Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Resolution 729 - RVCOG Site Plan
~~~d Al~~A~~ ~'V .&4J 4J iV ~~~i~L.f ~'d 4f i.~^/l. `tl .t. 9~~e.. REStJLtTd,Ly^q~+..JAd `]~y{~a~^y rv9r~s~~~JT'~1 L\J. ~T ~~(Y f[~a ~, ~~}~~T Vr.~~4~.~.4 4+~~ /`~ ~.4•i ~~ J. ~..~~~,,~ A 1v/ Z"'1. Ei. d-.il•WA.~1~ ~/~ ~/b~igr~,~i~`..'k ~~~~~~.~`~. A.~~~'~~..i~~~,~~.~tX LOCATF,~~ .~'~?" 15~ 1~1C)tt,TI~I F.TZ~~'T `~ 1: ~~1:~{:'I' Applicant: ~~o~~ae ~/'aliey Cc~~xncii cif ~c~ve~•r-xx~et7ts ~37~ ~'~ 03DD, "lax Lat 7p00) File ~1c~. 07117 EItEAS, ~t~c apl~Iicant has sub~nittect an applicatio~~ fo7• ~ Site PIa3~ aphrcn~al for expansion of existing office facil%t-%tas located at i5~ N. l~ir~t ~~recf, a~1d is de~ziwiii~~~I can the Jac•ksc~n Couzlty ASSCSSOr`s map as 37~ 2~~' ():`~DI~, 'lax Lot 7000, in the City of C entrap Point, ~~~egon; and "~YHEREAS, on July 3, 21707, the Central Poirt~t Planning Co7n7~~ission conducted a duly-noticed public llearirtg on tl~e application, at wl~ic:i~ time it reviewed. the City staff reports and heard testimony artd co~n~nents on the application; and ~G1~EItEAS, the Planning Commission`s co~~siciet~aton of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to tl-~e Application Review Process section 17.05; Exception to Cocle standards - 17.13, and Permitted I~ses and Development ~taaldard 17,65,~J5U cif the Central faint Municipal code; and ETtEAS, the Planning Commission, as part of the bite flan application, has considered and. finds per the staff Deport dated July 3, 2007, that adequate findings have been madc deTltonstratin that issuance of the bite Plan is consistent with the intent of the TCJD - "1'rt•a~i5it Urenfed District, now, therefore, Planning Comrrussion Resolution Iti c~..~a'_.a_ .~__ (0703007) PAS~EI7 by th+ Planning (:c~ Fission and ~i~,nt~~ y ~ in atl~nt~ica~ ic->r~ of its Passago this 3rd day of J~xly, 2007. _~__aw . P1111i1 i i 1 s ~~ C... ~>» h i 1 i ~ ~ ~, i~ ~ ~ t (...1 i~ i i i' ~~ty Rr~~resentx~t~,°~~ - Approved by mo this 3rd dray of July, 2007. _.. :~... 1'laru~ i n~; (~t~~7~'~~issi~ ~~ ~ Cl ~;~it~ , Planning Commission Resolution No. ~__ _ ___ (07032007) ~~~«P1~~11, I ~ 1_)~ ~ ~.~i i Illtltw ~~ ~~~ ~ .. ,`~ -i ru,~tli~,,,,i;~, ~~,r,IC,, i ~`~ ~ti 1'.I ~1l;l C.i1+/ F1~IO~i~aic.11 <iIUI 51 63 'i ~U~~ , 2UQ7 AGNINaA ITEM: T' ile ~cz, 071 I `~ Carrsicleration ofa ~ite flan al~l~licatiaaa to expand exi~tin~,~ c~9 f ict; faciliti(.;~ far F~.c~~t~~; ~"alley ~auncil of Goverr~rncnts located ?rl the Tf71"~-~GC, Careneral ~,"Jrilrller°cial zoning district and idcrziiiicd on the ,Tacksan County Assessors n~ah ~~~ 3? 2'V~ 03~DL3, Tax Lot 70Oi). (.~pp>lieant: I2c-~rae Malley Council c~~Got%er°ra~~~ent~) Lisa Morgan, 1'lanrli~g 'l~cchnici~zr~ ~ ago, ~,.,~ ~ ~,. ~ ~~o,` ~, ,•~,uo `. h„n ~I"I7~. Raglle Valley Council tTl~ ~~~'-'°' ~ . Crover-z~r~r7cnts {T~.VC(~Cx) provides a ,~,~~ ~~ ~ ~,~,~ -~ ~-. ; :~~ variety of prot.asicrnal and tcchrueal . ~~"° ~ ~ assistancL to atl~cr' Gc~vcrnmctlt agcncios r~,) ;~ , , ~',- ~ ~ throughout 7aClCSOn and .losephinc '' ~~ 63un r ~~ s. ;,~,~ ~;U9 Ct:zu~~t~es, ~en{>>r `~ervtccs i~ rl~cz a r .oo ~, ~'~' ;goo S1£?rlr~iCa~Lt~7art7011aft~le£ISSI;~t&IIGE; rser~o ~~ itu~ pz~ovided to citizens ir> our comr~~unitiesr. 2rtDO - ~'rao ES~,D YG~30 ~av~t,st)r„ ~~ou `~'~ Tllc gr`(~wtrrg I1C(:d ~ol' ServlcE;s prav~ded ~~~~, ' ~;~ y,)~ - by RVC4~G aiecc~~itates the need far zaoo ~~~~ sao2 ic,.o~ GXpansian afth~,lr ~Xititlrl,~, headquarters. 3°iu? 1309 ... _. ~ ~ ~ ~ 9~7U3 ~ ~~ '. 1J200 ,G; General I'raj(e~ t l~cscri~-tian; The ~, .~_ prot)~>sed expansion is approxir7~atel} 2,26$ square feet and `~~ould provide additional o:~ice and siorag, space as well. as a confex'ence morn. This will increase t1rL overall square aotage to $,g95 square feet. The proposed addition will. attach to the existing building, The exterior finish ti~•ill have the appcararac~ of stucco, an all. sides of the addition, The addition has four tame windows facing North First Sired, where the main entrance is located. l~era~ity and Covc~~al„e; The TOD-t;~C district allows a maximum lOQ°!o lot coverage. t111 in~perviaus surfaces, paving, sidewalks and structures c-ourrt toward lot coverage. With the existing builc~ling and paved areas, this lot is developed to the ~zra,~ i tnu~~~ allowed lot coverage of 1 da°!o. ~ CPMC 17.{iS,OSQ (Table 1) Planning Commission ~.epart 0711' -Site Flan Pa~,~e 1 of 3 The proposed addition will not increase lot coverage, but would reduce the actual paved areas. Parking: $,$95 square feet of professional offce Haar area (this includes proposed addition} requires a total of 22 parking spaces. The applicant is eligible fora 2S% reduction in the number of originally) required parking spaces2. Therefore, reducing required parking to a total of 17 spaces. The City of Central Point enfiered into a shared parking agreement with RVCOG~ for use of 17 parking spaces on City property to be used as a parking lot. The City property is located to the east on North First Street directly across from RVCOG. The City parking lot is currently graveled, however, if obtaining CMAQ funding is successful, improvements would be slated for the 24 1 0120 1 1 cycle. The shared parking agreement with the City would satisfy RVCOG's total parking requirements. RVCOG would like to maintain 13 an-site parking spaces as convenient access for senior citizens and wheel chair bound citizens. Accessible parking spaces shall be located on the shortest practical accessible route to an accessible building entry. The minimum 1 S% landscaping requirement would replace their loading areas and on-site parking to a total of only 9 on-site spaces. FINDINGS: Refer to Attachment "C" ISSUES: In reviewing this application the Planning Commission should address the fallowing issues: 1. The property currently does not comply with the minimum 15% landscape coverage requirement asset forth in Section 17.65.050 (Table 2}. As such the property is legal non-conforming with respect to the required minimum amount of landscaping. The proposed building expansion is on existing parking and does not aggravate the non-conforming landscaping issue. 2. The 15% landscape requirement conflicts with the allowed maximum coverage of 100%. In all other TOD districts the combination of allowed maximum coverage and required minimum landscape area totals 100%. The intent of the GC district with regard to maximum coverage vs. minimum landscaped area is unclear. REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON 713107: Refer to conditions as noted under Recommendation of this report, dated July, 3, 2007. EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" -Proposed Site Plan & Elevations Exhibit "B" ~ Applicant's Findings & Photographs Exhibit "C" -Planning Department l~ findings Exhibit "D" -Public Works Staff Report Exhibit "E" -Building Department Staff Report Exhibit "F" - RVSS Correspondence Exhibit "G" ~-Proposed Resolution 2 CPMC 17.65.050 {F} (3) (b} {i) s CPMC 17.65.050 (F) {3) (d) ~ 2007 Oregon Structural Specialty Code -Section 1104.4.5 Planning Commission Report 07117 -Site Plan Page 2 of 3 ACTION: Consideration of Resolution No. _, approving the Site flan Application. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution No. ,granting Site Plan approval subject to the following conditions: All required handicapped parking shall be located on the property and sinned in accordance with ADA requirements; 2. The applicant shall submit landscape plans to the Planning Department far review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that they have, to the greatest extent practical, complied with the 1 S% minimum landscape coverage requirement. Frontage landscape improvements along Manzanita and First Street may be included in the calculation. 3. The applicant agrees to continue maintenance of the landscaping within the Manzanita and First Stree# right-of way. Planning Commission Report 07117 -Site Plan Page 3 of 3 ,~ E .~ '~'~+ » File No. '~~ ~'~ i~N . .. ~~_ ~, ~, r b '.~; I, w i i` .~U~y .g 2007 ~'I~nr~ir~~ ~epar~tm~r~t 7c~n7 E°#cam~shrey, AIC:F? Carnrr~urrity C~ve~Nsa#ar~rer~t t7iret~zr/ Assistant pity Adr~~ir~is~r~tcar EXHI91d '" A Consideration ofa Site 1'1 application to exp ~ existing office facilities for Rogue Valley Council of Governments located in the T(~~-C.xC, General Commercial zoning district and identified on the Jackson County Assessor"s map as 37 W 031~1~, Tax Lot "7000. (Appllcz~nt» ague 'Valley Council +nf Gave ants) S'T`AFF SUU CE» Lisa Morgan, Pl ing Technici AC C) ~,~, ~ `~ . ara~ rr ~.. . s~oa `,, ~, ~~~ r ,~ ~`~, ~ . ~ ./" rem ,. '" ~. X~l9 The growing need for services provided ~, ~ , by RVCE3G necessitates the need for ~~~° ,,r'' ~ ,, expansion of their existing headqu~ters, ~ , '~, General Project Tfescription» The ensity and Coverage» The T~}D-GC district allows a maximum 100°l0 lot coverage. All impervious s aces, paving sidewalks d structures count toward lot coverage. With the existing building d paved are ,this lot is developed to them imam allowed lot coverage of 100°la. ~ CPMC 17.6S.QS0 (Tabl+~ l) Staff Report 0"7117 -Site 1'1 Page 1 of ~ The proposed addition will not increase lot coverage, but would reduce the actual paved areas. Parking: 8,895 square feet of professional office floor- area (this includes proposed addition} requires a total of 22 paz-king spaces. The applicant is eligible fora 25% reductioza in the number of originally required parking spaces2. Therefore, reducing required parki~zg to a total of I7 spaces. ~l~llc City of Central Point entered into a shared parking agreement with RVCOG3 far use of 17 parking spaces on City property to be used as a parking lot. "1'he City property is located to the east on North First Street directly across from RVCOG. The City parking lot is currently graveled, however, if obtaining CMAQ funding is successful, improvements would be slated for the 2010/2011 cycle. The shared parking agreement with the City would satisfy RVCOG's total parking requirements. RVCOG would like to maintain 13 on-site parking spaces as convenient access for senior citizens and wheel chair bound citizens. Accessible parking spaces shall be located on the shortest practical accessible route to an accessible building entry.4 The minimum 15% landscaping requirement would replace their loadir7g areas and on-site parking to a total of only 9 on-site spaces. FINDINGS: Refer tv Attachment "C" ISSUES: In reviewing this application the Planning Cozxzrnission should address the following issues: • RVCOG is trying to maintain as many on-site parking and loading areas as possible, to zrteet the needs of Seniors that receive assistance from RVCOG. The current use and proposed expansion do not meet the n~iniznuzn 15% on-site landscaping requirements. Refer to Conditions of Approval No. 1 & 2. There are existing sewer lines where the proposed addition is to be located. RVSS is z-equiring that RVCOG inspect these sewer lines to ensure they are made of materials approved for use under a building. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: l . To preserve the remaining on-site parking spaces for the use of seniors and citizens that require closer parking in lieu of minimum landscaping requirements ,the remaining on-site parking shall have signs installed limiting the use of those spaces for their intended use. 2. The applicant shall make an effort to provide some orz-site landscaping. This can be achieved by providing landscaping in planters along walkways and window boxes where practical. 3. The applicant voluntarily agrees to cozatinue mairztenance of the landscaping within the Right-of- Way adjacent to the subject property along Manzanita and North First Streets. ~ CPMC 17.65.050 {l=) (3) {b) {i) 3 CPMC 17.65.050 (F) {3} {d) a 2007 Oregon Structural Specialty Code ---Section 1104.4.5 Staff Report 07117 -Site Plan Page 2 of 3 4. The applicant shall meet all reycrirernents of tl~e City of Central 1'oir~t ar~d outside agency requirements. Proof of con~pIianc~: with outsido agencies who have commented shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building per•rnit. EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" -Proposed Site flan & l~levations Exhibit "B" -Applicant's 1?indings & Photographs Exhibit "C" -Planning Departrnent >:~indings Exhibit "D" -Public Works Staff Report Exhibit "E" -Building Department Staff Report Exhibit "p'" - RV SS Correspondence Exhibit "G" -Proposed Resolution ACTION: Consideration of Resolution No. , approving the Site Plan Application. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution Na. _, granting Site Plan approval. Staff Report 07117 -Site Plan Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT "~" 1Y ~U/~f1:: ~rqe+~ H.t~ ¢rn~. r0+.. M(-~ ~ xpp p~mti ~3._ ~lfi uD6.MJW+NC iN[lp~dn MM fT.v(en :.5(: Mv[xCn: . µrooCwattl~ M~ I EEE ' E __._.~__..._.~_~._~.......~_~ I E ~'' ~ _ __~_ .....__1 I `~ _ (xs.xt a~~L I I fia-,: ds,: ~L ~'°~ °' 1 ~ [Y.~r4 Ml3n: ~ ___1 _~_ ~ I ~~~~ s ~ ___ J ___. __.-______-~ ~ L ----_ J c i ~ o ~~ro+r....._..._...._. mazer:°~.i r'S`r~ccmn ~ar~ ~ h .. ~I` I ~_ ~_.._._ ~ r- - 6n>wc `~~ E ~EC~wL MnHt inbt~xC ~~JJ ~1 ~ ~ N c+ IiI ~ 1~ -~ If! e I / V ~ 3 ~5 '•~~~;4 11111 Z ,nv a .y~.iy..~ .~ o _ i .. i ~ .~~ ~ ~ .o~~ ~~ I ~. ns ° ~~ [ ~ K ~ ~ a _.. . _.. , T -- i-r ~~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~. _, _. __, _.., __, ._, .__, ~, _, ~ , ~..~, _..., ~ . ,_, _. _,_ ,", .~ a un(F7Ail1'A $j„ ~ s*( ( C _ ..~......~ .~ ~_.._ ` ~'F to v u ~~~ _ 1 3 I mil V 20D7-SS-36 ~..._ ~'~ ~ ~`~r}r~ r~ ¢; 5LLt6b0'~nfnSknr QeUh 317tb6t Gbr6 oll zOB'0't a56N6s( lf"JS} ~kY! G>5>-GSA SLO51 ~3`~OIIE313t $H;;L YA3~3 }f01!]51K3 ~ ~~ j'? , ~ "9"sa~ : '3HI SY13L51.5 .7tiIQZIn0 Na3Q0)7 nv]W "iaw'nW,m N N ~~ ~~~~ Q~~ _ o 0 ~ai.~o arlncon .rs x sr _ --a:n.s u.o ~° f n 1+ . L S {' ~ ~~ ~ .s _ ,. J `i ~; ~' 4 }-, ~ ~' ~ i y 4 ~ ~ '~.{ _ _ O ~ I W ~ a I _ _ ¢ I! 0. ~ M ~ X s- t. • 'I ] .. _ ~tpv i ~ U Z (n O F 4, us"~ f ~r t Z F- . /' ~ o O Z N z ~ 0 ~ . ~ w ~ ~ L ~ s a 0 _ }' r H ~' W X W . H rt - ,` Q 3 f 1 1 1 i I I d 1 g Z z I o p ~ I I I a - I i ~/ _ '- ~ ~ _ s I ! ~~ ~' ~ ____Y.... ' \ ATTACHMENT " ~ ItVCtQG SITE PLAN REV)~EW l 55 N. I{ IRST STREET TINDINGS 4F FACT In approving, conditionally rrpprovirtg, or- deny~irrg the plans submitted, the city shall base theit• decision ort the follora~irrg standards: A. I undscaping and fencing rtttd the construction of i~~alls ort the site in such a rrtccnrter° crs to cause the sarrae to riot substantially interfere 1r~itla the latrdscapirtg schera~te of the rteighborhoocl, and in stcelt ca ntcrnrter crs to ttse tlae sarate to screen sr.sch activities and sights as Wright be heterogeneous to existing rreigltborltood uses. The plcrnrting conantission may regtcire the rnairttainirtg of existing trees for- screenittg purposes and for sotcttd art.d sight irasulatiora ft•orrr existing neighbor°hoocl use; The area surrounding RVCOG does not have a u€lified landscaping scheme. The adjacent butcher shop has no la€ldscaping, the parking lot across N. First Street is not landscaped, but the apartrxzent complex bet~vicen the parking lot and Manzanita Street has a mix of trees and low shrubs similar to RVCOG's. The office building across Manzanita Street contains a few trees and a grass strip between the building and the street. The currently vacant building between RVCOG and Front Street has a landscape strip along Manzanita Street, but no other landscaping. The surrounding properties do not incorporate fencing or walls. The existing and proposed office use on the subject parcel does not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. The proposed addition will not require removal of any existing landscaping, which consists of planting strips separating the parking Iot from Manzanita Street and First Street. Only one large tree exists, a ponderosa pine near the street intersection. B. Design, nt.cmher° and Iocatiora of itagress and egress points so as to improve artd to avoid interference with the traffic flaw on prcblic str°eets; The existing parking lot has two access points from First Street, in addition to the alley separating Tax Lot 7400 from G300. The addition will not require alteration of access. An existing alley will serve the shared parking lot across First Street. C. To provide off-street pat-king arzd loading facilities and pedestr•iart artd vehicle flow facilities in such a manner as is corrtpatible ~vitlt the tcse for• lvhicla the site is proposed to be acsed arad capable of use, and ira such a rrtartner as to improve and avoid irtterferetzce with the traffic flow on public streets,- The addition will result in the loss of seven parking spaces, leaving 12 conventional spaces and 1 handicap space. The parki€rg standards of Section I7.64.040(H} require 1 space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area, or 30 spaces. RVCOG entered in to a parking agreement with the City of Central Point to use an existing lot across N. First Street (372W3DD Tax Lot 7100). The agreement will per€nit RVCOG to install the I7 spaces that cannot be provided o€1 Tax Lot 7000. D. Signs atzd atlzer outcloar advertising strt{ctures to elt.st{re that they do not car~ict ivitlt or deter font traffic control st:gns or devices a1rc1 that they are canzpatible rr~ith the design of tlteil" buildings or uses and ir~ill rzot interfere 1~t%ith nr detract fi•ortz the appearance or visibility of rtcar•l~v .sigrt,s; RVCOG has one sign affixed to the existing building anti proposes no other signs. ~. Accessibility crud suffiCtertCy of fre frg]tting facilities tv such a sturtdarcl crs to provide for the reasonable safety of Ii~e, 1i11tb arul property, irzelt{ding, hz{t lzot 1i11titecl to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lczlzes so that all bz{ilclings on the premises are accessible to fire appal°atus; The entire structure is accessible to fire apparatus and a hydrant exists at tl3e corner of First Street and Manzanita. F. Colnpliarzce tiwith all city ordinances and regzdatians, inch{ding Section 16.20.080 pertairzirtg to t]ze lrtaxinzurrt ttrrnther of single family d;vellings or dwelling units allativahle on cr.{I-de-sac stt'eets, r{rtd clpplicclble state laws; The proposed use expands the existing office space, but does not include residential units or require any street construction. Because the praposal is in the C-5 TOD overlay, it is subject to the standards of Chapter 17.67, which are addressed in this application, G. Compliance ~vitlz sz{ch crrchitectl{re and design. starzdarcls as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neig]z.hor•hood a1z.d the Central Pairtt area and its elzvir°orts. Tl~e ar'chitectlrre alzd design proposals may be r"ejected by the planning colatlazissfolr if foz{nd to be incor}zpatihle z~'1t11 thG' eXlstlllg a1"Cltltect2{1"al Or' Clreslgn characteristics of adjacent properties or t{ses. Iii addition, the planrting cornnzlsslon reserves the right to establish additioltal height, setback, hltffer'irtg, or otlzel° clevelapment requirements that tzzay be 1ZeCeSSC11~1 t0 erlst{}°e 1{{}}{1 Z{se Ca111patlblllty CU1d 2fiSZlrL' the health, safety, and prizJacy of Celttral Poirxt residents. The proposed addition expands the existing structure by less than 34 percent. The present building is modest, having been constructed as a warehouse and later enlarged for use as a fitness center. As part of cozlverting it to a govenu~zcnt office, RVCOG added winclo~vs along the Manzanita Street frontage and revised the front entry. The proposed addition will provide greater articulation aIang the front of the building. The immediate neighborhood includes duplexes, a senior center, multiple-family residential, a service coznrrzercial building, auto repair, a butcher shop, and a structure foz-merly occupied by a specialty building products supplier. There is no consistent building design to which the proposed project can conform. 2 COMPIIIANCE WITH CHAT'"1"EIS l7.fi7. Chapter 17.67 includes design standards irl the TOD corridor. "I'hc findings address mandatory developa~~ent standards, but generally da riot respond to the "ctlcourage" or- "should"language. Several rcquircrnetlts apply only to r•csidcritial developz7~cnt and ar•e riot included here. D. Solur~ Orierztatiort. 1. The huilcling design, mussing rtrrd orientation slt.otzld enhance solar exPastrre for- the Project, taking advantage of the climate of Central Point for stsrt-tempered clesigrr, 2. Where possible, the main elevation shotcld be facing within twenty-fr.ve degrees of dtse south. S. Sliadow irrrpacts, Particularly in winter, an adjacent huilclirzgs and outdoor spaces should be avoided. The building faces northeast, and there is no opportunity to add toward the south. The proposed addition will not create shadows on other properties. E. Existing Buildings on the Site. 1. Where a rte~v htrildirtg shares the site witlz arz admirable existing building or is a. major- addition to such a budding, the design of the raely building should be cornPatible rvith the or•igirtal. 2. Ne~v buildings Proposed for existing rzeiglzborlioods with a well-defined artd desirable character sltotcld be compatible with or complement the architecttral character and sitirtgPatterrt of neigltborirtg br.cildirrgs, The propascd addition represents less than 50 percent of tlae size of the existing structure. While "admirable" and "desirable character" are subjective terms, neither the existing building nor tl-re neighborhood contain features that clearly exhibit these traits. The addition will be con-rpatible with the existing structure and will not detract from the uncoordinated architectural character and siting patter~r of neighboring buildings. J. Parking. 1. Purkirtg Lot Location. a. Off-street surface parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of buildings. Parking at rrzidblock or behind buildings is preferred. h. Off street surface Parking lots shall trot be located between a front facade of a building and a Public street. c. If a building acjoirts streets or accessK~a}~s on t~~Jo or rrtore sides, off-street parking shall be allowed het~veert the btcildin.g and the pedestrian route in the follorvirrg order of priority: 1st. ~Iccesswa}>s; 2nd. Streets drat ure norttr°urrsit streets; .31"d. Str"eels tllat are tr"anStt Stl'eets. d. 1'arkillg lots ccnd garages shazrld lzot he located ~vitllirr ttii~enty feet of a street cortlel-. Existing parking on the site is, of necessity, between the street grad the building. The existing strractua•e occupies the hall width of the rear oftl3e property. 2. Design.. a. ill perilrleter unrl interior landsccrpecl areas must have protective cut"bs along the edges. Trees must have adequate p1-otectiorz f"alrz Cat" door"s and bt(rtlpel"S. c. Ir1 order to control dust arul n1ud, all vehicle areas rrlust 6e paved, d. fill par'k111g ar"eaS rrl2tSt be StYlped In C'011fOr"1wlrzce 1Vtth the Ctty of Central Point parking dirltensioll standards, e. T hot~glt ~tl siting of parking and vehicle access shotdd be tssed to rnirtirnize the impact of autolltobiles an the pedestl"ion ellvirarlrnent, adjacent praperti.es, and pedestrian safety. f. Large parking lots shazrld be divided into slltaller areas, using, foe" example, larzdscaptng or• special pal"king patter"ns. Parkialg will consistent ~~lith these requirements. K. Landscaping. 1. Perimeter Screening and Plalrtiltg. a. Landscaped buffers should be atsed to achieve sufficient screening ti~vltile still preserving vietivs to allow areas to he 7s°atched artd gtcarded by neighbors. b. Landscaping should be used to screen and buffer ttrtsiglltly uses and to separate such incolrlpatible uses as parking areas alad tivaste storage and pickztp areas, The office use dons not generate large quantities of trash. A dumpster is located in the alley and two small recycle bins are in an alcove behind the entry. Existing landscaping is a n~aix of groundcover, shrubs and small deciduous trees; no new landscaping is proposed. ~. Parking Lot Lalzdscapillg and Sc1"ee11i11g. a. Parking areas shall be screened with landscaping, fences, walls or a colnbirzatiala thereof. i. Trees shall be planted on the parking area perimeter and shall 6e spaced at thirty feet on center". ii. Live shrubs a11d ground cover plcrlrts shall be planted in. the landscaped a1•erc. iii. Each tree shall be located in a faul• foot by four foot 11ti11i1rzunt planting ar"ea. lV, Shl"IIIJ a11d gr"OU11dC.OVG'Y beds Shall be t111"ee feet bVidB 1ni12il1tttlrt, 4 v. Trees urzd shrtrhs nrr.rst be frilly In"otectecl fi°or7r potential cla7nage by vehicles. I3. ~tlrface JJar"kI11g al"G'aS S11c111 pl"UVICIL' pE'r'1771G'tE?7- pCrl"klrrg IOC IaiiCISCClplitg crrjacertt to a street tltut meets one of the follotiviltg starularcls: i. A five foot-wide planting strip bet~~%een the right-of-sway and the parking area. The planting strip Wray he interrupted by pedestriarz- accessihle czrzd vehicular acce.5~s~vcr}'s. Planting strips shall be plar2tecl ~v~ith art evergreen hedge. Hedges shall be no less than thirty-six inches and no rrzor•e than forty-eight inches in height at rnaturit}~. I~edges ccir.d atlzer• lanclscal}irzg shall be planted and i7taintainecl to ccffard adequate sight distance for vehicles erzter•iitg and exiting the parking lot; ii. A solid decorative is-all or ferxce a nzinitrrt.crrz of tlrirtj%-six inches and a rxxaxinz2enr of forty-eight inches in lieiglrt pai~allel to arrd not closer Chart two feet f •ont the edge of right-of-tivay. The area het~veen the wall or fence and the pedestrian access~vay shall be landscaped, The required hall or screettirrg shall be designed to alloly far" access to the site and side~~~alk by pedestrians and shall he constructed and rnaintaiized to afford adequate sight distance as described above for vehicles entering arzd exiting the parking lot; iii. A transparent screen or grille forty-eight inches in height parrdlel to the edge of right-of-~vay. A t~vo foot ntirtimur7t planting strip shall be located either inside the screen, or hetiveerz the screen and the edge of right-of-~vay. T1xe planting strip shall be planted with a hedge or other landscaping. Hedges shall be a nzinintrzr7t thin}%-six inches and a inaxitnum of forty inches in height at ntataci°it}~. d. Parking Area Interior Landscaping. i. An2ount of Landscaping. All srzrfcrce parking areas with more Chart tent spaces must provide interior lar2dsccrpin.g complying M~ith one or both of the standards stated helo~w. (A) Standard 1. Ir2terior° Icrrtdscapirxg must be provided at the rate of twenty square feet per stall. At least arze tree rxtust he planted for every hvo hundred square feet of landscaped area. Groundcover plants irzust completely cover the remainder of the landscaped area. (B) Standard 2. One tree must he pr'avicled for every four parking spaces. If sur'roazrrded by cement, 112e tree planting area must ltclve a mrrtdlnurr2 dlinellSlar2 Of fOrdr" feet. If surrounded by asphalt, tl2e tree planting area must have a rrzinirrturzt dimension of tlzr•ee feet. ii. Developr7rent starxdarcls for parking crr~eu interior Iandscapirxg. (A) All landscaping rn2rst carnply 7vith applicable standards. Trees arrd shrubs must be full}~ protected fi-orrz potential damage by vehicles. S (p) Interior parking area landscaping mzl,st be clisper'secl throarghout the parking area. ~Sonze trees rrlay be grouped, hzrt the groups must be dispersed. (C) Perimeter Icrrrclscapirtg natty Trot ,substitute for interior larrdscapi~ng. I-Ia~a=ev=er, interior krn~lscapiitg rrzcl_y join perimeter laradscapirag rrs long CIS !t eatelTC~4 for{)" felt OY Iiror"e into the parking area from the per°irneter larzdscupe lilac. (D) Parking areas that arc thirty feet oi' less !rt 1VICltl1 lrlcly IoCCrte their interi.ar landscaping around the edges of the parking area. Iizterior Iandscapiizg plcrcecl alorl.g air edge is in addition to arl}% 1"elllflr"ecl per"IrrretG'1' Ia11dSCaplllg. Based on conversations with city staff, the landscaping on Tax Lot 700 will not be modified. The parking area on Tax Lot 7100 is tl~e subject of a CMAQ grant application that, if successful, will permit ianprovements that meet City requirements. 3. I_andscapirrg Ncar I3z{ildirags. Larzdscapiiag shall serve as c{ sci-eerr or buffer to soften. the appearance of str'z{ctr.lres or~ uses such as parkitag lots or large blank walls, or to increase the ccttructiverress of conrrnorr opera spaces. There are no common open spaces to be enhanced. 4. Service Areas. Service areas, Ioadirzg zones, waste disposal or storage areas mast be fzrlly screened fl"oirr public view. Prohibited screening inch{des chuirrlir~lk fencing ~i~l'tla or without slats. a. Acceptable screeiliirg itrclr,ldes: i. A sip foot masonry enclosure, decorative metal fence errclosz{re, a ~~~ood enclosa{re; or other- approved me{serials corrrplenrentary to adjacent buildings; or ii. A six foot solid laedgc or other° plant rrraterial screerrirag as approved. The proposed addition does not increase the need for service areas or loading zones. No outside storage areas are proposed, 5. Street Trees, Street trees shall be regrlired along both sides of all pa{81ic streets with a spacing of t~verrty feet to fort}~ feet ora center depeiaditag on the rrratur°e tiuidtlz of the tree croivir, anal planted a rrairzirrrzlirr of t~vo feet from the back of curb. Trees in the right-of-tivay or sidewalk easements shall be approved according to size, duality, tree ti,=ell design, if applicable, and irrigation slur.ll be regzlired. Tree species shall be chosen fi-arn the city of Central Poiirt approved street tree list. If required as a condition of approval, street trees will be planted. 6 L. Liglztirtg. 1. 1~Irt1r9aar171 LrglztIrrg Leve1S. ll~lrrrrrrracrra 11glItirag Icve1S Shall be pYOVldefl far" prcblic safetj~ in all rcrharr spaces opcrr to pt.rhlic circulati.an. a. A nzirrin2arrrr uver•age light level of orre card t~vo-tenths footcanclles is regrcired for- r.rrburz spaces cmd sicletit~crlks. b. Metal-halide or lumps rvitlr sinzilar° color, lerrzperatrrre arul efficiency ratings shall be used far general lighting at building exteriors, pur-king ar°eas, arrcl urbcnr spaces. Socliunr-bused Icrrrrp elements are trot allotivecl. c. Maxirrzunz lighting levels should not exceed six footcanclles at intersections or ogre and orre-half faotccrndles irr parking areas. 2. Fixtarr°e Design in Public I~i.glrts-of--Way. a. Pedestrian scale street lighting sliall be provided irzcludir~rg cdl pedestrian streets along arterials, major collectors, rrrirror collectors and local streets. b. Pedestrian str°eet lights sliall be raa taller than ttiveraty feet along arterials and collectors, and sixteen feet along local streets. 3. On-Site Lighting. Lighting shall be ir~rcorporated into the design of a project so that it reinforces the pedestrian environment, provides continuity to an area, and enhances the drama and presence of ar~chitectut•aI features. Street lighting should he prrovicled along sidewalks and irr rrrediarzs. Selected street Iight standards should be appropriately scaled to the pedestrian environment. Adequate illurrz.in.atiorz shozrld be provided for huildirrg entries, carnets of buildings, courtyards, plazas acrd ~ijcrlk~va}as. a. Accesswa}-s throrrglr surface parking lots ,r1za11 be well liglitecl with fixtures rzo taller than twenty feet. h. Locate and design exter~iot lighting of barildirrgs, signs, walkjvays, parking lots, arzcl other areas to avoid casting light an nearby properties. c.. Fixture height and liglztirzg levels shall he con~rmer~rsur•ate with their intended r.tse acrd function arr.d shall assure conzpatihility with neighboring land arses. Baffles sliall be irzcorporuted to nzininrize glare ctrul to focus lighting on its intended area. d, Additional pedestrian-ar-iented site lighting irrclardirzg step lights, well lights and bollards sliall be provided along all courtyard lames, alleys arzd off-street bike arad peclestriarr pathways, e. In addition to lighting streets, sidewalks, and public spaces, additional praject lighting is encorsraged to 1r.iglzlight aracl illurrrirrate building erztr-uraces, laradsccrping, parks, arzd special features. RVCOG does not intend to revise existing lighting, which consists of two wall-mounted fixtures. 17.67.Q7Q Building design standards. A. Genera] Design Requirements. 3. Convenient, direct and identifiable building access shall be provided to guide peclestr'iarrs bettiveen pedestrian streets, accessti~~ays, transit facilities and cuZ'acent litttldrngs. Access to the addition will be at the sar~3e location as existing access, using an existing pedestrian ~vakkc from the street. Entry to the meeting root~a will provide an airlock access to tkae existing building. B. Architectural Character. ~. Gerrer"al. a. The Cii'CltIteCtttr"al CIlc11"aClel7StlC5 Uf Sur"r'OUrtdtng b1.111d2rIgS, lrlClllcllrlg 1llstol"1C buildings, shotcld be cort.siclered, especially if a cortsislen.t patter-tt is alreadj% established by similar' or cornplernentar}7 hacildirrg articulation, building scale and proportions, setbacks, architectural style, t-oof fo!'rns, building details and fenestration patterns, ar materials. .Irr. some cases, the existing context is trot iiaell defined, or rrury be undesirable. In such cases, awell-designed new project ctcrr establish cr pattern or• identity~-om lvlrich ftcture de~jelopnrerrt care take its etces. b. Certain builclirags, because of their size, purpose or location, should be given pr"orrrirtertce artcl distinct architectur°al character", reflective of their special facnction or position. Examples of these special buildings include theaters, Hotels, cultural centers, arul civic buildings. c. 14ttention should be paid to the follo3virtg arclritectttral elenaertts: i. Building forms and massing; ii. Btcildirrg Height; iii- Rooflines crud parapet featarres; i~~. Special building features (e.g., towers, arcades, entries, canopies, signs, artd artwor"k); v. YVindo~v size, orientation and detailing; vi. Materials and color; and vii. THe bttildirtg's relatiortsltip to the site, climate, topogr°aplry acrd surrotcrtding buildings. The proposed addition provides architectural interest to a utilitarian building in an area with no defining architectural style. C. Building Entries. 1. Gerrer°al. a. THe orientation of building entries shall: i. Orient the primary entrance toward the street rattier than the parking lot; ii. Connect the building's main entrance to the sidewalk ~vitlz a ivell- defined pedestriar~r walkway. la. Building facades over two hurr.dred feet ire length facing a street shall proi~ide t~vo or more public bttilclirrg ert.tr'arrces off the street. c. All errtries~~oratirtg a peclestriarr accessla%ccy shall be sheltered with a ntirtimurrr four foot overhang or shelter. d. Art exception to arty part of the recJttirements of this section shall be allowed r.tpon firrclirrg drat: i. The slope of the land between the building rrnd the pedestrian street is greater than. 1:12 for rrrare than t~a~enty~ feet acrd that a more accessible s pedestrian route to the building is avcrilrrhle fi-orla cr di. ferent side of the 17tUldlr'!g; or- ii~. The access is to u corer"t~aard or clrrstercd develolnrrerrt arul identified peclestricrn acces,slvcrys are provided tlzr-ough cr pcrrkirrg lot to directly connect the building conrplei to the most appropriate major- peclestrial~r rolcte(s). The proposed addition will use the pedestrian walkway serving the existing building, which is 1~0 feet wide. The main entry o~rerhang is apl~roxiinately 10 feet. 2. Comrr~ercial and High Mix Residential. a. Far° raoraresiderltial htrildings, or" taortresirlerrtial por"bons of razixed-rrse buildir'rgs, razain building entrances fronting on pedestrian streets shall remain open duz•ing norrrzal business hour"s for drat building. b. Nonresidential arrd mixecr use buildings fr-otatirtg a pedestrian street slirclL ]nave at least one brain building entrancce oriented to the pedestrian street. i. Such an entrance shall not require a pedestrian to fast pass through a garage, parking lot, or loading area to gcrirr access to the entrance off or along flee pedestrian street, but the entrance nary be thratcglr a porch, bt°eeze~vay, arcade, antechamber, portico, olrtdoor• plaza, or similar arclz.itectural feature. ii. If a bllildirzg has frontage on more than one. street, the building shall pt"OVIde CI rtaalrl IJtrlldlalg etrtr"arlce or"IE'i'ltell to at lease one of the streets, or a S1r2gle et2tYarlce at the SlYeet ltltersectloll. ii.i. A huildirrg tnay leave rraor•e than orte rrraitr huildirrg entrance oriented to a street, and ttlay have Otllel" er1t1"aIaCBS fClcllrg off-Stl"eet parkrrzg and loadltlg CrreaS. RVCOG's normal business }lours are from 8:00 a.n~. to 5:00 p.n~. The addition is to an existing building with an existing entrance, `which will continue to be the primary access. D. Building Facades. 1- Geezer"al. a. All building f -olrtages greater tTzarl fot"ty feet ita length shall break any flat, monolithic facade by itzcluding discer"nible architecttrrcd elements such as, but nat lirzzited ta: bay vvindo~a~s, recessed entrances and ivindotivs, display wiraclo~vs, coYnices, bases, pilasters, colunrrzs or" other arclritectalral details or artictclation cornhined with changes in materials, so as to provide visual it~rterest and a sense of division, in addition to cr"eating conarnunitla character and pedestrian scale. The overall design shall r"ecagraize that tlrc simple relief provided by wirtda~v cutouts or sills on an other~~~ise flat facade, in arrd of itself, does not meet the regrrirenrerrts of this subsection. b. Building designs that result i~n a street fi"oratage with. a uniform. and rrronotorrous design style, roofline ot• facade treatment should be avoided. 9 c. Arcltitecttlr•rrl detailing, such as but tzot Iirniterl to: trellis, long overhangs, deep itzset zvi.ndows; sltol.dd he irlcorpor•crted to provide stmt-shacling,fi•orrl the sr.lntmer• salt. cl. To halarlce lrorizorrtal_fecrttrr"es on longer facades, vertical btcilding elerrrertts shall be err~lplursr'zed. c. The rlontinartt fcatl.rre of any buildirtgr fi"orltclge that i.r visible f •onz cr pedestr•icttl Str"eet Or" p1.cl711C open s17C1Ce SltClll be the IlabltCtble C!r"ea 11~ith ItS aC-CO1n17atlylrtg za~indo7vs acrd doors. I'arkirzg lots, garages, acrd solid zz~all facades (e.g., ~varelzouses~ shall not dntrtirtate a pedestr•iar~l str•ect fr•o~ttage. f. Developments shall lie designed to ertcot.n•age irtfornzcrl sur-z~eillance of streets and other public spaces by trzaxintizing sight lines between the ht.cildittgs and the street. g. All bt.rildings, of arty t)~pe, corzstr-tccted z~~ithin any TOD cllstr"ICt or- cor"rtdor", shall be cor~tstrtzcted with exterior building materials and finishes that are of high gt.calit)1 to cornjey per"rrtartence and durability. h. The exterior walls of all building facades along pedestrian rotctes, including side or return facades, shall be of slcitahle dz,rrable building materials including the folla}ving: stucco, stone, brick, terracotta, tile, cedar shakes and shingles, beveled or ship-lap or otlr.er- rtarr•ozv-course horizontal boards or• siding, vertical boar-cl-and-batten skiing, ar"tlCtrlated ar"CltlteCtllr"al C0IICYG'tG' Or' COnCYete maSOrtYy tcttits (CMU~, or similar materials i4-lzich ccr•e low maintenance, weather-resistant, abrasion-resistant, att.d easy to clean. Prohibited huilclirlg materials include the follo~~jing: Plain concrete, plain. concrete block, corrugated metal, unar"ticlclated board siding (e.g., TI - l1 siding, plain plywood, sheet pressboard), Exterior 1`n.sulated Firt.ish Systems (EIFSj, and similar quality, ttorzdur"able materials. i. All visible building facades along or off a pedestrian route, including side or return facades, are to be treated as part of the main building elevation and artictclated in the saute rrtanrter. Corltinur.'ty of use of the selected approved materials must be t.lsed on these facades. j. Ground floor openings in parking strtretures, except at points of access, must be cover"ecl with grills, trzesh or- lattice that obsctrr"e at least thirty percent of the interior view, (e.g., at leccst thirty percent solid material to seventy percent trattsparettcy). k. Appropriately scaled ar•chitecttlral detailing, such as btct nor limited to rnoldirtgs or cornices; is encouraged at the rooflirte of contrrter"cial building facades, and where such detailing is present, should be a minimum of at least ,eight inches wide. i` 1. Compatible btcilding d~igrzs along a street should be provided through similar massing (building facade, height and avidtlt as za~ell as the space between. buildings and fi~orttage setbacks. 'I'he proposed addition is G3 feet wide and extends approximately 30 feet in front of the existing structure, providing; variety to tl~e facade. The roaflirze will be belotiv the existing ribbed metal roof. The exterior surface will resemble stucco, fzzrther breaking up the n~onolid~ic appearance of tl~e facade and avoiding a TI-11 appearance. All sides of tl~e addition will contaitl identical n3aterials. 10 2. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Con~n~ercial. cr. In areas acljacerlt to the transit station, sidewalks in jt•ortt of buildings shall 6e covered to crt Fast eight feet,~'om htrildirrg face to provide protection fi•orrt sun crud r"arrl ~}% trSL' Of elernerllS Sucll aS: CarlOpleS, ar"C.adeS, or"pergolas. Stlppar-ts for' tizese features shall not impede pedestrian traffic. b. Canopies, overhangs or a;vrrirrgs shall be provided over erttrattces. A~~-Wings at the grot.lrld level of brrllClrrIgS Crre elrCOlr1"aged. c. rli~~r~tirzgs u~ithin the rvirzdow ha}%s (either above the rrlair~t glass or the tr•attsonl Iight) should rzot ohsctcre or distract frorrr the appearance of sigrzifrcant architectural features. The color of the uwrrirrg shall be compatible ~a~ith its attached building. d. Ground floor tia~irrdotws shall meet the fallawirzg criteria: i. Darkly-tinted windows and mir•ror•ed ivindoins slat block ttivo-way visibility are proliihited as grouted floor windows. ii. Orz. the grorcrzd floor, blcildirzgs shall incorporate large windows, b41rtlt rrttrltl- parze tivirzdows and transom lights above encouraged. Ill. GYOr[i1Cl floor builclirzg facades rntrst contain tlrlohscured windows for at least fift}> percelrt of the wall area urzd severz.ty-five percent of tl2e wall length within the first tetz to twelve feet of ~vull height. iv. Lover ~vindo~r~sills shall rzot be more than three feet above grade except where irtteriar"floor levels prvliibit such placement, in rulzich case dre lower windowsill shall not be rzzore than a rrzaxirrzurn of fatrr feet above the flrrished exterior grade. v. Windows shall have vertical errzpliasis in proportion. Horizontal windolvs play be created when a contbitration of Ver'tlCCll YVIrldO1VS lS gr"Orrped tOgethel" ar" 1N12e11 a horizontal wirldo~w is divided by mullions. The site is not adjacent to a transit station. The entrance is under an overhang. The plan includes four windows, each with six panes and measuring 5'/z feet by 7'/Z feet. Including the senlice/emergency exit door, approximately 48 percent of the wall length contains windows, a significantly higher ratio than in the existing structure, which is an office rather than a retail use. The windows begin approximately two feet above the ground surface. E. Roofs. 1, Comn~crcial and High Mix ResidentiallCon-rn~ercial. a. Roof shapes, st.Ir face materials, colors, nzecharzical ec~uipnlent and other perttlzolrse furzctiorts should be integrated into the total building desigrl. Roof ter'r•aces and gardens are encoz.crcrged, h. i~'hen the corrlmercial str"z.rcture has a flat parapet roof acjucent to pitched roof r"esiden.tial structures, stepped parapets are encouraged so the appearance is a gradual tr"anSrtlOr't Of r"OOfllrleS. These are not mandatory desib~ elements. There are no adjacent pitched roof residential structures. I". I'xtei•ioi• Ba.cilding Lighting. 1. Coiitrrtercuzl aril Iliglt Mix Kesicleittial/Coiz~ii:ercial, a. Liglztiiz.g of a htcildirag fiacade shall he clesigized to canllJlezrzcnt the ar•chitectr.Iral deSlgrl. L1glIt1rlg Slaall nOt Clr"at4~ i1t.02"cllltate Cttteiatlail l0 the bllllcltltg. i. Priiraai~% lights shall address public sidewalks aitd/or pedestrian Irlazas adjczcertt to the building, h. No exterior lighting shall be pei°rnitted above tlae .secorul floor of IJtuldrngs for the purpose of highliglttirzg the presence of the hadldirtg if cloirlg so kvould intpact ac jaceizt residential uses. Most meetings will be held during business hours, but the addition will also permit evening meetings. Existing lighting will be maintained, atld illumination will not exceed that of surrounding uses. G. Service Zones. 1. I3uildirrgs and sites shall be organized to group the tltilitariart f unctions away fr•am the public view. 2. Delivery and loading opei•atioras, mechanical egariptnent (H~AC), tr°aslz compuctirxg/collectiar2, grad other- r.ltility and service fuuctioras shall be irtcorpor~ated into the overall design of the Building(s) and the landscaping. 3. The visaral and acoustic impacts of these f ructions, along with all t~~all- or ground- naotln.ted iraeclzaiaical, electrical anal communications equipment shall be out of view from adjacent properties acrd public pedestrian str°eets. 4. Screening materials artd landscape screens shall he ai•cllitectuz•ally compatible with and riot inferior to the principal raiater•ials of tl2e building. a. Tlie visual impact of chimneys and equipmer~tt shall be ruirtirr~zized by the use of parapets, architectural screening, rooftop landscapiizg, or by using atlzer aesthetically pleasing rrtetlaods of screening and reducing the sound of st.tch equipment. Qnly one building exists on the property. A dumpster is located northwest of the building, and recycle bins currently placed at the side of the entry will be relocated near the dutnpster. Existing landscaping will screen mechanica] equipment. 12 F. Exterior Building Lighting. I. Carrrrrtercial arrd High Mix l~esiderrtial/Camrrzerciczl. a. Lighting of a brtildittg facade shall he desigttecl to cotatplernerrt the architectural design. Lighting shall not dra~a~ irtorclirrate attetttiorr to the building. i. Primar7% lights shall a{ldress public sidewalks card/or pedestrian plu~czs adjacent to the ba~ildir~tg. h. No extcr•ior liglriing sluzll be pet"trotted alcove the secorul jioor- of buildings for the purpose of highlighting the presence of the bazildirtg if cloiug so ~vauld impact adjacent r-esiderttial uses. Most meetings will be held during business hours, btrt the addition will also permit e~~ening meetings. Existing lighting will be maintaincd, and illumination will not exceed chat of surrounding uses. G. Ser7~ice Zones. 1. Buildings and Sites shall be orgarozed to group t]te utilitarian f ructions ativay front the public view. .~. Delivery and loading operations, meclrartical ecluiprrtent (HVAC), trash compacting/collection, and other utility and sen~ice functions shall he incorporated info the overall design of t]re brcilding(s) and the Iarrdscapirtg. 3. The visual and acoustic iratpacts of these functions, along with all wall- or ground- mounted mechanical, electrical anal communications equiprnertt shall be out of view from adjacent properties oral public pedestr-iart streets. 4. Screening rnater•ials and landscape screens shall be urclritectzcrally compatible with and not inferior to the principal materials of the building. a. The visual impact of chitrtrteys and equipment shall he ntinintized by the arse of parapets, architectural screertirtg, rooftop lartdscapirtg, or by using other aesthetically pleasing rrtethods of screening artd reducing the sound of sacch equiprrterrt. Only one building exists on the property. A dumpster is located northwest of the building, and recycle bins currently placed at the side of the entry will be relocated near the dumpster. Existing landscaping will screen mechanical equipment. 12 ~~ ~ ~F ~ ~T+- F t t A r ~.-.I 4' ~ '.i Y ~ ~ I', Ci A// „ ~: _G 4„~ Wii i' P . -x a~ _, YI ... { 1"ts 0 ~ ~ rr~. P C~ C. ua.' uv w, C7 Cb. e~csw.~ w ue +'" ~'-.. ~-.`~ ~.a 1 a^~ Y"' Yg°t C~a ~ ar6 9;.,, W '. I I n ~ ' I - ~ f X11. ~}y~I ~ifrv ~ ~~' l~} Ir~r?~Y~~/+~Yy{~~ 9~p I~ t 7 y)' ~ "~, ~ ! SAS ~12 T ~ +vd !, 11 .,y"~ ,pia" ~~~~~>~~}h ' _~~r ~"s~ 9 f~r +- ~ , •~-~~a ~~~ ! F ~ rMd,.,~,6a„ t fir'' ~ ~ '` f ~ ~' , i"_ ~ rt ~ ~F b? ~~ ~~fi r 2 ~ i7 ~^ i > L d ~ E 1 ~ A'y CC l 1 X. .,~EI7. ,l ~•,i I Z ,. a . r. ' E ~' 1 ` y r K' ~y ,a4, i ~t y, F y} ~ fi~' ~ N `)1'~ is :w ~~ s~' r~ ~ r ~° ~~ I, ~- TT t:w i K ;! ~,~i ?~ t 6 ~ iz ~ it ./~ R ~,~ rx y~i g ~ r ~, ~ ~~ ' "" _ ~ ` ..~~ ,.. "fie ;.~s : , „ 1u4`c„~ }g xk~i ~n acs n,„ ., .:~,~ ~ ,^1'^+' ;, a a 'fir,... , .~ ~,~ '"`- '~?r ,`s~ N, *, eft;'. - "' "`"`~ 'V^~~ n dw„ .. .~ ~r, r r ~, / ~ 8 ar ~ t I t„ w ~ ,..ndk.v'~,'u"~..G ...F.., ... ~ a n . , "4.m „Y r ~'.wW r .i'. r,... ~, .tl.,, " D..w,,.. ~N.y ~;,{ i `. ~T.B '?: i 4 ji- y~ Y ~ .r .., .~. ~~ ~. Y. !~, n ~ i~~ ~., ~: r~{ ~ . ., ~ ~~~~, a ~ ~~ ~ i, ~ w~ V ~•~ w ~~~ 40 ~, ,, ~ ~ , , , ,,, r, " ~ ~ ; ~~ " " ~ ~ ~ f 7 i~ ~~ , am' ~. d ,~ ~ ~ P$ ' ~. ., ~ y .ilk, .. Z YY ~~ ~ I l .~. ~Y ~.. j _.. .n Y~1$,FQ~A i ,,. .~ a y, ~1i m~ ~. ~~ ,~~'.I l f1 ATTACHMENT " ~! ~' Findings of Fact And Conclusions of Law Site Plan Review Application City File No. 070117 Applicant: Rogue Valley Council Of Governments INTRODUCTION In the Matter of a Type III Site Plan Review for expansion of are existing office facility located within the TOD- GC, General Commercial zoning district and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 3'l 2W 03DD Tax Lot 7000. Also identified as 155 North First Street, Central Point, OR 97502 {Applicant: Rogue Valley Council of Governments. CPMC I7.G5.050 Zoning regulations--TOD district. A. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses in Table i are shown with a "P. " These uses are allowed if they comply with the applicable provisions of this title, They are subject to the same application and review process as other permitted uses identified in this title. Finding: The subject property is located within the TOD-GC, General Commercial zoning district. Professional offices are designated as a permitted use under Table 1. The proposed project consists of a 2,284 square foot office addition. The new total square footage would be $,895 square feet. Conclusion: The application meets the permitted uses allowed in this zoning district. B. Limited Llses. Limited uses in Table 1 are shown with an "L. " These uses are allowed if they comply with the specific limitations described in this chapter and the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the same application and review process as other permitted uses identified in this title. Finding: NIA Conclusion: NIA RVCOG Type III Admirer 'strative Site Plan Review Page 1 of 13 D. Density. The allowable residential density and employment building floor area are specified in Table .2. Finding: The net land area consists of 13,939 square feet or .32 net acres. The TOD- GC zoning district allows 100% lot coverage. With building and parking areas RVCOG is currently at 100% lot coverage. Finding: The TOD district counts ail impervious surfaces as lot coverage, whether it is a building, internal sidewalks, and parking areas. Finding: The proposed expansion would not change the lot coverage of 100%. Finding: The TOD-GC, General Commercial zoning district requires 1 S% landscaping. Finding: There is no existing on-site landscaping. Finding: There is existing landscaping within the $0' foot Right-of--Way on Manzanita Street as well as on North First Street. Finding: RVCOG has been maintaining this landscaping at their expense since the purchase of the property. Finding: Should the Planning Commission find that perimeter landscaping is not sufficient, RVCOG is willing to reduce four {4) parking spaces on the southeast side of their property, landscaping in planters to provide for on-site landscaping. Conclusion: The application does not meet the on-site landscaping requirements. E. Dimensional Standards. The dimensional standards for lot size, lot dimensions, building setbacks, and building height are specified in Table 2. Finding: The TOD-GC, General Commercial zoning district does not have minimum/maximum lot dimensions. Conclusion: Not applicable to this application. Finding: The maximum height allowed in the GC zoning district is sixty {60} feet. The proposed structure height is approximately thirty-eight {3$} feet. Conclusion: The building is below the maximum height allowed in this district. Finding: The rear yard (west side) setback from the back of the existing office is approximately {0) feet from the property line. In the TOD-GC zone, a zero foot rear RVCOG Type III Adrninisfrative Site Plan Review Page 2 of 13 yard setback is permitted if not adjacent to a residential zone, CPMC 17.65.050. The adjacent uses to the west are commercial, not residential. Conclusion: The existing structure meets the rear setback requirements, by not being adjacent to a residential zone to the west. Finding: CPMC 17.65.050, Table 2 requires a minimum /maximum of 15' for the front yard setback. Finding: The existing building does not meet the current minimum/maximum front yard setback requirement. The parking for the facility is located on-site in the front. Finding: The existing building is legally non-conforming and exempt from the current minimum/maximum front yard setback. Finding: The proposed portion of the expansion would bring an existing condition closer to compliance. Finding: The parking located within the front setback area is to provide convenient access for senior citizens and citizens who use wheel chairs. Conclusion,: As stated in the findings above, the front yard setback is exempt as an existing structure. Finding: This is a corner lat. The south side yard setback is 0' from the existing building. Finding: The addition is proposed to have a 0' foot setback on the Manzanita Street side (southern side of property}. Finding: CPMC 17.65.050, Table 2 requires a corner lot to have a minimum of 15' and maximum of 30' corner setback on the Manzanita Street side. Finding: RVCOG has applied far a Class "C" variance to allow the alignment of the existing building with the new portion of the building. Conclusion: With granting approval of the proceeding Class "C" Variance, the applicant has been allowed to vary from this setback requirement. CPMC 17.65.050, Table 3 -- TOD District and Corridor Parking Standards require that professional offices provide 1 parking space far 400 square feet of floor area. Finding: 8,895 square feet of floor area (this includes proposed addition} requires a total number of 22 parking spaces, prior to the allowed reduction mentioned below. RVCOG Type 11I Administrative Site Plan Review Page 3 of 13 Fi~ading: Pursuant to CPMC 17.55.OS0 {F) (3} {b) {i), allows the reduction of up to 25% of the required parking when transit is available in the district or corridor. Finding: There is public transit available on North Second Street, approximately one (1}block over. Finding: The applicant is eligible fora 25% reduction in the number of originally required parking spaces. Therefore is required to provide a total number of 17 parking spaces. Finding: The City of Central Point entered into a shared parking agreement with RVCOG, pursuant to CPMC 17.65.050 (F) {3) (d), to allow RVCOG to use 17 spaces. This City owned property to be used as a parking Iot is located to the east North First Street directly across from RVCOG. Finding: With the shared parking agreement with the City, this would satisfy RVCOG's total parking requirements. Finding: RVCOG would like to maintain 13 on-site parking spaces as convenient access for senior citizens as well as citizens who use wheel chairs, rather than having them walk further and cross a street to reach them. Finding: If the Planning Commission wants to enforce the minimum 15% landscaping requirement, this would reduce on-site parking to a total of 9 spaces, plus 17 ofd street parking spaces with the shared parking agreement. Conclusion: The applicant meets or exceeds the minimum parking requirements, with or without additional on-site landscaping. CPMC 17.56.030 (2) --- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan approval. The provisions of Chapter 17.72, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction plan approval, shall apply to permitted and limited uses within the TOD district and corridor. For development or land division applications involving more than S acres of land or 40 dwelling units, a master plan approval, as provided in this chapter, shall be approved prior to, or concurrently with, a site plan, landscaping and construction plan application. Finding: The applicant has met the applicable portion of this code. C©nclusion: The applicant has met this criterion. 17.67.040 Circulation and access standards. Finding: The applicant proposes to use existing access to the property. Conclusion: The applicant has met this requirement. RVCOG Type III Adminnistrative Site Plan Review Page 4 of 13 CPMC 17.67.040 (6) - {9} -Relating to Utility litzes, pedestrian/bike access tivays, siderM°alks, off-street trails, etc... Finding: These items are reviewed by the Public Works Department during the civil drawings approval process far compliance as part of the Twin Creeks Master Plan. Conclusion: Approval of the on-site civil improve~i~ents shall be deter~l~ined by the City Engineer. 13, Parking Lot Driveways. 1. Parking lot driveways that link public streets and/or private streets with parking stalls shall be designed as private streets, unless one o_f the following is nzet, a. The parking lot drive'ay i,s less than arze litrndr-ed feet long; b. The parking lot driveway serves orze or tivo residential units,- or c. The parking lat driveway provides direct access to angled parking stalls. 2. The number and width of driveways and curb casts should be naininzized arzd consolidated u°hen possible. 3. Where possible, parking lots for new development shall be designed to provide vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent sites. 4. Large driveways should use distinctive paving patterns. C On-Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Attractive access routes for pedestrian travel shoacld be provided by: 1. Redtecing distances between destinations or activity areas such as public sidewalks and building entrances. Whet°e appropriate, develop pedestrian routes through sites and buildings to saspplemerzt the ptablic right-of way; 2. Providing an attractive, convenient pedestrian access tivay to building entrances; 3. Bt°idging across barriers and obstacles such as fi°agnzented pathway systems, wide streets, Izeavy vehicular tr•affc, arad changes in level by connecting pedestrian pathways with clearly marked crossings and inviting sidewalk design; 4. Integrating signage and lighting system which offers interest and safety for pedestrians; 5. Connecting parking areas and destinations with pedestrian paths identified through use of distinctive paving materials, pavement stripings, grade separations, or landscaping. Finding: There is an existing pedestrian access way to the entrance of the existing building which will remain the same. Finding: There are existing public sidewalks that will provide pedestrian connections fron:~ the off-site parking to the entrance of the building. Conclusion: The applicant has met the portions of the code relating to their proposed expansion. RVCOG Type III Administrative Site Plan Review Page ~ of 13 CPMC 1 ~ 67.050 Srte rleslgrr rtarulards. A. Respect for Existing I~'acilities and On-Site 1*'eatrrre,s. 1. Adjr.csttnents should be made drering lard di~~ision and site design to irraprove the overall relationship of a devclopfrsent or an individual building to the surrounding context. Finding: The applicant has applied for a Class "C" variance to ~I~aintain the overall relationship of their expansion with the existi~~g characteristics of the surrounding properties. Conclusion: The applicant has taken into consideration the surrounding context of the neighborhood. 2. Buildings shozcld be clustered to preserve natural af•eas. Finding: Not applicable to this application. Conclusion: Not applicable to this application. B. Natrcral Featrcres. 1. Buildings slzor.rld be sited to preserve significant trees. Finding: The proposed expansion will have no affect on existing trees within the Right-of--Way. There are no existing trees ar landscaping on site. Conclusion: Not applicable to this application. 2. Buildings should be sited to avoid or lessen the impact of development on environmentally critical areas such as steep slopes, wetlands, and stream corridoj•s. 3. Whenever possible, wetlands, groves, and natural areas should be maintained as public presences and as open space opportunities in neighborhoods. Finding: This is not applicable to the proposed project site. Conclusion: NIA C. Topography. Finding: The proposed project site is flat. There are not any hillsides, etc to consider. Conclusion: NIA 2. New buildings proposed for existing neighborhoods x~ith a x-ell-defined and desirable character should be compatible with or complement the architectural character and siting pattef°n of neighhaf•ing buildings. RVCOG Type III Administrative bite Plaza Review Page 6 of 13 Finding: The proposed expansioEl will align with the setback of the existing building which is compatible with the existing ncighboz~hood. Conclusio~i: The applicant has adequately addressed this, by applying for a Class "C" Variance. F. Ne~v Protninetzt Str¢.cctures. 1. Key public or civic bzcildings, such as community centers, clzzrrches, schools, libraries, post offices, and mzcseutsts, should be placed in prominent locations, sccclz as fronting on public squares or tivlzere pedestrian street vistas terminate, in order to serve as landmarks and to symbolically reinforce their importance. Findings: Not applicable to this application. Conclusion: Not applicable to this application. G. Views. The massing of individual bacildings should be adjusted to presets=e important views while benefiting new and existing occupants and surrounding neighborhoods. Findings: Not applicable to this application. Conclusion: Not applicable to this application. H. Adjoining Uses and Adjacent Services. .1. When more intensive uses, such as neighborhood commercial or t7zultifanzily dwellings, are within or adjacent to existing single family neighborhoods, care should be taken to minimize the impact of noise, lighting, and traffic on adjacent dwellings. Finding: The only residential use is on the east side of North Pirst Street. With the building setting back, and parking in the front setback area, this will minimize the impact of any noise, lighting or traffic on adjacent dwellings. Finding: RVCOG maintains typical office hours. Conclusion: This proposal meets this criterion. 2. Activity or equipment areas should be strategically located to avoid disturbing adjacent residents. 3. All on-site set7=ice areas, loading zones and outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal. facilities, transformer and utility vaults, and similar activities shall be located in an area tzot visible f -otn a street or urban space. 4. Screening shall be provided for activities areas and equipment that will create Noise, such as loading and vehicle areas, air conditioning units, heat pumps, exhaust fans, and garbage corazpactors, to avoid disturbing adjacent residents. RVCOG Type III Aclrr~inistrative Site Plaz1 Review Page 7 of 13 Finding: This is an existing use. Conclusion: Not applicable to this application. S. Group mailboxes are limited to the number of houses on any given block of development. Only those boxes serving the units may be located on the black. Multiple units of mailboxes may be combined within a centrally located building of four walls that meets the design guidelines for materials, entrance, roof form, windows, etc. The structure must have lighting both inside and out. Finding: Not applicable to this application. Conclusion: Not applicable to this application. I. Transitions in Density. 1. Higher density, attached dwelling developments shall minimize impact on adjacent existing Lower density, single family dwelling neighborhoods by adjusting height, massing and materials and/or by providing adequate buffer strips with vegetative screens. 2. Adequate Buffer strips with vegetative screens shall be placed to mitigate the impact of higher density development on adjacent lower density development. 3. New residential buildings within fifty feet of existing low density residential development shall be no higher than thirty-five feet and shall be limited to single family detached or attached units, duplexes, triplexes or four plexes. 4. New commercial buildings within fifty feet of existing low density residential development shall be no higher than forty f ve feet. S. Dwellings types in a TOD district or corridor shall be mixed to encourage interaction among people of varying backgrounds and income levels. d. Zoning changes should occur mid-block, not at the street centerline to ensure that compatible building types face along streets and within neighborhoods. When dissimilar building types face each other across the street because the zoning change is at the street centerline or more inf II housing is desired (for instance, duplexes across the street from single dwellings), design shall ensure similarity in massing, setback, and character. 7. Density should be increased incrementally, to buffer existing neighborhoods from incompatible building types or densities. Sequence density, generally, as follows: Large lot single dwelling, small Lot single dwelling, duplex, townhomes, courtyard multifamily apartments, Large multifamily apartments, and mixed use buildings. Finding: Not applicable to this application. Conclusion: Not applicable to this application. RVCOG Type ilI Administrative Site Plan Review Page $ of 13 K. Landscaping. Finding: The applicant has maintained the landscaping located within the Right-of Way on Manzanita and North First Streets at their own expense since they purchased the property. Finding: TQD-GC, requires a minimum of 1 S% of the site be landscaped. Finding: The applicant is hopeful that this will be sufficient landscaping around the subject site, to eliminate a further reduction in on-site parking and loading areas. Finding: If necessary, the applicant will reduce four (~} on-site parking spaces and their loading areas to provide 15% landscaping, and/or additional landscaping in planters. Conclusion: The applicant is prepared to rr~eet this requirement if necessary, but will further reduce their parking and loading areas. L. Lighting. Finding: The applicant is not proposing any additional lighting. Conclusion: Not applicable to this application. M. Signs. Finding: The applicant is not proposing any additional signs. Conclusion: Not applicable to this application. CPMC 17.72.010 Purpose. The purpose of site plan, landscaping and construction plan approval is to review the site and landscaping plans of the proposed use, ,structure or building to determine compliance with this title and the building code, and to promote the orderly and harmonious development of the city, the stability of land values and investments, and the general welfare, and to promote aesthetic considerations, and to help prevent impairment ar depreciation of land values and development by the erection of structures or additions or alterations thereto without proper attention to site planning, landscaping and the aesthetic acceptability in relation to the development of neighboring properties. CPMC 17.72.021 Application and review. Applications shall be accompanied by a fee defined in the city's adopted planning application fee schedule. Such applications and the review thereof shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 17.05 and all applicable laws of the state. (Ord. 1786,¢9, 1998; Ord. 1684 ~d4, 1993; Ord. 143d ,~2(part), 1981). Finding: This application has been processed in accordance with CPMC 17.05. RVCOG Type III Administrative Site Plan Review Page 9 of 13 Conclusion: The requirements have been met. CPMC 17.72.030 Information required. An application shall be.frled which shall include the following information: A. Name and address of the applicant; B. Statement that the applicant is the owner of the property or is the authorized agent of the owner; C. Address and legal description of the assessor's parcel number of the property; D. The application shall include an accurate scale drawing of the site, containing, at a minimum, the following: I. North arrow, 2. Scale used, 3. Address and legal description of the assessor's parcel number and tax lot of the property, 4. Lot dimensions, 5. Applicable city zoning designation, 6. Setbacks, 7. Proposed landscaping, 8. Location of all buildings, parking areas, streets, accesses, sidewalks, and other improvements, including the dimensions of each, 9. Ground and architectural elevations, IQ. Distances between buildings, parking areas, streets, sidewalks and other improvements, 11. Surrounding land uses, 12. Easements, 13. Adjacent streets, I4. Off-street parking calculations, 1 S. Existing trees, If. Pedestrian routes and sidewalks, 17. Fencing, I8. Screening of outdoor trash bins, and Finding: All of the applicable information has been provided. Conclusion: The applicant has addressed and met the applicable above criterion. 19. The location of all public improvements and all utilities, including their relation to other utilities in the area; Finding: There are existing utilities to the subject property and on the subject property. Finding: RVSS has commented that the existing sewer lines, where the proposed addition is to be located must be tested to ensure there are the proper sewer Lines that will allow a structure over them. If not, the applicant must update the sewer lines using proper materials io allow for the addition to be placed over them. RVCOG Type III Administrative Site Plan Review Page 1Q of 13 Conclusion: The applicant has been informed of the conditions of RVSS, and is prepared to work with them to meet their requirements. E. Construction plans and such other plans and information as are required to show the architecture of all buildings and other improvements; Finding: The applicant has provided elevations to illustrate the architecture of the proposed addition. Conclusion: The applicant has met this criterion. F. In the discretion of the city, a traffic study performed by a licensed professional engineer; and G. Such additional information as is necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter; Finding: The applicant has provided elevations, and photographs of existing R-O-W landscaping. Conclusion: This criterion has been met. CPMC 17.72.040 Standards. In approving, conditionally approving, or denying the plans submitted, the city shall base their decision on the following standards: A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such a manner as to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The planning commission may require the maintaining of existing trees for screening purposes and for sound and sight insulation from existing neighborhood use; B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; C. To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such a manner as is compatible with the use far which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flaw on public streets; D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traffic control signs or devices and that they are compatible with the design of their buildings ar uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations, including Section 16.20.080 pertaining to the maximum number of single family dwellings or dwelling units allowable on cul-de-sac streets, and applicable state laws,- RVC~G Type III Administrative Site Plan Review Page 11 of 13 G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and its environs. The architecture and design proposals may be rejected by the planning commission if found to be incompatible with the existing architectural or design characteristics of adjacent properties or uses. In addition, the planning commission reserves the right to establish additional height, setbacl~ buffering, or other development requirements that may be necessary to ensure land use compatibility and ensure the health, safety, and privacy of Central Point residents. (Ord. 1 T02 ~'4, I994; Ord. 1684 X67, 1993; Ord. 1436 ,~2(part), 1981). Finding: With the exception of on-site landscaping above, all other inforn~.ation has been provided with the application for review by the City and all applicable outside agencies. Conclusion: The criterion has been met, CPMC 17.72.050 Conditions on site plan approval. The city may attach to any site plan approval given under this chapter specific conditions deemed necessary in the interests of the public health, safety or welfare including, but not limited to, the following: A. Construction and installation of any on-site or off site improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, curbs, gutters, streets, bikeways, street signs and street lights, traffzc control signs and signals, water, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and park and recreation improvements. In requiring off-site improvements, the city shall find that the improvements are reasonably related to the development and would serve a public purpose such as mitigating the negative impact of the proposed development. All improvements required under this subjection shall be made at the expense of the applicant, and shall conform to the provisions of the Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction in the City of Central Point, Oregon. However, the city, in its discretion, may modify such standards and determine site-specific design, engineering and construction specifications when appropriate in the particular development; B. An agreement by the owner of the property to waive, on his or her behalf, and an behalf of all future owners of the land, any objection to the formation of a local improvement district which may be formed in the future to provide any of the improvements specified in subsection A of this section; C. An agreement by the owner of the property to enter into a written deferred improvement agreement, providing that one or more of the improvements specif ed in subsection A of this section shall be made by the owner at some future time to be determined by the city; D. Any agreement entered into pursuant to subsections B or C of this section shall be recorded in the county recorder's offace and shall be intended to thereafter run with the land, so as to bind future owners of the lands affected. Any and all recording costs shall be borne by the applicant; and E. Any other conditions deemed by the city to be reasonable and necessary in the interests of the public health, safety or welfare; RVCOG Type 111 Administrative Site Plan Review Page 12 of 13 Finding: All improvements are present on or surz•ou~~ding the subject property. Na further iznpraveznents will be necessaz-y. Conclusion: Nat applicable to this application. CPMC 17.72.060 Building per')itlt IS.suance--Plata clzarrge. A. No building permit will be issued for the construction r~-ithoi.ct the prior approval by the planning commission which will be noted orz the fast page of the plans. One copy of the plans shall be retained by the city and one set so approved shall be given to the developer or owner°. B. Any change or deviation from the plans approved by the planning commission without the approval of the building inspector- for structures, the planning department for site plans, or the public works directar.for public improventenls shall be considered a violation. Finding: The applicant will apply for a building permit o~ice approval leas been granted by the Planning; Con-zmission. Conclusion: The building plans will be held by the Planning Depaz-tznent ar Public Works Department pezzding arty conditions that may be imposed by the Planning Commission. CPMC 17.72.070 Erpiratian. A. A site plan approval shall lapse and become void one year following the date on which it became effective unless, by conditions of the site plan approval, a greater or lesser time is prescribed as a condition of approval, or unless prior to fhe expiration o_f one year, a building permit is issued by the building inspector- and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. The planning commission may extend the site plan approval for an additional period of one year, subject to the requirements of Section 17.76.040. B. If an established time limitfor development expired and no extension has been granted, the site plan approval shall be void. Findings: The applicant has already received a quote far the expansion and is anxious for a building permit, since the price quote has an expiration date. Conclusion: N/A. RVCOG Type III Administrative Site Plaz1 Review Pa~c 13 of 13 1'a~c t of l ATTACHMENT " ~ s9 W_____. Lisa Morgan From: Matt Samitore Sent: l=ridgy, May 1 S, 2007 2:05 PM To: Lisa Morgan Subject: PW comments on RVCOG addition Lisa, PW only comment is that the proposed building is over there existing service fines for water and sewer for the main building. They will need to comply with building code provisions for moving those to an appropriate location. Matt Samitore ParkslRecreation and Development Services Manager City of Central Point Parks and Public Works Depar#ments {541) 664-3321, ext. 205 511 &I20~7 City of Central Point, Oregon 140 S Third Street, Central Point, OK 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664. i 61 i www.ci.centrai-point.ar us May 24, 2007 File #07117 CENTRAL PAINT STAFF REPORT Building Department Lois ©eBenedetti, Building Code Offcial ATTACHMENT "gg This project has been reviewed I?y the Building Department. When, and if, approved 6y the Planning Department the Building Department review will continue. {No major prol3lems pending.} Todd Meador, Building Inspector 140 S Third Street Central Point, 4R 97502 541.6&4.3321 Fax 541.664.1611 .~~Ta~l~n~~~~ ~~ -~ ~~~~ s~~~~~d ~~ ~ May 18, 2007 ROGUE VALLEY SEWER SERVICES L.c~c;;liun: I;.{ 1'~'cst ~'ilati Road. C'csru'al f'~rini. Oit - Nfailin~= Aildretis: I'.(). 1)nx ~I ~0, C'cttlr;ll f'ari~rt, £llt 7j(1?-I}0{t5 7ci. (~:}i)(rb4-6?00.1'ax (S-i1)frCi~t-7171 S~~cu.RVSS.ut Lisa Morgan FAX 664-6384 City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: Site Plan review far Rogue Valley Council of Governments, File # 07117 The subject property is currently served by a connection to the 10 inch sewer main on Manzanita Street, The site plan indicates that the service fine will be under the proposed building addition. Plumbing code requires different pipe material for drains that are within or below buildings. The section of pipe that will be below the building should be inspected by the applicant and replaced with a pipe approved far construction inside a building if needed. The proposed addition will require additional system development charges if there are any additional plumbing fixtures installed. The applicant should contact RVS so that these fees can be calculated and paid prior to the start of construction. Rogue Valley Sewer Services requests that approval of the proposed development be subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant must inspect the existing sewer service pipe to determine if it is made using materials approved for use under a building and replace the pipe if needed. 2. Applicant must pay all related development charges prior to connecting to the sewer. Feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this project. Sincerely, /~~ /-~_~_ Carl Tappers, PE District Engineer K:1llA"I'A1A~~enc ies1CI~NTP`IIPI._r\NNG1SitePlanRc~"ie~~~120Q7107 117 IZVCOG.dcic ATTACHMENT " C~ .." PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR AN EXPANSION OF EXISTING OFFICE FACILITIES LOCATED AT 155 NORTH FIRST STREET Applicant: Rogue Valley Council of Governments (375 ZW 03DD, Tax Lot 7QQ0) File No. Q7117 WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application for a Site Plan approval for expansion of existing office facilities Iocated at 155 N. First Street, and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 375 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7000, in the City of Central Point, Oregon; and WHEREAS, on July 3, 2007, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to the Application Review Process - section 17.05; Exception to Code Standards - 17.13, and Permitted Uses and Development Standards 17.b5A50 of the Central Point Municipal code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as part of the Site Plan application, has considered and finds per the Staff Report dated July 3, 2007, that adequate findings have been made demonstrating that issuance of the Site Plan is consistent with the intent of the TOD -Transit Oriented District, now therefore SE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. does hereby approve the application based on the findings and conclusions of approval as set forth on Exhibit "A ", the Staff Report dated July 3, 2007, which includes attachments, is attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. Planning Commission Resolution No. (07032007} PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 3rd day of July, 2007. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 3rd day of July, 2007. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. (07032007}