Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 728 - RVCOG VariancePLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ? ~'~ A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CLASS "C" VARIANCE TO VARY FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A CORNER LOT ON THE MANZANITA STREET SIDE FOR AN EXPANSION OF EXISTING OFFICE FACILITIES Applicant: Rogue Valley Council of Governments (37S 2W 03DD, Tax Lat 7000) File Na. 07117 WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application for a Class "C" variance approval for expansion of existing office facilities located at 155 N. First Street, and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 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-notated 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 17.65.050 of the Central Point Municipal code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as part of the Class "C" variance application, has considered and finds per the Staff Report dated July 3, 2007, that adequate findings Have been made demonstrating that issuance of the variance 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. 'T ~ ~S 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 attaehzxzents, is attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 3rd day of July, 2007. Planning Commission Resolution No. ~ 2~ (07032007) P wM ATTEST: a 5 „~ t City Re~a~esent~ti-~ ,. Aiapr<~v~c~ lay ~ this ~~•~ day ~f Ju1, 2(717. °~ y'~;'~1'~I11i1~CC71T1aCli~tilOIX"4...fi~1'_ Pl~xnning Crarnissic~n I~~s~aluti~n Nc~, .. (07Q'32007} ,~ ''~ if r ~` 1nr1irl rtrn T~~na Ma'naF.rlarey, t~IC f; C.~aa~a~a~i~artity Cl~ua~lcr~~rraent [~irectawrrl F~ssist<ir~t City At~r7~irris~ratc7r RrS ~?9 Si~'.1~.~' T+ Lisa Morgan, AC G UI~I Figure 1 ~.. i k, }~ ,` i N" ~~` ~' ~vY• L, 'r ~~ .~'' ~ ', ~ ! ~ ~ u ~~ t,t ~ ~ ~ '~`~~ tip. .~'° s '~~ ~- ''!~ '~ t, u ~// ~~~~ ' b. • ~ ~, '~ v~ ~ :~ J " ~~~ ,r~' ~ 's~ ~" tic f ~ v1 ' ..,. _ +;~ #"or expansion of their e~cisting headqu ers. ' CPMC 17.65.050 (Table 1 } - Permftted Uses staff Report 0711 '7 -Variance Page 1 of 3 to the purposes of this code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity". It was the finding of Staff that when evaluated in the context of the codes intent, application of standards, the existing built environment, and, most importantly, the Ciry of Central Point Downtown Revitalization Plan, that consideration of the requested variance had merit. Attachment "C" presents findings that support approval the variance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: No conditions. EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" -Proposed Site Plan Attachment "B" -Applicant's Narrative and Findings Attachment "C" -Planning Department Findings Attachment "D" -Photographs of existing neighborhood Attachment "E" -Proposed Resolution ACTION: Consideration of Resolution No. _, approving File No. 07117. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution No. , granting approval of File No. 07117, a Class "C" Variance Application to vary from the current standard corner lot minimum 15' setback requirement. Staff Report 07117 -Variance Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT ".~" RVCOG CLASS C VARLANCE 155 N. FIRST STREET FINDINGS OF FACT 17.13.500 Class C variances. Approval Criteria. The city shall approve, approve 1VIt11 Cofld1tI011S, or- deny arz application for a variance based o,i all of t1~e following criteria: 1, The proposed variance will not fie niatericclly detrimental to the purposes of this code, to any other applicable policies a~zd standards, and to other properties in the sa~tze zoning district or vicinity; The variance will permit alignment of the proposed addition with the southeast wall of the existing building, and the commercial building across the alley at rho corner of Manzanita Street and Front Street. The purpose of the code regarding General Commercial zones in the TOD district is to support pedestrian access and transit use. Nothing in the proposed variance adversely affects pedestrian access or transit use, and in fact, because we serve both Jackson and Josephine counties, many of our clients travel fiozn out of the RVTD boundary. 2. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has rao control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity (e.g., t1~e same zoning district),- RVCOG purchased the building for its headquarters, and altered it only by adding a small shelter at the entrance, and four windows. The entrance at the center of the building restricts options for siting the addition without significantly altering the an~angement and function of the existing floor space. RVCOG originally intended to construct the addition perpendicular to the existing building. This would have complied with the side yard setback, but compliance with the required front yard setback would have limited the usefulness of the addition as a meeting room. As a result, plans were altered to place the addition parallel to the existing building, leading to the request for a variance. RVCOG maintains approximately 1350 square feet of landscaping between the property line and the sidewalks; no landscaping exists on-site. Landscaping includes a small lawn, several birch trees, and smaller ornamental trees and shrubs. Manzanita Street has an unusually wide $0-foot right-of--way, providing 10 feet between the sidewalk and the existing structure that is fully landscaped even though it is in the right-of way. RVCOG considers the existing landscaping to be adequate, but if required as a condition of approval, the four parking spaces between the addition and the street could be eliminated and converted to a landscaped area of approximately S00 square feet. The existing aisle could be retained as a loading zone. 3. The use proposed will be the saute crs permitted under this title and city standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while perr~tittirig reasonable ecaraomic use of the larsd; The existing building occupies the full width of the property, and offzce use is permitted in the TOD GC zoning district. RVCOG does not have a meeting area of adequate size to host meetings of its various public coza~mittees. Nearly all meetings must be conducted off site. 4. E~istirxg physical arad natural systems, such as but nat limited to traffrc, clrccinage, natural resources, and parks, will not be arlversel~}~ affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject code standard; Approval of the variance would have no effect on tz-affzc because the addition would not adversely affect vision clearance at the intersection of First and Manzanita. The entire property is covered with impervious surfaces, causing the addition to have no greater effect on drainage. S. The hardship is not self-imposed; and As stated earlier, the site conditions are as they were when RVCOG purchased the property. 6. The variance requested is the rrar'ninaurri variance that would alleviate tl~e hardship. The proposed variance will permit RVCOG to proceed with construction. The proposed addition is the minimum size to fulfill its function as a meeting room, given the size of comrzzittees that will routinely use the facility. Some of the committees that will use the meeting room focus on RVCOG's services to senior and disabled clients, and membership is drawn from these groups. It is therefore important to provide parking near the meeting room, warranting continuation of the northeastern group of parking stalls in addition to the parking that will be provided on the other side of First Street. Further, the new parking Iot will be shared with the Senior Center, and retention of a portion of our existing parking area will reduce potential parking conflicts with the senior center. 2 Attachment "C~' Findings o£ Fact And Conclusions of Law Class "C" Variance City File No. 07117 Applicant: Rogcre Valley Council of Governn~ents INTRODUCTION In the Matter of a Class "C" Variance Application. The purpose is to grant a variance from a corner setback for a proposed expansion to match the setback of an existing office facility. The subject property is located within the TOD- GC, General Coir-iriereial zoning district and identified on the .lackson County Assessor's ixiap as 37 2W 03DD Tax Lot 7000. Also identified as 155 North First Street, Central Point, OR 97502 (Applicant: Rogue Valley Council of Goverzu-nents}. The approval of a Class "C" variance is subject to tkie procedures and applicable criteria as identified in CPMC 17.13.500. 17.13..500 Class C variances. A. Applicability. Class C variance requests are tliose that do not conform to the provisions of Sections 17.13.300 and 17.13.400 (Class A and Class B), and that meet the criteria in subsections (A)(1) thrarsgh (4) of this section. Class C variances shall be reviewed iesing a Type III procedure, in actor°dance with Chapter 17.05: 1. The Class C variance standards apply to individual platted and recorded lots only. district. Finding: The property is located in the TOD-GC, General Commercial zoning Conclusion: The Property is subject to Class C variance standards. 2. The Class C variance procedure may be used to modify a standard for three or fewer lots, including lots yet to be created through a partition process. Finding: The variance is specific to one lot, fewer than three (3). Conclusion: Zlae Property is subject to Class C variance pr•oceditres. 3. An applicant wlzo proposes to vary a standard_for lots yet to be created through a subdivision process may not utilize the Class C variance procedure. Approval of a planned unit development shall be regt.sired to vary a standard for lots yet to be created dzrough a subdivision process 1a-here a specific code section does not otherwise permit exceptions. RVC~G Class "C" Variance Applicationz -Page 1 of ~ Finding: Not applicable to this application. Conclusion: Not applicable to this application. 4. A variance shall not be approved that waadd vary floe '~errnitted uses" or "prohibited uses" of'a zoning district. Finding: Profcssianal Offices is a permitted used pursua~lt to CPMC 7.65.050 - TOD District - LaEld Uses (Table 1) Conclusion: Current Use meets this criterion. B. Approval Process. Class C variances shall be processed using a Type III procedure, as governed by Section 17.05.400, zrsirzg the approval criteria in subsection C of this section. In addition to th.e application requirements contained in Section 17.05.400, the applicant shall provide a written narrative or letter describing his/her reasoning•for floe variance, why it is required, alternatives considered, and compliance with the criteria in szbsection C of this section. Finding: The applicant has submitted all the required information to deem the application complete. The applicant has met with City staff to discuss possible alternatives. Conclusion: The applicant has zxzet these requirements. C. Approval Criteria. The city Shull approve, approve with conditions, or• deny an application for a variance based on all of floe following criteria: 1. The proposed variance will not be mater°ially detrimental to the purposes of this code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; Finding: There are three distinct components to the above criterion that roust be favorably addressed to support the variance request. Those components and the applicable findings are: 1. Impact on the Purpose of tine TOD District. As stated in Section 1'1.65.010 and 17.65.040(B)(2) the purpose of the TOD district is to ". . .promote efficient and sustainable land development and the increased use of transit ..", while in the TOD-GC district the intent is to provide for commercial and industrial activities that are oriented and RVCOG Class "C" Vaz•iance Applicatiozl-Page 2 of 5 complirrrcntary to pedestrian travel acrd tra~rsit use...". The requested variance does not adversely affect the pur-pose objectives of the TOD, nor will grantia~g of the variance be irrcansistez~t with the GC district's purpose. `These purpose statements, aside from their reference to pedestrian and transit use clo not mention specific urban design objectives. If the underlyiEig objective is to provide a physical environment that camplenrezrts pedestrian use, then the ~rext most appropriate policy document is the City of Central Point Dave-ntotivn Revitalization Plan, which will be discussed under Other Policies and Standards. 2. Other Policies and Staudarc~s. The use of setbacks within the TOD district is essetltialiy an urban design consideration izrtended to manage the strectscape design, providing for same sense of desig~l continuity as one moves along the street. On Manzanita Street, within the TOD, there are two zoning districts, the HMR and GC districts. The HMR, which accounts for 70% of the total Manzanita Street frontage, and the GC district, which accounts for the remaining 30% of the Manzanita Street frontage. Within the HMR district the front yard setback is zero, while in the GC it is a minimum of 15 feet. If a particular strectscape is considered far Manzanita Street a single setback provision is preferable. The question then remains as to whether the City has considered a preferred solution to the strectscape along Manzanita Street. Manzanita Street, as well as the Project site, are located within the area addressed in the City of Central Paint Downtown Revitalization Plan. In the Central Point Doivnto~z~n Revitalization Plan considerable effort was given to design standards that would reinforce the pedestrian acrd transit character of the downtown. One of the recommended standards was that within the Downtown Business District that the front yard setback be reduced to zero feet, or at a minimurxr consistent with the setbacks on adjacent properties. Although not formal policy the Central Point Downtown Revitalization Plan does provide a reference to the preferred urban design for the downtown. Additionally, a zero front yard setback is a cor-nmon design standard for development within downtowns throughout the United States. With this in mind it can be found that the Project is consistent with the urban design intent of the Central Point DowntoK~n Revitalization Plan. 3. Other Properties. The GC section of Manzanita Street is limited to one block. On that block there are four (4) properties, three of which are occupied by buildings, including the Project site. One of the lots is RVCOG Class "C" Variance Application -Page 3 of 5 vacant. All of the buildings Dave a zero front yard setback (Figure 1 of Staff Report}. Approval of tl~e variance will not adversely impact the adjacent buildings, but would be consistent fro~i~ a streetscape perspective with the setback of those buildings. Conclusion: Based on the above findings it can be determined that the requested variance does nat comprorx-ise the intent of the TOD district and the GC district in particular. It can be further determined that the requested variance is consistent with the City's urban design objectives for the downtown and that the variance does not adversely impact adjacent properties. 2. A hardship to developfrzent exists wlziclz is pecaaliaf° to the lot size oz' shape, topography, or otlrej• szmalar carcazfnstances related to tlae propej°ty over wlziclz the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity (e.g., t1z.e same zoning district); Finding: The hardship finding is limited to the fact that the site is currently occupied by an existing building, and that the retention of that building, as a controlling factor to the size and location of the addition, does qualify as a "similar circumstance" and thereby imposes a hardship peculiar to the site. The extent of the hardship is relative to the other variance criteria in determining uniqueness. Given the findings in C (1) it can be den-~onstratcd that the property is uniquely located and that as a result of the location and existing nature of the site that there is a hardship. Conclusion: The applicant meets the criterion for hardship. 3. The arse proposed will be tJze same as permitted under this title and city standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic rase of the Iand; Finding: The proposed use is office, which is a permitted use in the GC district. The proposed addition will not alter use of the Property. As noted in criterion C {1) above consistency with the intent of the code, applicable standards, and relationship to adjacent properties has been met to the greatest extent reasonable and permitting reasonable use of the land. Finding: Granting the variance is the mast realistic economic option for RVCOG's proposed use of their land. Conclusion: "i'he applicant meets this criterion. RVCOG Class "C" Variance Application -Page 4 of 5 4. Existing physical and natural s~xstenzs, si.tclr as hi.rt not lirrtited to traffic, drainage, natural resor.rrces, and parks, 1t~i11 nol be advcrscly ~{Jfccted ariy nzoj•e than wot.{ld occur if the development occurred as .specified ley the sul ject code standarcl,- Finding: The existing physical systems of tl~e pc~ol~erty would zaot be changed as a result of granting the variance. Conciusio~i: The applicant meets this criterion. S. The l2ar•dship is not set unposed; and Finding; It is the City's policy to retain businesses in the downtown to the greatest extent reasonable. Based on the applicant's zleed for additional floor space to meet continuing izlcreases in the demand far their services it is necessary to add an additional 2,2b8 sq. ft. of Hoar area. Because of the configuration of the existing building the applicant's expansion options are limited to placing the addition along the southerly boundary of the property. Qther options result in sanitary sewer issues and access. Conclusion: Considering all the variables controlling the proposed additio~l, including adjacent properties, and the City's downtown urban design objectives, the preferred location is not self imposed, and the applicant complies with this criterion. 5. The variance requested is the rninirnuna variance that i~~ould alleviate the hardship, Finding: The variance to vary frozxz the setback standard on Manzanita Street is consistent with the front yard setback of adjacent commercial buildings, and is consistent with the minimun7 front setback recoznznended in the Central Point Doza,ntoz~°n Revitalization Plan. Conclusion: The request for this variance meets this criterion. RVCC*G Class "C" Variance Application -Page 5 0~ 5 ac sr r ~,~ ,. ~, sue. v~. 5 ~.-u.. ~ v~.- e~.~.ro +^-~ .~ a.. u"~` ~. t ~.' ~" ~, i~ ~ q y" 1 r5~ t> tra.+ 1' C} -~rawa~y Cr+. ~ .~ b V 1 ~ i P~-- t l 1~ y ,F 1 r,y:: r ~~~ ATTACHMENT "__~ " PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CLASS "C" VARIANCE TO VARY FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A CORNER LOT ON THE MANZANITA STREET SIDE FOR AN EXPANSION OF EXISTING OFFICE FACILITIES Applicaxzt: Rogue Valley Council of Gavernzxzents (37S 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7000) File No. 07117 WHEREAS, tI-~e applicant has submitted an application for a Class "C" variance approval for expansion of existing office facilities located 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 17.65.050 of the Central Point Municipal code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as part of the Class "C" variance application, has considered and finds per the Staff Report dated July 3, 2007, that adequate findings have been made demonstrating that issuance of the variance is consistent with the intent of the TOD -Transit Oriented District, now therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Plaruling 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 incoxpoxated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 3rd day of July, 2007. Planning Cozn.mission Resolution No. ~.___~ (07032007} Plaz~zlizig Coz~z~~tissioz~ Chair ATTEST: City Represezztative Approved vy zne this 3rd day o~ July, 2007. Planz~izlg Cozxzzxzissioz-z Chair Plazzzliz-zg Coz~znissiozz Resolution No. (07032007)