HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 775 - RFCU NonconformingPLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ ~
A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A NONCONFORMING USE
DESIGNATION OF A BUILDING F~R THE PROPOSED OPERATTON ~F ROGUE
FEDEIiAL CREDIT UNION PROFESSIONAL OFFICES
Applicant: Rogue Federal Credit Union. Agent: CSA Planning LtdJCraig Stone
(37S 2W 02CC, Tax Lot 2200
524 Manzanita Street)
F'ile No. 1100$
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application for a Noncanfor~ning Use Designat~on for
the operation of Rogue Federal Credit Unian Professional Offices located are in the Transit
Oriented De~elopment District {TOD) High Mix Residential/Commercial zoning distt7ct and
identified c~n the Jackson Cotuity Assessor's map as 37S 2W 0?CG, Ta~Y L,~t 2200, APN
10133517.
WHEREAS, on November 9, 201 U, the Central Foint Flanning Conr~mission canducted a duly-
noticed public hearing on the application, at whicl~ tiine it reviewed the City staffrepoi~t and
heard testirnony and com7nents on the application; and
WAEREAS, the Planning Cornmission's cansideration of the application is based on the
standa~ds az~d criteria applicable to the Nonconfo~•rning Uses section 17.56 of the Ceniral Point
Municipal code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Comrnissian, as part of the Conditional Use Pertnit application, has
considered and fmds per tlie Staff Report dated November 2, 2014, that adequate findings have
been made denionstrating that tk~e nanconfornzing use designation is consistent with the intent of
the Hi~h Mix Residential/Commercial zoning dist~~ict, now, therefore;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Paint Planning Conunissian, by this Resolution
No. ~ 7 5 does hereby approve the application based an th.e findings and conclusions of
approval as sef forth on Exhibit "A", the Staff Report dated November 2, 2010, ~~vhich includes
attachments, attached hereto by reference and incoiporated tterein.
~'ASSED by the Plannin~ Cornmission and signed by me in authentication af its passage this 9th
day of November, 2010.
_ ~.~~
Plaiming Commissio~~ Ghair
Planning Commissian Resolution No. 7 7 5 (ll0910)
ATTEST:
.~
Gity Representatxve
Approved by ~ne this 9th day of November, 2010.
~ t~
Planning Cammission Chair
Planning Cotntnissic~n Resolution No. 7~ 5 (110910}
STAFF REPORT
~r
~
,_ ~
C~N'i iR~AL
Pt~l I~~T
STAFF REPORT
Navember 2, 2010
Camrnunity Development
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 11008
Consideratio7i of a Nanconforming Designation of a buildi7lg for the proposed aperation of
professional offices. The building is located in t~he Tzansit Oriented 17eY~elopment T~istrict (T~D}
High Mix Residential/Commercial {HMR) zoning distric# and identified oc~ the Jackson County
Assessor's map as 37S 2W 02CC, T~ Lot 2200. The ~raposed space is located at 524
Manzanita Street, Central Point, OR 97502 (Applicant: Rogue Federal Credit Unian; Agent:
CSA Planning Ltd/Craig Stone)
STAFF SUURCE: . ~
BACKGROUND:
Tl1e applicant is requesting a Class "A" Na~aconfanning designation for a 11,216 sq. ft. office
building (the "Structure"} to allow its continued use f~r professional office purposes. The
Structure zs located on the northeast conier of 6`h Street and Manzanita Street, and was
designed and constructed in 1974 as a single-story office building. At the tin~e of its
construction, the ~roperty was zoned C-3, which allowed offices as a Permitted Use. In 2000,
the property was rezoned from C-3 to High Mix Residential (HMR}, becoming a
nonconforming structure at that time.
CPMG Section 17.SE~.030, Classificatian Criteria, requires tha# all nonconfonning
uses/structures be designated as either Class "A" or "B" nonconforming uses/structuz-es. At
this time the Structure ~oes xlot 11ave a nonconforming classitication. The continued
operation of the Structure as an office requires designation of the Structure as a Class "A"
nonconforming use/structure. The criteria for obtaining a Class "A" designation are set forth
in C~MC, Section 17.56.030. Tlle applicant's findings (A#tachment "A"} addXess the cr~teria
necessary for a Class "A" desigx~atian.
ISSUES:
Approval of the Structnre as a Class "A" nonconforming use/structure will provide for the
continued use of the Structure far professional off'ice purposes, subject ta any conditions
imposed by the Planning Conlmission. It is recommended that as a condition of the Ciass "A"
designatior~ that the continued use of tl~e Structure as a professional office is subject to
attainrnent of a Conditional Use Permit. Such a condition assures consistency with the intent of
the HMR district a~nd pratectioxl of adjacent properties.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The struct~zre may continue to be used for office purpases subject to receipt of a Conditianal
Use Permit authorizing use of the property for professional affice purposes. Subsequent
ck~anges in use, other than residential or professional office, that are allowed in the HMR
district shall be subject t4 r~ceipt of a separate Conditipnal Use I'ermit for t~~e new use.
FINDINGS:
Refer to Attack~ment "A"
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" - Applicant's Proposed Findings
Attachment "B" - Plaruiing Department Supplernental Findings of Fact
Attactzment "C" - Proposed Resolutian
ACTIDN:
Consideration of Resolutio~i No. ____, approvxng the proposed Nonconfortning Class "A"
designation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Appro~~al of Resolution No. _, granting the Nonconfonning Class "A" designation.
Page 2 of 2
~~~'TAG~MEN'~ ~.~
BEFQRE THE CiTY CO!!NC[L
FOR THE CITY OF GEN7RAL POfNT
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
IN 7HE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS FQR
THE DETERMiNATlON QF A LAWFUL
NONCONFORMING USE AND FOR A
CONDITlONAL USE PERMlT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENABLlNG AN OFFICE
USE WlTHIN AN EXISTiNG BUILDlNG TO
CONTfNUE BElNG USED FOR
PROFESSIDNAL OFFICES ON LAND IN
CENTRAI. POENT A7 THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER Qf THE INTERSECTIDN OF
MANZANITA S7REET AND PINE STREET
Applicant: Rogue Federal Credit Union
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSEONS OF LA1f~.'
~ipplica-tts' Fxhibrt 1
NATURE, SCOPE AND INTENT OF APP[.iCATION
An existing building located at the soutl~east corner of Manzanita and Pine streets has
been occupied by business and prafessional offices, most recently by Providence Medical
Center, for outpatient care and medicallbusiness offices. The property is zoned High Mix
Residential {~-~MR). Offices are conditionally permitted in an HMR zone, pro~ided it is a
ground floor business within a multiple famiiy building, has less than ten thausand square
feet per tenant, and is adjacent to land zoned EC. Thes e~sting building has only a single
stflry and was built in ~974, well before Central Point's adoption of the Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) regulations with the building does not camply, As such, the single
~tory office building is a nonconforming structure with respect to the requirement that
affces are now restricted to a second #loor. Therefore, for this buiiding to be eiigible for
conditional use authorization as an office, it must be established as a lawfully
nonconforming structure and have granted a conditional use permit. The purpose of these
cantemporaneously filed applications is:
A. To establish the existing nonconforming building as a Cla~s A nonconfoxming use
pursuant to Central Point Zaning Ordinance {CPZQ) 17.Sb.~30(~), and
B. To authorize the canditional use of said builc~ing as an office by the g~anting o~ a
conditional use permit pursuant ta CPZO 17.7b.040.
~ Page 1 of 11
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Noncontorming Use Determination and ConditiOna! Use Permit
Rogue Federal Credit Union: Applicant
~VfDENCE SUBMlTTED WITH THE APPL[CATION
Applicant has submitted the following evidence in support of this conditiona~ use permit
(CUP) application:
Eghib~t 1 The proposed Findings of fiact and Conciusions of Law {~his docume~2t}
which demonstrates how the applicatian complies with the applicable
substantive approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit as set forth in the
Central Point Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibit 2 Coxnpleted Nonconforming Use and Conditional LTse Pernait application
forms and a Limited Power of Attorr~ey which anthorizes CSA Planning,
Ltd. to function as Applicant's agent in these proceedzngs
Exhfbit 3 Jackson County Assessor Map
Exhibi# 4 Zoning Map on Aerial Phato
Exhibit 5 Map 4f E~cisting Land Uses
Exhibzt 6 Phatographs of Subject Buiiding and Site
RELEVANT SUBS7ANTIVE APPROVAL CRITEf~~q
The City ~lanning Cammission concludes that that the following constitutes all of the
relevant substantive criteria applicable tQ a Class A nonconforming use determinati~ns
and for the approval of conditional use permits. The approval criteria are recited
verbatim below and in Section V where each is addressed wi~ the conclusions of iaw of
the Commissian:
CLASS A NONCONFORMlNG USE DETERMINATlON
17.56.~3a Glassification criteria_ Afl nonconform'sng uses and structures within the city of Central Point
shalf be Classified as ei#her Ciass A or Class B nonconforming uses, according to the foliowing criteria;
A. Propertiss containing noncan#orming uses or structures may be designated Class A by the planning
commission based upon findings thaf all of the following criteria apply:
1_ Continuance of the existing use dr structure would nof be contrary to the publichealth, saiety orwelfare,
or to the spirit of this title;
2, The continued maintenance and use of the nonconforming property is not likely to depress the values of
ac}jacent or nearby praperties, nor adverseiy aHect their development potent~aJ in confarmance witt~ present
zoning;
Page 2 of 9 i
Findings of Fact and Conclusians af Law
Nonconforming Use Determination and Conditional Use Pqrmi2
Rogue Federal Credit Unian: Applicant
3. 7he use or structure was lawfuf at the time oi its inception and no useful purpase would be ser~ed by
strict application of the provisions or requirements of this chapter with which the use or struclure daes not
conform;
4_ The property is not predominantly surrounded by conforming uses or structures and, considering current
growth and devefapmenf trends, is not reasonably expeded to come under development pressures during
the ne~ fr~e years;
5. The property is structurally sound, well-maintained, and occupied and used for the purpose for which it
was designed;
6. Continuance of this nonconforming use will not in any way delay flr obstruct the development or
establishment of conforming uses on the subject property ar on any adjacent ar nearby properties in
accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance_
COND17`lONAL USE PERR~flT
17.76.04D Find+nga and Conditions. The planning comrnission in granting a conditiona! use permit shal~
find as follows:
A. Thaf the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape t0 accammodete the use and to meet
a!I other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and alf other pravisions of this code;
B. That fhe site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is
adequate in size and condition to ef~ectively accommod~te the traffic that is expected to be generated by the
proposed use;
C, That the praposed use wilf have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use
fhereof. In mak+ng this determination, the commission shal! consider the proposed locafion of improvements
on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and intemal circulat+on; setbacks; height of buiidings and structures;
walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighiing; and signs;
D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied far will comply with local, state and
federai health and safety reguEat+ons and therefore will not be detrimental to the healih, safety or general
welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or
injurious to the property and improvements in the neighbort~aod or to the general weifare of the community
based on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of this section;
E. That any conditions required for approval af the permit are deemed necessary to protecf the public
health, safefy and general weffare and may include:
1. Adjustments to lot size or yard areas as needed to best accommodate the proposed use; provided
the lots or yard areas conform to the stated minimum dimensions for the subject zoning district, unless a
~ariance is also granted as provided for in Chapter 17.13,
2, Increasing street widfhs, modifications in street designs or additi~n of street signs or traffic signals to
accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use,
3. Adjustments to offi-street parking requirements in accordance with any unique characteristics of the
proposed use,
4. Regula6on of points of vehicular ingress and egress,
5. Requiring landscaping, irrigation systems, Gghting and a property maintenance program,
6. Regulation of s+gns and their locations,
~~ Page 3 of 11
Findings of Fact and Conclusions df Law
Nonconforming Use Determination and Conditionel lJse f'ermit
Rogue Federal Credit Union: Applicant
7. Requiring fences, berms, walls, iandscaping or other devices of organic or artificial composition to
eliminate or reduce the effects of noise, vibrations, odflrs, visuai incompatibility or other undesirable
effects on surrounding properties,
8. Regulation pf fime of operations for cenain types of uses if their operatipns may ad~ersely affect
privacy of sleep of persons residing nearby ar ofherwise conflict with other community or neighborhood
functians,
9_ Establish a time period within which the subject land use must be developed,
10_ Requirement of a bond or other adequate assura~Ce within a Specified period of time,
11. Such ather conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and
gerteral welfare,
12. In considering an appeal of an application for a conditianal use permit for a home occup2tion, the
pfanning commission shall review fhe criteria listed in Sectian 17,60.190. (Ord. 1823 §5, 2Q01; Qrd,
1684 §72, 1993; Ord, i615 §55, 1989; Ord. 1533 §1, i984; Ord. 1436 §2(part), ~gg~),
IV
FENDINGS OF FACT
The ~'lanning Carnmission reaches the following facts and finds thern to be true vvi#h
xespect to this matter. The below Findings of ~act support the Conclusia~s af Law of tbe
Planning Commission as the same are set forth in Section V,
1. Property Lr,aca~ion: The subject propert~r is locat~d on Manzanita Street at its
intersection wi~h Sixth Street within incorparated Central Point. The praperty is
described in the reca~rds of the. Jackson County Assessor as Tax Lot 2200 on map 37-
2V'V-02CC,
2. Subject Pxoperty Descriptian, Aereage, ~rvnership; The property is fully
develaped and occupied by a single story office building, required off-street parking,
and appurtenances. The building, exclusive of basement, c4mprises 9936 square feet
and was constructed in 1974. The property has 0.60 acre. Applicant, has given its
consent for CSA P1a7~riing Ltd to submit the praposed land use applicatiozls on ~#s
behalf and the same is evidenced by a Limited Power of Attomey that has been
included as~art of Applicant's filing and bas been made a part of the record.
3. Zaning: The property is presently zoned High Mix Resic~en#ial (I~.VIR} on the City of
Central Point Zoning Map.
4. Existing aad Sttrrounding Land irses: Land uses in the surrflunding area are shown
on the E~ibit 5 map. Other noncanfomung uses and struetures abut ar lie directly
acrass Manzanita Street frorn the subject property and are within the same HMR
zoning district.
Page b of i t
Findirtgs af Fact and Conclusians df Law
Nonconforming Use Determination and Conditional Uge Permit
Rogue Federal Credit Union: Applicant
coNC~usioNS oF ~Aw
The fallowing conclusians of law and uXtimate conclusions are based on the findings of
fact contained in Section N above and the evidence enumerated in Section II. The below
conclusians of law o#' the Central Point Planning Conamission are preceded by the
approval criteria to which they relate:
CLASS A NONCQNFORfNING USE l~ETERMlNAtIOIV
17.5&.030 Classificatian criteria. Ail nonconforming uses and structures within fhe ci#y of Central Roint
shall be ciassified as either Ciass A or Class B nonconforming uses, according tp the following cxiteria:
A. Properties containing nonconforming uses or structures may be designated Class A by the planning
commission based upon findings that all of the following criteria appiy:
Criterian 1
1. Continuance of the existing use or structure would nof be contrary to fhe public health, Safety or welfare,
or to the spirit of this title;
Discussiorn; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the subject
single stoxy building has, unti~ recently, been used as a professional medical office
occupied by Pravidence Medical Center for autpatient and medicallbusiness services.
Neither Applicant nor the Planning Commission are aware af any aspects of the
building's former use fhat has produced axzy impact upon the public health, sa~ety and
general welfare, and ~io party testi~ed nor intraduced evidence to the contrary, In fact,
medical off ces typicall~~ p~'oduce ~eater levels of tra#~ic and off-street parking than do
typical business offices. As such, the Planning Commission cancludes that the building's
continued use as off ces wall nat produce any additional levels of ~raffic nor other impacts
which are different or greater than those which have historically exzsted within or by
reasan af use o~ this building for affice purpases. For these reasons, ~he Commissian
concludes that this application is consisterct with Criterion 1.
•xaa W ai axvlwr,ratlr
Criterion 2
2. The continued maintenance and use of the nonconforming pronerty is not likely to depress the values of
adjacent or nearby properties, nor ~dversely affect their deveiopment potential in confarmance with present
zoning;
Diseussion; Canclusions of Law: As explaineci in the findings of fact in Sectian N, the
single story buildang now exists and, untii recently, was used for medical outpatient care
and medical/business off ces by Providenee Medica~ Centez. The proposal now before the
City af Centra~ Point is to permit the continued use of the building far professional
affces ta he occupied by employees of Rogue Federal Credit Union. No exte~ior
changes to the building are now proposed anc~ off-stzeet parkzng is sufficient to
y Page 5 of 11
Find'+ngs of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Nonconforming Uae Determination and Condition8l Use Permit
Rogue Federal Credit Union: Applicant
accommodate the intended use. Tn point of fact, the Commission concludes that medical
of~ces typically produce greaxer requirements for parl~ing and greater traffic impacts than
is anticipated fox general business offices naw proposed. Given that the building already
exists and the intended future use will produce fewer traffic impacts and need for le~s o£f-
street parking, the Commission concludes that the continued maintenance and use of the
this property is not lik.ely to depxess the values of adjacent or nearby properties, nor
adversely affect their develapment potential in canformance witb present zoning,
consistent with Criterian 2.
* M.\ R A i 4 k~. i Il 1t k fl N M
Criterion 3
3. The use or structure was !aw#ul at the time of its inception and no useful purpose would be Senred by
strict application of the provisions or requirements of this chapter with which the use or structure does not
conform;
D~scussian; Conclusions of I,aw: This building ~~as car~structed ~ong before ~-ie
adoption of Central Point's Transit Oriented Develapment (TC}D} regulations. Building
permits for the buiiding were properly obtained from t}~e City of Central Po~nt at the time
the building was constructed (in 1974) and there is no evidence to the cantrary.
Application of the city's TOD regulations, which restricts professional offces to only a
second story, will have t11e effect of enjoining office uses from now lawfuLly occupying
this existing single story offce building. In this regard, neither Applicant nar the
Commission is aware of any useful purpose to be served by strict app]ication af the city's
regulations which, again, will prevent office use of this existing building which was
designed far and occupied by office uses, Based upon the foregoing findings af fact and
conclusions of law, the Commission concludes that the application is cansistent with the
requireznents of Criterion 3 because the subject structure was lawful at the time of its
inception and no useful purpose would be served by strict application of the pco~~isians or
requirements of this chapter wit.h which the use or structure does not conforrz~;
Criterioll 4
4. The property is not predominantly surrounded; by canforming us~s pr structures and, considering current
growfh and development trends, is nat reasonably expected to come under development pressures during
the ne~ fi~e years;
Discussion; Canclusians af Law: As shown on Exhibit 5, the subject property is
surrounded, amon.g other uses, by three single family dwellings lacated north and across
Manzanita fram t~e property (two are immediately across Manzanita), and by Central
Point Physical Therapy located to the west, Neither single family deta.ched residential
dwellings nar the physical therapy use, are permitted within the HMR zone - the zone in
whic}~ the subject property is located. As such, the Planning Commission concludes that
the propert~ is faat predominantly surrounded by conforming uses or structures.
` Page B of 11
Findings of Fact and Concfusions of Law
Nonconforming Use Determination and Conditiorla! Use Permit
Fiogue Federal Credit Union: AppEicant
Criterian 4 has twa parts. T~.e second is whether, based upon a consideration of current
growth and development trends, this property is not reasonably expected to come under
develapment pressures during the next five years. The Caxnmissi~n is aware that current
growth and developmez~t in Centrai Point (and elsewhere) have trended down during the
past two to three years, due in part to a larger and widespread economic recession that
ofte~ chaxacterized as a national or even global recession. As to what is a reasonable
expectation for a period five years kcence, is af conrse unlcnown. However, the standard
requires oniy there be no reasonable expectation that the propert~ wi~l not come ~nder
development pressures over the next five years. Based upon the state of the local, state,
national and international economies, and the availability af vacant land that pezmits the
same uses allovved in the HMR zone, the Commissio~ concludes there to no reasonable
expectat~on that this property wiil come under develapznent ~ressures o~~ex the ensuing
five year period.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions o~ ~aw, the Planning
Cammission concludes that the application is consistent with the requiremez~ts af
Criterion 4.
• f /r a Ir J* ih f w 11 r Yr i A
Criter{on 5
5. The property is structurally sound, well-maintained, and occupied &nd used for the purppse for which it
was designed;
Discussion; Canclusions of Law: The photographs in Exhibit 6 show the property to be
structurally sound and well maintained. The buildirtg and other site improvements was
constructed in 1974. Th~ building, by is design, appearance, and occupancy was
intended to supply offices far professional medica] uses and it cannat be reasonabIy
expanded vertically ta be consistent with the requirements of the Central Point Zaning
Ordinance. Even if a second story could be provided (ta accommadate residential use
pursuant to CPZO Table 1 in 17.55.050, the property would then lack suffiicient off-street
parkiz~g. As such, the building canno~ reasonably be made conforming. Based upon the
fflregoing, the Plannxng Commission eonc~udes that the application is consistent with tlze
requirements of Criterion 5.
• f x x* e r r a* R y, w a* x
Criterion 6
6. Continuance vf this nonconforming use will not in any way delay or obstruct the deveEopment or
estabiishment of confarming uses on the subject property or on any adjacent or nearby properkies in
accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance.
Discussifln; Conclusions of Law: As aforementianed, the subject building was
constructed as an offrce in 1474 and has been occupied for that ~urpose. Permitting t}~e
bttilding to continue its occupancy as an offee {and with no needed improvements to the
i
~ Page 7 of 11
Findings of Fact and Conclusions af Law
Nonconforming tJse Determination and Cpnditionel USe PerMi2
Rogue Fsderal Credit Union: Applicant
exterior of the building nor the site) will not (and cannot be reasonably expected to}
produce any delay ar obs~ruct either the development nor establishment of confarming
uses because, based upon the evidence, the building has remainirig econonnic utility and
was designed ta be an o#~f`ice. As such, the building ~ias substantial remaining ~alue that
would make its removal {and replacement} with a conforming structure ar3d use
impracticai; others ~~vishing to construct a conforming building and use will simp]y
acquire ~Tacant land and construct a huilding far a specific purpase (or otherwise occupy
ar refurbish an existing buildang} and will not incur the substazztial additional cost to
dernolish an existing building that has remaining economic value. The Commission also
concIudes t~ere is nothing inherent in this praperty or its continued occupancy as an
offzce which vv~ll in any way delay or obstruct the development of canforming use~ on
adjacent or nearby properties and there is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the
Commission cancludes that this appiication is consistent with Criterion 6.
~~*~~~~*~~~~~~*~**~«~**~~~~~~~u
CONDITJONAL USE PERMl7
17.76.040 ~indirtgs and Conditions. The planning commissian in granting a conditional use permit shall
find as foflpws:
Criterion A
A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet
aIl other development and fot requirements of the subject zoning district and afl other provisions of fhis code;
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Applicant asserts and the Planning Commission
concludes, that the adequacy of this site far the proposed use - a professional. office --
is evidenced by the fact that the office now exists, along with adequate required off-streef
parking, Iandscaping and appurtenances. No exterior improtirements to the building or
site are contemplated that wauld affect campliance with any of the city's physical
development standards. While Applicant will want a sign to identify its business, permits
for the same can and will be obtained under separate permit from the City of Central
Point. Therefore, the Planming Commission concludes that t3zis applicatioz~ is consistent
with Criterion A.
,,t,~~~~.,,,~,*,~.
Criterion B
B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or h+ghway is
adequate in size and condition to effeetively accommodate fhe traific that is expected to be generated by the
proposed use;
Discussion; Conclusions of Lawv: As shown on Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, the subject property
frants upo~ and takes access fram both Manzanita. and Sixth streets, both of which are
fully impro`red rriunicipal streets in Central Point's downtowm. Manzanita has a~aved
travel st~rface appro~mately 36 feet in width and Si~h Street has a pavi~g width of
approz~imatel~ 28 feet. Both streets are further improved with concrete curbs, gutters and
~~~ page 8 of 11
Findings of Fact and Conclusions qf Law
Nonconforming Use Determination and Conditioaal USB Perrr~it
Rogu6 Federal Credii Union: Applicant
sidevvalks. There are no planned capacity improvements foz- either street and none are
needed. As to the adeqnacy of the street to accoxnmodate traffic from the proposed use,
the use is one that has, since 1974, existed and produced traffic. 7`he intended use, also
an office, will produce no greater traffic loading than tl~at which has occurred in the past,
in will likely produce less traff c. Based upon ~,he foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of Iaw, the Planning Co~vxiission ca~ncludes that the applicafion is cansistent
with the requirements af Criterion B.
fe a* 4 W Ir * R Y Il i*~1' A k i~
Criterion C
C, That tfie proposed use will have na significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use
thereo#. In making this determination, the commission shail consider the proposed Ioca#ion of improvements
pn thP c~f~ ~P~iGUIBf !!1~CpeS, ?,f°S~ M;;w ~~1tg";Z$? „~~1^,~~giivi~~ Sctvai.~±S~ iieiarf ui riUlfl~ii'~C~S i1f10 SLf"UC[~!f@5~
walls and iences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs;
Discussion; Conctusions af Law: 1'he building irctended to house the pro~osed use was
designed, constructed, and laas, since 1974, been used as a professianal office. In this
instance, Applicant intends to use the building far its oum professional offices. Because
the historic and proposed use are the same, Applicant asserts and the Commissian agrees,
that to the extent there are any adverse effects from this building being used for
prafessional offices, the adverse effects have existed since 1974; there is not,hing to
suggest that the propased office use v~rill have any greater or different effects than ear~ier
office u~es which ha~e occupied the buiiding. Moreover, no additional improvements
are planned that would affect vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation, setbacks,
height of bu.ild'rngs and structures, walls and fences, Iandscaping or outdaor lighting. The
only e~teriar feature contemplated to change {ot~er than on-going rautine maintenance
and upkeep} will be the installation of a typical business sign(s) that identify the buildings
nse; any new signs will be required to comply with Central Paint's sign ardinance. In all
ather respects, the occupancy and use of the building will not ehange nar will the
intended professional office use produce any significant adverse effect an abutting
property ar the permrtted uses t,hereaf, consistent in all respects w~ith Criterion C.
# 1r Y~ rt k*~ W R*! ft M t•
Criterion D
D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation af the use applied for will comply with local, state and
federai health and safery regulations and therefore wi!! not be detrimental to the health, safety or generaE
welfare of persons residing or working in the surcounding neighbarhoads and wili not be detnmentaf or
injurious to the property and impro~ements in the neighbost~ood or to the general welfare of the cqmrnunity
based on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of this section;
D~set~ssio~; Concinsians of Law: The Planning Cammission eoncludes fhat re~evant
7oca1, ~tate and fedez~l health and safety re~ulations have been appropriateXy incorporated
into the Central Point Municipa~ Code, That these have been properly incorporated into
municipal ordinaz~ces have in large part been ensured by mandates af state gavemment
and its aversight on local land use p~anning pursuant to Oregon's Statewide PIanY~ing
~~ Pa e9of11
!
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
~fonconforming Use Dezerminetion and Conditionaf Use Permit
Rogue Federal Crectrt Union: Applica»t
Goals. Mareover, there is nothing to pre~ent Applicant from complying with aY1 relevant
health and safeiy related governmentaJ regulations and Applicant is required to camply.
For these reasons, the Planning Com;mission cancludes that the application is consistent
with the requirements of Criterion D.
w r a~ A tr a~ a w M: r e 1 J t
Criterion E
E. That any conditians required for approval of the permit ~re deemed necessary to protect the public
heal#h, safety and general welfare and may include:
1. Adjus#ments to lot size or yard areas as needed to best accommodate the proposed use, provrded
the lots or yard areas conform to the stated minimum dimensions for the subject zoning district, unfess a
~ariance is also grarrted as provided for in Chapter ~ 7,13,
2. Increasing street widths, modifrcations in street designs or additlon of street signs or traffic signals to
accommodate ths traffic generafed by the proposed use,
3. Adjustments to off-street parking requirements in accordance with any unique characteristics of the
proposed use,
4. Regulation of poin~$ ofvehicular ingress and egress,
5. Requiring landscaping, irrigafion systems, lighting and a praperty maintenance program,
6. Regufation of signs and their locations,
7. Requiring fences, berms, walls, landscaping or other devices of organic ar artificial composition to
eliminate or reduce the effects of noise, vibrations, odors, visual incompatibility ar other undesirable
effects on surrounding properties,
8_ Regulation of fime of operations for certain types of uses if their operations may adversely af~ect
pri~acy of sleep of persons residing nearby or otherwise conflict with ott~er community or neighborhood
functians,
9. Establish a time period within whicli the subject land use must be developed,
'f 0. Requirement of a bond or other adequate assurance within a specifed period of time,
11_ Such ether conditions that are found to be neCessary to protect fhe public heafth, safety and
general welfare,
12. !n considering an appeal of an applicatian for e conditional use permit for a home occupation, the
planning commission shall re~iew the criteria listed in Section 17.64,190. (Ord. 1823 §5, 20Q1; Ord,
1684 §72, 1993; Ord. 1615 §55, i989; Ord. 1533 §1, 19$4; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981).
Discussion; Conclusions af Lar+v: The Planning Cammission finds and concludes that
the language in Criterian E does not flperate as a decisional standard, bu~ rather ftipctions
to provide municipal decision makers with guidelines to determine apprapriate conditiar~
that it may attach to approva~s under this section af the CPZO. As such, no responsive
findings of fact or canclusions of law are necessary and the Planning Can~nisszon
concIudes that the application is consistent by reason of inapplicability with respect to
Applicant's burden af proof.
i
Page 1 D of 11
Findings of ~act and Canclusions of Law
Nonconforming Use aetermination and Conditional Use Permit
Rogue Federal Credit Union: Applicant
v~~
ULTIMATE CQNCLUSfONS
Based upon fhe preceding $ndings of fact and canclusions af ]aw, ~e Planning
Comrnission for tbe City of Central Poin,t ultimately concludes that these
contemporaneously filed land use applications conform with all of the relevant
substantive approval criteria. Therefore, t~e Planning Cammission orders that the same
be and hereby are approved and that the subject property be added to the official list of
Class A Nonconforming Uses pursuant to CPZO 17.56.030(A), and t.hat a conditiana] use
permit is hereby appxoved to permif this single stozy building to eontinue ta be used for
professaonaI offices.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of Applicant Rogue Federal Credit Union:
CSA PLANNING, LTD.
~~
~,
Cra~ A. tone v
Dated: ctober 8, 2010
Pa e11of91
9
ATTACHN3~~Ts° $
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS ~F FACT
AND
C4NCLUSIONS OF LAW
File No: 11~08
INTRODUCTION
These findings supplement the Applicant's findings as presented in Attachrnent "A"
relative to the I~Ion-Conforming Reclassification of a building for the ~roposed o~eration
of prafessionai offices. The proposed professional affices are Iocated is in the Transit
Oriented Development District (TOD) High Mix Residential/Commercial zoning district
and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 02GC, Tax Lot 2200.
The praposed space is located at S24 Manzanita Street, Central Point, OR 97502
(Applicant: Rogue ~ederal Credit Union, Agent: CSA Planning LtdJCraig Stone)
17.56.030 Classi~cation criterirc
All noncoyifot~ming uses and stt~r.cct.ure within the cit~~ of Central Point shall be
classified as either Class A or Class B noncor~ortning uses, according ta the, follax~~isag
cr°ite~~r.'a:
~1. Properties containing nonconforming use~s or st~scti~res ma)1 be designated Class
A by tlze Planning Corramission. based uporc f ndings that all the follo~~ing cr~iter•ia
apply:
1. Cantinuance of the existing ttse o~• structure tivoitld not be cotztrary to the
public health, safery or welfare, or to the spirit of this fitle.
Fipding: The building in question was previausly used as professional medical
offices for outpatient services and related Ynedical business services. The
previous use of the sn-ucture did not have a negative impact on public health
and/or safety or welfare of the surrounding neighborhaod. The Applicant's
proposed use of the building, administrative business offices, will liave less
impact related to traffic and on-street parking than the previous use since tl~ere
would be less associated customer/patient traffic. Since the change in use is fram
one type of professional office to another, there wall no additional impacts thaf are
contrary to public health, safety or welfare, or the spirit of this title.
Conclusion: The applicant has met this criterion.
2. The contrnued mai~ter~a~ice and use of the nonconfar-mi~g property is not
likely to depress values of adjacent or~ nearby p~•operfies, nor adversely affect
their develo~ament potentical rn conformarice with present zorxang.
Finding: The Applicant's proposes to use the existing structure for a similar
purpose as it has been used historically. No changes to the exterior of the
structure are planned and off=street parking is adequate to rneet High Mix
Residential -Transit Oriented Development District (HMR-TOD) requirements
for the intendetl use - professional offices. Since t11e proposed use wi11 have a
similar impact an nearby properties as the previous use, it is not Iikely to have any
negative or positive effect on va~ues of adjacent or nearby properties,
Con~lusion: The applicant has met this criterion.
3. The. use or structut~e was laKful at the tfine. of its inception arad no useful
pu~pose tivould be serve~' b}~ strict applicatiotz of tl:e provisions or r•eguirements of
this c.hapter ~vrth ivhich the use or structu~e dves nat conform.
Finding: In zeviewing City of CentraI Point building pennits, the original
builduig was constracted in 1974 and reznodele~ extensively in 1992. It was used
as a professianal offices / rnedical center unti12009 when the tenant moved to
new facilities. The building was used as professional offices pt~or to the adoption
of Central Point's Transit Oriented Develo~ment code. Under current ~IMR-TOD
requirements, professianal oftices are restt-ictetl to a second story. Since it is a
one story professional oftice building, it is a nonconforming structure. In this
case, it would require an extensive reconstruction of the structure for it ta meet
current HMR-TOD reqnirements. Even with extensive recoi3stri,ctian, th~
addition of residential uses wauld require additional off-street parking. The site
as currently configured would not provide for the needed off-street parking these
c~anges would require. Considering these issues, it would serve no useful purpase
requiring strict application of CFMC in #his case.
Conclusion: The applicant has met this criterian
4. The pr•opert~~ as not pt°edominatel}~ su~•rottr:ded by conformi~xg uses or
str~uctuf-es and, considering current growth and developmerit trends, is ~ot
reasonably expected to conae unde.r deverapnaent pressures dur~rng the next five
years.
Finding: The property is surrounded primarily by nonconfor~ning nses and
strczctures including single-family reside~ces and a single story professional office
building hausing a physical therapist. Since this is the case, the property is not
predominately surrounded by canforming uses or stnictures. Concerning
expected develo~merit pressure within ti~e next five years, current econornic
conditions would preclude any extension redevelopment in the downtoum
corridor and locations near the subject property. With vacant commercial and
residen#ial lands readily available within the city, it is urilikeiy that the area near
the property would be ui~der pressure withu~ five years so there is no reasonable
expectatian that development will occur.
Conclusion: The applicant has met this criterion.
5, The property Ys st~~ucturally sound, well-nuaintained, artd occi~pied and usec~
,for the purpose,for• which it was desrgned.
Finding: The building was canstructed in 1974 and has been well maintained. It
is currently structt~rally sound and in good condition. J_,andscaping and parking
areas have been maintained and remain in good condition as well. Priar to 200~,
the building was used to house professional meciical offices. The applicant will
use the existing building for professional offices which is a similar purpose for
which the building was originally designed.
Canclusion: The applicant has met this criter~on
6, Co~~tinuance of rh.is nanconfo~°rning use ~vill not in any way delay obst~~uct the
developmefat of• establishment of con.forming use.s on tjae subject property or~ on
any adjace.nt or nearby° properties in accorc~ance. ivith the pr-oti~isions of tlae zoning
ardir~ar~ce, ~
Finding; As stated previously, the building was constriicted in 1974 as
professional offices and used for that purpase. The applicant will use the existing
building as professional offices. This will not obstruct develapment or
establislunent of eonforming uses on the subject property. As stated previously,
to make the building canfot-~ning an additional floor would neec~ to be added.
This is very unlikely to occur due to the availability of vacant commercial land
and current economic eonditions. Continued use of the structure as professianal
offices wiil have no irnpact on adjacent or nearby properties since most of the
surrounding properties are currently nonc~nforming stnictures.
Conclusion: The applicant has met this criterion
'~?~TACNhR~~V~"~C ~
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A NONCONF~RMING USE
DESIGNATION OF A. BUILDING FOR THE PROPOSED QPERATION OF ROGUE
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION PROFESSIONAL ~FFICES
Applicant: Rague Federal Credit Union. Agent: CSA Planning Ltd/Craig Stone
(37S 2W 02CC, Tax Lot 2200
524 Manzanita Street)
File Na 11008
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted azz applicat~on fox a Noncanforming Y1se Deszgnation for
the o~eration of Rogue Federal Credit Union Professional Offices located are in the Transit
Oriented Development District {TOD) High Mix Resident~al/Commercial zoning district and
identified on the Jackson Caunty Assessor's map as 37S 2W 02CC, Tax Lot 2200, APN
10133517.
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2014, the Central Poir~t Pla~ning Cornmission conducted a duly-
noticed public hearing on the applicatzon, at which titne it reviewed the Gity staff report and
heard testimony and comments on the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the application is based on the
standards and criteria applicable to the Nonconforming Uses section 17.56 of the Central Point
Municipai code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as par~ of the Conditional Use Permit application, has
considered and finds per the Staff Report dated Novernber 2, 2010, that adequate findings have
been made demonstrating that the nonconforming use designation is consisten~ with the intent of
the High Mix 12esidentiaUComrnercia~ zoning district, naw, therefore;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City af Central Paint Plaruiing Commission, by this Resalution
No. daes hereby approve the application based on the find'uigs and conclusions af
approval as set forth on E~ibit "A", the Staff Report dated November 2, 2010, which includes
attachments, attached hereto by reference and incorpora~ed herein.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in autl~entication of its passage this 2th
day of Navember, 2010.
Planning Commission Chair
Planning Commission Resolution Na. (110210)
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this 2~' day c~f November, 2014.
Planning Cam;nission C~air
Plann~ing Cornrnissian Resolution No. (110210}