Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 723 - North Valley Center Site PlanPLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7 Z 3 A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL SHOPPING FACILITY ON FNE (5) PROPOSED LOTS KNOWN AS THE NORTI;I VALLEY CENTER. FILE N0.07038 Applicant: Excelsior lnvestmcnt Company, Agent: Jim Maize 37 2W O1C, Tax Lot 802, East I'inc/Biddlc Road WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application for a master Site Plan for shopping facility on a 4.87 acre, five (5} lots proposed subdivision identified on Jackson County Assessor's as znap 37 2W O1 C, Tax Lot 802, in the City of Central Paint, Oregon; and WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned as C-4, Tourist and Office Professio~~al and the application is consistent with the permitted uses set forth in Title 17, Section 17.4.20 and Site Plan criteria of Section 17.72; WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point Planning Commission considered the Applicant's request for a Site Plan review; and WHEREAS, after duly considering the Applicant's request, it is the Planning Commission's determination that the Application does comply with the applicable standards, criteria and subject to compliance with conditions as set forth in the Planning Department Staff Report {Exhibit "A") dated April 3, 2007; now therefore SE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission for the City of Central Point, Oregon, by this Resolution No. hereby approves the Application based on the findings and conditions of approval as stated in Exhibit "A", the Planning Department Staff Report dated April 3, 2007 which includes attachments, attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by mein authentication of its passage this 3 ~~ day of April, 2007. Plann' g C mi hair Planning Commission Resolution No. ~ 2.?, (41312007) ATT~S'T: ~~~ _.. City F'.::~r~s~;z~~,~t~ << c~ ~~px~ov~;d ].~y 2z~c tli~ ~ ` ;. ci~~y c~fA~ril, 2(}07 ,~' % ~ ~- / ~'~ac~z~~'~ Cc~,~~ ~~ ' ~,~~ L;Y~ i'~r Plant~n~ Coinmiss~n 1'~esolutiun No. "~ (4f3f2007) `.: , , ~~ ~~ t M ~5<~I~:t,uit City r ~n~i,,i~~;ir;~ April 3, 2007 A~~'~';.~- ITEMS F11C ~o. ~~~~ Consideratio~~ of a bite j€'lrrrl aphlicafio~~ for tl~c ~urposc a~~rcatir~~ a rl~ixect ~rsc c~rrnnrc~~~i.a1 s17.c~p}~~iii~; tacilitti~ on live (5) lass k~~c~wn as the North Valley C'crrtcr. Tlrc sul~jc4t property is lrrcaied or7 l~;ast Pine Street (Biddle Road) irx the C-4, Tcrurisi and Of'lice Prolcssiu~~~rl wnint; district, ~rr-ci is icleiatilicd ate the Jack,~r~n County Assessor's neap a~ a7~ ?1~~' UIC, `l ax 1:crt ~(J2. {~~}~plicant: Excelsior I~a~reststicr~t Coxrtl3a~gyx li~;~:~~te JiYU 1!'Isii~:c) STAFF' SUUFLCE. Connie Clone, Community Planner ~AKGFtC~IJ l~ I). The project area cor7sist5 of approximately x.8'7 acres a~nci ~~r~.ccived tentative appravat 1~'ci~ru~+ry 6, 240'7 far a five. (lot) commercial subdivision (File No. 0'030). Tlae property is located on 1-:ast Pine. ~trcct appr~~xir~7ately 2,100 feet east ofl~ Eck Road. The Super 8 Motel is adjacent to the ti~-~'.St, the rtew Les Sclxwab fire facility is proposed to the east and USF Reddaway Inc. trucking facility is to tkae south,. A coz~crcte block wall along the pt~i~-at; road provides traffic and visual separation between the M-2 ~USb' Reddaway Inc.) and the C-4 (plaa~.ned shopping facility). At this time the applicant is requesting approval of a master plan far development of the property as a shopping facility. Through the master plurnning process it is the applicant's intention to establish governing design standards and criteria that will. control the increme7~tal development afthe property, which when cor~~l~lete, will result in a camprel~er~sivr; and integrated shopping facility. The master pl ing program will include within the final plat and the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions the fallt~~~rir~g: - Reciprocal parking easements; - Crass access easements; - A master landscape pro~rarn; and - Architectural design recluirenxent. Becazrs~; tl~e pz•oject site is comprised of individual lots that will be ir~depender~tly awned and developed, it is the applicant's objective to retain as much flexibility as passible to allow chaa~~es to the approved master plan without having to repeat the Site Plan. process, Ta facilitate the City's understanding of the extent of design flexibility requested, the applicant has sub~llitted six (6) concepts for development of Page 1 of 6 t~ac; l~I'ohc~:rty. ~`~w['~~.°I'tI ~'~.°~,rt~,~_ I~l`°~~ICiI c<~~~cr=jet si<Ii~9 h,I~; ~~s~Ilr~li~<l,~~i tlltti ilu.~ ~<Ir~i,ifir~Il h~~~~~~ta~~j ilu~ rlc~iS.'Yd ~~1. ~ac;lz ~;ol~cepi it> I~~Iitliilrll, <I~I~I cla~~sili~:~ci ,,~, a I~IllnO1~ Ilr~xli(`ic~~ii<>>3 CIS di~iiru~~l in ,~~~x~ti{in 1'7.(1?.~~(3O. Cola=;~clucntly. iIr ~;~~ ~ ~i~:Iri to sirxl~>lii~~. illt~ rcvit~ti~,~ I~l~ilris al~l~licxii{771 ~>i<I[~l~l~~I~,; i<~<;t~s+:xi l)II tlI~~ I~rli~<,t mi~~~r~s~~ (Conc;c:.l~t l)~ arxl 1~~.,~;1 iIl;,~nsc~ {C;t3rl~.;c}i[ `') dr~~~~~;1o17IrICU1 l~I~t~i~{IS~II, wiill ((~{.• IIIi{1t.,i;;l~III{1iilp, LlI<Ii <+~I~ su~bsb~dr~er~il~ 1rr~o~I;>sc~d m{~~dilic~:rtiorl ~~~~iihil~ tlac Iirl~ii~, oi~,`~i~_x~(i~~II ! ~7.O~~.U"'O ~vtnllLl 1-x~ ~I~1dI~~°ssc~~l orlt~ia~inisir'ati~~ely. 1'v'irxlilicatiorrs ill~al_ L:~;~c~;cd th~° lilrlits ~>y~`~Ct~tii)II 1~7.0~?.;>0O wtlLlld i~r~ltlil~~ r~~>tI{r~El~ti;.~i ~~'i` ~; `~yii~: l~'lali appiic.~I~iioll fair i13c srrhjc°cI lot. C~~~~:kal 1`~~0,~~ ~•~ I ~;~.~~~~~°i~'rt~~~~ua ~l~l~e i~~r<~~i~o.;~;d i~>t~~~j<.~c1 is ~I rlrlstcr pl~~rl li>r tIIC Ilrliiz~r-I~I ,~.i:i;.iu;t.~itlr.Il ~Icsigrr of ilae; c;olrrlnc;I~~;irtl dcvc°loplrl~xlai crlcorn~7~I<;silj~~~, tint= live (S) leis. ~I~IIC° ~17~(>ii~~a~ii (~r~~,~3u:,~.~;; ~I r~~ix cif col~7rr~erc;ial uses with tht~ opportirl~it}~ (i~,I~ ilydividtlal 1<>I pL~rc~hasc~. "17It; ~rrchitc;c(tlrc t~l~1i~I~.~ hllildil,~~s, i I~;~ li~I1C~;i{;a~7e plan 'r1I~d tllt~ rni?Ti.~;s7e~?It~ss i.tC(;esS ~~Orni~i I'k'I)lillll lhC' ;~Illllt' lOI' t'.IIC:h Vi$fI<411QII, f~`i 11Oit'({, i+i sirr~l~Iliiy 9~eti~1e~%~' oftlr~ a~~aplicrLt-iorI, si~afl~h<IS rcdtlcecl the sip; cxll~c~ ~~;~~ i~~ t~r~~o 1.~~~.i~ ~,I<si~t~<~;<I~~ :IS (~~,ll~,~~. ~;~ ~`;cB~~~~l~~t ~: "l~lx: proposcxl usr~s ilrclrldc ~~ hc">iarar~~Irt. oI~ tI l7al~Il; (Lut 1 13ilildirlr, ,°~}, Inulli-rc;t~Ii1 iL~rt 2 i3iriJdizr~ L3), 17roiession~Il offit~cs (l~tlildinrs {', acrd ]}~ T.~~ts ;~ ~~. 5 j~ alId FIIi ,I~Itollroi~ilc° IIIi~~I~ic~Itio~I~ ~~~~itl.a ~~ car'~~~ash f~~rc~ilit~~ {l~trildlhf~ 1~:. Lot 3) GIs illrlt;ll°aic°Il l~r~ ~i~7lriic<Irli :-, ~>itc l'1<.III 1 <~. "l~lu° stlll~aures :- 7 ~ti~'Ill total ~ 1,_ l ~f3 ~u.~ua.I~c f~~;t v, Iti~ ~t ,?<$.1 fi°i~, slid ~.ov~~r<I~~c~. 1~h~~ rrln7lrnLnlr IItIIrIl7~~r ~,{~ rat ~; ~~;~, ~ „cis r~yuit°ed l:Ier' ;~~;+~tior~ 17 ~7~~.O~rrO is :?2;d. f'olICCpi 1 i~r~o~%idcs ~~ 3nltrl ol~?;?~^) pt;.r~hirlt .~~>.,~;~,:;. ICt~.~ °~~~~~o l~hi~~ l~r~ojeci dcai_z,n is ti~ithorrt ~iI~I atrtorl~ohilE~ 1tI~~>I~ic~aiiolt (~~~;itiiv. 'l~llc lr~~°opos~~•d ~Ir>~s i>~~ludc a rest~~ur~rlri or~ ~t 1>anl. (Lot 1 l3uildill~ ~ j. rlurlti~-r~~1ail (l.oi ? (3rliltlirrf~ 13 j, i~~°oicssiorl<Ii olficc;s (l3t.tildirrr~s C. ~a`r1d t), Lots ~ Z~::i) as illusiratcd i,7~ at~(~>lictllat's `~it~~ 1'l~alr ~C'. "f"',~~ ~;crrlctllr~". will total. ~~~,3"7S sy~Iare fec,t wish a ~t~.t?!a°io site t'ov~~r;~~~~~_ 'Ih.e: var~iaiiorrs ire conceptual desigt~ repl•cselit ~~ raai~lor ~rx~diiic~~ti~?n of"t`I~~; i<~t.~~t sdtlare ~`t~oi<~~~~° of ih~~ structur~e5 and lot covcra~e. "l~lris dilieretrce i~~ cov+ra~;c is "~.;?~% ~II~u) is core>idcrc;cl ~I r~~il~I~>r rrro~lific<rti~~n as defined in `~~cctiol~I l "I.()t).'(:)U. ~r'~'it1r tht:, e:~cepti_ot1 of ih_c cal~~~~±~i7 all ~LS~~°s arc (~~;r~nrittcd its thy; ~~"~.? tiistx~ict. ~~~.he c~Ir~n~~s.l~ r~c~hLil~c.s a coraditiolral use per~nlit. tiny use proposed that is perrrritted coriditi_oraalll~ ~~,~ill require: ara ~rp~~li~:ati_ort for a Conditional (sc l'er~I11it. 7~11c proposed i;~rrtiwaslr, a<,ce,ssc~r~y to ihc~ lubrication facilit4°, ~-ill z•cgrlilt. <~ Conditional Lsc: l'(:'1•n7it; ~s per ~cCti~~ 17.~~'.0i() (1I) oft;l'1~9C, The project site has paved road access ~°ia T;ast ~f'inell~idGl~e Road ~tid ir~~i•ess;`e~;I~css iI°orn tl~c ~~rivate road east and a1on~ the southern property line.. "hhe parlcinb aisles form itrternal circulation tra~~ra ways, x,,11 utilities are available acrd suf licicnt to ser~~°ice tl~e proposed developl~~ent, ~~~x~°~i~~o '.hhe proJc;ct proposes a rriix of con~rnercial uses ar~d as s>rch parking space requircnrenis 'Mary with tlac type o~f eoz~~rne~°ci~~l use, 'l~hc applicant, has hror~icie~l site tiiatrr~rr~rs illustl~~r~i~ltr, th~:~ ~~ar~]<ia1~ ai°eas with. the nur~tlher" nfspaces required ~~or each proposed use 4~s ill>_rstra~~~:d. i,I ihe~se eQrr~~,.~,~~;uar harking; sljace taE~lcs, 1'a~~; ' 1,i'6 a' , i;i;~g .i~alale 1: ~;c~nc~c}~~ 1 (~°~i'ic~ l~l~a~a '1 ~~~ 9~' i r~ u ~ t 1 tt; ~~~r ~ ~t Loi 1(F,)- {' ~ffee ~inf~_-. __ ~ 7(r 76 c:k ? {C-i) Lot 3 (L) LubelOi! __ 't6 Loth {D) ~ € ~ Office ~ ;;' ~,, ~-- - o~ a-~;;a ~~~ __ t;:n i'Itsli 7i. ~ ~ I:, ,uiis{i f i~'ri>~si~~,e9c1 ~ I~~~ ~ ~ 1~i(~, ~iti1 i n1 ~^ i[~~i C?li~~ ~ ~ ' " ~J r,.~ ~,,~., ~aff~ra~ ~ a:~ ~ IuL;I 2a3 ~ "i ~;; ~fscs c;haiatz~: ~tlac parlcira}~ r~edtairc~taaent ~;~~ill also claara~~; ~~»~~ ii ~~~il} 1~;~ the ~~}~>}alic~t~r~i's rc;s}~x~a~~~,il3ility to coda}>>l~~ ti~~iila the'. <~9~(=street~aar~i~.a~~ ~~c;c}t~ir~~~zn.t;tri~ cif `~cc~ti<>aa 7.f~~.U~~ii)_ . T"l3c }~~'oposc--d l~t~ilciing ioc~~±tic~r~~: aflor~ parking areas that c<~ra tae easily shared. l~i~~tzrc ? illt7stratc~s tlae ~tp}~rorrecl snbc~li~~isioaa'~, lc~t shapes. pur ilc. No. 0%{):3(), ~~nd the ncccssit~~ fir a-e°ciprocal ~ati~•1-;ira~, i3agr~e.tis;'c~~f~e55 a~icl c,ross_. a.~cess ea5ezaaents. ,-'~s a concliiio~~ for dais pa~oject and final plat approval. reciprocal parkita~7, in~~res~-egress and cross-access easeiaaetats ~~;-ill tic rctit~ired. ~l'lc project site pla.~as have been reti-ici~ eci and are. ~ourxl to provide; the rec7uirctl total zataiaal:~ur of p~rkira,~ space°s for the us<:s listed, Iaa addition, #hu spaces prop-iclud exc.cccl the ntuaaher a-ec~uired ~-car ~~ccessihle ~,~1;fA} pai•l:ing, mcetiaag the z'eytairutnents of the iJtaiforia~ ~3tzildialg Code. L~~dso~~~%~~;: 'l~h.c~. applicant st~bizaittc;d a landscahc l~~lan (sheet ~„ 1,x)0) that i~acoY-laof•atus tlau. prc:ajec~ ~lte as d the acljaccaat I,cs ~chv~~al~ situ for latldscape trni~-oa~~aa?ity~. Tla~ l~l~cisc;t~}:air }plan )~rovid~s a ~7~~ri~aaet~~ }alanting desig~.a_ Ior the prc~jcct situ with pla~atiaag a°ov~~s tun {10;) feet or gt°catur ira v~~itlth a5 a•ecluirud lay ~ectiota 1 L~~~.OfiO (I~). l lac desi~ia also pro~~idcs aza least fine/ ~3iddlc; Road strec;t ta~ec landscape; ~~o~~~s appro~inaatel~,~ thix°tecn (>r3) ~`uet to twenty (20) feet iia ~,~'icltla ita conioxaaaasace with ~SCeaion 1~,.36.Q~0. i'agc ~ of 6 Detailed landscape plan for the ve ~S) lots to iocl~aele iX~cliviclea<~[ 17azildir~t; landse;ap, the; ~ari~~ area~~; and a plant key have also been submitted, applicant":~ :~hee;ts 1.>.101 _. l „ t l 2. ~a ~._.__... __.. _ _ _ . _ . ~~,,"' w w -- . .` h~'t .~ t~'~~'~~cW,~H. a ~ 4 ~.: _. t F `~ S '~ 1 . ~~.... I ~~..~: H,~.,w... t Jp ~.~....~ ... d P t fm ~ ~ ~ ~ ("~ ~ I r. ~ 1'- a ~i ~ r-~ t k ~-~~ ~~~xfi w~r+dxonraa FIl~1DIlr1VrS: See a shed A hment "J°' ISSUES: i. The shopping facility design necessitates reciprocal cross-access and parking easements far the lots within the development. As such, these easements are a condition of approval to assure the complex adequately addresses parking and access d must be reviewed d approved by the City prior to final plat approval. 2. The applicant states in a March 9, 2007 letter that the site's infrastructure, including the prim access driveways, will be developed all at once and prior to construction of any of the proposed structures, rage 4 of 6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall have prepared, in accordance with Section I7.45.900 of the CPMC and approval by the City, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) evaluating the impact of the project at build-out on the intersections of the private drive, (Meadowbrook) and East Pine/Biddle Road. The applicant shall be responsible for mitigation of all identified traffic impacts to a minimum level of service D, as conditioned by the Central Point Public Works Department (Attachment G}. 2. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall prepare and record reciprocal cross-access easements for each of the f ve (5) proposed lots and said easements shall be shown on the final subdivision plat. The reciprocal cross-access easements shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation with the Jackson County Clerk and building permit approval. 3. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall prepare and record reciprocal parking easements for each of the five (5) proposed lots and said parking easements shall be declared on the final subdivision plat. The reciprocal parking easements shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation with the Jackson County Clerk and building permit approval. 4. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall prepare for the City's approval Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("CC&Rs} referencing the architectural and landscaping requirements as approved by the City per File No. 07038. The CC&Rs shall be recorded with the final plat. 5. Conditions as listed by Flre District 3 (Attachment H} and prior to Certificate of Occupancy issuance the following will need to be verified as completed. 5a. No Parking Fire Lane, street lane signage plan to be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings. This can be part of the building phase safety review. Sb. Red Curb Paint plan with conditions this will be maintained and who will be responsible for the maintenance. Sc. Plans shall be submitted for review for each building site. Fire Plans examiner will review the plans and submit comments to the commercial inspector far the City. 6. Rogue Valley Sewer Services (Attachment I}, the Central Point Building Department (Attachment J) and Jackson County Roads (Attachment K}. 7. The developer shall submit lighting and signage plans prior to building permit approval. Said plans shall be consistent with the provisions of CPMC Sections 15.24 and 17.44.070, Signs and lighting of premises. $. Application for a Final Subdivision Plat consistent with the site development plats shall be submitted for review by the City. The final approved subdivision plat map shall be recorded with a mylar copy filed with the City prior to building permit approvals far any lot. 9. Site Plan Approval shall lapse and become void one year following the date on which it becomes effective. Page 5 of b ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" ~- Master Plan Concept Comparison Table Attachment "B" -Applicant Concept 1, Site Plan IA Attachment "C" -Applicant Concept 2, Site Plan 2C Attachment "D" -Applicant Conceptual Elevation Attachment "E" -Applicant Landscape Plan Attachment "F"- Applicant Submittal Narrative Attachment "G" -Public Works Staff Report Attachment "H" -Comments -Fire District 3 Attachment "I"- RV S S Attachment "J" -Jackson County Roads Attachment "K" -Building Department Staff Report Attachment "L"- Findings of Fact Attachment "M"- Proposed Resolution ACTON: Consideration of a master Site Plan for the mixed use cammercial planned shopping facility development on five (5} Iots known as the North Valley Center. RECOMMENDATYON: Approve Resolution , conditionally approving the Site Plan for the mixed use commercial planned shopping facility development on five {5} lots known as the North Valley Center submitted by Excelsior Investment Company. Page 6 of 6 NORTH VALLEY CLN"I"LR h`IAS'I'LR PLAN: Sig Caa>cept C[~n~a~ai•isa>;~ _ Lot Area Individual % Parking Accessible _ Acres Lot Sq Ft Bu i idi n g Sc~. Ft Covera9e_ "-._ Required Pro os e d Re uired _____.. Provided Site Plan 1A Goffee Shop _ _ _ Lott{A) Coffee 5ho 0.96 41$17.6 5950 14.20% 70 76 Lot 2 B Retail 1.1 47916 11088 __ 23.14% 45 ~ 45 ~~ Lots C Office 0.86 37461.6 12600 33.63% 42 42 Lof 4 D Office 1.14 49658.4 16600 33.43% 55 55 Lot 3 (E) LubelOif 0.8 34848 4900 14.06% _.__. 16 16 Total 4.86 211701.6 51138 24.16°/a 228 234 7 17 Site Ptah 1 B Bank _ - Lott A Bank 0.96 41817.6 3350 8.01% 11 22 Lot 2 B Retail 1.1 47916 11088 23.14% 45 98 Lot 5 C Office 0.86 37461.6 12600 33.63% 42 42 Lot 4 D Office 1.14 49658.4 16600 33.43% _ 55 55 Lot 3 {E) LubelOil 0.8 34848 4900 14.06% 16 16 Total 4,86 291701.6 48538 22.93% 169 233 7 13 Sito Plan 7C Retail Lot 1 {A) Restaurant 0.96 41817,6 80x0 19.13% 140 123 Lof 2 B Retail 1.1 47316 2800 5.84% 14 14 Lot 5 C Office 0.86 37461.8 12640 33.63% 42 42 Lot 4 D Office 1.14 49658.4 16600 33.43% 55 55 Lot 3 {E) Lobe/Oil _ 0.$ 34848 4900 14.06% 16 16 Total 4,86 211701.6 44904 21.21% 227 250 7 17 Site Plan 2A Na LubelOil Lot 1 (A) Coffee Shop 0.96 41817.6 5950 14.23% 70 97 Lof 2 {B) Retail art on Lot 3 1.1 47916 116$8 24.39% 65 90 Lot 3 0.8 34848 3300 9.47% _ Lot 5 C Office 0.86 37461.6 12600 33.63% 42 42 Lot 4 (D) Office 1.14 49658.4 16600 33.43% 55 55 Total 4.86 211701.fi 50138 23.68% 232 284 7 18 Site Plan 2B No LubelOil-Sank Lot 1 A Bank 0.96 41817.6 3350 8.01% 11 22 Lot 2 (B) Retail art on Lot 3 1.1 47916 11688 24.39% 6S _ 144 Lot 3 D.8 34848 3300 9.47°1° Lot 5 C~Office 0.86 37461.6 12600 25.37°1° 42 42 Lot 4 D Offce 3.14 49658.4 16600 33.43% 55 55 Total 4.86 211701.fi 47538 22.46% 173 259 7 14 Site Pian 2C Na LubelOii -Retail Lof 1 (A) Coffee Sho 0.96 41817.6 8000 19.'33°1° 10 0 163 Lot 2 {B}Retail art on Lot 3 1.1 47916 _ 3875 ~ 8.09% _ 36 mm 40 Lot 3 mm 0.8 3484$ 3300 9.47% _ W Lot 5 C Office . 0.86 37461.6 - .. 12600 .. 33.63% ... 42 42 Lot 4 D Office 1.14 49658.4 16800 ° 44.31 /o ~ rr Total 4.85 211709.6 44375 20.96% 233 298 7 15 -.. _ .~ _.~_ ,u,~~.,Ua.,~,.,~,,,~..,..,7., -- -- - ~ ,~ .. . .. _, _ ~ ~. ~ ... ~, 1 ~-- ~ '~.- - I - Efi -- - -~-~ .. i __.. __ _ ... O ,.. , .. a A ~ I 1 \ ~ ~ f .~ t,„" ti .~ i y ~ ..._ ~ ~~~~~ E I ~ _ ~ 1 g s ~ rM1O, f,~a~r{~M ~„ .i Mr. ,. .. ~ f I_ G.~~ ti .. ~ I t R x ~ ~ . _. i ., i ~ i {~ ~.~~_o _ _ ~ _.._ ,~ ~i ~~ I ~ ~1~11 0 ~ ~~ ~~~. . ~~~ SITE i~LAt~I I~lp, IA z ~ z fY O m zv o v~ ~~ ~~ o ~o o x ~ ~ X U1 ~~ y.._ ----- --- ----------- ,~.-,. _~ ~. , ._ ._ _. o.,n I E. ~ ; ~ ~%~. !'~ _II i I I ~ Iii E .`! _ I, ~-.' ~ v 1I II I ilfi I II 1 i )f(ff r _ llII II _ ~ x I i 1 ! ~ ( ...J ~'~1 "="~~ si ._ ~~..4.'-3_~.~_.~!; ~ ~ 1~,.~7_f_~_~ ~.~1_L ~ I +~r - ~le f 1 Er"",xl; `~~' i i_!_i... 1~ l I t! f I f i(~ E~ E! ~ I ~ '". ii ~~ ' ~ v.«. if ~ ~ I ! I ~. _`..,^~ I I a ~.~ >__ j 1~3111~ I~. II 'Ii ~' I I ~i _~ [ 1 ! ~ ~ I~ I ~: 33 !! - I t i ~ ~ ___ . r,~- ~- i ` ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i i ~ ~___ _.... __......____ I f ~i ~ ~g 3 ~~ I ~'~ ~- _ I ~J k -, -- ., - ,~ _ ~- (~ _~.. s~ ,-. , ~ i _~ -- - ~ ---- ~ -- ~ _ -- a ---~ -- __-~ .. - . _ r~ :, ~- -- ---- _~. --------------- v ~ ~ ___ -i ____ ___.... _----~ --- ._~ ~_ . - ~-~ i SITE PLAN hf0. 2G I PnO.EGT ~r~oar~ATior~ ---.-..-. arrn~ irES ~ enFns ~A6ELOE o ASSCC]ATES. _ ~W - c n ~ xsrc+~ r ~ ciao v U w - 1 -i , a - I cF E ~~u cnm~ an ~,r ~+.mt ,:v. x ..~ u~in I Iti 4.~A fS F{1. i y a~E'c, i ivux ~s .~ I ~° I ~ +nrco l~cenrm I is+u-.u.uv~ z ixc-.~ ~anrny ,. ,..~ ,~ ~. ~ ~ U ` Q ..., r~rc, yv ;v ...~.~ P/ W'j N6 ~'HWIOta _ I I € nn ~_ J ~~ ` ; nn (c ~ w.cn.,,`J ~.,,ti If 1 A ? I I n:~ ~t ~-- ~ ~,vz i3~~ ~~~ ~ ~ _._ ~5~ z E~~ ~ ,;off ~ ~; x uS m r ~ _ Ll.! X ~ W s z [~ D _j A O x s D 0 O z ._..._ xx ~, ink ~lORTH VALLI=Y GEr~IT~R i I `~- ~ ~F '° 'II Q "' ~ITE RI=VIEW ~ ; ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~a I EXGEL510R It1VE5TMENT GOMPAI~Y , ;s~ ~~ °~ °_ cart EXHIBi T c~N-r~~ ~o€Nr, GR~C~ON ATT ; HME '~ 1~.~.._ ~ _~~ ._. ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ! 3 ~ I I I, } ~~ o ~ t ~ c f I z..,: r ! r O ~` 1 f ~ r II 5, ~. F :; r--~-,._ s I E '~ - + - - I' __ ~ ~. .: - _.. I A a '._ _~'.. I.? .~ .~Oa ~. ~U~ 1- ~I 1U0 .I i. I• ~~.. i ~ I_ ~ ~ ~~ " S [~2--.u. .~ f~ :i i - ~_~ 1~ a ~ __~ tr Wit. 1 f } 1 { .. , . ~ ~.,. ..,. - .~.. r. .. 4 ~ ~ .~._ _ ..._.._......_..._~ - - _____ - - _- - _ ___ _ ..._.... _. _ -.._., - _ ..... ....... ... `_`_.__`._, r • ~n t~ r- ~; iu ~ - O ` 5 ~~ 1 ~ i C ~ ~ j !r ' .L MICHAEL J. MINDER ~ 3 •E-r° W nn1x.~T:?{Y'„C:-S1'LV~i-[m L/L,.-1 ~ `\~{.,, I~~ ~ ~~ \/ ~:..WV I l ~ L i.CG (64=)776-oao9 ~ ~ E sr ~"~~~~r ~-1 ~ ~~~ ~~~,~w~ SUBMITTAL NARRA'~'~Vr F~NllINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIC?NS OF LAW BIS;FORE THE CITY OF CEN"T"RAL I'OIN'I' PLANNING COMMISSIt)N IN THE MATTER OF AN AI'PI.,ICATION I{ OR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN APPLICATION I+OIt AI'PII~CAN7"~ COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A 4.5C,-ACTiF SI'I'r FX~I~I3i'[' I WITHIN THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, .IACKSON COUNTY,UREGON APPLICANT/ Excelsior Invest~~~ent Company OWNER: APPLICATION: Request for site plan approval for the coz~~mercial developn~ezrt of a 4.56-acre site located on tl~c south side of Biddle Road, approximately 190 feet east of Hamrick Road, within a C-4 (Tourist and Office-.Professional District}. A. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF TI-IE APPLICATION The applicant proposes to develop the site with a z~~ix of coznznercial uses consisting of offices and retail buildings, together with either a bank or restaurant located iz1 the northwest corner of the site. Azi auto lubrication business is also proposed at the oast side of tl~e development. Because of uncertainties i~~ the connx~ercial marketplace, the applicant has subz~nitted site configurations; which repz-esent six possible deveiopmez~t scenarios. The applicant requests float the Plazuiing Coz~zzx~ission approve the series of development schemes to allow for a defined amo~ult of flexibility in the development of the property. All applicable code requirements will be n7e# with each of the proposed development schemes, with the nature of the building architecture and landscaping remaining tl~e sazxze regardless of the f nal configuration. B. PROPERTY INFORMATION The subject property proposed for development is a 4.56-acre parcel located on the south side of Biddle Road, approximately 1 q0 feet east of the Hamrick Road intersection. The parcel is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map 37-2W- OIC as Tax Lot 500. The property is vacant, with a slope of less than S percent. `t'he subject parcel and the parcels abutting to the east, west, anti south ~vcrc plattccl as part of 1-lanarick Business Park several years ago. "That subdivisiotl was respozzsil)le for improvements that iI)cIl.ICled pz-ivate streets, curbs alzd gutters, sidewalk, rrlilities, streetlights, together with a block wall and landscaping along the east/west private street. The adjacent uses are a Super 8 Motel to the west of the subject site, with USI' Reddaway "l,rucking's teI'minal to the south, separated by the private street, block wall, and landscaping. llcross Biddle Road frolri the subject site is "Central Point East", asingle-family residential subdivisiarz. The abutting parcel to the east is currently vacant, but has recciatly received site approval far a Les Schwab `l'ire Store. That facility is showlx on cacti of tl)c site plans A tentative plan application foI• the subject property has been sublxzittcd to the City of Central Point to create 5 Tots, Review of the plant by the 1'lanl)iI)g Catrln~ission is scheduled for the COn1ITlissian'Smceting of 1~ebruary 6, 2007, C. APPLICAT)[ON AND REVIEW PROC;CDURTS Section 17.72.020 and I7.72.021 of the Celztl•al Point Municipal Cade specify that a site plan application confornrilzg to the requiren-Ierzts of Section 17.72.030 shall be zxiade for all colstruction I•cquiring a building peI-zz~it. The application aizcl the I'eview of that application shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 17.05. City staff leas determined that the review shall be in accordance with the Type 111 quasi judicial procedure specified in Section 1'7.05.400. Section 17.72.030 lists submittal requirements as part of the application, includil~g a site plan, lal~dscape plan, and building elevations. A review of these requirements has been included under the review section of this document. I3. RELEVANT' APPROVAL CRI'I'ER>iA Section 17.'72.040 establishes standards and approval criteria for Site 1'1an applications, as identil'Ied below, and are reviewed in this report: I7.7Z.OA0 Stattrfnf•cts In approving, conditionally approving, or denyitrg the plans submitted, the city stroll base their decision on the following standar°ds: A. Landscaping and fencing acrd the construction of walls on the site in such tt manner as to cause the same to root substantially interfere with the landsca~ring sclrerrre of the neighborhood, acrd in such a manner as to use the same to screen sa~ch activities and sights as mig]•rt be heterogeneous la existing neighborhood uses. The plarrnirrg corrtrrrission rrray require the nrcrintaining of existing trees•fnr screening purt~oses acrd fvr• saurrd acrd sight zrrsulatiorr from existing treighbnr°lrood u,se; S3th:ni€ta1 Narrative North Valley Site Plan Cit}- of Central Point .fanu<zry 2G, 2QQ7 Page 2 o f 8 B. vesign, number and locution of irzgt-ess• crud e~>YC',ss poir7f,s .s'(1 rr.S' to lltal7r'(JVC Crn(1 to avoIrl interference kt~iih the traf fic~ flow on public .street,s; C. To provide off=street barking arzd loading facilities oral pecle.striarr arzd vehicle flvtiv facilities in sllc{z a rnanrzer as is compatiljle tivitlr the rrse for- tisrhic{r the site is prvpo.sed to be used acrd capable of use, and in srrc{! cr rrzanner as to ir~zprove unrl avoid irzierfererzce }uitlr the traffrc flow an public streets; D- Sigrzs arad other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that t{!ey do not conflict tisritlz or deter° from traffic control signs ar devices arzrl that they are corn~ratible Lvitlr the de.sigrz (~f their blrildings or Ir,se.s and ~s~ill oaf interfere }vitlr ar clctrcrct T•olrr the alalJecrrarzce nr• visibility of nearby signs; ~`. accessibility and sufficiency of fire fightin~T facilities to such a starrdar~d as to IJrovide for- tlze reasonable safety of fife, limb and pral~erty, including, but not lirrrited to, szrltable gates, access roads and fire lurzes so that all brrildirlgs arr the presrises nr•e accessible to free apparatus; !a'. Compliance ~vith all city ordinances and r-egl.Ilcrtiarls, irrcludirzg Section 16.20.080 pertaining to the nzaxirrrunz nrlnrber of,single:family das~ellirrgs ar dwelling units allosuahle on cal-de-.sac streets, acrd aplJlicable .state latices; G. Compliance tir~itlz srrclz architecture arzd clesigrz .stcrrrdm•ds as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the C:eratral Point area acrd its environs. The architecture and design proposals pray be rejected by the planning comnzi,ssion If forlr2d to be lrleornpatlble wrt{I t{re G'xlstdllg ar"C{IlteCtl.rral aY design char-acferistic.s of adjacent properties ar uses. Jn addition, the planning carnnais,siorr reserves the right to establish additional heit=]zt, setback, bt.ffering, or ntlzer development requirernerzts that rrsay be necessary to ensure land zr.se conapatilJility and erz,sure the health, safety, acrd privacy of Cerrtr-al Point residents. E. STANllARDS ANll RCQUIRIIMENTS Sections 1'7.44.040 throzzgh 17.44.090 of the Central Foint Mrinicipal Ozdinance define the standards that apply for develapnlent within tl~e G4, Tauz•ist and Office- Prafessional District. Tlzase requirements consist of lot din~ensians and coverage, setbacks, building height, scz•eening, landscaping, signage and ligl~l:ing, and off street parking, and are reviewed below. F. APPLICANT'S SUBMITTALS Exhibit "1" Submittal Narrative ~-Findings of 1{act a~.d Conclusiozis of laaw Exhibit " 2" Site Plans Exhibit "3" Landscape and Irrigation Flans (Typical} Exhibit "4" Building Elevations (Typical) SubrniUal tllarrative North Valle}~ bite Plan City of t:cr~tral Point 7ac~uar,~ 2G, 2i}Q7 Page 3 nC$ G. FIND)<NGS OIt FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OIL IIAW CONSISTENCY WI"1'1-I Sl'l~l; I'L/1N API'1tOVAL S"l'ANDAlZl7S OI° 7'I-IE G-4 DISTItIC`I' (SEC"PIONS 17.44.U2U - 17.44.U9{)). The following rcquireznents apply to developz3zent iti the C'-4 zoni~~g district. 1. Permitted and Coxaciitiozzai Uscs (17.44.UZU and 17.44.U.3{)) I~~indiz~g of I,act All proposed uses are Uscs chat arc l~ez•~nitted in the G4 zcnlitig district. 2. Height regulations (17.44.U4U) No building oz- structure may exceed GO feet in height. Findiz~t; of fact Buildings within the developznezrt will not exceed 35 feet in height. 3. Brea, width and yard z•equireznents (17.44.USU) ~~ findings of Fact Although no new lots are proposed as part of this applicatiozl, those elezxxezzts of the lots proposed in the tentative platz are also sl}own in Table 1. Table 1 1Vlini~i~unt Sta>!idard Lot 1 L,ot 2 Lat 3 Lot 4 Ilat 5 Brea 54Q4 sq. ft. 41,$18 47,916 37,462 49,65$ 34,$48 Width Sfl ~, 256 66 125 305 195 De th 100 fr:. 165 2$0 305 I9Q 210 All structural setbacks for the proposed development relative to the cuzrent property lines are met. Setbacks to the proposed parcels will also be met at the time of Final Plat approval and at the time of issuance of building permits for the individual buildings. Lot line adjtzstn~ents nay be needed to alter the parcels' boundaries slightly- Srri7inittal 1`l arr~tiive r?oitlt Va(Icy Srte Plan City of Cenira[ Pvini 7anuar} 2G, 2Q07 Page ~# o f 3 4. General rcquirernents (17.44.OG0) Front yards ar•e required to be landscaped arrd continuously maintained. bindings cr~l~act I`3o open outdoor storage is proposed. `brash containers will be screened with gated enclosures, as depicted orr the site flan. As shown ozl the lazzdscape plan, which is typical for arty of the possible final site development schemes, all of tyre .front yards are landscaped with lawn, trees, and shrubs. In those instances where off-street parking is located in tl~e front yard area, a landscaped strip along the Biddle Road right-of-way adjacent to the subject property line yields a mizxirnunl l0-foot width of landscaping that will be installed and maintained by the property owners ar~d assured by recorded owtaers' docunrents, 5. Signs and lighting of prez7tises (17.44.(1'10} Signs for the development 13ave not been included in the proposed plans, but will be submitted to the City for approval before they are installed. .11.11 signage will n-reet the standards of this section. bindings of Fact G. Off-street parking (17.44.080) Findings ~f Fact The parking retluirer-rlez~ts for each of the developrxrent schemes, tagetl~ez• witlx the number of spaces provided, arc shown on each. of the site plans. The site plans include a parking table showing that the parking requirements have been znet >_rnder each of tl~e design schemes, including the required AAA Accessible parking spaces. 7. Anteru~a standards {I7.44.090) 1"iztdings of fact There are no antennas proposed with the developn~zent. Si~bn~ittal Nart'ati~re Nnrth Vatle}° Site Plan Cat}~ of C;entra[ F'osnt .ra~ttiaiy 2fi, 2007 Page 5 of $ ConcEusion of Law As slxown on the subzxtitted plays and as discussed in the above fi~zditzgs, the application is cansistezat with. the site p[atz <}pl7rova[ standards of the C-4 district as defiz1ed in Sections 17.44.020 - 17.44.090. CONSISTLNC~I WI`rI-I TIiB CiI:NEIUI.L SI'I'E PLAN Al'1'IZC)VAL S'I"ANDARI75 Ol~ SECTl01'~IS 17.72.040 17.72, a40 S'tarrrtnrds In a,~tzrovirrg, conditionally aj~pr•c~vin~T, or dear}~in~r the J~larr,s suhrrrrtted, the city shall ha,se their decision orz the following starrdar•d.s: ~. I andscal~ing and fencing and the constructinrt of a4~alls on tJze site irz ,such a manner a,s to cause the carne to not suh.stantially interfere with the landscaping schemc+ cif the neiglzhorhoocl, and in such a manner as to use the carne to .screen .such activities and sights as might be heter-agenenus to existing neiglzbor•Isood u,se,s•. The planning comrni.ssivn Wray require the maintaining of exi,stirrg trees for scr'eerrirrg lrwpose,s arrd for .snund and sight insulatirnz fi•vrn existing neiglzborhoad use; Pindin. sg~of I~ act The frontage landscapizag alanl; Biddle road will be cozlsiste~zt with fi•ontagc landscapizxg that has been izzsta[led along the frontage of Supez- 8 Motel to tl~e west, and will be the same landscape pattern on tl~e parcels to the east. ~"lie proposed lazldscaping, particularly the frontage trees, will provide a buffering nzitigation front neighboz-ing properties, particztlarly those residential neighbors to the noz•th. No fencizig or walls are proposed, other tlzalz the trash ez~clasuz-es. 13- Design, number arzd location of ingress and egress points ,so as to irrrpr•ove and to avoid 1r11er;fe'r"G'rrCG YVIt1Y tJze traf~C flOlV Oro fJtllJl[C Stl'G'etS,' rindings of Fact "T'he access into fhe developzxzent will be taken primarily frazxz the pxivate street alozzg the south boundaz•y of the site, and tlu'augh the Les Schwab site. Access from I3iddIe Road will be limited fio right turn entrance only. 17uring xeview of the coznpaziian subdivision application, the City staff and I'Ianning Comzxzissian agreed to the proposed design. subrnidal Narrative North valley ~itc Ylarr C'ihr of Central I'oirrt fanirary 2fi, 20D7 I'agc 6 o f 8 C.. TD pl"OVlde ofd-.sheet paJ"lzln~; Clad lvaCl!!ig faC111IIC,5 araCl pC'dL'Str'2CIti and VG'lifel(? Holy facilities ire such a manlier as is cvrrrpatible wiilz the trse fnr ivllicli Ilse site is proposed to be used and capable of use, anti iri a•uch a ltlarzrzer a<s to improve cnzd avoid irlterfer•errce with tlic traffic flow an pt.lblic strcc[,s; I~inditl~;s of Iract The off street parking and loading facilities will meet the standards of tl~e cads as discussed above. The project leas been designed to provide for pedestriatl and vehicular flow that will not interfere with the traffic flow on Biddle Road. D. ~'igns grid other outdoor adver•tisirig structures to ensure that they da not conflict with or deter from tr•affrc control signs yr devices acid that they ar•e compatible -t~ith the design of their buildings or uses and will not interfere 3vitlz or detract .from the appearance or visibility of nearby sighs; I; itadin~s of Iiact All signage will conform to City standards and will not interfere with traffic control signs and wi11 be compatible with the design of the buildings within the development. F. rtccessibility and .sufficiency of fire frglitilrg facilities to such a standard as to provide,ror• the reasonable safety of life, limb and properly, including, btlt riot limited to, .suitable gates, access r'aads and fre lanes so thut all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; I<indirr rs of Fact 7'lie site has been designed to provide for emergctzcy vehicle circulation tlu•oughout tlzc development. I`ire hydrants will be installed at locations determined by Jackson County Fire District #3. T Compliance with all city ordilzance,s and regulatioti.s, including xSectiolf IG.Z0,080 pertaining to the rnaxirnum number of single family dwellings or dwelling units allotivable on ctrl-de-sac ,streets, and applicable state lakes; T'indin s of Tact As showzx above, the developrxtent complies with all applicable City standards and ordinances. As the development does not include any residential development, Section 16.20.080 does not apply. Su€~mittat I~iarrative 7~ortfr Valley site Pion Cit}~ oi'Cer~tral Point Jar~irarv 2G, 2fl()7 I'agc 7 aF $ G. Canzpliarzce with such architecture cmd desi~,~1z stcnu~crr•ds as to provide aestheiic_ acceptability in relation to the n~~ighbnrhond czrrd tlzc~ Central 1'nirzt urea arzd its envlrorzs. The ar•chifecture arzcl desigzz pr•nlrvscrl,s zrtay be rejected by the plarznirz~,r conzrrzissian if found to be incnrnputible with the ezistizlg urclritectr.zral rrr dc>sigrr char-acteristic.s of adjacelzt prnper•ties nz• tesea•. In czdditian, the Irlarinir2g cnrxrrai,ssinrz reserves the right to establish additional Fzeiglrt, setback, buffez-ing, nr nther• de~lelnpz~zent requirernertts that may be rzece.ssary In ensure lu~rcl use corfal.ratihility and crt,st.c+'e the health, safet}~, and priuacy of Cerztt•al Pnirzt residents. I~inding5 of I~acE The architectural design of tl~e developtt3ent meets all requirements o}~ the City. The architecture of the con~rl3ercial buildings is dcsigr~ed to he compatible with the immediate neighborhood, aid the Central Point area. Coniclusio~~ of Law As shown on the submitted plans and discussed iti tl~c above f ridings, the application is consistent with the General Sitc Plan Approval Standards of Section 17.72.044. H. ULTIMATE CONCLUSION Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, tl~e I'lat~~ing Corrunission concludes that the application for site plan approval of six developnlet~t scenarios is consistent with the relevant decisional criteria of Central I'czint's Municipal Code. Respectively Subtxaitted, Maize & ssociates, tnc. ina aize agent for applicant, Excelsior It~vcstznent Corrzpany Sulamitiai Tlarrative Nnrtta Valley Site ~'iasi Cit~• of Cer;trai taint Janrrasy 26, 2Q~7 Page R oFR CATALOG NO. -I"Y~E N0. JOB NAME MCL Series Medium Cutoff Roadway Luminaire (Type III Distrrbut~on} ORDERING INFORMATION CataEog Nurn€~er: Example: MCL3400MA7LR/PC-8 MCA 3 FIKTURE WATTAGE 14iCL- 150-t 50W Nrediuni D15TRIBUTIOf~t 175-175W LAMP Cutoff 50URCE Roadway 3-Type Etl 250-2501N Luminaire 320-320W MA"Metal 350-350W Halide 400-400W LX-Hiyir ACCESSORIES Pressure Soc4ium MCLVS-MCC_ Vandal Shield (t_exan). PMA-super COnStdni YFaiiag8 MCLGS-MCL Glare Shield. auto regulated MCL552-Replacerrient Lens Kit. pulse start Meta! Halide aPTroNs A-Adjustable amp 15° max. VOL?AGE F-5inyle fusing i-124V 120V, 277V FFS-Dout7ie fusing 2.208V 208V, 244V. 3-240V 480V 4,277V TLRIPC-Twist lock 5-480V pfrotocon[roI 8-120V PCB-Button Type 208V photoeontrol 240V (not available 277V with "A" option) MOUNTING ACCESSORIES MCLTA25R-two Ca? 90° MCLTA35R-three @ 120' MCLF3PA4-MCt_ 4" Round Pole Adapter MCLTA1f)R-MCI_. Tenon Adapter (2 318 OD) drilled far- one MCLTA2t)R-MCL Tenon Adapter (2 3/£3 OD} drilled far two Cn? 180' MCLTA30R-MCL tenon Adapter (2 3/$ OD} drilled for three MCLTA44R-MCL Tenon Adapter (2 3/8 OU) drilled for four MCLTA255-ivdo O 90° MCLTA14S-MCL tenon Adapter {2 3/£3 Of?j drilled for ane SQ MCLTA2Q5-MCL ~t"enon Adapter {2 3/8 OE?j drilled for two Q 180° SQ MCLTA3pS-MCL Tenon Adapter (2 3/8 OD) drilled for three SQ MGLTA4f)S-MCL Tenon Adapter (2 3/8 OD} drilled for four SQ MC10-MCL S" SQ Wali Mounting Plate 2D6WBR-MCL 5" SQ Thru Wire ~3ox MCL11 A-MCL i 1 " Arrrr MCLAFiMTLRSG-MCL 6" arm ~rfith Twist Lock Ptzoiocontrol and Shorting Cap MCLHSS-1ta~rse Side Shield See page 3-A €or mounting accessories TECHNICAL INFORMATION High pressure Sodium Metal Halide 15aW ED-23 175W HD-28 250W E~-18 25DVV ED-28 400W EU-18 40DW ED-37 stonco ~~ 3-~0 Tar a~ ~•a[ ~ -- -_r - zap rya' } ~~ sra'-, t_- .._ _ '~, '' nTe'-, uti ~ 2. _._1 ~i`; --- u~ _. ~ ~.......~:, ~ __~ l i_ _._..___. i P -~ 6 412' ~...._-.....-._ 19" ... ..._ ~i --s i,~ .-~ {..r_.-.._..... j 3"~ !~ ra 3~a' r ,..------- ' ~ ~ l i' ;; 'r-:..:.:::_ ::- :--~<~....i EPA _1.50 s4. #r. LJL .jt. ~l~r ~:'.f t.(:C'cll~OEl r_ESS:~; S. ~l- Pr~~ i~lr3mi~er, E-n_,(121 r /u: Shown with adjustable arm option crescents~onco .a•ern ce... ~,,..,,,, 3~r5 i~_ :r~Nall ~~d. • onion, NJ 07e8.~ • npt3.9:,~1-7:47:1 PRODUCT SPECIFICAT[ONS • MCL Cutoff Luminaire is ideal for any outdoor al3plication where tight light control is needed to prevent glare and light trespass. Per€eci for roadvdays and parking 14tS. • One piece die-cast aluminum I rousing is finished in Uurapiex II bronze polyester. • Lens frame assen~i~iy is fully gasketed with silicone to prevent dust and bug entry. • I-feat and shock resistant tempered glass lens. • One piece hydrofon~ied retlecior. • Tool-less entry far relamping. Lens frame opens by releasing a stainless steel latch. • Ali internal electrical components are installed on a ballast tray that swings dovm for easy access and replacement. • 6" die-cast aluminLCm arrn, factory installed, vditi~ integral wiring compartment. Side access cover allows wiring connections to be made in arrrr. • Key slot design allo~n~s far single person hook and placement of fixture leaving hands free for wiring. S'tynco Mounding Accessories 3-A For MCL Series tup #0 400W} Shoebox Fix#ures 2oswsR MCifl MCLTAIOR MC~O Die-Cast aluminu~~~ adapter rr~at3ntirlg plate with t~ror3ze powder finish. Fixture arn3 mounts to #~CtO anti Can tie surface mour3tecl vier 4 iay Bolts. 206WBR Die-cast alumi¢iun~ J-t3ax fnr NiC 10. f ias tour 3/~" threaded holes. t=inisheci in bronze powder, MCL Template 7136' -a~-..- T 518" o -~--- t" 713 6" -t ~ ~----- MCLTAIOR and MCLTAIOS Sand-cast aiun~inun~ tenon adapters. Rflaws 1 to 4 iixiures to be mounted to a square or round pale with a 2 3/B" tenon, Number of Fixtures Round Pole Adapters Square Pole Adapters 1 MGLTAIQR" f~iCi.TA10S 2 N€CLTA20f~` MCLTA20S 3 MCLTA30R• MCLTA305 4 PI~CLTA40R" Iv1CLTA405 MCLTAIOS `Requires one kUiCt_R~A4 round pole adapter per fixture. For LCL Series (1000W) Shoebox Fixtures et ,~ ~ ~ y~ ,~ ~~~ - ~ RL1D0 ~~. . I . ~' ~~+~ RM2CA -~t 3~rs" I'~ 7 Uz" 8 1 d' ~~~ ~W~ F~-~-- 6' ~+~--- 30~iz" ~ ~{q 1 ' ~- 212" 3 ~ --~ ~'- s- Crescenlstao~o .~~~.~ ?;;~~, ba~.r~Ytal! Rd. • rkron, ;J,1 fi?O<",3 • 9QFt-<~q US;O QUANTITY 1. SHAI=TS ARE ONE SECTION DES3GN FABRICATED FROM A WELDABLE GRADE CARBON CATALOG NQ. STI~EI.. STRUCTURAL TUBING WITH A UNIFORM WALL THICKNESS. MATERIAL SHALL POLE POLE HEIGHT 25' CONI=ORM TO ASTM A-500 GRADE B WITH A MWiMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 46,000 P.S.I. TOP D1A. 4" 2. BASE PLATES ARE CONSTRUCTED OF A STRUCTURAL QUALITY HOT ROLLED CARBON BOTTOM DIA. 4" STEEL PLATE WITH A GUARANTEED MWIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 36,000 P.S.I. - GAGE 11 G~ 3. ANCHOR BOLTS ARE "L" BENT BARS HAVING A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 55,000 P.S. _ MOUNTING HT. 25` FURNISHED COMPLETE WITH NUTS AND WASHERS., 4. POLES ARE POLYESTER POWDERCOATED BRONZE. 24" ARM LENGTH NIA 2 318" X 4" LONG TENON EMBEDDED DEPTH NA Q OR DRILLh.D TO MATCH FIXTURE BASE "S" 10" ° AS REQUIRED. PLATE BOLT CIRCLE 9 - ~0 ° BOLE HOLE DIA. 3 ,. ~ ~ ~., z ~- 4" --~ PLATE THK "T" .7~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ANCHOR BOLT ANCHOR DIA. .75" ',~, ~ O ~ ~ ~~~ BOLTS LENGTH 28" 4 i "' ~,,.~_ ~~ „_, ~~ ~ ~`§NCLU©ES FULL BASE COVER MOUNTING HGT ___w=_ _ EXTRUDED HAND HOLE O HANDHOLE 14" _._. _._ _...._._ GROUND LINE ~~ . EMBEDDED BASE PLATE WELD Q ~ LYTE POLES fNCORPORATED 2" WIRE a ACCESS P.O. BOX 34E1 ~` HOLE 0 ~ EASTPUINTE, Mk 48021 1 ~„ SCALE: NONE APPRDVEp BY: DRAWN BY: RGW E- R -• DATE: MAY 17, 2003 REVISED: Pt~OSECT: ~ O ~--- S JOR NO. pRAWING NUN€IIEfi BASE PLATE SSS-425-11 °~a~~ 1 ~°'t~~1V1~i~lT ~.- Bob Pierce, Director Public Works Deparfinent CENTRAL Matt Samitore, Dev. Services Coord. POINT PUBLrC WDRKS STAFF REPORT March 27, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: I~ive Lot Commercial Site Plan for 37-2W-OIC, Tax Lats 802 Applicant: Robert Excelsior Investme~~t Ca., 575 N. 5`t' 97530 Zoning: C-4, Tourist and Office Professional Zoning Traffic: The City of Central Point is currently in tf~e process of updating its Transportation System Plan (TSP}. As a part of this effort the City has received preliminary analysis identifying the current level of service Far most of the City's major intersections. The analysis was completed by JRH Engineering. What the updated analysis has concluded is that currently the intersection of the Meadowbrook/E. Pine Street is currently operating at a level of service E. Level of Service (LOS} is a way of n•zeasuring how long a wait someone will have to occur at an intersection. Level A thru D is considez-ed adequate. LOS of E or f is not acceptable. Because the analysis is preliminary and does not address mitigation alternatives, it is the Public Works Department's recommendation that prior to approval of the final plat the applicant shall complete a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA} iza accordance with Section 17.05900 of the CPMC, and that the applicant comply with all recommended mitigation measures as stated in the approved TIA prior to approval of the final plat. Required improvements to the City's Arterial and collector street system will be SDC eligible and the developer will receive full credit for any required improvements. These issues are summarized as conditiozis of approval for this application. Existing Infrastructure: All City utilities exist in front of ar adjacent to the proposed development. Engineering and Development Plans and Permits: The Central Paint Public Works Department is charged with management of the City's infrastz-ucture, including streets, waterworks, and storm water drainage facilities. In general, the Department's "Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction" shall govez~n. how public facilities are to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Works Dcpartznent. In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and prof le for streets, water, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, storzrz drainage calcuIatians, stozxn drainage basin znap, erosion control plan, utility and outside agency natifzcatians and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a 140 South Third Street ,~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ 541.864.3321 Fax 549.864.6384 traffic control plan. A Public Works Permit will azlly be issued after the Department Director approves the final construction drawings. After approval, the fees associated with the development will be calculated and attached to the public works perzrzit. All fees are required to be paid in full at the tin-ze the Public Works Perzz~zit is issued. Conditions of Approval: I. _Traffic_ Impa_et Analysis -Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall have prepared, in accordance with section 17.45.94Q of the CPMC and approval by the City, a Traffic lmpaet Analysis {TIA) evaluating the impact of the project at build-out on the intersections of the private drive, {Meadowbrook) and East Pine/Biddle Road. The applicant shall be responsible for mitigation of all identified traffic impacts to a n~inimuna level of service D. 140 South Third Street Cenfral Point, OR 97502 •54 ~. fi64.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 From: Mark Moran Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:59 PM To: 'Connie Clune' Subject: North Valley Center comments Connie, As we discussed this morning. I think overall the design option will work with a few conditions. These conditions will decrease complaints along the projects development and after completion. • Prior to Certificate of Occupancy issuance the following will need to be verified as completed. 1. An approved safety plan for each Phase of Development is required. The Builder, Public Works, Building Department and Fire Dept will approve the plan prior to construction of each phase. We will review construction site safety, access, worker parking areas. 2. No Parking Fire Lane, streetllane signage pion to be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings. This can be part of the building phase safety review. 3. Red Curb Paint plan with conditions this will be maintained and who will be responsible for the maintenance. 4. Plans shall be submitted for review for each building site. Fire Plans examiner will review the plans and submit comments to the commercial inspector far the City. Let me know if I left anything out. Thank You, Mark Moran Deputy Fire Marshal Jackson County Fire District #3 8333 Agate Road White City, Or 975fl3 {541) 826-7100 {541) 826-4566 fax markmo{c~jcfd3.com ~~~.~r s~w~~r ~~ ~~~ ROGUE VALLEY SEWER SERVICES _~ . Location: 138 Wcst Visas floats, Ccnir~al Puint, C)tt - ivSailiFFg Acl<Ic~e5s: I'.O. [3ox 3130, C`c~~[ral I'oicil, OI2 7.4412-0005 'I~cl. (541) Gfi4di300, Fax (541 } GG4~7171 ~t7;~w.EtVSS.us March 23, 2007 Connie Clune FAX bb4-b384 Gity of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: North Valley Center Subdivision, File #07038 (ref file #07030) Dear Connie, The sewer main for which serves the subject property has been constructed but has not been accepted for use by Rowe Valley Sewer Services. No sewer connection is allowed until the main line has been accepted. The sewer main will be accepted upon submittal to RVS of as-built drawings and certification of the cost of construction by the project developer. Upan acceptance of this sewer main, service to Lots 4 and 5 will be available. Sewer service to Lots 1.3 will require additional main line construction either from the above-mentioned main line or from the existing main at the intersection of Biddle Road and Meadowbrook Drive. The property is within the NPDES Phase 2 Stormwater Quality management area and must comply with relevant stormwater quality guidelines. The applicant must submit a stormwater plan demonstrating compliance with these guidelines. Fee[ free to call me if you have any questions regarding this project. Sincerely, Carl Tappert, P.E. District Engineer K:IDATAIAGENCTESICENTPTIPLANNGISUBDIVISION1200710703$ NORTH VALLEY CENTER.DOC uric fYlemcyer, PL: 3~•rrf~ic & I?es~elUlanrent fargi:rtrr 200 AntHa~:e Roar) S'!h]te Coy, OR 97V49 ~- r ~ Fos. n(54~1 } 774 820-~3~ niemeycl®jacksancnu niy,org SSW~r,]2CkS4fTIX511 nry,«•g . ~ ~ s March 23, 2007 Attention: Connie Clune City of Central Point Planning 140 South Third Streof Central Point, aR 9702 RE: Site plan review off Biddle Raad - acounty-maintained road. ~'lanning File: 07038; North Valley Center Site Plan. Dear Connie: Thank you far the opportunity to comment on this application far North Valley Center Site Plan review for camrr]ercial develapmcnt. The development life consists of five lots south of East Pine/Biddle Road. Roads has the following comments: The applicant shah submit construction drawings to Jackson County Roads ar~d obtain county permits if required. 2. The applicant shall obtain a road approach permit from Roads far any new or improved road approaches to Biddlo Raad. We recommend no direct driveway approaches to Biddle Rcad. 3. Please note that Biddle Road is a county arterial road and has a variable right-of~way with an Average ©ai€y Traffic count of 1,500 as of August 2005, three-hundred- yards east of Hamrick Road. ~. Jackson County Roads concur with the right in only access off Biddle Road. Sincerely, ~~'~ Eric Niemeyer, PE Traffic & Development Engineer l:lEngineeringlDeve[op mentlClTl ~S1GI~FTRL,PTi07038.~r~pd City of Central Point, Oregon i 40 So.Third St., Central point, Or 975D2 541.664.3321 Fax 541.£64.63f34 vaww.ci.cen t ra I -poi n t.o r. u s Building Department Lois DeBcnedetti, Building Qf(icial /"`~ 1 i i'1~~11YIElb~ ~~a BUFLDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPQIZT DATE: 03!20107 TO: Planning Department Planning ale: 0703$ FRAM: Building Department SUBJECT: North Valley Cezzter Excelsior Inv. 675 North Sty' Street Jacksonville, 4r. 97530 Property Description: 37 2W OlC TL-802 PEJR~OSE: The staff report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and the .~.pplicant regarding City Building Department requirements and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed project. This is nat a plan review. This report is preliminary and compiled solely for use by the Central Point Planning Commission. 1 Gty of Central Point, Oregon 140 50. Fhird 5t., Central Feint, Or 97502 541.664.331 Fax 541.664.6384 www.ci.cen[ral-point.or.us Building Department Lois Def3enedetti, Builclirig Official BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: 1. Applicant, agent and contractors must comply with all current State of Oregon adopted codes, and apply for all permits tlu•ough the Central Point Building Department. 2. If a private storm drain system. is proposed it must be: reviewed ar~d a permit issued by the Central Point Plumbing Department. 3. Any private street lighting must be reviewed and permitted by the Central Point Electrical Department. 4. Provide the building department with a Geoteclanical report as required by OSSC Appendix 3 and chapter 18 of the OSSC_ A written xeport of the investigation shall include, but need not be limited to, the fallowing information: a. A plot plan showing the location of all test borings and/or excavations. b. Descriptions and classifications of the materials encountered. c. Elevations of #l~e water table, if encountered. d. Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and sail strength, and the effects of adjacent loads. e. When expansive soils are present, special provisions shall be provided in the foundation design and construction to safeguard against damage due to expansiveness. Said design shall be based an geotechnical recommendations. S. Grading/excavation pez~mits are required in accordance with OSSC Appendix J and chapter 18 and regarding any fill material placed on the site. Fills to be used to support the foundation of any building or structure shall be placed in accordance with accepted engineering practices. All private storm drain. work must be permitted and inspected by City Building Dept (prior to backfill). A soil investigation report, and a report of satisfactory placement of fill (including special inspections of placement of fill and compaction) acceptable to the Building Official, shall be submitted prior to final of the gradingfexcavation permit. Building permits will not be issued until grading/excavation permit is finaled. Exception: 1. The upper 1.S foot of fill placed outside of public rights-oi=way. 2. The upper ] .5 foot of fill that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas. 2 City of Central Point, Or~gorl ~4U SaThirtl 5t., Central Point, Or 975U2 541.b64.3321 fax 541.664.6384 www.ci.central-point.or.us CENTRAL POINT E~ui~ding Department Lois L~el3enedetti, $uilding Official 6. To move or demolish any existing structures located on the property, call tl~e Building Department for permit requirements. 7. Notify the City Building Department of any existing wells, or septic systems located on the property. $. Any development (any man-made change) to improved or unimproved real estate located within the flood hazard area of the City of Central Point shall require a Development Permit as set forth in the Central Point Municipal Code $.24.120. 9. Dust control, and track out elimination procedures must be implemented. A comprehensive erosion control plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Department prior to start of work. 10. Application far building permits will require four sets of complete plans indicating compliance with Oregon Structural Specialty Code (2007),The international sire Code (with the State of Oregon Amendments-2007), NI~PA 13, Oregon Mech.Spec. Code {2007), Uniform Plumbing Code l;with Oregon Blue Pages-amendments). Plan check may take Pram 3 to S weeks, depending on completeness when submitted.......if requested, plan check may be initiated simultaneously with Planning Dept. evaluation (Plan Check Fee must be paid prior to start of plan check). 11. Fire District 3 will determine fire hydrant locations, as well as access to buildings. 12. Property lines must be established and pinned by Lie. Oregon Surveyor prior to any building inspections. 13. No work is to start until Grading and Brosion Control Pla~~s are approved and per>,nit issued. Any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Applicant, or Applicant's contractor to the Building Department far approval prior to start of work. If questions, please call Todd Meador.......b64-3321 ext.228 Attachment "L" FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW File No: 07038 INTRODUCTION In the Matter of a Site Plan review of a commercial master plan far the develop~x~ent of office, restaurant or bank and retail buildings to be located an five cor~n,mercial lots known as North Valley Cerkter. ~I,he subject property is located in the C-4, Tourist and Office Jrofessional zoning district and consists of approximately 4.87 acres. The subject property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 375 2W 0 i C, Tax Lot 802. The proposed project area is Iacatecl on East Pine Street (Biddle Road} east of Hamrick Raad. Applicant: Excelsior lnvestinent Coinpa~ly; Agent: Jiro Maize. CPMC 1744.010 Purpose: The C-4 district is intended to provide_for the developrrrent of concentf°ated tourist commercial and entertainment facilities to serve both local residents and floe tra3=eling public, and also,for the development of cojrrpatible frzajor pf•ofessional office facilities. C-4 development shorcld occarr at locations that will maximize ease of access and visibility from the Interstate S freeway and major ar°terial streets and to be convenient to die users of Expo Park, the airport, and downtown. CPMC 17.44.020- Permitted Uses - A. Professional and financial, including: I. Banks and similar financial institutions, 2. Accounting and bookkeeping offices, 3. Real estate offices, 4. Insurance company offices, S. Legal senJices, 6. Architecture and engineering sen~ices, 7. Professional plioto or art strcdios, 8. Counseling services, 9. Corporate or governmental offices; (B). Tourist and entertainment-related facilities, including: Automobile service station (3), Sit-down restaut°ant or dinner house (11), Cotzznizrnih~ shopping centers (15).ze~hich nzrz~ include and of t]ze pertriitted uses in t]zis section and trra~ also include fire foIlaz~~ing uses: a. Supermarkets, b. Department stores, c. Sporting goods, d. Boobs and stationery, e. Gifts, notions and variety, f. Florist, g. Leather goods and luggage, Page ~ of 14 11. Pet sales and related stcpplies, i. Photographic supplic>s, j. Health,food, k. Self-service latindfy, 1. Antique shop, nt. Delicatessen, n. Pastry and confectionery, o. General apparel, p. Sltoes and &oats, q. Specialty apparel, r". 1e~1elry, s. Clocks and rvatclzes, sales and service, t. Bakery, retail only, u. Bicycle shop, v. Audio, video, electr"ortlcs Sales and service, ~v. Printing, lithogr°aphy and pultlishing, Finding: As noted in the Staff Report dated April 3, 2007, this project site is within the C-4, Tourist and Office-Professional zone district. The Applicant's narrative and accompanying site plan Iist the proposed uses to be Iocated in the cozxtplex as a restaurant, bank, two {2) office buildings, an automobile oil change and ear wash facility, and retail commercial shops. Finding: A car wash is a conditional use as per Section 17.44 030 (11 }. Finding: CPMC Section 17.08.010 Definitions, defines Automobile service station as "a building or lot having pumps and storage ta~~ks where fuels, oils, ar rental of new or used motor vehicles are dispensed, sold or offered for sale, and where repair service is secondary" Finding: CPMC Section 1'1.0&.010 Definitions, defines Professional office as, "offices which deal primarily with professional services and in which goods, wares and general merchandise are not commercially created, sold or exchanged. Such off ces commonly include medical, engineering, architecture, Iaw, accounting, bookkeeping, and brokerage offices." Conclusion: The car wash in conjunction with the autolr~obile oil change facility will require a conditional use. The other proposed listed uses are permitted in the C_4 zone district. CPMC 17.44.040 Height 1•egulations - No building or structure shall exceed sixty_feet in height in the C-4 district. Finding: Applicant's Subt~~ittal Narrative, page 4, and Site Review provide the conceptual building elevation (Sheet 1 of 1}. The proposed buildings within the development are designed to be 35 feet or less in height. Page 2 of 1~ Conelnsion: The proposed buildings in the dcvelapn~erzt az~eet the height requirement. CPMC I7.44050 (A). LotA1•err, Lot af'ea 5'{tCC{I6e l! iltlitlftt!llfI O-f fIVB thar~4a~:rl sr{r~af'e feet, Finding: Each of the proposed fats within the Naz-th Valley Center Subdivision exceeds the five thousand square feet Iot area required as evidenced by the approved tentative subdivision, City File 07030. Conclusion: The lot area of each lot within the subdivision exceeds the miniznuzn lot area required. CPMC I7.44.050(B) Lnt zvidt{t. The minitnu~n lot width shall be,fifly (5()) feet. Finding: Each of the proposed lots within the North Valley Center Subdivision exceed the fifty (50) foot lot width required as evidenced by the approved tentative subdivision, City File 07030. Conclusion: Each lot within the subdivision exceeds the n~ir~imuzrz lot width required. CPMC 17.44.050 (C) Lot depth. The minimum lot depth shall Ue one hundred feet. Finding: Each of the proposed lots within the North Valley Center Subdivision meet or exceed the one hundred { 140) feet lot depth required as evidenced by the approved tentative subdivision, City File 07030. Conclusion: The lot depth of each proposed lot meets or exceeds the zniniznuzn lot depth requirement. CPMC 17.44.050 (D) Ft'aftt yar•rI. The font yard shall be a minin2um of ten•feet Finding; The six site plan scenarios illustrate the building location an each lot and provide for a front setback of ten (10) feet or greater. The landscape plan (sheet L.100) illustrates a perimeter site plant-scope of at least ten (10) feet in width. Sheets L 101 through L 112 provide front yard landscaping with lawn, trees and shrubs For each proposed building. The landscape plans (Applicant Exhibit Sheets L101 through L112) describe the plant varieties and specifzc planting location. Finding: The landscape plan provides a perirr-eter planting desigzl for the project site with planting rows ten (10) feet or greater in width as required by section 17.44.060 (D). Finding: East Pine Street / Biddle Road is classified as an arterial road and as Page 3 of 14 such the street tree provisions of CPMC Section 12.36.100 apply to this application. The landscape plan does pre}vide a sufficient rzunibcr ofstz•cct trees within the East Pirae/ Biddle landscape strip. Finding: The designed street Iandscape row along E. Pine/Biddle Road is approximately thirteen (13) feet to twLZ~ty (2()) feet in width. Detailed Iandscape plan for the five (5) lots to include individual building Iandscape, tl~e parking areas and a plant key have also been subzxzitted, applicant's sheets L.101 -- L.112. Conciusion: The proposed buildings exceed the front setback and minimum landscape area required in the C-4 zone district. Street trees leave been added to meet street tree requirements of Section 12.36.100. CPMC 17.44.050 (E) Sirle Yarrl. I he side yard shall be a nzinif~tutrt of five feet plus orae- halffootfor eacla_foot by ~a~hich the building Izeight exceeds twenty-feet. Finding: The conceptual buildizzg elevation, applicant exhibit, Site Review Sheet 1 of 1, illustrate buildings are designed to be 3S feet oz• less in height. For a building within the developzzzent that exceeds twenty (20) feet izz height an additional side yard setback is required. Finding: Specific buildizzg heights have not been included with this application, however the individual Iot sizes provide ample area for the siting of each building to conform to the setback requirement. Finding: The side yard setback standard will be reviewed for conformity during the building permit process. Cone[usion: The side yaz•d setback requirements can be meet. CPMC 17.40.50 (F) Rear Yawl. The rear yard shall be a minimum of ten feet. In cases tivhere the rear property lifze aborts any residential (R) district or afly unincorporated lands, the rear yard shall be increased by one-half foot for each foot by which floe strarctarre or building height exceeds ttiventy feet. Finding: Specifze building rear yard setbacks have not been included with this application, however the individual lot sizes provide ample area for the siting of each building to conforrzz to the setback requirement. Finding: The subject site abuts commercial zoned lands. Finding: The rear yard setback standard will be reviewed far conformity during the buildizzg permit process. Conclusion: The rear yard setback requirement can be met. Page 4 of 14 CPMC i7.44.050 {G} Lat coueruge. No lot coverage requirements, provided floc .setback and parl~ing anal loading regaciretnents are rnet. Finding: The applicant's nan-ative states that all applicable setbacks, parking anti loading recluirei~~ents will be met by each proposed building {Submittal Narrative page 4}. Conclusion: The proposal eornplics. CPMC 17.44.060 General requirentettts (A}. A. Uses that are normally permitted in the C-4 district but that are referred to the planning contntission.for-fi.srther j•eviex~, per Section 17, 44. C130(,~)(19), will be processed according to application procedures for conditional use permits. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment or materials shall be used which are found by the planning commission to be harrnficl to persons living or working in the vicinity by r°eason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, cinders, dij°t, ref,rse, water-carried waste, noise, vibration, illu~zaination or glare, or are found to involve any hazard of fire or explosion. Finding: The proposed uses within the development are permitted in the C_4 zone district. Conclusion: The proposal complies. CPMC 17.44.060 (B) ill businesses, sej-vices and processes shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, with the exception of off=stj-eet parking and loading areas, outdoor eating areas, service stations, outdoor recreational,facilities, recreational vehicle over•nightfacilities, and other compatible activities, as approved by the planning commission. Finding: The proposed uses will be conducted entirely within enclosed stz-uctures as evidenced by submitted site plans 1 A through 2C and Submittal Narrative page 5. Conclusion: The proposal complies. CPMC 17.44.060 (C) Opera storage of materials related to a permitted use shall be conditionally permitted only within an area surrounded or screened by a solid wall or fence having a height of six feet, provided, that no materials ar equipment shall be stored to a height greater than that of the wall, Finding: No open outdoor storage is proposed. Trash containers will be screened with gated enclosures, as depicted on the site plan. Conclusion: The proposal cot-nplies. Page 5 of 14 CPMC 17.44.060 (D) Front _yard ar•ea.s slurp be planted i4~itlr lau°rt, trees, slrrtrb.s, _floi~~er°s or other- writable landscaping materials and Shull be continuously maintained in goad condition and in an attractive rrzannc~r. Irr casts where the buildings are .set luck to provide for off-street parking in the fi~vnt yard area, a lanclsccrped strip having a mini~nurn width often feet shall be established arad maintained along the ft-ont lot line. Finding: The landscape plan, applicant exhibit L 1.00 -Ll 12, illustrates that each front yard is landscaped with lawn, trees ar7d shrubs. In those instances where off street parlcin~; is located in the front yard area, a minimum ten { i 0) foot wide landscape strip along East PinelBiddle Road right-of--way will be installed and maintained by the property owner. Landscape n~aitltcnancc will be assured by recorded owners' documents. Conclusion: The proposal complies. CPMC 17.44.070 Signs and lighting of premises. A. No illuminated sign or lighting standards r.rsed,for° the illtcminatian afprernises shall be so designed and installed that their direct rays are ta~var•d or parallel to a public street or highway or directed toward any property that lies within a residential (R) district. B. No red, green or amber lights or illuminated signs may be placed in such a location or position that they could be conf rsed tivitlz, or may interfere ~~itlz, any official traffic- control device, traffic signal or dir°ectional guide signs. C. Signs in the C-4 district shall be permitted and designed according to provisions of Chapter 15.24 and with Section 17.60.110. Finding: The applicant states that all signs for the development will be submitted to the City for approval before they are installed. A sign permit is required prior to installation of a sign. Finding: The applicant states that signa~;c plans will be submitted in accordance with the provisions of the CPMC Sections 15.24, and 17.44.070. Conclusion: The proposal complies. CPMC 17.44.0$0 Off street parking: Off-street parking and loading space shall be provided as required in Chapter 17.64,- CPMC 1.7.64.020 Off-Street Loading (2) Office buildings, hotels, motels, hospitals, schools, institutions, public buildings, recreational or entertainment facilities, and gray similar use which has a gross floor area of thirty thousand square feet or more shall pr°ovide off-street truck loading or unloading berths in accordance ~~~ith the following table: Square Feet of Floor Area No. of Berths Required Less than 30, 000 0 Finding: Each proposed building is less than 34,000 square feet. Page6of14 Conclusion: The proposal complies. CPMC 17.64.040 Off-Street Parking -Nun€ber of spaces. (G) General Conttnercial: (1). Retail stores, personal senaices and uses other than those Listed in suUsections (G)(2) thj°oicgls (G)(7) below. Not less than one space per each two hundred sgr.care, feet of net floor area (excluding storage and oilier non-sales or non-display areas). Finding: The six variations of the posed development provide off street parking for retail (building "B"} as following: Building Building Retail: S Ft Re vired Pro ased S Ft Re wired Proposed Site Pian 1A Site Plan 2A Lot 2 (B) 11088 Lot 2 {B} Retail 11688 Retail 45 45 part on Lot 3 65 90 Site Plan 18 k Site Plan 26 Lot 2 {B) 11088 Lot 2 {B} Retail 11688 Retail 45 98 art on Lot 3 65 140 Site Plan iC Site Plan 2C Lot 2 {B} 2840 Lot 2 {B) Retail 3875 Retail 14 14 part on Lot 3 36 40 Finding: The second version of the applicant's development proposal, Site Plans 2A, 2B, and 2C draft the retail building "B" and the parking spaces on both proposed Lots 2 and 3 of the Tentative Subdivision Plan. The applicant recognizes that lot configuration may need to be adjusted (Submittal Narrative page 4). Finding: The parking space requirements applicable to the retail building zxiay be satisfied by the establishment of reciprocal or common parking easements subject to approval by the Planning Commission as provided in Section 17.69.Q60. Conclusion: The required retail parking spaces can be met. (5). Service or repair shop. Not less than one space per each three hundred squaf•e feet of gross floor area. Finding: A service facility, automobile oil change and car wash is proposed as building "E" concept 1, Site Plans lA. This service facility is vacant from the second design, concept 2, as illustrated in Site Plan 2C. The off-street parking for the 4,900 square ft building oil change facility (building "E") requires sixteen (16) parking spaces and sixteen {16) have been provided. Conclusion: The required service shop parking spaces can be met. (6). Eating and drinking establishments Page 7 of 14 Nat less than one space per- each three seats, nr, per each one hundred squctr°e. feet of grass floor, wlriclzever is greater; plus one space per each two ernplayees orr the rnajar- shift. Finding: The four site plan concepts that provide for a restaurant have the required number of parking spaces for the use utilizing a reciprocal ar shared parking agreement between Lot 1 and Lot 2. The reciprocal parking, access and ingress/egress easements are a condition of this site plan review. Finding: Site Plans 1 A and 2A provide for. a 5,950 sq. ft. coffee shop requiring seventy {70) parking spaces. Seventy-six {76) parking spaces have been provided an Lot 1 in both Site Plan designs. Finding: Site Plans 1C and 2C provide for an 8,000 sq. ft. restaurant requiring one hundred (100) parking spaces. Sufficient parking is provided utilizing reciprocal parking agreements with adjacent Lot 2. Site Plan 1C provides 123 spaces and 2C provides 129 spaces. Finding: The parking space requirements applicable to the restaurant and retail buildings maybe satisfied by the establishment of common parking easements subject to approval by the Planning Commission as provided in Section 17.64.060. Conclusion: The required spaces for the proposed coffee shop can be met. The restaurant design will require reciprocal parking and cross-access easements agreements between Lot 1 and Lat 2 approved by the Planning Commission. I~ Offce-Professional (I). Banks, other financial institutions, general and professional offices, governtrrental offices. Not less than one space per each three hundred square feet of gross floor area or, fraction thereof. In no case shall there be fewer than three spaces provided. Finding: The gross floor area of office building "C" is 12,6000 square feet and a total of 42 parking spaces are required. The proposed site plan and application have provided 44 parking spaces. Finding: The gross floor area of office building "D" is 16,6000 square feet and a total of 55 parking spaces are required. The proposed site plan and application have provided 55 parking spaces. Conclusion: The proposal can meet the office building parking requirements. .17.64.060 Cotrrnran pat•king or loading areas. Parking area requirements applicable to two or more separate building sites ar uses in any conr.naercial (C) or mantcfacturing (M) district may be satisfied by the establishrrrent and maintenance of conr.man parking areas. Such areas shall be subject to approval by t17e planning commission as to size, shape, location and other•factors. Such facilities shall Page $ of 14 :~-~~~~~~-~,~~~--~r,~~l.~ ~~_~ ~~ ,.~~~ ~,_ ,.... __.r.~,. f, .. n, . _._ ~. ...._.u _ ..._._ ,.m ,..._ ...,,~ ~„ .. .,, ,_... _... r.. ,... be improved and nzairztained irz the rrtarzrzer provided in this chapter-. If the common parking area and the buildings or barilding sites to be scroTed are subject to more than one ownership, permanent impr•ovemerzt and maintenance ofsuclz parking facilities must be provided far and such.facilities shall not be used,for any other purpose, unless approved substitute parking areas are provided. Finding: As described in the above findings, the parki~lg space requirements applicable to the retail building design of Site flans 2A, 2B, and 2C maybe satisfied by the establishment of comrr~on parking easements subject to approval by the Planning Commission as provided in Section 17.4.060. Finding: The parking space requirements applicable to the restaurant and retail buildings described in Site Plans 1 C and 2C may be satisfied by the establishment of common or reciprocal parking easements subject to approval by the Planning Commission as provided in Section 17.64.060. Finding: The number of Accessible parking spaces required by the Uniform Building Code is 7 for 201-300 parking spaces. The site plans illustrate the least space are thirteen (13) to as many as eighteen (18j described an Site Plan 2A. Conclusion: The required spaces for the retail and eating establishments will require reciprocal parking and crass-access easements to be recorded with the Jackson County Clerk. In addition, the spaces provided exceed the number required for Accessible {ADA) parking, meeting the requirements of the Unifot-~n Building Code. CPMC 17.72.01 D (A) Purpose. The purpose of site plan, landscaping and construction plan approval is to review the site and landscaping plans of the proposed zrse, structure ar~ building to determine compliance with this title and the building code, and to promote the orderly and harmonious developtrtent of the city, the stability of land values and investments, and the general welfare, and to promote aesthetic considerations, and to help prevent impairment or depreciation of land values and development by the erection of structtcres or additions ar alterations thereto without proper attention to site planning, landscaping and the aesthetic acceptability in relation to the development of neighboring properties. CPMC 17.72.020 Site plan approval s•equired: (A) A site plan application conforming to the requirements of Section 17.72.030 shall be mode: 1. For all construction requiring issuance of a building permit; or 2. Upon a change of use. (B) Except for the C-3 zoning district, the requirement for a site plan application upon a change of use may be ~~aived by city staff if staff determines that no modifzcations are necessary to the existing access, parking, driveway, ar any other facilities on tlae site. Page 9 of 14 Finding: The application and supporting c}ocurilents provide the information necessary for review of the proposed co~mmc;rcial developzz~ent of I3ve tentative approved lots known as North Valley Center. laach pz~oposed building wi11 r•ecluir~e issuance of a building permit. Finding: The Site Plan application requests review by the Planning Commission for the future dovelopmment of the site. The applicant submitted sip designs with variations consistent with minor modifications as defined in Section 1'7.09.400. The proposed access frozen East Pine/Biddle Road and the access from the private street located on the south property line will remain the same for each scenario of the Site Plan. Finding: The subject property is vacant of any structures. Conclusion: A Site Plan Review for the proposed structure is necessary and the submitted application commplies. CPMC 17.72.030 (A} ~ (EJ Infortrtation Required. This section of the code addresses all of the necessary information to make a decision fof• approval or denial of the site plan application. Finding: The applicant has provided the necessary infoz-znation as outlined in the above referenced code. Conclusion: The proposal complies. CPMC 17.72.030 (F) In the discretion of the city, a traffic statdy pet.form.ed by a licensed professional eyzgincej•; Finding: The subject property was included in the East Pine Street Transportation Plan, dated October 2004. A subsequent analysis was performed by JRH Transportation Engineering as part of the Transportation System Plan, {TSP). Finding: The City of Central Point Public Works finds that a Traffzc Irrrpact Analysis {TIA) is necessary for this proposed development. A Traffic Irzzpact Analysis is required prior to final subdivision plat approval, Conclusion: A Traffic Impact Analysis is a condition of this review and to be completed prior to final subdivision plat approval. CPMC 17.72. D40 Standards. In approving, conditionally approving, or denying the plans submitted, the city shall base their decision on the following standaj•ds: CPMC 17.72.040 (A}. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manjtey as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such a manner as to use th.e same to screen such Pale 10 of 14 activities and sights as might be hetei•ogeneatrs to e~i.stittg neighborizaocl uses. lire Planning Cotatntission Wray require the nurintaining cif existing irees,for screening purposes acid for sound and sight insulation., fr°om cxi.stiitg netgltborlTaod ttsc; Finding: Applicant ta«dscape exhibit Sheet L1.00 through and L 112 illustrates the landscape plan far this proposal. The landscape design provides a perimeter planting row and a frame of trees, shrubs and other plant varieties. Each lot within the development has a specific landscape plan designed For the proposed building. Front yard areas have been designed to meet the requirements of Section 17.44.060 (D). 'I"he specific tree species, variety and size are listed on Sheets L101 -L 112. The plan also provides for plantings adjacent to the buildiz~g and at strategic pedestrian and parking Iocatio~~s. Finding; Along the south or rear property line is an existing concrete block wall that is currently landscaped. This area has been izicozporated in the rear vegetation buffer plan. The applicant states that the CMU wall will be retained. Finding: East Pine/13iddle Road is classified as a Major Arterial Street and as such the street tree provisions of CPMC Section 12.36.100 apply to this application. The landscape plan door provide a sufficient n~unber of street trees within the street planting row. Conclusion: The necessary landscape provisions and street tree standards of CPMC Section 12.36.100 have been znet and are shown on the landscape plans Applicant exhibit sheet L1.00 through L112. CPMC 17.72.040 (B) Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic floi~~ on public streets,- Finding: There is one right-in only direct access point from East Pine/Biddle Road. Two access points front the private road along the south property line will provide additional ingress and egress. Finding: The City of Central Point Public Works finds that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is necessary for this proposed development. A Traffic Impact Analysis is required prior to f nal subdivision plat approval. Conclusion: A Traffic Impact Analysis is a condition of this review and to be completed prior to final subdivision plat approval. CPMC 17.72.040 (C) To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian artd vehicle flow facilities in such a manner as is compatible with the tcse for which the site is proposed to be t.csed and capable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference u-ith the traff c flow on public streets; Page 11 of 14 Finding: The parking requirements of CPMC Section 17.64.040 G(1}(5}(6) and H(1} have been analyzed with the submitted parkiElg proposed for each design. The application provides a site diagram for each of six scenarios with allotted parking for each proposed commercial building. Finding: As described ire the above findings, the parking space requirements applicable to the retail building design of Site Plans 2A, 2B, and 2C may be satisfied by the establishment of common parking easements subject to approval by the Planning Cornrrrission as provided in Section 17.64.060. Finding: The parking space requirerxrents applicable to the restaurant and retail buildings described in Site Plans 1 C and 2C maybe satisfied by the establishment of common parking easeaner~ts subject to approval by the Planning Commission as provided in Section 17.64.060. Finding: The development is a mix of commercial buildiE~gs and uses. The main entrance is oriented toward East Pine/Biddle Road with a pedestrian zone along the existing sidewalk. Pedestrian zones are provided in front of and around each building and include marked crosswalk differentiated from the general circulation and parking areas. Finding: The required spaces for the retail and eating establishments will require a reciprocal parking and cross-access easement agreement. Conclusion: The proposal will require reciprocal parking and cross-access easement agreements. These easements are to be shown on the final subdivision plat map. CPMC 17.72.040 (D) Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to erTSUre that they da not conflict ~=itla or- deter from traffic control signs or devices and that they are compatible 11~ith the design of their buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; Finding: The site plan submitted for this proposal does not identify signs or sign locations. The accompanying applicant Submittal narrative states that signs for the development will be submitted to the City for approval. A sign permit is required prior to any sign installation. Finding: Sign standards and permit requirements are found in Section 15.24 of the CPMC. The sign requirements in Chapters 15.24 and 17.44.070 shall govern. Conclusion: Compliance with CPMC i 7.72.040 (D}; CPMC 15.24 Sign Code and CPMC 17.44.070 will be monitored during the building permit process. CPMC 17 72.040 (E) Accessibility and sz~fficiency of fif°e fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide-for the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but Page 12 of 14 not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and.fire lands so that all bttilclings on the premises are accessible to.firc apparatus; Finding: Fire District No. 3 reviewed the application and each proposal. "l'he District has provided written cozxzments dated March 14, 2007. Tl1e review and comments, are attached as Attachment "H" of the Planning Department staff repoz-t dated April 3, 2007. Finding: The access and internal or on-site circulation have been designed to provide the width necessary to accozrzznodate fire vehicles with attention to the turning radius of such equipment as evidezaced by site diagrams, (Applicant's exhibit Site PIans 1A, IB, IC, 2A, 2B, and 2C}, Finding: The applicant has agreed to install fire hydrant at locations determined by Fire District #3. CoiEClasion: Fire District 3's review and comments can be addressed by the applicant. In addition, Fire District 3's requirements can be monitored in the building permit review process. CPMC 17.72.040 (F} Compliance u~itlt all city ordinances and regulations, including Section 16.,20.080 pertaining to the maximum number of single family dzaTellings or dtivelling units allo>~~able an ctrl-de-sac streets, and applicable state laiti~s; Finding: No single-family dwellings are proposed with this application. Conelnsian: Not applicable CPMC 17.72.040 (G) Cajnpliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighbot•liood 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 ar design characteristics of adjacent pf°operties or uses, 1n addition, the Planning Conarnission reserves the right to establish additional height, setback, buffering, ar other development requirements that may he necessary to ensure land use compatibility and ensure the health, safety, and privacy of Central Point residents. Finding: Applicant exhibit, "Coz-zceptual Elevation," illustrates the proposed desigm theme of the buildings. The architecture is described by the applicant as "Contemporary Az-ts and Craft," a design that combines stack stone and stucco materials in earth tones. The window design is described as an aluzninum/glass starefrozlt system with bz-ashed silver frames. Pale 13 of 74 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE, A SITE PLAN I{Oit A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL SHOPPING FACILITY ON FIVE (5} PROPOSED LOTS KNOWN AS TIDE NORTII VALLEY CENTER. FILE NO. 07038 Applicant: Excelsior Investment Company, Agent:.litn Maize 37 2W 41 C, Tax Lot 802, East Pit3e/Siddle Road WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an applicatian far a master Site Plan for shopping facility on a 4.87 acre, five (S} lots proposed subdivision identified on Jackson County Assessor's as map 37 2W O1 C, Tax Lot 802, in the City of Central Point, Oregon; and WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned as C-4, Tourist and Office Professional and the applicatian is cansiste~~t with the pert~~itted uses set forth in Title 17, Section 17.41.20 and Site flan criteria of Section 17.72; WIIEREAS, on April 3, 2007, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point Planning Commission considered the Applicant's request for a Si#e Plan review; and WHEREAS, after duly considering the Applicant's request, it is the Planning Cotrtmission's detertrtina#ion that the Application does comply with the applicable standards, criteria and subject to compliance with conditions as set forth in the Planning Department Staff Report (Exhibit "A") dated April 3, 2007; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Con~~xtissioz~ for the City of Central Point, Oregon, by this Resolution No._ hereby approves the Application based on the f ndings and conditions of approval as stated in Exhibit "A", the Planning Department Staff Report dated April 3, 2007 which includes attachments, attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this day of April, 2007. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No._ ___ _{413/2007} ATTEST: City Representative Approved by zr-c this day of April, 2007 Planning Commission Chair Planning Canlinissio~l Resolz~tion No._ (413/2007)