HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 735 - Twin Creeks Retirement VarianceATTEST`:
~,
i ~
Approved by e this stn day of`Sr;~t~~~r~hr~r, 2007.
fw
~k
Pliilllllil~? ~,OC71i11.15' I sip ~ ;:,'~rr
Planning Commission Resolution No. ~ _-- (090407
°~
„~
', 7
r
~,~c,_~i~,i~ ~ ~.
,,,
_ i t,~v i 1;, ~ ~ r, .; j_ ~ ,, i_ _.
~~ ~.iiai ,;)~ '~ Ti 't s ~'~~~~ I1C11; 112? ~~,£a5 (\t 4-:SS iii ~~5]_)~)115•,C`. LC) !}1G 1~~)~))i(;<l~Jl'S C%C.l)JC;t,l~i~] c}OOt?L l~.J{;
~_ ~~7f1!.' i'''~ i_I;; i~l,'lf~ ~.Oi,l)?31SS'1(3i1 ]?t"C;VS; ~. ~., ~ , ~:!, f;OIl(1111(>Ji U~~l~~t, ,''°,i'lC.` )~~i~1~ t<~1'1t;~-~ 'tlaF:iL
." o a
;i',C~U(,`~liall~~J7'.-'~I i ~__ i ~ ;~~ ~, Pt'OLI~~~.tri C~t)1'1~~1C ~,.~~i,ir~-~1C~(a`~-C~;t i~~it~1C<_ii-Sl2~J7YdiCti;Ci ii~r~~C)Il~~i
1.+_O~~?113t:).1~ ~; ,i „~ `[l1"Ji',i)i~ 1 L Il_Uil ~i. ~..~.~. ~~~)~)I i [)J~. ! 111%)1~i1~' ~?'~)~)1'Q~Vi. A'~',i i:'3{(;(;S l{~
. .
,.,
- _ _ J' 1 (-S~ ~~,; I I!~~~ ~~G`C)~VEC~ ~ il~% 4 SIC, J.C1. C)~,~'ill .»311.C1a1,:" a__; I;~~
~i~~
~,. 7 ~ ~ ~3~~.,~ic:~5 c 7~; ~~~c ~_ ~~1,~. 3~,,~~~~~2 ~ec~t~irc~ . ~. , ~~ r>~ ~ `~ > ri~ax~
n
_ _'i -- _ L_1 ~ ~~ru~ ti~L ~1_ ~4~T~t~ S.i; ftllC~i ~ ~~ ~~ (I6,[1~1't)LL_L-- i ~~ 'fc~3' <i'~
j;,'T ~
1Je 1 i ,~, i;_ ii_'~ ~ ~~r~ ~i~~_ ~ ;i~,(7~ i _ ~ 'i_:~iw i ~i!.:I (l'I('C91 ~~. ~.~.1.G~)1 _ 't~~1~.°
~ I I* I I~ I I ' ~ y
_ _ dig ~ilf ~ ii. ;i I P!]`~C..cil~I~' l~`~~5 u~'.
!~
e. All other code standards are met, in conformance with this code;.
At this time the applicant is requesting a variazace frol~~l tl~te City's parking 1•ecluircnlents as fbilows:
1. A reduction in the zxlinizxlun•1 nu1~~13cr of parkin; spaces required; alzd
2. A reduction in the number of covered parking spaces required ley CPMC.
1. Reduction in Minimum Number of Parking Spaces. CPMC Section 17.65.050, Table 3 identifies
tkle minimum off-street parking requirements for the Retirement Center as one space per unit. Based on
the center's number of units, a minimum of 120 parking spaces are required. Tlic subn~litted z-evised
project plan proposes 100 parking spaces. The proposed 100 parking spaces are distributed as follows:
TABLE 1. PROPOSED PARKING
Use No. Spaces
Tenant 56
Employee 25
Car/Van Poal 2
Visitor 7
Other 10
Total 104
The applicant has provided additional information regarding the parking demand for projects of this type
(Senior Housing) supporting a lower parking demand ratio. The applicant states that the average age of
the tenants is $0 years old and that for a variety of reasons, most da not have individual vehicles. Table 2
illustrates the information submitted by the applicant. This information is based on four existing
retirement centers operated by the applicant. The parking ratio per residential unit ranges between .64 and
90, with an average of .79 spaces per unit. The variance proposal provides a parking ratio of .83 spaces
per unit vs. the 1.0 required by CPMC.
TABLE 2. EXISTING FACILITIES & ITE COMPARISONS
No. of
Facili Name
Units No. of
Residents Parking
S aces S Parking
aceslUnit Resident
Cars
Cars/Resident
Em to ees
Terpening Terrace
Horton Plaza
Anna Maria
Fountain .Plaza 94
44
102
132 106
106
116
149 85
70
91
84 0.90
0.74
0.89
0.64 35
46
46
41 0.33
0.43
0.40
0.28 20
23
24
25
Avera a 105.5 119.25 82.5 0.79 42 0.40 23
,ITEM 0:48
Twin Creeks i20 135 100 0.83 56 0.41 25
Note: ~ Maximum occupied parking spaces per unit daring weekday with a minimum of .11 spaces per unit. Average was .27.
Weekend parking rates were higher, but data was insufficient to provide a statistically valid comparison.
Page 2 of 4
In addition to the applicant provided inforzxzatioza, Slaff conducted a parking stancit3~•ds can~parisozz
utilizing The Institute of Transportation E~zgineers (ITE) publication Parking Gcalzei°atinn, 2"`r Isclition,
which is a comprehensive source of parking occulaatlcy rates far uses a~zd building types. I3ascd o~z the
ITE data the maximum was .48 spaces per unit (Table 2).
Criteria ~.. Based on the applicant's data, azzd the izzfaz-~natiozi fro~z~z ITE, it has bee~z adequately
demonstrated that the proposed number of parking spaces is sufficient to appropriately supply the ofl;
street parking needs of the project per Section 17.13.400{F)(1). The overall request rcprese3zts a 17%
reduction in the number of required parking spaces.
As a result of the projects location within a residential neighborbaod and being bound on three sides by
public streets, there is no reasonable opportunity to share parking. I-Iowever, the project will have a
car/van services to transport residents to shopping, activities, etc,, which supparts a reduction in parking
demand. There are provisions in the Cade that allow far a 25% reduction to the parking when transit is
available. However, at this time there are no transit services available to the praject site. The nearest
transit stop is at Second Street and Laurel Street. Therefore, this provision can not be solely relied upon
as a solution to the variance, but the availability ofcar/van service further supports the variance request.
Criteria 2 & 3. Based on the project's location within the neighborhood it has been adequately
demonstrated that use of shared parking is not a reasonable solution to the requested reduction. All other
parking requirements will be met.
2. Reduction in Number of Covered Parking Spaces -~ In addition to the number of overall parking
spaces, the applicant is requesting a variance to the required number of covered parking spaces. CPMC
Section 17.65.050(3)(a) states that:
"Fifty percent of all residential off-street parking areas shall be covered. Accessory unit
parking spaces are not required to be covered. "
Based on Table 1 there will be a total of 56 tenant (residential) parking spaces. Per CPMC a minimum of
28 spaces must be covered. The applicant is proposing that a total of 28 spaces be covered. if the
variance to the number of parking spaces is granted, then the request to reduce the number of covered
parking spaces will be consistent with Section 17.65.050(3){a), effectively eliminating the need for a
variance to the covered parking requirement.
FINDINGS:
See attached Attachment "C"
ISSUES.
1. If the variance to the number of parking spaces is approved, then the minimum required number of
parking spaces shall be as noted in Table 1.
2. If the variance to the number of parking spaces is approved, then the variance to the number of
covered parking spaces is no longer required.
Page 3 of 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
No conditions
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" -Project Site Plan
Attachment "B" -Applicant's Statemc~lt a~~d site plan
Attachment "C" -Planning Department Findings
Attachment "D" -Proposed Resolution
ACTION:
Consideration of Resolution No. ,approving the Class B Variance to the n~inirnum number of
required offstreet parking within the Twin Creeks Retirement Center, with a fincli~~g that no variance
is required for the covered parking.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Resolution No. ,approving the Class B Variance to the minimum nuanber of
required off street parking spaces to 1.00, with a hnding that no variance is required for the covered
parking.
Page ~ of 4
s ~ ..,..., ..~..... ...~ ~ _.
,..
. .. ,;
....
,.
..
_ __
,.<~V . ~: ,~;
.;:..
..
~
. ~.
~
.
,: ,
, ,
~ . ~ ~.:~; ~~;~.,a~,
_. .
_.
;,
.
, .
.
. ~, ~ ...
~ .
.
.. .~
_. _
._ _
j ~ i
_ .; . _
-
f , ; ,_~
__ .
t°
~
M.
. s
~ _•.. „ ..
' n
..., - _
. >.
~
~ ~,0
.
~ I
.~.
~ ~
r an
~i,
t
~ -
~
r
~ ~ M
~~
. _ ~ ,
- .- .,: . ~
~; .
1
;..
, I
~~
v
UY
0: ~ ~ ...
~ .. .. ~
d
.
~
'
r. r `
F`
~
1 .
~
P
_. ~ ~ ~ ,,~
kkk
~ _
_.
,,
-~
`i
~
,.
_ ,~
.~
.~, _
<< ~
~
... ~
=
,.
...
- rr ~ .. _,..r
~~
~.
~
i ~
,.... t. ,. .. ..
~ ...
.'
i
;. ~ ~ -. .~
~ a ..
_ r ~ '' I .~+
~
f
,.. f .~ .---~1
_ .....
. . _. ....._. ._ . ,,_ __ r - -
~ i ~
-
_
--- -
- ''~
-
"~
# >
~
- _ _
•. .
._ ,
~ ~ ,
/
„ .
I
r
r ~ ~ f• J +
i
I~DNAt_f~ L. GF~IMF-5
la F~ C H f T~ C T 5, P. C.
July ~~, 2007
City of Central Point
Planning Department
140 South Third Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Attn: Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician
RE. Twin Creeks Retirement, File Number 07036
Dear Ms. Morgan:
Please accept this letter and attachments as an application far an "Exception to Code
Standards" Chapter 17.13, Class B variances, Section 17.13.440.
A. Applicability. Class B variance requests apply to the types of requests meeting the
approval criteria in subsections (B) through (G) of this section, and that conform to
subsection (A) (1) through (3) of this section. Class B variances shall be reviewed using
a Type Ill procedure, in accordance with Chapter 17.05
E. Variance to parking and foaling standards.
E,1. ,a,The individual characteristics of the use at that location require more or less
parking than is generally required for a use of this type and intensity, or modified parking
dimensions, as demonstratel fay a parking analysis or other fact provided by the
applicant;
The individual characteristic of our facility that requires less parking than is
generally required in our facility, senior housing, the average age is 80 years old. Many
of the seniors at this age either can not or choose not to drive. The facility will provide
transpor#ation with a small buss and a car for doctor appointments, trips to Crater Lake,
to coast, to Seven Feathers, banking, shopping, lunch out, dinners out and other pre-
arranged trips.
3110 STATE STREET • #~iE^F0~1^, OREGON 97504 • (S49) 77~-3000 • FAX [541] 779-04$3 • www.GWEarch.com
The table listed below is a comparison of other facilities owned and operated by this
developer.
Facility Name Units Residence {E) Parking Employees Tenanf Cars
Terpening Terrace 94 106 85 20 35 33
Horton Plaza 94 106 70 23 46 43
Anna Maria 102 116 91 24 46 43
Fountain Plaxa 132 149 84 25 41 28
Twin Creeks 120 135 100 25 56 47
Proposed use of 100 parking spaces
56 tenant parking {50% of tenant parking = 28 garageslcovered parking)
25 employees
2 car and bus
7 visitors
Our basic line of thinking is a lot of seniors do not drive cars for physical reasons. Since
we provide transportation for them, their dependence on their own vehicle is significantly
reduced. We are proposing more parking spaces than any of our other facilities. This is
also not counting any on street parking which exists on there side of our facility.
E.1.b. They need for additional parking cannot reasonably be met through provision of
on-street parking or shared parking with adjacent or nearby uses;
There are no existing facilities where shared parking is a possibility.
There are an-street parking spaces that could provide the twenty spaces we are short.
They would have to be shared between employees and visitors. Our tenants would park
on site.
E.1.C. All other code standard are met, in conformance with this code.
All other parking standards are met as proposed.
We respectfully request the city to grant the variance, We propose not to create an
encumbrance on the city or the neighborhood with this variance.
R ectfuily Submitted,
Ronald ri~rchitect, PC
RLG/klh
Enclosures {4 pgs)
_- -- ___
t 4 c
v f ;-~- T
.. _ §§
.(__.~,-., t ~ }~, i~t F r ~s ~~_~ .. a _ 3 - --. -,£ t`,~ `~° h°t •? S;~':±A~i4' ~ ~ f~- ( 31 ~,.,,s,.
tea- ~:ti^,v s.a.,s r ^~f ~~! j+ ! - -_ s~ -_~ ^` v"~` t<'~,~ '~ _s ~ ~~ ~ ltrr)~-?~~. .r.i~Et ~ JG~' i P ~ 1^` I
-~
___.-°"~ ;aGt~vlec7R~i.J.r ~ ° ~ 3 ~-L. - -_- - - -. - ------ .~- .-- `-.^..._-Y._ r P- 1.! I ~ - i _,
~+n
° _
e~ yea, _f:t3:1_v iV ~.:~ S j^E: .a ~t: ._t _~S - ~ _ .._._ _ __ €~. - ` M
a.. - _. .-
;a- pI .%" ~` ` -' t 1 _ .<s H.y.;.-.-. _ 3Pdd - <~:t:J _ --i~v:~ _fa alt f_..~ ,.,.,.. ,_.. - ~~.. ..Lu_, _ _.~.. <
t € ~ ` t ~=~ - ice:-~,'ri, _ - .6 __~=ji~.~_.._i ~' - - t _ - +° _ _,~ -_°_ - _`__ - _ r ~ 9 e~~ - ,,, .._. - ,~-.., u~ r p _ _ _! I
.•` d' 1' .r r°-~-~,~ f ,i' `~'~ ~~} - _ 'fir, _ -. ~._-_,__ _.. ~` ~*` _ _,_ -~a• - _ _ _ I ~ _ ~ - - ~ _ -
^ w7
i~ i ~ ~ I r r"` ~,._...~/ ~l- ~~ !"~ r' ~ ~ ~ . P ~j I i ~ a - - f _ _ k r~_, ~ € e.s_
cy ~ lr r # _ ~ M _ ^ j ~
lea "\ k. ~'^ "y~kca,.-.. ,` '°i- 65'
1 ~ ~ ~ sir (
>,.
<. s
xr,
^ ~,,~.; .. ., ~s .
. a
l `i ~~ 4 ~f ,Pk
_. - --. -. .. _.. _.-_ _;., tiger-w ~~ Y~l ' ` ,~ !i nom; o i. ^ - - °, _ _ e .. -
`fie„ ~ .nr_.. 3\` ~ F ~s~_ ~-_~ an r -x`~ - _ ,.~.~ ~_ _ _ -.,-- - _ .._._ - ~ _e.F t -
~r ~ t 1
.. ~ z lr 1 ~1 \ 111 -l~ i 'rte . -~ - ~.__.
~r.. ~~~l 1 ~ t __ _ ___ _ -
~5"~ ;fl~dQ~3Aot7'til \~. .l%~v:'. ~-`- gs #' ~ - -_- --mj -
tE \ ,, t ; F - _ - -
-- .. _ _ ._y _ ;
~~ ~ ,. ~,~
-- _ ' ._ ~ ~ _ _ _ -.~ E ~ r
} }.
t-- ,--. ~~ -_- ~. _
r x _ __ _ __
__
n.
t
,-
} _.
~n I
1 ;n'
~, ~ _
! ` f`
Conclusion: The application carnplies.
CPMC 17.13.41) E. Variance tv Par-Icing arul Lvcrclirzg Sturldarcls.
I. The city rrzay approve variances tv the rn.irzitnzrr~r or• ~r:cr~-unrrr~a standarrls.for off-
street parking (garantities and dinar-erzsians ofhar-l{ing s~~aces) trz llzis cvdc it~wn.fin.dir~.g all of
tlae fvllvvi~ing:
a. The individr{al characteristics of'the r.l,se at lltat lvcatinn regxlire more or lc:s.s
parking tlzara is generally r•egrtir•ed, for° a rrse of this type acrd irrtcrr.sity, yr nrodificd parking
dinrensiorrs, as denaonstr-ated Uy a parlrirrg analysis or° other. facts provided ley the ccpplicarrt;
Finding: CPMC Section 17.65.050, Table 3 identifies the minimum off street parking
requirements for the Retirement Center as one space per unit. Based on the center's
number of units, a zrlinilnuln of i 20 parking spaces are required. The submitted revised
project plan proposes 100 parking spaces; tenant spaces 56, employee spaces 25, car/varl
pool 2 spaces, visitor 7 and other 10 spaces.
Finding The applicant states that the average age of the residcr~ts at the retirement center
is eighty (80) years old. This is a characteristic unique to a retirement facility verses other
multi-family apal-tlnent developments. The applicant states that the average age of the
tenants is 80 years old anti that far a variety of reasons, most do not have individual
vehicles. Table 1 illustrates the information submitted by the applicant. This inforlnatioll
is based on four existing retirement centers operated by the applicant. The parking ratio
per residential unit ranges between .64 and .90, with an average of .'79 spaces per unit.
Table 1 illustrates the sublrlitted comparable data.
'TABLE 1. EX1ST1hG FACILITIES & ITE COA4PARISONS
N°. °f
~°. of Parking Parking Resident
Facilit~~ l~larne Units Residents Spaces Spaces/Unit Cars Cars/Resident Em ]°~~ecs
Terpening Terrace 94 T 106 8S 0.90 35 0.33 20
Dorton Plaza 94 lOG 70 0.74 46 0.43 23
Anna Maria 102 1 t 6 91 0.89 4C 0.40 24
Fottntairt Plaza 132 l49 84 0.64 41 0.28 25
Avery e 105.5 119.25 82.5 0.'79 42 0.40 23
IPIt (1.4$
Twin Creeks 120 135 100 0.83 56 0.41 2S
Note: r tvlaxirraum occupied parking spaces per uirit during ~vicek<Say with a minimum of .11 spaces per unit. Average vas .27.
Vdeekend parking rates acre higher, but data vas irrsu~iicient ro provide a staFistically valid comparison.
Finding: The variance proposal provides a parking ratio of .83 spaces per unit vs. the 1.0
required by CPMC. The percentage of tenants with vehicles range from 28% to 43%
among those living at the existing retirezxlent centers.
Finding: The applicant has provided additional illfarlnation regarding the parking
demand far existing projects for this type of use (Senior Housing); the submitted data is in
support of a lower parking demand ratio as expressed in Table 1.
Pale 2 of 4
AttaClit~tent ssC»
FINDINGS OF FACT'
AND
CONCLUSIONS OF I.aAW
File No: 08139
INTRODUCTION
In the Matter of a Class B Variance to the TOD off=street parking standards for tl~e `T'win
Creeks Retirement Center. The Planning Commission approved the Site I']ac1 for the center
on March G, 2007 by Resolutioza 722. The center is located in the TOD-HMI2, Iligl-- Mix
Residential zoning district and identified on tl~e Jackson County Assessor's snap as 37S 2W
03 CB, Tax Lot 7300. The proposed project area is located at 888 Twin Creeks Cz•ossi~~g.
{Applicant: Twin Creeks Retirement, Oregon Limited Partnership; Agent: Ronald Griza~es,
Architect}.
CPMC 17.13.~I00 Class B variances.
A, Applicability. Class 13 variance requests apply to the types of requests meeting tl~e
approval criteria in stcbsections (13) tht'o~cgli (G) of this section, and that conform to
subsections (A)(1) through (3) of this section. Class I3 variances shall he revie>1~ed tcsing a
Type II1'procedure, in accordance tivitlt Chapter 17.05:
1. The Class 13 variance standards apply to individual platted and recorded
lots otxly.
2. The Class I3 variance procedure shall not be used to modify a standard for
lots yet to be ct°eated throtcgh a partition or subdivision process; such regz.cests
shall utilize the Class C variance procedure.
3. A variance shall not be apps°oved that tivould vary the '~~ernaitted tcses"
ot° "prohibited roses" of any zoning district.
Finding: The variance application is reviewed using a Type III procedure in accordance
with section 17.05.300 and the public hearing before the City of Central Paint Planning
Commission September 4, 2007.
Finding: The variance request is not a modification to the lot sire. The project, Twin
Creeks Retirement Center, senior housing is a permitted use in the zozze.
Conclusion: The applicant has met the procedural requirements with the filing of a Class
B Variance application.
CP~4~IC 17..13.400 (B}. Variance to Min.inrum Ilousing Density Standard, (C). Variance to
Vehicr.clar Access and Circulation Standards, arzd (D). Variance to Street Tree
Requirements (Chapter 12.36).
Finding: The varia~~ce request is not a modification to the minimum housing density
standard, vehicular access and circulation standards or to the street tree requirements.
Page 1 of 4
Conclusion: The application complies.
CPMC 17.13.400 ls. Variance to Par°Icing anal Loading Stanclarrls.
1. The city »2ay approve variances to tlu' rnirzirratsrn. or raaaxinri•tna standrrrrlr_for• vff-
street par-king (quantities and dirazerasions of parlring spaces) in this code upon finclittg all Uf
the following;
a. 1'lze individual characteristics of the zrse at that location rega~ir•c rrrore ar° less
parking than is generally r•equir-ed, for• a use of this type arad intensity, or rnoclil%ed par•kirz~T
dirazensions, as demonstrated Iffy a parlcirzg analysis or- otlzer•, facts provided by the applicant;
Finding: CPMC Section I7.f~5.OS0, Table 3 identifies the aninimuEn off street parking
requirements for the Retirement Center as one space per ul~it. Based oli the cellter's
number of units, a minimum of I20 parking spaces arc required. The subtitted reviscci
project plan proposes 100 parking spaces; tcltal~t spaces 56, employee spaces 25, car/van
pool 2 spaces, visitor 7 and other 10 spaces.
Finding: The applicant states that the average age of the residents at the retirement center
is eighty {80) years old. This is a characteristic unique to a retirement facility verses other
multi-family apartlzlent developments. The applicant states that the average age of the
tenalats is $0 years old and that for a variety of reasons, most da oat have individual
vehicles. Table i illustrates the ilaforlxlation submitted by the applicant. 'I'bis information
is based on four existing retirement centers operated by the applicant. The parking ratio
per residential unit ranges between .64 and .90, with an average of .79 spaces per unit.
Table i illustrates the submitted comparable data.
TA13I,F, 1. EX1S"I'1NG FAC1Li'r1ES & 1T1? C011~1PARISO~iS
Ito. of
No. of Parking Parking Resident
Facilit 'name Units Residents S aces S aceslUnit Cars CarslResiclcrtt Ent tlo secs
'reri~ening Terrace 94 ] OG 85 0.90 35 0.33 20
Ilortott Plaza 44 106 70 0.74 46 0.43 23
Anna Maria 102 1 16 91 0.89 46 0.40 24
Fountain Plaza 132 149 84 QG4 41 0.28 25
Avers c 105.5 119.25 82.5 0.79 42 0.40 23
1'l E, , 0.48
__
Irvin Creeks 120 135 100 4.83 56 0.41 25
T~tote; ~ rv4aximum occupied parking spaces per unit durir;g weekday n'iUr a minimum o€ .l t spaces per unit. A~~crage was .27.
Weekend parking rates were higher, but tiara was iusu~cient to pruvsde a s4~tistically valid cotnparisort.
Finding: The variance proposal provides a parking ratio of .83 spaces per unit vs. the I.0
required by CPMC. The percentage of tenants with vehicles range from 28% to 43%
among those living at the existing retirement centers.
Finding: The applicant has provided additional information regarding the parking
demand for existing projects for this type of use (Senior Housing}; the submitted data is in
support of a lower parking deinand ratio as expressed in Table 1.
Pago 2 of 4
Finding: A parking standards comparison utilizing'l~lae lilstitutc of'I'z•ansportation
Engineers {ITE} publication Parking Generatiota, 2"`~ l;ditinn finds that for a senior
housing building the national parkizag ratio is lower, 73% to 52"/~ than the TOD standard.
The proposed variance request to 100 parking spaces, a 17% reduction froi~~ the TOD
standard, exceeds the spaces the ITE report lists as a maximum of 0.4~ c}r 57.C spaces for
120 units . The data is compared by the number of off street parkin; spaces per unit. The
following Table 2 illustrates comparable conditians.
TaUie 2 ITIr Comparative Report
TOD Parking Proposed I`Tk; Parkirt Gertcralion
Standard: Per [lnit Variance Average >er unit A4aximum i>cr unit
Senior Housin l O.A3 0.27 [1,~iR
Finding: Based on the applicants data, and the infoz-nzation from ITE, it has been
adequately demonstrated that the proposed number of parkitag spaces is sufficiezat to
appropriately supply the off=street parking needs of the project per Section
17.13.400{E}(1}. The overall request represents a 17% rcductiolz in the number of
required parking spaces.
Finding: The project will have acar/van service to transport residents to shopping and
activities. The provided transportation suppoz-ts a reduction izl parking dezxzazad.
Conclusion: The application complies.
CPMC 17..13.400 E &. The need for additio~aal pay1~ing calsnot reasonably be met through
provision of on-street parki3zg o1'shar°ed parki~ig with adjacent or nearUy uses;
Finding: The project site is located within a partially developed residential neighborhood
and is bound on three sides by public streets so there is no reasonable opportunity to share
parking.
Finding: On-street parking is available along Twin Creeks Crossing with approximately
twenty-three {23) on-street spaces that can be utilized by guests.
Finding: Part III, Community Design p'catutes element of the Twin Creeks Master Plan
states "residential parking is provided in a rear parking court with on-street parking
supporting the street-fronting retail/commercial."' The project has provided coveted
residential parking in the rear of the facility in confozTnance with the plan policy.
Conclusion: The application complies.
In addition to the number of overall parking spaces, the applicant is requesting a variance to
the required number of covered parking spaces. CPMC Section 17.b5.050{3)(a) states that:
' Twin Creeks Master Flan Mixed-Use Page 64
Pago 3 of 4
"Fifty percent of all i•esiderztial off-street parking at•crt,s sl2all fie cavei•ed.
Accessory tertit parking spaces ar°e riot rec~r.tired to be coy>ei•ed. "
Finding: There will be a total of S6 tenant {residential) pa2~kir~g spaces. Per CI'MC, a
~ninimuzn of 28 spaces must be covcreci. Tl~e applicant is proposing that a total of 28
spaces be covered. if the variance to the nu2nber of parking spaces is granted, then tllc
request to reduce the number of covered parking spaces will be eoz~sistent with Section
1'1.6S.OS0{3){a), effectively eliminating the deed for a variance to tllc covered parking
requirement.
CPMC 17.13.400 E c. All ater code standards are stet, 1i1 C011f01"i92ance 1Ntt11 t111,s code.
2. The city may reduce the nurazber of regttircd bicycle parking spaces as regttir•ed
by this code, if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use by its nature wo2.tld be
reasonably anticipated to generate a lesser need for bicycle par•kirzg.
3. T1ae city may allov~~ a r-edatction in the atrto2.trat of velticlc stacking area r•egttired
for drive-through facilities ifsztcli a r•eductiora is deemed appropriate after analysis of-the
size and location of tJt.e development, limited ser°vices available and otl2er pertirzerit factors,
4. The city may modify the loading area standards if.such a redaction is deemed
appropriate after analysis of the use, anticipated shipping or delivery trcrfJic generated by
the use and alternatives for loading/unloading, such as use of on- or off street parking areas
during nonbusiness hot.trs; provided, that traff c is not impeded.
Finding: Not applicable to this application
Conclusion: The application complies.
Page 4 of 4
~TT~CHMENT " -~-~
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLIU'TION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CLASS I3 VARIANCl1 TO TiiL<<'
PARKING STANDARDS OF TI-IE TOD-I-iMR, IlIGII-MIXED I2ESlDEN'i'!AL
CONING DIS'I'I2IC`T
Applicant: Twin Creeks Retireme~it Center; AgeY~t: Roam}cI L. Grimes, Architect
(37S 2W 03 CB, T:~x Lot 7300
88$ Twin Creeks Crossing}
File No. 08138
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an applicationz for a Glass B Varia~ace to the parki~~g
standards to reduce off-street parking to 100 paz•king spaces, of which 28 are covered, foz~
the Twin Creeks Retirement Center located within a TOD- HMR, High Mix Residential
coning district and is identified on tl~e Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 03 CB,
Tax Lot 7300, located at 888 Twin Creeks Crossi~lg, in the City of Central Point, Oregon;
and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2007, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted a
duly-noticed public hearing on the application, at which tune it reviewed the City staff
report and heard testimony and caznments on the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideratio~~ of the application is based on the
standards and criteria applicable to the TOD-HMR, High Mix Residential section 17.65,
Applicatiozz Review Process section 17.66 and Exceptians to Code Standards section
17. i 3.400 of the Central Point Municipal code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Cozxzzxzission, as part of the Class B Variance application, has
considered and finds per the Staff Report dated September 4, 2007, that adequate findings
have been made demonstrating that isszsa~~ce of the variance is consistent with the intent
of the TOD-HMR District, now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this
Resolutian No. does hereby approve the application based on the findings and
conclusions of approval as set forth on Exhibit "A", the Staff Report dated Septeznbcr 4,
2007, which includes attachments, attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage
this 4`h ciay of Septezxzber, 2007.
Planning Commission Chair
Plaz~rzing Caznmissiozl Resolution No. (090407)
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by ire this 4t'' day of Septen7ber, 2007.
Planning Co~nn~ission Chair
Planning Comi~nission Resalutian No. {00407}