Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Resolution 705 - Home Brothers Site Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~~ A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT ATTACHED ROW I-IOUSING STRUCTURE CONSISTING OP FIVE (5} DWELLING UNITS, LOCATED WITHIN A TOD-HIGH MIX RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT {Applicant (s}: Home Brothers} {37 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7700) Recitals 1. Applicant(s) has/have submitted application for site plan on a .18 acre parcel located on property identified by Jackson County as Account 1011007 in the City of Central Point, Oregon. 2. On, July 18th, 2006, August 1, 2006 and September 5, 2006, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted aduly-noticed public meeting on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application. Now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Criteria A Iicable to Decision. The following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code apply to this application: A. Chapter 17.66, Application Review Process for the TOD District & Corridor B. Chapter 17.67, Area of Application, Design Standards C. Chapter 17.72, Site Plan, Landscaping & Construction Plans Section 2. Findin and Conclusions. The Planning Commission hereby adopts by reference all findings of fact set forth in the City staff reports, and concludes that, except where addressed in the conditions of approval, the applications and proposal comply with the requirements of the following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code: A. Chapter 17.66, relating to application review process for the TOD District & Corridor B. Chapter 17.67, relating to Design Standards for the TOD District & Corridor C. Chapter 17.72, relating to Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans Planning Commission Resolution No. ~ ®5 (0910512006) ~eetion 3. Conditin~ral 11~~i~rcw~il_. The ~~;~~~li~:atie~t~s fta~r site ~~1<t~~ ~hrr~eir~ is hcrc=l~v approved, subject to the eot~~.litio~ls ~t~t iortl~ on L;xhihi~ "1l", att2tci~cC~ h~~~cta ~~y rciiv~~~cncc incorport~ted herein, imposed ~.~nd~;~ ~t~,t}~~>rity c,f`t~P~~CC~ C`(~41~~te;~ i'7.7(>. Passed. by the Planning Coi7~issi<~n and signed. by e in authc~~tac~~ition ot`its ~?~1Ss~1;? this 6c~,~ day of September, 2006. -y-~ --~- ~la~lk3LLl`_' (. ~~I1li?ll~~li-n (,,~1;111~ ATTEST: ~~ City Representative Approved by me this 5'" day of September, 2006. Pl<u~~~ir~:~ ~,~~,,~iu~i~;~,i~~n Ch~~ir Punning Commission Resolution 1'10. (091OS12006) T F T' ~: ~_ ~.u "~ .. ~. , S'1"A F C2~;1''()~~7~ Scptetx~be~• 6~tary ()t16 F~Inr~ir~,g ~~mr~ laa+ra {#tarta{ahre~y,>~IC.I Cr»tuaataraity l:)evrlol~r~~~*r~rt 13Erectrar/ Assistaarat City Aciraairaistrat~ar EXHIBIT" A " AGENDA ITEM; FILE l~U. ObQ82 Site 1'Man cite Plan Review to consider the construction of five: ~) attached single; f`a~nily units o~~ ~~ .l ~ acre lot located at 1241'~orth Third Street, in a TC1I~-f IMft, f Cigh Mix ltsidcntia{ ~oni~~g district, '1'hc subject property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's neap as 37 2W 0311), "I"ax Lot ?7110. Applicants. Home Brothers STAFF SOURCE: Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician BACKGRCJrUND: .. .. . ,„. .. .~ '1"his application was initially noticed for the July 1 fl`", µ. ~ .: ~ °..~ .. .. 2006 Planning Commission, at which time it was ~4~~ ~"'° continued to the August 1, 2006 meeting, At the August ,. ~~`' ~ , '- 1, 2006 meeting the applicant requested a 60 day . .s . , extension to extend tlae l ~0 day final decision doadline, . ~~ ~ ~' ., ,~~~ ° ;~ ~~~~ This continued the application to the September S, 2006 ~ M^, 5 ; r ,„ ," agenda. The purpose of the time extension was to allow { ~ ~ ~~~~, " '~ the applicant to modify the site plan as necessary to ~.. ,~ u ~. ~ °! comply with the "1'UD-HMR site plan and design ^u ~ requirements. `` ~~ .. ~a,, The applicant is proposing to demolish existing aging '° "' ~ , „~~~,; duplexes and replace them with five ~5) zero lot line . ~ °'; single family residential structures, also referred to in the .. ~, !, "1"C)D District as attached row housing. The applicant"s . will be constructing a driveway along the east side of the property line. Each unit will have a two car garage . ` , ~` ~ ~ w,, ¢~t~g~. ' accessed off` of the new driveway. There will be a deck on the second story facing I'*l. Third Street, with the front .' ~.~ facade of the building being oriented just behind an ,~~ m" .. existing 5' sidewalk, that will need to be replaced as noted in the Public Works staff report. What would be considered the back wall of the garage will have windows facing I'~l. Third Street rather than 20' of garage doors for each unit. FINIIINGS: Refer to Attachment "C'~. Home brothers Site Plan Page 1 of 3 ISSUES: The following issues apply to CPMC or Public Works Sta~zdarcis rcquircznc~zts that nccci to be pairztcd out as a matter of explanation, or because of their discretionary nature: Public Works Standards -The Applica~zt's site p1a~z providers faz• a drive connecting the existi~zg alley with Manzanita Street. The Public Works Department would like this private drive braugizt up to "courtyard drive" standards from 14' wide to 16' wide. This will ~zccessitate the building being moved forward 2' to meet this requirement. This requirement farther improves the Project's compliance with the miniznuzn back-up standards for pczpendieular (garage) parking, and minimum backup requirements. By code it is necessary that atwenty-six (26) foot back-up lane be provided. The Site Plan as presented provides for twenty-two (22) feet The Public Works' requirement increases this to twenty-four (24) feet, It is the applicant's contention that the additional two (2) feet needed are located within the garage. Moving the proposed building forward 2' will result in a zero (0} foot front yard setback, which is consistent with the minimum requirements of the HMRJT4D district. This will result in a lass of landscaping along the front of the building; however the 15°/© required landscape will still be met. 2. CPMC 17.67.050(E}(2). This criteria applies to the compatibility of a proposed project with the existing neighborhood. As would be expected, and based an the variety of architectural styles within the neighborhood, this is a discretionary consideration. In the findings (ATTACHMENT "C") the discretionary nature of CPMC 17.67.050(E)(2) is noted. 3. CPMC 17.67.070(1}(a). This code section is similar to the one previously noted. Again, a favorable finding is discretionary. 4. CPMC 17.67.070(D)(1)(e). This code section requires that the dominant feature of any building frontage shall be its habitable area. As proposed on the Project plans the first floor is atwo-car garage and therefore not habitable area {which does not meet code in the HMR district for non commercial uses on the frst floor). However, the Project's design does attempt to comply with the intent of CPMC 17.67.070(D}(1)(e) with the provision of windows along the Third Street frontage of the garages, giving the residences the appearance of being habitable area. It is up to the Planning Commission's discretion to determine if leaving the windows on the first floor is adequate and the illusion of being habitable space meets the intent of the code architecturally. Again, there is not a definition in the CPMC that defines habitable space. 5. CPMC 17.67.050 (5) The landscape rows between the curb and sidewalk will need to have trees planted that are on the City's approved street tree list for urban conditions. {See attachment "H"). The Flotivering dear is on the approved list, the Portugal Laurel is not on the list and a suitable replacement will have to be identified on the final landscape plans. The landscape rows identif ed on the site plan will need to have Iandscaping. 6. CPMC 17.67.050 (5) The sidewalk, as part of the tentative plan application (City File No. 06095), will need to be replaced and relocated to allow far a minimum four {4) foot planter strip. Home Brothers Site Plan Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENTS/EXH IBITS: Attachment "A" ~- Site Plan Map/Landscape Plan Attachment "B" -- Elevations Attachment "C" -Site Plan Planning; Department Findings Attachment "D" -Public Works Staff Report Attachment "E" -~ Building Department Staff Report Attachment "F" -Fire District # 3 Comrnents Attachment "G" -Planning Department Conditions of Approval Attachment "H" -City approved Street Tree List for Urban Conditions Attachment "I" - Vicinity Photographs Attachment "J" -Proposed Resolution ACTION: Consideration of a Resolution approving the revised Site Plan. RECOMMENDATION: As a result of the discretionary consideration of the design criteria as outlined in the findings that are applicable to this application, staff does not have a recommendation. Home Brothers Site Plan Page 3 of 3 ~~~,~~~~nE~~ ~~~ ` ~3 !~ Araa ~ msg ~ .rave ~~ ° x +~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• 1 ~ ~~ ~~ } ~~ ~ ~~ • pS r .} b yy 9 + 6 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ • b ., ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~... a + a ~lf94 3E0 ~ .rea ~~ J.i1T+ ,OL ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~'~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~C i~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ , Y ~ ~~- ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ a z~~~ - ~b ~n ~ O ~_e ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ b x i ~ ~ ! RR= ~ ~~ Y~ ~ 1 R ~~ f 8 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ;~~~~~~ ~ tt si+r S i ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~a .~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ !R ~ 1cg~~ ~ ~~51#gss~sk ,z ~~ ~tri w 1~ ~~ •_ ~ ~3~ ~~I 3~~ a ~~~'y ~~ ~~ Y ~_~ ~~ ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~. ~~ ~~'ii ~ a~ ~~ ~ A~T~~~~~ENT `s ~ __~' Findings -Site PIan Applicant: Home Srothexs Purpose: Consideration of a Site Plan for constructing five (5} Single Family Attached Dwelling Units File No. 06082 CPMC 17.bb.030 (2} -Application and .Review- TOD DISTRICT' & CORRIDOR -- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval. The provisions of Chapter 17.72, Site PIan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval, shall app2~ to permitted and limited uses within the TOD district and corridor. For development or land division applications involving more than five acres of land or forty dzveIling units, a master plan approval, as provided in this chapter shall be approved prior to, or concurrently with, a site plan, landscaping and construction plan application. Findings; The Site Plan application aneets the purpose o€ this section. Conclusion: Purpose has been sans€ied. CPMC 17.67.020 -Area of application ~ These regulations apply to the Central Point TQD district and TOD corridor. The boundaries of the district and corridor are slwwn an the off cial city zoning map. Findings: The site plan is located within the TOD-District and identified on the zoning map as TOD-HMR, High Mix Residential. Conclusion: The design standards are applicable to this application. CPMC 17.67.040 (7} CircuIativn and access standards ~- Connections shall be provided between new streets in a TOD district or corridor and existing local and minor collector streets. Findings: The project as designed is adequately served by the existing street system, no new public street or the expansion of existing public streets are required. Conclusion: The applicant has met this requirement. Page 1 of 11 CPMC 17.47.050 {S} (2} The number acid zi3idth of dY1Tyerl}ads aj~d Ctfrb ci.rts sltauld be minimized and consolidated z~~)zcn possible. Findings: With the revised site plan and providing a new driveway alang the eastern property line for garage access, this eliminated access far five units antes N. Third which is classified as a collector street. Conclusion: The applicant has satisfied this requirement. CPMC 17.67.050 {C} {2) Provide an aftractive, convenient pedesfrian accesszt~a~ to building entrances. Findings: The site plan, by moving the front facade of the building to the sidewalk provides for convenient pedestrian access via N. Third Street. Conclusion: The applicant has satisfied this requirement. CPMC 17.67.050 (E} (2} New buildings proposed for existing neighborhoods with a well-defined and desirable character should be compatible with or complement the architectural character and siting pattern of neighboring buildings. Findings: As illustrated in the attached photographs (See attachment "I"} of the general neighborhood the only definable architectural characteristic is the predominance of single-story structures. Whether the proposed project design is compatible with, or compliments the existing neighborhood is subject to the Planning Commission's determination. The Project's design is within the limits established for development within the HMR district. . Conclusion: Compliance with these criteria is subject to the Planning Commission's discretion. CPMC 17.67.050 (H) (3) All on-site service areas, loading zones and outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, transformer and utility vaults, and similar activities shalt be Located in an area not visible from a street or urban space. Findings: The site plan identifies that waste storage shall be placed in each garage. Since these are individual units, there will not be disposal facilities. Conclusion: The applicant has met this requirement. Page 2 of 11 CPMC 17.67.050 (H} (~4) -Screening shall be provided for activities areas and equipment that will create noise, such as loadntg and vehicle areas, air conditioning unify, heat pumps, exhaust fans, garbage compactors, to avoid disturbing adjacent residents. Findings: The proposed drive~nray will run along the eastern portion of the property, where there is an existing fencing/wall for the adjacent 3 story development, this will screen the vehicle areas. Three heat pumps will be off the existing alley, and the other two heat pumps off of Man~anita Street. All will he screened with landscaping. Garbage compactors (if any) are generally located within the kitchen. Conclusion: The applicant has met this requirement. CPMC 17.67.050 (J} (1) (a) -Off-street surface parking shall be located to the side or rear of buildings. Parking at midpoint or behind buildings is preferred. Findings: Parking access will be from the existing alley & Manzanita via a private driveway located along the rear of the property. Conclusion: The applicant has met this requirement. CPMC 17.67.050 (J} (~} (b} -Off-street surface parking shall not be located befzc1een a front facade of a building and a public street. Conclusion: The applicant has met this requirement. CPMC 17.67.070 (2) -Building Design Standards -General Design Requirements -All development along pedestrian routes shall be designed to encourage use by pedestrians by providing a safe, comfortable, and interesting zc~alking environment. Findings: With the architectural detail of the building, and landscaping orientation of the building it provides an interesting and improved walking environment. Conclusion: The applicant has met this requirement. Page 3 of Il CPMC 17.67.470 (1} (a) -The architectural characteristics of surrounding buildings, including historic buildings, should be considered, especially if a consistent pattern is already established by similar ar complementary hr.cilding articulation, building scale and proportions, setbacks, architectural shjle, roof forrrrs, Building details and fenestration patterns, or materials. In some cases, the existing context i.s not. rnell defined, or may he undesirable. In such cases, a ulell designed nezrr project can establish a pattern or identity from which future development cnri take its cues. Findings: As illustrated in the attached photographs of the general neighborhood the only definable architectural characteristic is the predominance of single-story structures and front yards. Whether the pxoposed project design is compatible with, or compliments the existing neighborhood, or establishes a pattern or identity from which to base future development is subject to the Planning Commission's determination. The Pxoject's design is within the limits established for development within the HMR district. Conclusion: Compliance with these criteria is subject to the Planning Carnmissiori s discretion. CPMC 17.67.070 (3) (a} Residential The main entrance of each primary structure should face the street the site fronts on, except on corner lots, where the main entrance may face either of the street or Be oriented to the corner. For attached dwellings, duplexes, and multi-dwellings that have more than one main entrance, only one main entrance needs to meet this guideline. Entrances that face a shared landscaped courtyard are exempt. Findings: All of the attached dwelling units face N. Third Street. The entrances fox each unit face N. Third Street. Conclusion: The site plan meets this requirement. CPMC 17.67.474 (3) (b) (i) -Residential buildings framing on a street shall have an entrance to the Building opening on the street. Single family detached, attached and rawhouse/townhomes residential units fronting on a pedestrian street shall hove separate entries to each dwelling unit directly from the street. Findings: All of the attached dwelling units face N. Third Street. The entrances for each unit face N. Third Street, with the openings to the stairs open to the street. Conclusion: The site plan meets this requirement. Page 4 of 11 CPMC 17.67,070 (3) {b) {ii) - Gror.~r~d floor rzttd c.cpp~rr stort/ dz~~ellirtg tctrits in a rrrizlfi- famiIy building fronting a street may share acre or more building entries accessible directly franz the street, and shall rzat be accessed through a sfde yard except for arz accessory unit to a single family detzrched dzt?elling. Findings: Lots 2 & 3 share a Gammon entry, and lots ~ & 5 share a cornrnon entry accessible directly from the street. Conclusion. The site plan meets this requireanent. CPMC 17.67.090 (~} - The main entrances to Izouses and buildings should be prominent, interesting, and pedestrian-accessible. A parch should be provided to shelter the maain entrance and create a transition from outdoor to indoor space. Findings: Though there is not a porch on the ground level, balconies have been provided for each unit an the second story. The entrances to each unit with the exception of the first few steps are sheltered. CPMC 17.67,070 (D) {1) (a} -Building Facades -General - All building frontages greater thaan forty feet in length shall break any fiat, monolithic facade by including discernible architectural elements such as, but not limited ta: bay windau?s, recessed entrances and zvindozvs, display zvindaws, cornices, bases, pilasters, columns, ar other architectural details or articulation combined with changes in materials, sa as to provide visual interest and a sense of division, in addition to creating cammunitij character and pedestrian scale. The overall design shall recognize the simple relief provided by zvindou3 cutouts or sills on an otherwise fait facade, in and of itself, does not meet the requirements of this subsection. Findxngs: The details identified in the elevations meet this requirement in creating a sense of division, adds to the community character and the placement of the windows as well as private balconies can be construed to contributing to compliance with the above criteria . Conclusion: The applicant has generally met this requirement. Page 5 of 11 CPMC 77.67A70 (D) (1) {e) - TTie doniirlaizt feature of any building frontage that is visible from a pedestrian street or public open space, shall be Hre habitable area zcritlz its accompanying z~~indozt~s and doors. Parking lots, garages, rrnd solid znall.farades shall not dominate a pedestrian streef frontage. Findings: The site plan places the garage entrances in the back to be accessed from the new proposed driveway. The front facade gives the appearance of being the habitable area with the placement of windows, balconies, and entries to each unit facing N. Third Stxeet. There is oat a definition of "habitable" space in the CPMC. Conclusion: The applicant has not specifically met this requirement, though it has the appearance from the N. Third front elevation of being habitable area. The attached homes directly across from Pfaff Park (HMR/TOD) have set a precedent for the proposed floor plan. Compliance with these criteria is sub)ect to the Planning Commission's discretion. CPMC 7.7.67.070 (D) (2) (a} ~Residential ~ The facades of single family attached and detached residences (including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, toz~~nliouses, and rowhouses) shall comply zi~ith the follozcjing standards: i. No more than forty percent of the horizontal Length of the ground floor front elevation of a single family detached or attached dwelling shall be an attached garage. ii. When parking is provided in a garage attached to the primary structure and garage doors face the sfreet the front of the garage should not take up mare than 40 percent of the front facade in plan, and the garage should be set back at least ten feet from the front facade. If a parch is provided, the garage may be setback 70 feet from the front of the porch. In addition, garage doors that are part of the street facing facade of a primary structure should not be more than square feet in area, and there should not be mare that one garage door far T6 feet of building frontage. iii. Residential building elevations facing a pedestrian route shall not consist of undifj`erentiated blank walls, but shall be articulated with architectural details such as windows, dormers, porch details, balconies or bays. iv. Par any exterior wail which is within twenty feet of and facing onto a street or public open space and which has an unobstructed view of that pedestrian street or public open space, at Least twenfy percent of the ground floor wall area shall be comprised of either display area, windows, or doorway. Page 6 of 11 v. Architectural detailing is encouraged to provide variation rrrrrang attached units. Architectural detailing includes but is not limited to the follozr~ing: the use of different exterior siding materials or trim, strutters, different znindozv hjpes or sizes, varying roof lfncs, balconies or porches, and dorrrrers. The overall design shall recognize that color variation, in and of itself, does not meet ft2e requirements of this subsection.. Findings: The applicant has provided all of the above recommended facade designs in their site plan. These consist of separate balconies, windows on the first floor, varying roof lines, meeting the minimum 20% with windows and doorways and attractive landscaping. The HMR district is the highest density allowed, with 15% required landscaping. Conclusion: The applicant has met the requirements of the above sections. CPMC 17.72.010 -Purpose - The purpose of site plan, landscaping and construction plan approval is to nevieztl the site and landscaping plans of the proposed use structure or building to determine compliance with this title and the building code, and to promote the orderly and harmonious development of the city, the stability of land values and investments, and the genera! welfare, and to promote aesthetic considerations, and to help prevent impairment or depreciation of land values and development by the erection of structures or additions or alterations thereto without proper attention to site planning, landscaping and the aesthetic acceptabilitrj in relation to the development of neighboring properties. Findings: The proposed Project has been reviewed for compliance with the standards and criteria applicable to the development of property within the HMR/TAD district complies with the minimum standaxds of that district. There are certain discretionary criteria that have been noted that will be subject to consideration and acceptance/ denial by the Planning Commission. Conclusion: Compliance with these criteria is subject to the Planning Commission s discretion. Page 9 of 11 CPMC 17.72.020 -Site plan approval required - A. A site plan application ranforming to Hre requirements of Section 17.72.03Q sluzll be made: T. For all construcfion requiring issuance of a building permit; or .2. Upon A change of use. Findings: Requirements under CPMC 17.05.4(10 £or a redevelopment application that takes place in the Transit Oriented Dzstrict/Corridor, is a type III application and requires consideration by the Planning Commission for approval. Conclusion: This site plan proposal £ax redevelopment is located within a TOD- HMR, High Mix Residential zoning district, therefore requires approval from the Planning Commission. CPMC 17.72,021. -Application and review _ Applications shall be accompanied by a fee defined in tTze city's adopted planning application fee schedule. Such applications and the review thereof sluzli conform to the provisions. Findings: The applicant has submitted the proper application, required documents for consideration and paid the necessary fees for a site plan review. Conclusion: Applicant has met this requirement. CPMC1.7.72,030 -Information required - An application shall be filed which shall include the following information: A. Name and address of the applicant; B. Statement that the applicant is the owner of the property or is the authorized agent of the owner; C. Address and legal description of the assessor's parcel number of the property; I?. The application shall include an accurate scale drawing of the site, containing at a minimum, the following: T. North arrow, 2. Scale used, ~. Address and legal description of the assessor's parcel number and tax lot of the property, 4. Lot dimensions, 5. Applicable city zoning designation 6. Setbacks, 7. Proposed landscaping, Location of all buildings, parking areas, streets, accesses, sidewalks, and other improvements, including the dimensions of each, Page 8 of 1I 8. Ground and arcl~Itectural elevations, 9. Distances betrs~een buildings, parking areas, streets, sldeznalks and otl~rer improvements, ~0. Surrounding land uses, 1T. Easements, 12. Adjacent streets, 13. Off=street parking calculations, 14. Existing trees, 15. Pedestrian routes and sidezc~alks, T 6. Fencing, 17. Screening of outdoor trash bins, and 18. The location of all public improvements and all utilities, Including their relation to other utilities in the area; E. Construction plans and such other plans and information as are required to show the architecture of all buildings and other irnproverirents; F. In the discretion of the city, a traf j`zc study performed by a licensed professional engineer; and G. Such additional information as is necessari~ to cart~,~ out the purposes of this chapter. Findings: The applicant has met the requirements necessary to ar-ake a decision for the site plan. Conclusion: The site plan and required documents and/or supplementary information necessary to either approve or deny this application has been submitted to deem the application complete. CPMC 17.72.040 -Standards- In approving, conditionally approving, or denying the plans submitted, the city shall base their decision on the following standards: A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such a manner as to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The planning commission may require the maintaining of existing trees for screening purposes and for sound and sight insulation from existing neighborhood use; Page 9 0~ 11 Findings: The applicant has included landscaping plans as part of the site plan proposal for consideration. Public Works Department has submitted a staff report to add that the applicant must plant an approved street tree in each of the planters along North Third Street. (Refer to Public Vlrorks Conditions of Approval # 2.) Conclusion: With meeting the recoanrnended conditions of approval, the applicant has met this requirement. B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points sa as to improve and avoid interference with the traffcc~ fla7n an public streets; Findings: The proposed site plan has the garage entrances using a collective driveway accessing both the existing alley and Man~anita Street. With the driveway design there should be adequate visibility to avoid interference with vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic flow. Conclusion: The applicant has met this requirement with their proposed site plan. C. To provide off street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flaw facilities zn such a manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to used and capable of use, and in such a manger as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flaw on public streets; Findings: Each unit will have a two (2) car garage located on the first floor. Conclusion: The applicant meets the parking requirements with the two car garages for each unit. D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they da not conflict with or deter from traffic control signs or devices and that they are compatible with the design of tlxeir buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance ar visibility of nearby signs; Findings: Not applicable. Conclusion: Nat applicable. Page IU of 11 E. Accessibilih~ and sufficiency of frre f-~gjzting facilities to sucfz a standard as to provide for reasonable safeh~ of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so drat all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; Findings: The proposed site has accessibility from the alley, North Third and Manzanita Street. Conclusion: The site plan meets this requirement. F. Compliance with alI city ordinance and regulations, including Section T 6.20A80 pertaining to the maximum number of single dwellings or dulelling units allowable on cul-de--sac streets, and applicable state lazes; Findings: This proposal is for redevelopment on existing streets and is not located an a cul-de-sac, therefore is not applicable Conclusion: Not applicable. G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and its environs. The architecture and design proposals may be rejected by the planning commission if found to be incompatible zc1ith the existing architectural ar design characteristics of adjacent properties or uses. In addition, the planning commission reserues the right to establish additional height, setback, buffering, or other development requirements that maybe necessary to ensure land use compatibility and ensure the health, safety, and privacy of CenfraI Point residents. Findings: As illustrated in the attached photographs o£ the general neighborhood the only definable architectural characteristic is the predominance of single-story structures and front yards. Whether the proposed project design is compatible with, or compliments the existing neighborhood, ar establishes a pattern or identity from which to base future development is subject to the Planning Commission's determination. The applicant is using a similar design as the attached single family dwellings across from Pfaff Park The Project's design is within the limits established for development within the HMR district. Conclusion: Compliance with these criteria is subject to the Planning Commission's discretion. Page 17 of 11 i..~M: „* ~E~1T`At_ F'C)Il~i`T ,iic~i~ f'iE rc~;, L~ir~at;~ Mt Pt ~r~r~~itorc, ~;?r'~~..`~r~iv~~;r~s C:~t7~ P~T~"LIt;" 1~`C71zIt~4',~"1~~1~'IF~IIh;I'UIi 11"" August ~~, ~CICIiS AC~I~1hIl~~~ I"1'>E11~1; ~w._...~~.~_..~.w. ~ _ ~. live Lot Subtlivisio~~ ltai•~7-2~'-t?3D1J, l~icx Lot 7700 Applicant:. llonle Brothers, LLC., 3:i l lativtlu~rnc, Mcc1,L~~rd~ ~)h_ ~)'7~G4 ~onin~: TtJI~-I31k~1I: Tr•~rff~ca .,..a .~_~ --~d ~~ _ .es ~. _ ..~..._ _. __...-__~___~, ~_..._.. Based on the International "1'ralFi.c ingincrrs {1T1) 1`ri}~ { ic~-~ec~ctio~~a IvlanUal, a (i~~c lot residctitial stabdvisiol~ tivill generate ~cppco~irnately 5.(~S peak hour trips (1'1 I"1'j. "I'lac (;ity of Ccrrtral Point typically requires traffic studies for any development that generates more thaz~_ 25 PST. loo tral;lic study is ~~~arral7tect ~c~~~ thin dc-~ c l ailment. E~istinl; Lnfrasttu+cture; Water: A l~~inch watc~° line exists in Manzanita Strut. Storm 1~rain: A 1?-inch storU~ drai~~ pipe exists on '1'hirtl and ~~Ianzanita Sty-ccts. Street Section: Man~a~~ita is an irnprotired local resdrr~tial street. '~lortl~ .l,:lii~'cl Street. is an improved Residential Cc?l l ector. En~,ineerin~ ~rntl 'I)~vcloJrr~ten4 !'lane arrcl ~erlsz _= -~ -~ - - -m ~~. m~ They t;erltral Point Public ti~'orks Dcpart7nent is charged with management oI` the Cite°s inii°astc°UCture, including streetsw ~vaterwo~°l.s, and storil~ ~,~,~ater drainage facilities. l~z general, the l~epartznerlt`s "~tanda~•d Specifications and I.tniform Standal•tl Details Coa' Public Words Construction" shall govern ho~~~ public facilities aa'w to be constructed. The. Developer is cncaurzgcd to abtain the latest version oC these spccilicatie~ns ('i-o~n the Public ~"orl~s L~cpartment< In general, the plan submittal. shall include plan .nod profile for streets, eater, storm ~h•ainage and. sanitary sewers, storm drainage calculations, storr~z clrairlage basin neap, erosion. control plaaa, Utility and outside; agency ~~atilications aticl approvals. The plan may also ii~clucle applical>le tral'lic studies, legal descriptions and a trahfic control prin. A Pe>.blic VClorks Permit will only be issued after the l~epti~~tment Director approves t11e final construction drawings. After approval, the. ft;e~s associated ~vitl~ the develaprnent will be calculated and attached to the; public •tvorks pcr~nit. A1.1 tees are reelui~•e~d to be. paid in bill at the. time the Public Worba Permit is issued, except Public We~rks Cnspcction fees. After project c;on~ple~tioT~ during the final plat application process, the ~`ublic Worl<s Tnspec~tor will ca culate ilie appropriate amaunt of inspection time to assess tl~e developer. pCefore the final plat ;rxphlicatioc~ is processed tltc developer must p~~y the relevant inspections ices and bond f«r any uncompicted improvements (as deterrrrined by the Przblic ~,'+lorlcs Director). 14t7 Sat~th 7"hrd Street .w Central PQinf, C)R 9I5t?2 541. ~64.3~3, 9 ~ ~~~ 541. Sfi4. X63$4 Conditions of Approval: 1. Alley Improvement -Applicant shall pave the portion of the alley that will be used for access to the proposed driveway/courtyard lane along the eastern property line. 2. Street Trees -The proposed landscape and irrigation plan omitted street trees in the planters along the Third Street Side. An approved street tree shall be planted in each of the planters or no less than one tree per thirty feet of frontage. 3. Public Utility Easement - As part of the Final Plant and Civil lmpravement Plans proper easements for utilities will be required. 4. Cour and Lane -Applicant shall design the private access to the TOD courtyard land configuration. The conf guration shall not include any parking. Parking shall he provided as part of the driveways servicing the proposed townhouses. 5. Sidewalks -New sidewalks will be required to be constructed around the perimeter of the property along North Third and Manzanita Streets. 140 South Third Street ~> Central Point, OR 97502 ~ 541.fifi4.3321 ~ Fax 541.fifi4.6384 A~"TACH~l~NT' `~ ~ City of Cer~tra) Point, tJregan Building Department 3 4d 50, Third St., Central Paint, Or 975£2 S4 J .664.332 i Fax 541.664.b384 www.d.centrai-paint.orus Lois f]e8enedetti, Eiuildirig Ufficiai BUILDING DEP.~I~TMENT STAFF REp'ORT DATE: 06/27/Of TO: Planning 1]epartn~ent Planning file: 06082 FRUM: Building Department SUBJECT: Homes Brothers, LLC Name: Home Brothers Address 33 Hawthorne City: Medford State: QR Zip Code: 97504 Property Description: 37-2w-03DD- TL 7700 PU~~SE: The stafF report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Applicant regarding City Building Deparkment requirements and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed project. This is not a pla~i review, This report is preliminary and compiled solely for use by the Central Paint Planning Commission. 1 City of Central Point, 4~°egon 140 Sa.Third St., Central Pnin~, Or 97542 541.6b4.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 ~srw~v.ci.centra I- poi nt.or. u s Bu€Iding Department i_ois C7eBenedetti,Buiit~inc~Official I3U~LDING DEPARTMENT ~4MIVIEN`I'S: I. Applicant, agent and contractors must comply with all current State of Oregon adopted codes, and apply for all permits through the Central Point Building Department. ~. If a private storm drain system is proposed it must be reviewed and 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 Geotechnical report as required by OSSC Appendix J and chapter I8 of the OSSC. A written report of the investigation shall include, but need not be limited to, the following 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 the water table, if encountered. d. Recommendations for foundation type and design caiteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and soil strength, and the effects of adjacent loads. e. When expansive soils are present, special provisions shall be provided in the foundation design and canstruetion to safeguard against damage due to expansiveness. Said design shall be based on geotechnicaI recommendations, 5. Grading/excavation permits are required in accordance with OSSC Appendix J and chapter I8 and regarding any fill material placed on the site_ hills to be used to support the foundation of any building or structure shall be placed in accordance with accepted engineering practices. 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 gradinglexcavation permit. Building permits will not be issued until grading/excavation permit is finalled. Exception: I . The upper I.5 foat of fill placed outside of public rights-of=way. 2. The upper I.5 fvat of fill that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas. 2 City of Central Point, Oregon 340 So.Ti~ird St., Central Paint, Or 97502 541.664.332 3 Fax 54 f .664.5384 www.ci.tent ral-ppl nt.or. u s Building Department Lois L7eSenedetti,i3uildiny Qlficial 6. To move or demolish any existing structures located on the property call the Building Department for permit requirements. 7. Notify the City Building Department of any existing wells, or septic systems located on the property. 8. Any development (any manmade 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 Gode 8.24.120. 9. Dust control, and track out eliminations procedures must be implemented. 10. Application for building permits will require three sets of complete plans indicating compliance with Qregon Residential Specialty Code (2005). See Rowhouse Construction Appendix Q ~ORSC) 11. Fire District 3 will determine fire hydrant location, as well as access to buildings. The International Fire Code (2003) with Oregon Amendments {2004) will be implemented as part of the plan check code requirement for these proposed buildings. Any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Applicant, or Applicant's contractor to the Building Department for approval prior to start of work. E ~, ~~. y~ ~~ ~ . ~~ ~~ ~ .~,' '~ .n ;' s~Ll~ll~~ ~:~, r (~Q~, ~Q(7~i ~, ~~'~ ~~ ~°~~~: ~.CHd+; ~~rsy~k.< Z ~~4 :~~i p ~"itih lju,~~,~~+ ~~~A~,.~ ~fr~rr~~ ~r~rt~er~, ~.~..~ a~~~~ Fire i~j~~ri~l ~;~ ~cami~~r~~~3: ~~~~ "~~ ~=~~risir~g 1-~~y ~ir~~~' ; ~>;~r~z~ ir~~ ~~:f ~~, ~~Il~y ~,r;~;,::~:~ ~"~~ ~~ri~-n~r~ ~~ar~r~~r~ i~> fil~i~ r~a~.afi~ ~iil cat; < ,~. ~il~~: t~j~~~r~(~;?z ~ri~~~ic;l~~~ i,,>:;~~ ;:~ I~ic~h~~~ fi~~c~ --i~h, ,~I(~y ~cc~~~ h~~ b~~r~ ~I(~~v~d ire r:c-~rt~ir~ ~it~a~~iar~ tc~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~c r~r~ir~irr7~~~r~~. T~t~ CJr~~®n Firs ~nd~ r~q~air~~ :?0 ~~~~. Tea ~Jld~r the 16 ~e~~ acc~~~ v~id~h tray Irv P~rkiri~ r~~c~~ir~rYa~~~~ ~viil r~F~~c~ ~Q ~~~ ~firi~fify ~~~c~rc:ed key lor,~! I~vv ~ra~hc~rity ~r~d ~.rad~ er~f~arc~m~r~fi. M~rlc ~©r~n ~~~ Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval Applicant; Shane Eldson Home Brothers, LLC File No. 06082 {site Plan) Revised after 9/5/06 Planning Commission Condition Na. Descri tion 1 of 6 Applicant must meet all of the requirements of the Public Works Department, Building Department, Planning Department, other outside agency requirements, the requiremen#s must be met prior to si in of final lat. 2 of 6 Prior to final plat approval, the landscape strip shall meet adequate landscaping requirements for landscaping strips, with trees identified on the final landscape plan that are on the City's approved street tree list for urban conditions. The landscape plan for the landscape strip shall be submitted and approved by the City. Applicant must match the sidewalk and landscape strip with the development fo the east on Manzanita Street. The applicant must move the trees to the landscape strips an N. Third Street and Manzanita Street. 3 of 6 CC & R's should be submitted to ensure the upkeep and use of the proposed private driveway along the eastern property line shall be submitted prior to final plat a royal. 4 of 6 The revised site plan shall identify the building moved forward two {2) feet towards N. Third Street, to meet the Public Works requirement fora 16' "Courtyard Lane" vs. the T4' proposed. Prior to final plat approval a revised site plan must be submitted, for approval by the Planning De artment. 5 of 6 Prior to final plat approval the applicant must provide a four (4)' landscape strip and five {5)' sidewalk on N. Third Street. 6 of 6 The Planning Commission added the condition that the Applicant shall add a "kick out" or some other architectural detail on the windows facing Manzanita Street to break u the a earance of a solid wall. f ~k 4 W ~ ~ ' y ;: r American Yeliowwood Cladrastus Lutea __ Kentucky Coffee 1-ree Persian Ironwood Quercus Kell_o_~c ii Zelkova 3Vlediurr~ to L:.rr-~e T r~~e5: ..-.-~"__.__. Calitorni<~ Blz3ck Orrk ~. _____ _ I t~ynincx,ladras I~ux;icus t'arroti~r I'ersica ~. ~.,w_ ~ ~_... I'rnruis Cargentii __., i Sargent Cherry /elkov: ~ '~c~~ r<3ta °~r~~~ fc~r° ~rk~~n ~c~r~~ii~ic~~l~ City trees m~,rst cpntend with trerY~endous biological, physical and chen'rical stresses: too much water or toolittle; hot summer temperatures; polluted air, water and soil; arld physical damage from vehicles and vandalism. Listed below are species that the Tree Commission recat~~mends for withstain~iir~g the stress of r,rrban conditions in downtown locations. examples of Frees for Urban Conditions: Acer Cam a~estre Acer Ginnala Acer Platanoides - Acer Rubrum ~ -- _ _ ~ Amur Maple ^ Carpinus Betulus_ European Hornbeam --- ~iowerin~ Pear - Goldenrain Tree -- Gymnocladus Diocus - - -- Hedge Maple Kentuc~ Coffee Tree -_. __ Koeireuteria Paniculata Little Leaf Linden Norway Maple P~rus calleryana "Non-fruit E3earing' _. Quercus Rubs -----~- Red Maple _ ---- 1 Red Oak Trlra Cordata ~~.~ y - ~ ~~rt ;y''~ £y; v(-~ ~'tr... .:. _ - - _: :. . >__ ~; - :` .~;.~y.-kaY ~ ~ ~~~c.,tE.-, R 7' ui' ~~ ~ _._ , ...; ..n rc- r,.C~'~ ;.. ,- .~ =. t ~ `, ti ~-:` '~~_ ` . ~.,~ ~.~ ;'r. ;~. M~ ~ ~~ ,. ~. Y f Yfexr I a sl r• .. ., _ t1~ _ - 3 ...e ___ _.___-t _ _ _ _ s. ___ ~; 5' ~~~ f _,~, .y,. r, .4 y_~,1, t^+i ~, _ ~~ s SGT ~S, i x ~y ~4L;~a~.i ~~`'~~ ~"""7itt f 5~ ~~' ~ ty.~~'' t `' y 1'~ i•~ ~ r1~ tit'.i ~ p ~Y hFn' ~ ~ Yf . I ~t~ ~ 1:' h:. ~ ., ~' `.~¢ ~~~ ~ . ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~~ "f c i. ,';i ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~,i~ ~ ~ ~, { j } t ti r y~ , ~ ~' "i ~ ~• { #: # lC. ,~ ~ ~ ~ c 1, fk~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ,V Y~.. . , t ~ S ~ ~ ~ a ' 1 ~; i • R Z{ `x } ~ ~tK A4v ~ .~ ~ ry ~ 'F~; i7 3~ ~~~r y ~ ~~ 1~ i ' dv{Y~Y ~ ' ~ 1 ,~ j: ~ ~ ,-lx ._.. A ro, K',~µ~~~ !1 ~~ 'k' Y ~ t ~yyyy. ~ "µ~y ~1,' "'"4 ~ }~ ry ~k g ti i+ jC'. fG~ 'l., h, v i sF_f-, ifiu Y. C - x 1 ~i i ~~~ y ~g t a ..~`i a," r. y;; ~;, 4h a, ~~ ~, .. ..__._.... .. ~_, . _, _..,.,. ~ .,~'y. a~• y b~ ~ ~, u~ . . , f ~ ~ - i ~ "N rµ'« _ ~ ~, L , '~ u~. ~ vY""+a~ ~~~ ~,~ , .. y rF ;W T r ~ ~ 8~ N fi' M"'P. ~"~.,, . •lri~. eTItFS' f 7 } n ~. ~ ,,~~yy ~ i .~ s i .. ~ s ~ u S I: 1. - ~"l ., ! ~~~ . ~~t ~ .= tl '; ~. ~~ ~~ w . r.. ~~ ,~,!-.' b~~ i A ca °s ~ ~.~ .~~ ~ ~+.... ~~ y; k, ., ~N yryyW }~ *~ ~. 4 a r ~ E' ~ t SS TT,~~H IIVi ENT "~. PLANNING COMMISSION Rl_;SO1.~111'lON NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL `I'O CONSTKUCT ATTACHED ROW HOUSING STRUCTURE CONSIS'T'ING OI~ DIVE (S) 1)W1a1,I.,ING I1NT`I'S, LOCATED WITHIN A TOD-HIGH MTX ItESIDT-?NTTAL ZONING DISTRICT' (Applica~~t (s): Hone T3rothers) (37 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7700) Recitals 1. Applicant(s) has/have submitted application far site plan oza a .18 acre parcel located on property identified by Jackson County as Account 10141007 in the City of Central Point, Oregon. 2. On, July 18th, 2006, August 1, 2006 and September 5, 2006, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted aduly-noticed public meeting on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application. Naw, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Criteria Apt~licable to Decision. The following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code apply to this application: A. Chapter 17.66, Application Review Process for the TOD District & Corridor B. Chapter 17.67, Area of Application, Design Standards C. Chapter 17.72, Site Plan, Landscaping & Construction Plans Section 2. Finding and Conclusions. The Planning Commission hereby adopts by reference all findings of fact set forth in the City staff reports, and concludes that, except where addressed in the conditions of approval, the applications and proposal comply with the requirements of the following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code: A. Chapter 17.66, relating to application review process for the TOD District & Corridor B. Chapter 17.67, relating to Design Standards for the TOD District & Corridor C. Chapter 17.72, relating to Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans Planning Commission Resolution No. (09/05/2006) Section 3. Conditional Approval. Tl~e applications far site plan hcrcin is Hereby approved, subject to the conditions set forth on Exhibit "A", attached hereto by reference incorporated herein, imposed under authority of CPMC Chapter 17.76. Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by rr~e in authentication of its passage this 5`t' day of September, 2006. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this Sth day of September, 2006. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. (0910512006)