentative subdivision subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachments E and F). Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion pass unanimously D. Consideration of the Final Development Plan for Birchfield Village PUD and subdivision located on the northwest corner of Beall Lane and Circlewood Drive Planning Connni.rsion Minutes Febraaiy I8, 2003 Pnge # 4 in the R-2, Residential Two Family zoning district on Map 372W12CC, Tax Lot 6300. Mr. Samitore briefly explained the PUD and tentative subdivision process and read the planning department staff report. Commissioner Lunte made a motion to approve the final development plan, Resolution 563 based of the finding of Fact and conchisions of law contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in Resolution 551 and this staff report. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion pass unanimously VII. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Humphrey invited the Cormnissioners to an RPS meeting Monday, February 24, 2003 to learn more about the expansion of the UGB. Mike Cavallaro, from the Rogue Valley Council of Governments will be leading the meeting. Commissioner LeGros retired and was recognized by the City Council on February 13, 2003 and was presented with a plaque for his service to the City of Central Point. The retirement of Mr. LeGros leaves one position open on the Planning Commission. The Downtown Trading Company has received a loan from the City for improvements to the store front. The Planning Staff is promoting the loan program. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Luntemadeamotiontoadjoumthemeeting. CommissionerFosterseconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M. PLANNING DEPARTIvIENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: March 11, 2003 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing - To consider a Tentative Plan fora 21ot land partition at 3606 Bursell Road (372W 11AC Tax Lot 400). Applicant/ Owner: Melvin L. Spires 3606 Bursell Road Central Point, Oregon 97502 AEQpt: Kaiser Surveying 19440 Highway 62 Eagle Point, Oregon 97524 Summary: The applicant has submitted a development proposal to adjust a common property line and subdivide 0.37 acres of land into 2 residential lots. This tentative plan is located within a R-1-8, Residential Single Family zone. 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 Plan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Applicable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. Tentative Plans CPMC 16.36.010 et seq. Major and Minor Land Partitions CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. Residential Single Family District Discussion• The applicant, Melvin Spires is requesting that a 0.37 acre parcel at 3606 Bursell Road be adjusted and then partitioned into 2 sepazate parcels (Attachment A). CPMC 17.24.050 requires that lots have a minimum azea of 8,000 square feet. Setback requirements for the parcels will be 20 feet for front lot lines, five feet setback for interior side yards, and IS feet for the rear yazd. Neighboring property owners were notified by mail (Attachment B) and the Planning Department did not receive any comments. U~ Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take aie of the following actions: Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Tentative Minor Land Partition of 37 2W 1 IAC Tax Lot 400 subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachments C and D); or 2. Deny the proposed Tentative Minor Land Partition; or 3. Continue the review of the Tentative Minor Land Partition at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments: A. Tentative Plat B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval D. Public Works Staff Report K:\Plann ing\02-088. wpd 03 r qN~ DIVISION (Part.+tionl i ~. (TENTATIVE) I Kaise~ing {n L, Spires tg440 Nwy 62 3606 Bursell Road Eagle paint, OR. 97524 Central Point, OR. 97502 T.L Iso. 372W f1AC ' 400 e ruary 28, 2003 City of Central PQCegon Sackson County. ` 4 I ,_~ HEM40CK ~ g STREET FP' ! I ~ ~ x ~I 1 I, I I ~, I• 1 I' ~, ~a sa• I li t~ l~ ,_~ ', i ,u , t ~ ~l '` I r.L soo --" /- ```_ paxaEt. No. 5 8,003 S.F.t gE57DENCE pAAC0. Nc. 2 ~,~ 8.00b S.F:4 ~ `-- -____ e,m~ T.L 200 PROFESSIONAL sum~'oa o ; o`°;~~ ~. e-~-oz scaE i• - 2 ~~~~ ~~ ~~, ____ r~.z ~. ., T.t- 300 ry "r- V 4va~- 4 _-~_~ . Fan<a . Ed9r Pmement _ _ ~ SMaa Mair (B.GV.SA) R . Slamdroln ~~_ . awrMOd llnee _w~ . City Water Pdn be included Spires through transfer with= Partition Lot Line:Adjustrnent Kensington Court P.U.D. 05 C ~,y o~ Cen dray Poln t PLANNING DEPARTML'NT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning llirector Ken Gerschler Community Planner Matt Samitore Community Planner Dave Arkens Planning Technician ,~,t. .- ..,- Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: December 17, 2002 ~. Meeting Date: January 7, 2003 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING City of ~:,'ent~ai f*di~t EXHT~~'I' trB+' Planning Department Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a tentative subdivision application that would create 41ots on a 0.97 acre parcel at 3606 Bursell Road. The pazcel 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 372W 11AC, Tax Lot 400. CRTI'ERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Partitions aze set forth in Chapters 16 and 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, 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, January 7, 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 155 South Second Street O Central Point, OR 97502 O (541) 664-3321 B Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~~ expiration of the con. ant period noted above. Any testimony. ,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 availabla~at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 292. Si1MMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staffreports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and heaz azgumer~:on-theapplieation. 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 sub~visien-application. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. apa 870 ss4 I 7oa 1 nz I n4 ~ Tae ~ 749 ~ 7s9 92D ` 916 ~ 812 ~ 908 924 928 'y 913 3500 B09 3a98 3asr 35m 3561 904 yr p 3538 908 3538 iy~~ 905 901 Sass I I 3ase aan I 1 3a7a x>s 3a~ 7sa 73s 9ss ss 155 South Second Street t® Central Point OR 97502 ®(541) 664-3321 O Fax: (541) 664-6384 0~ ATTACHMENT C PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Tentative Plan shall expire in one year on March 11, 2004 unless an application for final plat or extension has been received by the City. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. A lot line adjustment shall be processed by the applicant prior to acceptance of the final plat application by the City. 4. The applicant shall dedicate to the public a ten foot wide Public Utility Easement along Bursell Road. ft:\Planning\02-088.wpd ~~ ~~ftatda~> ~~ Poplar SuBdivision 3/7/2003 1 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFFREPORT fZoiiing;; : : s ~ , Unit's::::. ' ~: A .K 1_ i= ~„ _ , , 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 1. 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 the 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. 09 Poplar Subdivision 3/7/2003 2 2. Right-of-Wav Dedication: Bursell Road is an unimproved Jackson County Road classified as a collector. The current right-of-way of Bursell Road is 60-feet. However, City of Central Point Standards & Specifications require 76-feet of right-of-way for a collector street. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that the developer's of Spires Partition be required to dedicate 10-feet of additional right-of-way. 3. Bursell Road Improvements: The developer of Spires Partition will be responsible for "half-street" improvements to Bursell road where the proposed development shares a boundary with the unimproved Jackson County Road. 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 Bursell Road exist. However, the Developer will be responsible to construct the 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. 4. Public Utility Easements: The Tentative Plan for Spires Partition 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. 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 may be 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. 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 (DEQ), 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. ~~ Poplar Subdivision 3/7'/2003 4 Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, top of banks, ditchlchannei 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, Qwest, 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 Ptat 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. Streets/Traffic fl EXiSTWG INFRASTRUCTURE ^ Burseil Road Construction drawings for this Tentative Pian 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. The City of Central Point Public Works Department is recommending that a driveway lighting plan be developed for Susie Landfear Estates. 2. The Developer's engineer shal{, 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 will design the required street section. 12 Poplar Subdivision 3!1/2003 5 Storm Drainage, Irrigation Improvements ^ EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ^ 15-inch Storm Drain (Bursell Road) • 12-inch Storm Drain (Bursell Road) • Open Ditch Drainage (Bursell Road) Developer's engineer shall develop a facility plan fior 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. 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. Storm drainpipe materials shall be PVC, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with watertight joints. Provide concrete or sand-cement slurry encasement where required in areas of minimum cover. 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 DEQ, 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 BGVSA, completion of final revisions to the plans by the Developer's engineer, and following the final approval and signature on the 13 Poplar Subdivision 3/7/2003 6 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 ^ 8-inch Ductile Iron Waterline (Bursell Road) 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. If the Developer chooses a water connection design, which includes construction of a manifold of water meters privately, plumbed to residential structure the following should be noted. ^ All water service connection infrastructure located on the property owner's side of the water meter is the responsibility of the property owner to which the service connection applies. The City of Central Point Public Works Department is not responsible for the service of maintenance of water service connection infrastructure located on the property owner's side of the water meter. 4. Each building shall be served by a separate water meter. 5. 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. Water system shall be tested in accordance with City PWD Standards and requirements at Developer's expense and must be approved by the City. 7. 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 Tines are dashed and screened back, and final 1~ Poplar Subdivision 3/7/2003 7 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. Rights of Ways/Easements If applicable, 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. 1~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPOR'T' MEETING DATE: March 11, 2003 TO: Central Point Plamiing Commission FROM: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Tentative Plan for Kensington Court Planned Unit Development. Applicant/ Owner: James A and Scott J. Cochran 1523 Satellite Drive Medford, OR 97504 Agent: Kaiser Surveying 19440 Highway 62 Eagle Point, Oregon 97524 Pro er Description/ 37 2W I 1 AC Tax Lots 300 and a portion of 400 -approximately 2 acres. Zoning: R-1-8, Residential Single Family Summary The applicants have submitted a preliminary development plan and tentative subdivision for Kensington Court, a Planned Unit Development consisting of 10 lots (Exhibit A) with access from Pittview Avenue. The P.U.D. includes property from an adjoining tax lot that will be "adjusted" into this plan. 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 Planned Unit Developments. Notice ofthe public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B). Applicable Law• City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element CPMC 16.10.010 et seq.- Tentative Plans CPMC 17.20.010 et seq.- R-1, Residential Single Family District CPMC 17.68.010 et seq.- Planned Unit Development ib Discussion• City Staff have been working with the applicants Jarnes and Scott Cochran to develop a ten lot Planned Unit Development near the intersection of Pittview Avenue and Bursell Road in an R- I-8, Residential Zoning District. A planned unit development (PUD) may be permitted in the R-1 zoning district subject to the approval of a preliminary development plan. If the preliminary development plan is approved, an application for final development plan must be submitted within six months of such approval. CPMC 17.68.010 states that "the purpose of planned unit development (PUD) is to gain more effective use of open space, realize the advantages of large-scale site planning and the mixing of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environrnental preservation. This is achieved by allowing a variety of building and structures, types of open space, variable buildi~sg heights and setbacks, and shared services and facilities. " This project is being processed as a PUD because the project area is in-fill development. In the past, similar areas have been developed as "flag lots" which reduce urban density since most of the useable space is dedicated to private access driveways. Flaglot requirements also dictate that the minimum lot area be twice the area minimum for the applicable zoning district, excluding the square footage within the access road. Flaglot creation wastes land which ultimatelyresults in an expansion of the city limits and Urban Growth Boundary away from the City's core areas. As a Planned Unit Development, Kensington Court will allow approximately 2.00 acres to be developed into 10 residential lots instead of the traditional flaglot configuration that would have permitted only 3. Kensington Court shares a common property boundary with the proposed Spires land partition. The Planning Department worked with the applicants for both projects to establish better connectivity between both developments onto Pittview Avenue and Bursell Road. Unfortunately the details were not able to be agreed upon and the two projects remained separate except for the conveyance of approximately 0.65 acres to the Kensington PUD along the rear side of Tax I.,ot 400. The additional acreage will allow two more lots within the Kensington project in a private agreement between Spires and the Cochrans'. The Planning Department recommends that a condition of approval be the completion of a lot line adjustment between theproperty owners prior to final plat approval for either project. The Planned Unit Development will be served by a 21 foot wide public roadway with no on-street parking allowed. A 5 foot wide sidewalk will be installed along the Easterly edge of the roadway and to compensate for the lack of on-street parking facilities, the developer has provided adequate driveway space and the placement of recessed garages with setbacks similar to those found in the T.O.D. Public Works has asked that the roadway be dedicated to the public for maintenance purposes since there is often confusion among property owners about private verses public responsibility when roadway repairs become necessary. - ~.~ The applicants are proposing varied setbacks for the Kensington Court Planned Unit Development with fifteen foot front yard for the house and 39 feet for the garages to make room For adequate off- street parking. 6' rninimurn side yard setbacks have been shown with a total of 12 Feet between houses. The rear yards have been shown to typically have a 30 foot setback. The housing style will be of a similar architectural type and each unit will be larger than most homes in the area. The applicants will bring examples of building elevations to the City. A 6 foot wide access path area has been reserved between lots 6 and 7 for a future connection to potential park space on an adjacent lot to the East. Kensington Court will need to create Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions together with the formation of a Home Owners Association to control issues such as parking, landscaping, and building architecture. A copy of these docurnents must be submitted to the City of Central Point prior to Final Plat approval. Fire District No. 3, BCV5A and Jackson County Roads and Parks have received copies of the application and are expected to comment in the future. Sewer service is available for the developrent, but some new sewer laterals will need to be constructed once they are identified by BCVSA. The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary development plan for compliance with the City's water, sewer, storm drain and transportation standards.(Attachment C).The Planning Department recommended conditions of approval are enclosed as Attachment "D" and Jackson County comments are enclosed as Attachment "E". Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Size ofPUD site A PUD shall be on a tract of land five acres or larger, except that a PUD maybe on a tract of land more than one acre but less than five acres if the planning commission finds, upon a showing by the applicant, that a PUD is in the public interest because one or more of the following conditions exist: A. An unusual physical feature of importance to the people of the area or the community as a whole exists on the site, which can be conserved and still leave the landowner equivalent use of the land by the use of a planned unit development; ^ The site of the PUD is approximately 1.93 acres. Kensington Court will allow the lotto be developed more intensively with ten lots as opposed to a maximum of three lots if the parcel had been processed as a flag lot. This development will conserve valuable land by using a more efficient design. B. The property or its neighborhood has historical character or distinctive features that are important to the community and that could be protected or enhanced through use of a PUD; ^ The applicants are constructing residential homes within an existing neighborhood. A 6 foot wide pathway is planned to connect this project into a potential park site that has been identified to the East of the project area. J r C. The property is adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of a planned unit development of similar design as that proposed and developments would complement each other without significant adverse impact on surrounding areas; ^ The project is like toother in-fill Planned Unit Developments in Central Poi~tt and will have similar lot size, house size, and architecture. This is actually an `upscale' development that is compatible with the R-1-8 zoning district. D. The property is of irregular shape, with limited access, or has unusual dimensions or characteristics which would make conventional development uiueasonably difficult and expensive ^ The lots are part of an in-fill development area which is surrounded on several sides by residential neighborhoods. Conventional development as flaglots would postpone quality development and reduce density which is contradictory to the concept of efficient land development. Criteria to Grantor Deny a PUD In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards 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 two-story single family dwellings as detached homes. The housing types will be similar in nature to other single family homes built in the area and will be owner occupied. B. The proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the City; ^ This proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals to the degree it ensures adequate housing will be provided; contributes to the variety of housing offered and promotes higher density development. Kensington Court promotes a higher density when compared to flaglot development and will potentially minimize the need to expand the urban growth boundary. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have minimal adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development ofthe surrounding area; ^ The preliminary development plan is consistent with R-1 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 lots will be in the 6000 square foot size range within the R-1-8, Residential Single Family zone. Property management and covenants will govern tl-e maintenance a~-d overall appearance of the PUD. i~ D. That the proponents ofthe 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; ^ 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 parking; ^ There is a new public road that will be created by this development which will tie into Pittview Avenue. All ten homes that use it for ingress and egress and Pittview Avenue will receive improvements to accommodate the additional traffic load. F. The commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed; ^ There is no commercial development proposed in Kensington Court. G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; ^ There is no industrial development proposed in Kensington Court. H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; ^ There are no significant trees to remain on the lot. The applicant wilt be providing a landscape plan to the City. I. The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area; ^ The Kensington Court PUD is compatible with the surrounding area to the extent that it maintains a similar architectural style of homes found within Southeast Central Point. J. 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. It is also is a good use ofthe R-1 zoning district which will help delay the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary. 20 Plannine Commission Action The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the preliminary development plan for the Kensington Court Planned Unit Development. 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the preliminary development plan for the Kensington Court Planned Unit Development, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in the staff reports; or 2. Recommend denial of the preliminary development plan the Kensington Court Planned Unit Development based on findings of fact articulated by the Commission; or 3. Continue the review of the preliminary development plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments: A. Tentative P.U.D. Plan B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Public Works Staff Report D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions or Approval E. Correspondence from Jackson County Roads and Parks FI:~Planning\03-009a.wpd 2 1 i r 'C e t ~~' ~ G _ _ H ~{ - ; _J _ v ~ ~ `.. __ - -. _._ _- 4--- - -- -_~__. - f i ~~ ~ ~,. ~ ... ~~: ~ ~ , ~, ~I i ~ n i i Kensl»gto» Court P.U.D. Co»tacL Jim & Scoft Cochran 1523 Satellite Dr. Medford OR, 97504 (541}773-6576 Scafe: Draw» by: S.C 22 C1 ~y o~ Cen tr~l Pole t PL~INNINC DFI'AI'TMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Matt Samitore Community Planner Dave Arkens Planning Technician Notice of Meeting ~ Date of Notice: February 18, 2003 ~a ~ a t'~ Meeting Date: March 11, 2003 CD Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) '~ a: ~` Place: Central Point City Hall ~ ! 155 South Second Street ~ ~: Central Point, Oregon ^" ,. , y NATURE OF MEETING ~' Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Planned Unit Development on a pazcel 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 372W 1 lAC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. The Central Point Planning Commission will initiallyreview the tentative plan for the Planned Unit Development to determine if the proposed subdivision of the existing 1.93 acre combined lot size meets the requirements of law. If approved, the subdivision would create a residential development that would have 10 parcels. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Planned Unit Developments are set forth in Chapters 16 and 17 ofthe 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 ofthe meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 11, 2003. 2. Written comments maybe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 23 ~r~~ `"~' Kensington Court Subdivision 3/7/2003 1 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFFRE'PORT ate ,. March 1;4 ~ , 2t3Q3 Applicanf;>,: ", JamesA &ScottJ Cochran :~ ~; $? 1523 Satellite D"rroe .:'s Medfdrd; OR:97504 " : ` ' ' ` "" Plot"ect s ` Kerts7ng`#on Cout ~ 4 i~ocatid~> Pi.~v.evr Avenue; Gentral.Pomf; Oregon. Zoning =R 1'$Ftesidentiat;Singl~,_Farnity.District;.~ ~~ ` ," ~. L.~gal ' 3721N'C,1r3B°Tax Lots 30~.& 400': ,~ ' ' : , ` ., i `Units, ~ f"10 Residential Lots: " Acres 193 i'tari~ Kensirigfon CouifiP U DJ. :Scoff Cochran . . 1523.,Sateilite Drive ` ""'=Nledford, OF2 97504 Rep'orf 8 ; Pubiac 1Norks Repartmerit ,,. " 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 Kensington Court Subdivision. Existin4lnfrasfructure: 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 24 Kensington Court Subdivision 3/7/2003 2 involved. 2. Street Layout: It is the understanding of the Public Works Department that the developer intends to construct a public street including 30-feet of right-of-way. The street layout should be coordinated with, and approved by the Public Works Department. The developer's engineer will need to identify proposed widths for travel lanes, on-street parking, curb & gutter, sidewalk, and landscape buffers (as applicable). The Public Works standards & specifications should be consulted when determining a street layout & road base section. The typical City of Central Point section would include 8-inches of 4" shale, 6-inches of 3/" crushed rock, and a 3-inch lift of class "B" asphalt. Right-of-Way Dedication: The City of Central Point Public Works Department is not recommending right-of-way dedication along the proposed developments south boundary given Pittview Avenue's current right-of-way of 60-feet, is adequate to accommodate for any future improvements to Pittview Avenue 4. Pittview Road Improvements: The developer of Kensington Court Subdivision will be responsible for "half-street" improvements to Pittview Avenue where the proposed development shares a boundary with the unimproved Jackson County Road. 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 Pittview Avenue exist. However, the Developer will be responsible to construct the 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. Public Utility Easements: The Tentative Plat for Kensington Court Subdivision 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 Kensington Court Subdivision. 4. Storm Drainage Infrastructure: 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 Kensington Court Subdivision 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. Should the downstream storm drain system be insufficient to handle the run-off of the proposed development, on-site detention will be required. 25 Kensington Court Subdivision 3/7/2003 3 5. Wafer Svstem: The City of Central Point Public Works Department is recommending one connection to the existing City of Central Point water distribution system as well as a waterline "stub out" to the property east of the proposed development. ^ Connect to the existing 8-inch ductile iron water line located in Pittview Avenue. ^ Stub a properly sized waterline to the east of the proposed development to accommodate for a future development, or a possible City of Central Point park. 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 A11 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 ofi 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. 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 (ALOE), 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 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 26 Kensington Court Subdivision 3/7/2003 4 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 property 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 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. {f 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 suitab{e, 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. / 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, 2'7 Kensington Court Subdivision 3/7/2003 5 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 shalt 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 shalt 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 Pittview Avenue (Jackson County Jurisdiction) Classification - (local street) Construction drawings for this Tentative Pian 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. 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 wilt stipulate the design of required street section. z~ Kensington Court Subdivision 3/7/2003 6 Storm Drainage, Irrigation Improvements 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. Storm drainpipe materials shall be PVC, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with watertight joints. Provide concrete or sand-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 DEQ, 1990 APWA Standards Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA), and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. The construction plans and the "as-built" drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals. 29 Kensington Court Subdivision 3/7/2003 7 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 8-inch Waterline (Pittview Avenue) 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. 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 fines 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. A41 structures shalt 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 ~~ Kensington Court Subdivision 3!7/2003 8 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. 31 Attachment "D" RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A final development plan, containing in final fonn the information required in the preliminary plan shall be submitted to the City within six months of approval or by August 11, 2003 A six month extension maybe 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 final parking, landscaping, lighting and sign plans to the City for approval as part of the final development plan. A suitable landscape and irrigation plan shall show the types of trees, shrubs, and ground cover that will be planted together with street trees. 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 final development plan. 5. A lot line adjustment shall be processed by the applicant prior to acceptance of the final plat application by the City. H:~i'lanning\03-009a.wpd r1 0310/2003 09:52 15417746295 JACKSON COUNTY RPS PAGE 01 ~l+rl "rll~~~i" r~~H JACKSON COUNTY Ro~Ls March 5, 2003 Attention: Tom Humphrey City of Central Point Planning 155 South Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 Roads Eric Nremeyer, R£ 75~gtJtc ~ Acvelopmern Engineer 206.viu4ope Road W hid City, OR 9750$ Phone: (541)7746230 Farc (541)7746205 niemeyelQjaGksonGaunly.org wr7rv.jacksoncounty.org RE: Planned Unit Development off Pittview Avenue - acounty-maintained road. Planning File 03009-PUD; Kensington Court PUD. bear Mr. Humphrey: Thank you for the opportun'(ty to comment on this application for the tentative plan for the Kensington Court Planned Unit Development to determine if the proposed subdivision of the existing 1.93 acres combined lot size meets the requirements of law. ff approved, the subdivision would create a residential development that would have 10 parcels. The subject parcels are located in an R-1, Residential Single-Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W 11AC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. Roads and Parks Services has the following comments: The applicant would need to submit construction plans to Roads and Parks, so we may determine if county permits will be required. Road approaches from Pittview Avenue shalt be completed under permits from Jackson County Roads. Additionally, any work within the county's 60 foot right-of-way shalt be under a permit from this department. 2. Jackson County has a jurisdictional transfer program applicable to County roads located within city limits. If Central Point accepts jurisdicfian of Pittview Avenue, Jackson County would provide funding equal to the cost of paving the roadway. If you have any questions or need further information feel free to call me at 774-ti230. Sincerely, ~ Eric N'iemeyer~ ~` Traffic & Development Engineer 1:1EnglneeringYDevelop ment~ClYl ESICN7RI.PTl030D9.wpd 33 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: March 11, 2003 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Matt Samitore, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing - To consider a Tentative Plan fora 32-lot subdivision known as Cedar Park Subdivision, located south of Scenic Road in the vicinity of Miller Estates in the TOD-LMR zoning district (Map 37 2W 03B, Tax Lot 700, 800, and 900). Applicant/ Owner: Cedar Park Group L.L.C. P.O. Box 5505 Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Dan L. Davis 4550 Little Applegate Road Jacksonville, Oregon 97530 Summary: The applicant has submitted a development proposal to subdivide 5.1 acres of land into thirty three-residential lots and six open space lots. This tentative plan is located within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District. 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 Plan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060 (Attachment B). Applicable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.65 et seq. -TOD Districts and Corridors Discussion• Cedar Park is located in an area just to the South of the Miller Estates Subdivision and was recently annexed into the City of Central Point. This area was one of the last areas on the West side of Central Point that has not been developed or master planned. The area was re-zoned and included in the Transit Oriented Development District in 2000. The zoning allows for a wider variety of uses than what is typically allowed in standard residential zoning districts. This flexibility has allowed for the design of the Cedar Park Subdivision. The Planning Department has reviewed the tentative plan for compliance with the TOD Design Requirements, Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan. The area is designated for low mix 34 residential development and is zoned TOD-LMR. The mix of housing types anticipated have numerous lot sizes and configurations. The 32 lots that comprise Cedar Park Subdivision range in size from 2182 square feet to 5,961 square feet with the average lot size being approximately 3,888 square feet (Attachment A). The subdivision meets the minimum and maximum lot allowance for the Low Mix Residential Zoning District. The minimum number of lots for Cedar Park is 21 units (at six units an acre) a maximum number of 42 units (or 12 units an acre). The advantages of the TOD Districts are that it requires a minimum number of lots for developers who want to build larger estate style homes, but also allows for higher density residential units. This type of development helps to delay the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary by requiring compact development inside of the current City Limits. Parks and open space have been accommodated throughout the proposed neighborhood. A pedestrian path is shown to meander along the frontage of Highway 99 matching the existing sidewalks to the North. The TOD guidelines require a minimum of 13,200 square feet of open space. The applicant's plan indicates 29,518 square feet of open space made up of small pocket parks dispersed throughout the development The Master Plan for the area (Attachment C) shows an alley or street to be constructed on the Eastern boundary of the development. Development of the alley/street will be deferred until the next phase of development occurs. The Northern street will be a TOD Standard Residential Local Street with a 60' ROW. The Southern street will be a Minor Residential Local Street with a 52' ROW and parking on the Northerly side only. The property owners to the South, Mr. And Mrs. Beck plan to retain their existing home and there will be no development along this section. The Rogue River Valley Irrigation District, Jackson County Fire District Number 3, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, and Oregon Department of Transportation have been notified of the this tentative subdivision. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority previously identified that there is a public sewer main that was stubbed out from Miller Estates Subdivision that will connect through the future alley way bordering Lot 13. The proposed storm drain service will travel through the same route. Water will be looped through the same alley as well as connect to the 12 inch water line on Highway 99. As part of the conditions of approval a few road transportation issues must be resolved. Currently, the Southern Road into the development has three different ownerships, all of which rely on a mutual access agreement. The area must be dedicated to the City as Public Right-of- Way prior to approval of improvement and plans. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has present day jurisdictional control of Highway 99. ODOT does not support the Southern Road because is location does not meet their spacing standards along a State Highway. In their correspondence they have recommended that prior to Final Plat issuance a proper road access be permitted. The City is currently negotiating for the jurisdictional control of Highway 99. Once this agreement is completed ODOT will no longer be the permitting agency for this project and spacing will not longer be an issue. 35 The Public Works Department has provided their comments, recoimnendations and requirements for this application which can be found in Attachment E. Findines of Fact and Conclusions of Law Staff suggests the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as applicable to the project and necessary for its approval. 1. The project site is located in the TOD-LMR (Low Mix Residential) and increases residential and mixed use land use efficiency in this area. The proposed tentative plan for low mix residential development is a permitted use in the TOD zoning district. The zoning in tum is consistent with the TOD Comprehensive Plan map designation. The Comprehensive Plan encourages innovative residential planning and development techniques that will help to increase land use efficiency and reduce costs of utilities and services (Comprehensive Plan, page XII-12). 2. The project consists of a tentative plan application for the subdivision of approximately 5.01 acres for the purpose of developing a mixed use development. The total number of tots proposed is 33 together with six other lots totalling .78 acre areas of Open Space. The proposed mixed use subdivision meets the density requirement for the TOD-LMR (Low Mix Residential) Zoning District which is a maximum of 12 units per acre in the TOD-LMR. Each lot within the subdivision meets the requirements of the TOD Design Requirements and Guidelines. The tentative plan includes all information required by CPMC 16.10.010 et. seq. 3. The Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed both the tentative plan for the proposed subdivision and the findings of fact and determined that the project meets alt City standards and requirements subject to the recommended conditions found in Attachments E and F. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: I. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the tentative subdivision subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the tentative subdivision; or 3. Continue the review of the tentative subdivision at the discretion of the Commission. G: \P T a n n i n g\02 0 8 7. wp d 36 Attachments: A. Copy of Tentative Plat B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Master Plan D. Correspondence Received from Affected Agencies E. Public Works Staff Report F. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval G: \P t a n n i n g\02 0 8 7. wp d 3'7 /y I~ . I ~, ~A r j A ~~ 7k-"~~_J }"""~~ A ~ b z 6 4 ' ~ Y3 ^kttt 1 1 9 k7~A•a ~ ~1{ RS A. k I ~ ~4~b 1 ~~ ~ e~~~ ~ ~ t ,~ e .> ~ ~~ 1 e ~,~A - ~ p9 a yw• iTn 5 la ~ ~" Wr I o y s# #~ 1 a I tt - rY•n ~ ( ~~iC \i is g ~~ ave+~ ~ I A '' _ . 1 ,f •,a°`wl 1 x 1' : a „mm„ I A U 1 a'm m, I ~ • ~ 1 `ems n ? 1 r I'~ 4 7 ~1 IA '+ i9_ O ~ .`-~4 1 ,~ I i et a~ I o IIM mewv R ~"f' 0 1 ~ 1 ~~ ~"~ A W' A X21 vaiT Y '~ I. A 1"° ~ w 1~ a i~ I ___-- J~3 c a { I ~Ail~ } Y ~ yf ~ § %4 ya 1 ~ ,.w mmm• n,e a ~ y 1 • 41 \ u 1 1~ t'~~gn$• ~q L 1 "sw°~ ~g~ ~s ~"°'r° T' u`was 9~a zq Yg k218 1 \ s, x. r ~~ s. ws ti ~ ;e~ i RS~ Q' k 1 ~ ~ i `~~ ~ 1 O 9 y~O • i~ 9~ g e~ s 1 "n°im \' y a s.l .+, a .4 •., (~ ysd` ~,p 4.. `1 ~' c 1 W~ Y~~1 y R 4I (f a 1 a - k i I aoc l x1 ~ ~/ ~r- v~~.~ ~ •':~>; ~ is ~ 8 I hC ~ 9 f0\ 1 ,n•• I j ~ ` I p ~ { ~~ ! / 1 F ~ f- 1 h~ 1 ~~ YC IOi ~... i 1i4 ~ fi i 1 ,~. x < i om' lax x. §a . n aV > 1 ~ \ ~° Y ~ t ' ,~ `~ ~ ~ ,d ~ s. 9i +~ n 1 ,M ~A'i~ f ise7m FI /a. dW~ / e , 1 / ~ I I YC / 1 I ~6 / ,~ E ~ya {{~ A 1 / ' j / 1 I g ~' 4 / ,, .. ~ ,~ 3$ ~ ~.~._ y a} i~ik1, C~ ~y o~ Cen trams ~- I-'ozn C PZ,~INNING D1;T~R7ML'NT Tom Ilumphrcy, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Matt Samitore Community Planner Dave Arkens Planning Technician Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: February 18, 2003 Meeting Date: March 11, 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 will review a tentative subdivision application that would create 33 lots on a 5.1 acres of land near the intersection of Orth Drive and the Rogue Valley Highway (Highway 99). The parcel islocated inthe TOD-LMR, Low Mix Residential zoning district and is identified in the records ofthe Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W 03B, Tax Lots 700, 800 and 900. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Subdivisions are set forth in Chapter 16 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Anyperson interested in commenting on the above=mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 11, 2003. 2. Written comments maybe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 155 South Second Street O Central Point, OR 97502 O (541) 664-3321 • Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~U 02/26/2003 09:08 15417746295 3ACKSON COU~NTµY~~hPS r PAGE.. 01101 Roads Eric Niemeyer, FE T /(`\~ /`/''1 '~r[~j C7 /\~\~/ N r\/1,,\^ji T V T~aJJk & Develapmcttt Errgirteer V White City, OR 97503 Phone: (5dt)774-e73J ^ L i ~,,,/ i 7w V V .L ! ~./ V ~ ~ i. i. 206 MfebRe Road FaX: (54M1) Tf4.8295 nlemsva~iecksoncowty-ae R Q C~ ~ S ~aa«~~~,n,a.a9 February 25, 2003 Attention: Tom Humphrey City of Central Point Planning 115 South Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Subdivision off Rogue Valley Hwy. 99 - astate-maintained road. Planning File 02087; T37,2W,03B Tax Lots 700, 800 & 900 Dear Mr- Humphrey: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application that would allow the tentative Cedar Park Subdivision that would create 33 tots on 5.1 acres of land near the intersection of Orth Drive and the Rogue Valley Highway #99. The parcel is located in the TOD-LMR, Low Mix Residential zoning district. Roads and Parks has no comments. ~ If you have any questions or need fthrther information feel free to call me at 774-6230. Sinfcerely, t/ - ~-~.. Eric Niemeyer, PE Traffic & Development Engineer 1:M1Engineering~Devdopmani\CI'rtESlCtJIRLP'1ti02037.wpd 42 ~1h ~~ ~ Cedar Park Subdivision 3/7/2003 1 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFFRE'PORT Applicant , arch;l,1th, 2003 - .. ,. P.lans;' . ` i 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 Map for Cedar Park Subdivision. 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; 43 Cedar Park Subdivision 3/7/2003 3 improvements. Currently the City of Central Point is negotiating jurisdictional transfer of Pacific Highway 99 from the Oregon Department of Transportation to the City of Central Point. Assuming jurisdiction transfer occurs before the construction of the Cedar Park Subdivision, all improvements to Pacific Highway 99 will be required to meet City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications. However, if construction advances prior to jurisdictional transfer, all improvements would be subject to Oregon Department of Transportation guidelines for construction. 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. 4. Storm Drainage Infrastrucfure: Astorm drain connection for the proposed development exists in close proximity to the northeast property corner. 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 create 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 Cedar Park Subdivisions 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. Water Svstem: The City of Central Point Public Works Department is recommending two connections to the existing City of Central Point water distribution system. The location of the two recommended connection points are as follows: ^ Connect to the existing 8-inch ductile iron waterline located near the northeast property corner (stubbed out from Miller Estates). ^ Connect to the existing 12-inch ductile iron waterline located in Pacific Highway 99. 6. Rights of Wavs/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. 7. Developer Compensation: Two previous developments to the north of the proposed location for Cedar Park Subdivision were required to upsize water, and storm drain 45 Cedar Park Subdivision 3/7/2003 4 infrastructure to provide adequate connections for future development. The City of Central Point Public Works Department will negotiate compensation to the previous developers fior required infrastructure upsizing. Street Li htin :Ornamental street lighting inside of the TOD district will be owned and maintained by the City of Central Point. Therefore, the design of the street lighting plan will be subject to review by PP&L as well as the City of Centra! Point Electrical Inspector. After approval of the street lighting plan by the City of Central Point, installation inspections will be required and should be coordinated with the City of Central Point Electrical Inspector. 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 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. All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the 46 Cedar Park Subdivision 3/7/2003 5 permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark anc 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 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. 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. / A copy of written approval from Jackson County Roads Department regarding highway/county road improvements (as applicable). 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, Qwest, 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. 4'7 Cedar Park Subdivision 3/7/2003 6 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. Streets/Traffic ^ EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ^ Pacific Highway 99 (Oregon Department of Transportation Jurisdiction) 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 ^ 30-inch Storm Drain (northeast property corner) 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 48 Cedar Park Subdivision 3/7/2003 7 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 or sand-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 49 Cedar Park Subdivision 3/7/2003 8 form. 4. Ali testing and video inspection ofi 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 • 8-inch Waterline (northeast property corner) ^ 12-inch Waterline (Pacific Highway 99) 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 shalt 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. 50 ATTACHIVIEN'I' 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 Cedar Park Subdivision. 2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the development of Cedar Park 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 Cedar Park Subdivision. 4. The applicant shall submit documents showing the proper dedication of Right-of--Way for the Southern most road into the Cedar Park Subdivision, prior to final plat approval. The applicant and City of Central Point shall work with the Oregon Department of Transportation for proper access into the Cedar Park Subdivision prior to the approval of improvement plans. G:\Planning\02087.wpd ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: March 11, 2003 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom FIumphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Consideration of the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Future Growth Areas CP-1 and CP- 5 around Central Point Backeround 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 (UGBs). 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 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 than 200 people have responded to date however a summary of the survey results are included in this report (Attachment B). Discussion Area CP-1 This azea is located in the vicinity of the Seven Oaks Interchange and consists of approximately 900 acres. Part of CP-I is in an azea currently identified in the Central PoinUJackson County Urban Growth Boundary and Policy Agreement as an Area of Mutual Planning Concern. The land around the interchange carries various county zoning designations including; Interchange Commercial-IC, Rural Residential-RRS, General Industrial-GI and Exclusive Farm Use-EFU (refer to Attachment A). This area was originally contemplated (by RPS) as an extension of Central Point, connected by the Beaz Creek Greenway and along the east side of Interstate 5. Since Central Point was in closest proximity to this growth area, it was thought that the City would ultimately have jurisdiction. The area includes the Erickson Air Crane property which is provided water by Central Point. In previous public meetings discussion revolved around encouraging development in this azea because of its limited farm value, its accessibility to I-5 and its potential to increase the City's industrial land inventory. Opponents to its inclusion as a future growth area argue that its development could be growth inducing and encourage the conversion of prime farmland in between the UGB at Scenic Road and the new CP-1 boundary. Residents from this area and other interested parties have been invited to attend the Council meeting and comrnent on whether or not all or part of CP-1 should be considered as a future growth area. 52 New Area CP-S This area was brought into the Urban Reserve discussion during the first round of meetings in late 2001. The Planning Commission recommended that the City's UGB be redefined north of Taylor Road so that it follows Grant Road all the way to Scenic Road. There are multiple small parcels between the existing UGB and Grant Road north of the first 90 degree turn that are not economically viable as faun sites. The City Council agreed with the Conunission but added au `Irshaped' area owned by School District #6 to the west of Grant Road (see Attachment A). Inclusion in the Urban Reserve and ultimately in the UGB would allow the District to conduct farm-related (FAA) classes on the property in the future. The Counter argument is that Grant Road would serve as a better defined Urban Growth Boundary and that any exceptions to this would set an unnecessary precedence. 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 growth areas CP-1 and CP-5. Attachments A. Maps of Future Growth Areas CP-1 and CP-5 and from City/County Agreements B. Public Notice of Meeting dated March 5, 2003. C. Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) Survey and Results ~~ Central Point Potential Growth Areas CP-1 930 ~, ~ '~ I 4 i i~ j '~i r =~ I -1 '~ lnferstat g I ' ` 1 Mifes 0 0.5 0.5 r O Proposed Growth Areas ~ Important A9. Area ~ - DMA 06 MARCH 2003 l I ~' '~ L$ I~ --- - _ ~C t 4t J4P ee~~t OPMae ',• 1•c~pa q A ~ _.._._._.__..:. F~ _____ I ~__ 4 ~ ~~: r ~ ---- ~ , ~_ i i `~-i-, '~` ~ 5 ~ .~_J.. ._, _ .~ I ,,1 f ~ \v; .I 1 _ I I ~~ W ,~ ~ ~ I N t R I ~psr .. __ .y~_ I FS ~ `~`+I 1 .< r t ~ ~' ~-- .....__. ~_.` -- I _ r ; ,;~, ..... --~--j_ ~ __ y~_ __-4 , ~~ ___._..__.._.1._... i~~ ~ -._.____._' _~ ..... ~. _ I~ ~ ~ _ I I I~~i ~i~i~~i }} I I y . ~ ~ N~ vl~bCiAM~,9, ;ese r<cyu<wnn cdaea oNCe gra0<pa0e -! MAP 1 ~! ~i CENTRAL POINT JACKSON COUNTY ' AREA OF MUTUAL PLANNING CONCERN ^~-v (SEVEN OAKS INT&RCHANGE AREA SUBSECT TO URBAN GROVJYH ROUCY a7) ?l,' y,rr`,,~~~ ~2~,~, " o soo torn ~soo r«; ' ~ r•ts004et ~III~ ~ _". ~ ..` +IIPIhIµ ~ ~ L> I G ,~. ~ ~. \is• ~ ~,t~~~~hphr ~ TM>mnDts D>feam eal9ttet aeteon>e carp tea f ~~C! Dy JeChfm Cwnty kan nvnnelyMfmrc<s Vii( ~ ~~~ xnvafm Ca n;ymnnd ncc~pi rey,nm i• yW Htq> Om»~T> a 9q/,;g1e1 et<Vle<y C'' 'G mem sm no,.wnem<><x«e>s<o«mmea -~'=:1 ' lel anln l~~n In i90n .... i 1 _~ . ~ r ~ i i I~ ~, ~~ 51 !Acres Central Point Potential Growth Areas I I iT ~ ~ ~ ~' i ~. ~~ _~ N ~O Proposed Growth Areas 1 i W~E Important Ag. Area ~ S ~. 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 Miles DMA 06 MARCH 2003 ,ten ~~~1~~ CI toy ~ o.~ Ce.a tral Po.zn t PLANNING DEPAR7~ENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Matt Samitore Community Planner Dave Arkens Planning Technician Notice of Meeting Date of Notice:lVIarch 5, 2003 Meeting Date: March 11, 2003 and March 13, 2003 Time: 7:00 pm. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Poinf, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING 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 Conunission will review the proposed area and hear public bomment on March 11, 2003 and the City Council will review the proposed area on Mazcfi_ 13, 2003. The area to be reviewed is located neaz Seven Oaks Interchange. A map is provided on the back of this notice. 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, March 11, 2003. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 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. 241. 155 South Second Street ®Central Point, OR 97502 ®(541) 664-33214 Fax: (541) 664-6384 5~ r' D -~~ KIRTtANB RD ~~ ~ Cz ty o~ Cen t t~al Poln 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: March 5, 2003 Meeting Date: Mazch i 1, 2003 and March 27, 2003 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURH OF MEETING 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 azea and hear public comment on March 11, 2003 and the City Council will review the proposed area on Mazch 27, 2003. The azea to be reviewed is located near the intersection of Grant Road and Scenic Avenue. A map is provided on the back of this notice. 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, March 11, 2003. 2. Written comments maybe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. _ 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 aze available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 291. 155 South Second Street ®Central Point, OR 97502 ®(541) 664-3321 ®Fax: (541) 664-6384 60