HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 776 - RFCU Conditional UsePLANNING COMMISSYON RESOLUTION NQ. 776
A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A C~NDITIQNAL USE PERMIT
FOR T~E OPERATION OF ROGUE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
PRUFESSIONAL OFFICES
Applicant: Rogue Federal Credit Unian. Agen#: CSA Planning Ltd/Craig Stane
(37S 2W 02CC, Tax Lot 2200
52~ l~Zanzanita Street}
File No. 11049
WHEREAS, the applicant subnutted an application far a Conditio~ial Use Permit for the
operation of Rogue Federal Credit Union Professional ~ffices located are iYi the Transit
Qriented Development Distriet {TOD) Higli Mix ResidentiaUCommercial zoning district
and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's rnap as 37S 2W 02CC, Tax Lot 2200,
APN 10133517.
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2010, the Central Paint Planning Cammission conducted a
duly-noticed public hearing on ti~e a~plication, at which time it reviewed the City staff
report and heard testimony and cornz~ients on the application; and
WHEREAS, the Plant~ing Conunission's consideration af the applicarion is based on the
standards and criteria applicable to the Conditional Use Permit section 17.76 of t11e Central
Point Municipal code; and
WHEREAS, dle Planxling Carnxnission, as part of the Conditional Use Pertnit applieation,
has considered and finds per tl~e Staff Report dated November 2, 2010, that adec~~iate
tindings have been made demonstrating that issuance of the conditianal use perniit is
consistent with the intent af the I~igh Mix ResidentiaUCommercial zoninb district, now,
therefore;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Plaruung Commission, by #his
Resolution No. 7 76 does hereby approve tk~e application based on tlie fiYidings and
conclusions of appro~al as set forth oxi Exhibit "A", the Staff Report dated NotTetnber 2,
2010, which includes attachmezits, attached }~ereto by referenee and incorporated herein.
PASSED by the Pla;ining Cominissior~ and signed by me in authentication of its passage
this 9th day of Novernber, 2010.
~~~ ~ ~~
Planning Cammission. Chair
P1an7ziYlg Cornmission Resolution No. 77~ (110910}
ATTEST:
~ ~ ~- i!~-~1~t~1G
L1
City epresentati~~e
Approved by me this 9th day of November, ZOf 0.
~
F'Iannin~ Cominissron C'l~ait•
Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 7 7 6 (110910)
STAFF REP~RT
~:} ^-
~ .
~ENTIR,AL
P~I~~T
STAFF REPORT
November 2, 2010
Community Development
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
AGENDA ITEM: k'ile No. 11009
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed o~eration of professianal offices as a
Class "A" nonconfonning use. The proposed professional offices are iocated is in the Tx•ansit
Oriented Development District {TOD) High Mix ResidentiaUCoinmercial (HMR} zoning district
and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 02CC, T~ Lot 2244. The
propased space is located at 524 Manzanita ~treet, Central Point, OR 975Q2. Applicant: Rogue
Federal Credit Union. Agent: CSA Planning Ltd/Craig Stone
~TAFF SO~~JRCE: ` . ~..m-.~ _
Dave Jacob,`.Co~nu~ity Plariner
~... r
BACKGROUND:
The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow professional office use of the
structure located at 524 Manzanita Street (the "Structure"). The Structure was built in 1974
for office use and has since been used for that purpose. The structure is designated as a Class
"A" noncon#orming use, which allov+rs professional offices as a conditional use. The purpose
of the conditional use desi~ation is to ensure consistency with ttze intent of the HMR district
and to protect adjacent
properties. . '~ ~,, ~~- , ,,f .`
As noted the Structure has
historically been used for offiee
purposes without complaints
froni adjacent properties. Figure
1 illustrates the abutting zoning,
which is EC (Employment
Commercial) and ~-IMR (High
Mix Resider~tiaXiCommercial}.
Use of the Structure for
professional office purposes
complies with all zaning
rec~uiremertts, such as parking,
access, etc.
There are 34 parl~ing spaces
available on tl~e site. Under
TOD requirements for
professioz~al offices, one space is
required per 440 sq. ft. of floor
~~
~A~~~
-" ~ J
st~Ject Property
LEGEND ' ~r
~ HEgh 471xResidenUalfCommerclal (F1Mf~ ~'• ~';•"' S~
+ ~ Qr~'~G
~ EmpJoymer~t Commarciel (EC) ~' f~,~
~ a,~~ ~ ~
Figure 1. Subject Property and Abutting Zoning
area. The building is a total of 11,21 d sq. f}, {~ound floar--9,754; basement=1,462) which
would require appraximately 2$ spaces. Additionally, the site would qualify for 25% reductian
in parking spaces due to the availability of the local transit system.
The applicant has stated in their findings that aIl requirements as outlined. under CPMC
~ 7.76.040 have been met. {Refer to Attachment ~A'}
ISSUES:
None.
CONDITI~NS OF APPRQVAL:
FINDINGS:
Refer to Attachment
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" - Applicant's Findings
Attachment "B" - Planning Department Supplemental Fi~dings of Fact
Attaclunent "C" - Ro~ue Valley Sewer Serv~ices Comments
Attachinent "D" - Resolution
ACTION:
Consideration of Resalution No. ~, approving the proposed Conditional C.Jse Pennzt.
Appraval of Resolution No. _, granting a Conditional Use Permit.
~-r~~~~w~~n~~r ~..~
BEFORE THE CITI' CQUNGfL
F~R THE CITY OF CENTRAL POIN7
JACKSON C~UNTY, OREGON
1iJ THE MATTER OF APpLICATiONS FOR
THE DETERMINATION OF A LAIN~UL
NONCONFORII~ING USE AND FOR A
CONDITlONAL USE PER14~1T FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENABLING AN OFFICE
USE WITHIN AN EXlSTING BUILDING TO
COtJTINUE BEIiVG USED FOR
PROFES510NAL OFFfCES ON LAND If~
CENTRAL POINT AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER Q~ THE INTERSECTIQfd OF
MANZAMITA STREET AND PINE STRE~T
Applicant: Rogue Federai Credit Union
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND COf~CLUSIQ~lS OF LAWr
Applrcants' Exhrbif ~
NATURE, SCOPE AND ENTENT OF APPLlCATION
An exxsti7~g building located at the sautheast corner of Manzanita and pine streets has
been occupied by business and professional offices, most recently by Provide~.ce Medical
Center, for outpatient care and medical/business offices. The prope7-ty is zon~d Higl~ Mix
Residential (H11~IR}. Offices are conditionally permitted in an HMR zone, provided it is a
ground flaor business w-ithin a multipie family building, has less thari ten thousand square
feet per tenant, and is adjacent to land zoned EC. The e;Yisting building has only a single
story and was built i~a 1974, v~ell before Central Point's adoption of the Transit Oriented
DeveJopment (TOD) regulations with the building does not camply. As such, the siz~gle
story office building is a nonconforming structiure with respect to the ~equirement that
offices are now restricted to a second floar. Therefore, for this building to be eligible for
eanditional use authorization as a7~ o#~"ice, it must be established as a lawfully
nonconforming structure and have granted a eonditional use permit. ~'he purpase of these
contemporaneously filed applications is:
,A. Ta establis~ the existing noncanforming building as a Class A nanconfor~ning use
pursuant to Central Point Zoning Ordinance (CPZO) 17.56.030{A), and
~. To autharize the conditional use of said building as an o~ce b~ the granting of a
conditianal use permit pursuant to CPZ~ 17.76.040.
Page 7 of 11
~
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Nonconfprming Use Determination and Conditional Use Permit
Rogue Fecferak Credir Union: Applicant
EVIDENCE SUBMfTTED WITH 7HE APPLICATIQN
Applicant has submitted the fallowing evidence in support of tlizs conditional use permit
{CUP} application:
Exhibit 1 The proposed Findings af Fact and Conclusions of Law (this document}
which demonstxates how ~.he application complies with the applicable
substantive appra~al criteria for a Canditional. Use ~ermit as set forth in the
Centra] Point Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibit 2 Completed Nonconfarming Use and Conditional Use Permit application
farms and a Limited Pawer of Attorney which authorizes CSA Planning,
Ltd. to function as Applicant's agent in these proceedings
Exhxbit 3 ~ackson County Assessor I~Rap
Eghibit 4 Zaning Map on Aerial Photo
Exhibit 5 Map Of E~sting Land Uses
E~hibit 6 Photographs of Subject Building and Site
RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPRQVAL CRITERIA
The City Planning Cornmission concludes that that the following constitutes all of the
relevant substanti~ve criteria applicable to a CXass A nanconforming use determinations
and for the approval of conditional use permits. Tbe approval criteria are recited
verbatim below and in ~ection V wl~ere each is addressed with the conclusions of law af
the Cammission:
CLASS R NONCQNFQRMING USE DETERININAT"IDN
17.56.03D Classifica~on criteria. Alf nanconfosming uses and structures within the city of Central Point
shall be classified as either Class A or CEass 8 nonconforming uses, according to the fallowing criteria:
A. Praperties containing nonconforming uses or structures may be designated Class A by the pfanning
commission basad upan findings thaf all of the fallowing criteria apply;
1. Continuance of the existing use or strucfure would not be confrary ta fhe public heafth, safety or welfare,
or to the spirit of this title;
2. The continued maintenance and use of the nonconforming properEy is not likely to depress the values of
adjacent or neart~y properties, nor adversely af~ect their development potential in con#ormance with present
zaning;
Page 2 of 19
Findings of Fact and Conclusions af Law
fVonconforming Use Determination and Conditional Use Permit
Rogue Federal Credit Union: Applicant
3. The use or structure was lawful at the time of its inception and no useful purpose would be served by
strict application of the provisions or requiremenis of this chapEer with which the use or structure does not
canform;
A. 7he property is not predomrnantly surrounded by confarming uses or structures and, considering current
growth and developmen# trends, is not reasonably expected to come under de~elopment pressures during
the next five years;
5. The property is structurafly sound, well-mainfained, and occupied and used for ttte purpose for which it
was designed;
6. ContinuanCe of this nonconforming use will not in any way delay or obstruct the development or
esfablishment of conforming uses on the subjecf property or on any adjacent or nearby properties in
accardance with the pro~isions of the zoning ordinance.
CONDlTIONAL USE PERMIT
17.7B.04t} Findings and Conditions. The planning commission in granting a conditional use perrnit shall
find as follows:
A. That the si4e for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to mest
all other de~elopment and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and al1 other provisions af this code;
B, That fhe site has adequate access ta a public street or highway and that the street or highway is
adequate in size and condition to eff~ctively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the
praposed use;
C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property ar the permitted use
thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of impro~ements
on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and intemal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings and structures;
wa3ls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighfing; and signs;
Q, That the establishmenf, maintenance or aperatian of the use applied for will comply with local, state and
federal health and safety regulafians and therefore will not be detnmental to the health, safety or general
welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighbarhaods and will not be detrimental or
injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the corrtmunity
based on the review o# those factors listed in subsection C of this sectian;
E. That any conditions required for approval of the permif are deemed necesSary to protect the public
health, safety and general weifare and may include:
1. Adjustments to Iot size or yard areas as needed to best accommodate the proposed use; provided
the Iots or yard areas conform to the stated minimum dimensions far the subjed zoning district, unfess a
variance is also granted as provided for in ChapEer 97,13,
2. Increasing street widths, modifcations in street designs or 8ddition of street signs or tra~c signals to
accommodate the tra~c generated by the proposed use,
3. Adjustments to off-street paricing requirements in accordance with any unique characteristics of the
proposed use,
4, Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and cagress,
5. Requiring landscaping, irrigation systems, lighting and a property maintenance program,
6. I~egulation of signs and their lacations,
~
~ Page 3 of 11
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Nonconforming Use Determination and Con[titional Use Permit
Rogue ~ederal Credit Union: Applicant
7. Requiring fences, berms, walls, landscaping or ather devices of organic or artificiai Composition ta
eliminafe or reduce the effeds of noise, vibratians, odors, visual incompatibility or other undesirable
effects on surrounding properties,
8. Regulation of time of operations for certain types of uses if their operations may ad~ersely affect
prsvacy of sleep of persons residing nearby ar ofhenrvise conflict with other community or neighborhood
functions,
9, Establish a time period within which the subject fand use must be developed,
9 0. Requirernent of a bond or other adequate assurance within a specified period of time,
11. Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public health, safety anci
general welfare,
12. In considering an appeal of an application for a canditional use permit for a home occupation, the
planning commission shall review the criteria listed in Section 17.60.190, (Ord. 1823 §5, 2001; Ord.
1684 §72, 1993; Ord. 1815 §55, 1989; Ord. 1533 §1, 1984; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 198'f)_
N
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Comm~ission reaches t~e follawing facts and finds them to be true ~with
respect to this matter. The below Findings of Fact support the Conclusians of Law of the
Planning Commission as the same are set forth in Sectian V.
~.. Property Location: The subject propert}r is located on Manzanzta Street at its
intersection with Sixth Street within incorparated Central Point, The property is
dese~ibed in tl~e recards of the Jackson County Assessor as Tax Lot 2200 on map 37-
2W-02CC.
2. Subject Praperty Description, Acreage, Ownership: The ~roperty is fuliy
develaped and occupied by a single story off ce building, required off-street parking,
and appurtenances. The buiIding, exclusive of basement, eamprises 9936 square feet
and was constructed in I974. The property has 0.60 acre. Appiicant, has given its
consent for CSA Planning Ltd to submit the proposed Jand use applications on its
behalf and the sarne is evidenced by a Limited Fower of Attarney that has been
included as part of Applicant's filing and has been made a part of the record,
3. Zoning: The property is presently zoned Hxgh Mix Residential {HMR) o~a the City of
Central Paint Zoning Map.
4. E~isting and Surrounding ~,an~d Uses: Land uses in the surrounding area are shown
on the Exhi.bit 5 map. Other nonconforming uses and stiucturas abu# or Iie directly
acrass Manzanita Street fram the subject properiy and are within the same HMR
zoning district.
I~ ~
Page 4 of 11
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Nonconforming Use Determinarion and Conditiona! Use Permit
Rogue Federal Credit LJnion: Applicant
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The following conclusions of law and ultimate concZusions are based on the findings of
fact contained in Section IV above and the evidence enumerated in Section II. The below
conclnsions of law of the Central Point Planning Commission are preceded by the
approvai criteria to which they relate:
CLASS A NONCONF~RMlNG U5E DETERMINATlON
17.56.030 Classiflcatfon criteria. All nonconforming uses and structures within the city of Centrai Point
shall be classified as either Ciass A or Glass B nonconforming uses, according to the following criteria;
A. Properties cantaining nonconforming uses or structures may be designated Class A by the planning
commission b~sed upon findings that aEl af the iallawing criteria apply:
Crite~ion 1
1. Continuance of the existing use or structure would no# be contrary to the pubiic heaftii, safety or welfare,
or to the spirit of fhis title;
Diseussion; Canclusions of Law: The Plaruling Commission concludes that the subjeet
single sto7y building has, until recently, been used as a professional medical office
occupied by Pravidence Medical Center for autpatient and medicaUbusiness services.
Neither Applicant nor t~e Planriing Commission are aware af any aspects of the
build~ng's former use t.hat has p~oduced any impact upan the public health, safety and
general welfare, and ~o party testified nor introduced evidence to the cantraty. In fact,
medical offices typically produce greater levels of traffic and off-street parking than do
typical business affices. As such, the Planning Cornmission cancludes that the building's
cantinued use as affices will not produce any additianal levels of traffic nor other unpacts
which are different or greater than those which have historically existed wi.thin or by
reasozi of use of this building far office purposes. ~or these reasons, the Cammission
concludes that ~is application is cansistent wi.th Criterion 1.
k~ ir~,~r~was.axaRaxw
Criterion 2
2. The continued maintenance and use af the nonconforming praperty is not likely to depress the values of
adjacent or nearby praperties, nor adversely affect their development patential in conformance with present
zoning;
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: As explained in the findings of fact in Sectian N, the
single story building now eXists and, until recently, was used for medical outpat~ent care
and medicallbusiness offices b}7 Providez~ce Medica3 Cez~ter. T}ie praposal now before the
Ciry of Central Point is to permit the continued use of the building for ~rofessional
affices to be occupied by employees of Rogue Federal Credit Union. Na exterior
changes to the building are now proposed and off-street parking is sufficient to
.
v ~ Page 5 of 11
Findings uf Fact and Conclusions of Law
Nonconforming Use beterminetion and Conditiona! Use Permii
Rogue.Federal Credit Union: AppliCant
accommodate the intended use. Tn point of fact, the Cammissian concludes that medical
offices typically produce greater requ~rements for parking and greater traffic impacts than
is anticipated for general business offices now proposed. Given t~Zat the building already
exists and the inte~ded future use ~~ill pro~uce fewer traffic impacts and need for less off-
street parking, tl~e Cornsnission cancludes that the continued maintenance and use af the
this property is not likely to depress the values of adjacent or nearby properties, nox
adversely affect their de~velopment potential in conformance with present zoning,
consistent with Criterion ~.
v~+w+*•~*»x~.~waw
Criterion 3
3. The use or strucfure was lawful at the time of i4s inception and no useful purpose wouid be served by
strict application of the provisions or requirements of this chapter with which the use or structure does not
conform;
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: This building was constructed lang befare the
adoption of Central Point's Transit Oriented Develapment {TOD) regulations. Building
permits for the building were properIy obtained from the City of CentraJ Point at the time
the buildir~g was constructed (in I974) and there is no evide~ce to the eontrary.
Application of the city'~ TOD regulations, which rest~ets professianal offices to onl}~ a
second story, will have the effect of enjoining office uses fram now Iawfully occupying
this existing single story office building, In this regard, neither Applicant nar the
Comrnission is aware of any usefi7l puipose to be served by strict application of the cit~T's
regulations which, again, 'will pre~ent offiee use of this existing buzlding which was
designed fox and occupied by o~ce uses. Based u~on the foregaing findings of fact and
conciusions af law, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the
requirements of Criterion 3 because the subject structure was lawfitl at the time of its
inception and no useful purpose would be served by strict application of the pravisians or
requirements of this chapter with which the use or structure does not conform;
~,w*.**.~a.~*~~.~
Criterion 4
.4. The property is not predaminantly surrounded; by conforming uses or structures and, considering current
growth and development trends, is not reasonably e~ected to come under development pressures during
the next fi~e years;
Discussion; Co~clusions of Law: As shawn on Exhibit 5, the subject property is
surraunded, among other uses, by fliree single fazx~ily dwellings located north and across
Manzanita from the property (two are immediately across Manzanita), and by Central
Point Physical T`herapy located ~o tk~e west. Neither single family detachec~ reszdential
dwellings nor the physical thez'apy use, are perrnitted ~within the HMR zone - the zone in
which the subject property is lacated. As such, the Plaruiing Commission eoi~cludes that
the property is not predominantly surrounded by confozrning uses ar structures.
r
Page6of11
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Nonconforming Use Determination and Conditional Use Permit
Rogue Federal Credit Union: Applicant
Criterion 4 has two parts. The second is whether, based t~pon a consideration of current
growth and development trends, this property is not reasonabiy expected ta come under
development pressures during the next five years. The Commission is aware that current
growth and development in Centra~ Point (and elsewherej have trended down during the
past two to three years, due in part to a larger and widespread economic recession that
often chaxacterized as a national or even global recession. As to what is a reasonable
expectation for a period five years hence, is of course unknfl'wr~.. However, the standard
requizes only there be no reasonable expectation that the proper[y will not came under
deve~opment pxessuxes over the next five years. Based upon the state of the local, state,
nationai and international ecanamies, and the availability of vacant land that permits the
same uses ai]owed in the T~MR zone, the Commission cancludes there to no reasonable
expectation that this property will come under development pressures aver the ensuing
five year period.
Based upoz~ the ~'oregoing findings af fact and concluszons o~ law, the Plaruung
Commission concludes that ~he application is consistent with the req~zirements of
Criterion 4.
Criterion 5
5. The property is structurally sound, well-maintained, and occupied and used for the purpose for wt~ich ~t
was designed;
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The photographs in Exhibit 6 show the property to be
stracturally sound and well maintained. The building and o#her site improvements was
constructed in 1974. The building, by is design, appearance, and occupancy was
intended to supply offices for professianal medical uses and it cannot be reasonably
e~:panded vertically to be consistenf with the requirements of the Central Point Zoning
Ordinance. Even if a second story could be provided (to accommodate residential use
pursuant to CFZO Table 1 in 17.55.OSQ, the property would then lack sufficient off-stxeet
parking. As such, the building cannat reasonably be made canforniing. Based upon the
foregoing, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the
requirements of Criterion 5.
R R YC'k W R~! i* i R# t 4 X•
Criterion 6
6, Continuance of this nonconforming use will not in any way delay ar obstruct the development or
establishment of conforming uses on the subject property or on any adjacent or nearby properkies in
accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance,
Diseussion; Conclusions af Law: As aforementioned, the subject building was
constructec€ as an office in 1974 and has been occupied for that purpose. Permitting the
building to continue its occupancy as an office (and wzth no needed improvements to the
Page 7 of i 1
Findings of Fact and Cdnclusions of Law
Nonconforming Use Determination end Conditionaf Use Permit
Rogue FedeYal Credit Union: Applicant
exterior of tl~e building nor the sxte} will not (and cannot be reasonably expected to)
produce any delay ar obstruct either the develapment nor establishment of conforming
uses because, based upon the evidence, t~e building has remaining economic utility and
was designed to be an affice. As such, the building has substantial remaining value that
would rnake its removal (arid replacement) with a cor~orming structure and use
impractical; others wishing to construct a conforming building and use will simply
acquire vacant ]and and cons~ruct a building for a specif c purpose {or otherwise occup}~
or refurbish an existing building) and will not incur the substantial additional cost to
demolish an e~ist'rng building that has remaining economic ~value. The Commission also
concludes there is nothing inherent in this property or its continued occupancy as an
off'ice which ~.vill in an~ way delay or obstruct the development of confontning uses oz1
adjacet~t or nearby praperties and there is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the
Cammission concludes that this application is cansistent with Crite7•ian 6.
~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~*~~x~~*~~~
CONDlTlOIYAL USE PERMIT
17.76.040 Findings and Conditions. The planning commiss~on in granting a conditional use permit shall
find as foHows:
Criterian A
A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet
all other development and lat requirements of the subjeCt zoning district and all other provis+ons of this code;
Discussion; Conclusians of Law: Applicant asserts and the Planning Commission
concludes, ~h.at the adequacy of this site far the proposed use - a prafessional office -
is e~idenced by the fact tha~ the office now exists, along with adequate required off-street
parking, landscaping and appurtenazices. No exterior improvements to the building or
site are contemplated that would affect compliance with any af the city's physical
development standards. Wl~ile Applicant will want a sign to idenfify its business, permits
for t3~e same can and will be abtained under separate pernut frarn tl~e City of Central
Point. TY~erefore, the Planning Coxnmission concludes that this appiication is consistent
with Criterion A.
Griterion B
B. That the site has adequate access to a pubfic street or highway and that the street or highway is
adequate in 5ize and canditian to sffectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the
proposed use;
Diseussion; Conclusions of Law: As shown on Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, the subject praperty
fronts upan and takes access frorn both Manzanuita and Sixth streets, both of which are
fully improved municipal streets in Central Point's do~~ntown. Manzanita has a paved
travel surfaee approximately 36 feet in width and Sixth Street has a paving width of
apprax'rmately 28 feet. Bath streets are further irnproved with concrete curhs, gutters and
~ Page 8 of 11
Findings of Fact and Conclusians of Law
Noncanforming Use Determinstion and Conditional Use Permit
Rogue Federa! Credit Union: AppiiCant
sidewalks. There are no planned capacity i~nprovements far either street and none are
needed. As to the adequacy of the street to accarnmodate tra~c from ~he proposed use,
the use is one that has, since 1974, existed and produced h'affic. The intended use, also
an office, will produce no greate~' traffic laading than that which has occurred in the past,
in will Iikely produce less traffic. Based upan the foregoing findings of fact a~d
conclusions of law, the Planning Commission cancludes that the application is consistent
with the requirements of Criterion B.
ie i~ s, .~ * k* a x x a. k* at k at
Criterion C
C. That the propased use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting propefty or the permrtted use
thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements
on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and intemal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings and struclures;
walls and fences; iandscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs;
Discussio~a; Conclusions of Law: The buildix~g intended to house the praposed use was
designed, constructed, and has, since 1974, been used as a~rofessianal office. In this
instance, Appiicant intends to use the building for its own professional affices. Because
the historic and proposed ~~se are the sanr~e, Applicant asserts and the Commission agrees,
that to the extent there are any adverse effects fram this building being used for
professianal off ces, #he adverse effects have existed since 1974; there is nothing to
suggest that the prflposed office use will have any greatez or diffexez~t effects than earlier
office uses wh~ich have occupied the building. Moreover, no additianal improvements
are plan7ied that would affect vehieular ingress, egress and internal circulation, setbacks,
heigl~t of buildings and structures, ~n~alls and fences, landscaping ar autdoor lighting. The
anly exterior feature contemplated to change (other than on-going routine maintenance
and upkeep) ~~ill be the instaliatian of a typical business sign(s) that identify the buildings
use; an~~ new signs will be required to comply with Central Point's sign ordinance. Tn all
ather respects, the occupanc~ and use of the bnilding will not change nox will the
irntended professianal office use produce any significant adverse effect o~ abutting
property ox the pernutted uses thereof, consistent in all respects with Criterion C.
x x w w f t x x 4+ x~* h k M
Criterion D
b. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with local, state and
federal health and safety regulations and therefore will nat be detrimental to the health, safety or ganeral
welfare of persans residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and wiU not be detrimental or
injurious to the praperty and impro~ements in the neighborhood or to the generaf welfare of the community
based on the review of those factors iisted in subsectian C of this section;
Diseussian; Co~telusions of Y,aw: The Plannir~g Commissian concludes that relevant
local, state and federal health and safety regulations have been appropriately incorpozated
into the Central Point MunicipaI Code. That thesa have been properly incorparated into
municipal ordinances have in ]arge part been ensured by mandates af state government
and its oversight on local land use piannz;ng pursuant to Oregon's Statewide Planning
Page 9 of 11
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Nonconforming Use Determination and Conditional Use Petmit
Rogue Fede~at Credit Union: f~licant
Goals. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent Applicant from complying wit~ all relevant
health and safety related governmental regulations and Applicant is required to comply.
Far these reasans, the Planning Commission concludes that t~e application is consistent
with the requi~rements of Criterion D.
+~»tt,r,w~.~*~wta*+~
Criterion E
E. 7hat any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safery and general welfare and may incfude:
~. Adjustments to lot size or yard areas as needed to best accommodate the proposed use; provided
fhe lots or yard areas confarm to the stated minimum dimensions for the subject zoning district, unless a
variance is also granted as pro~ided for in Chapter 17.13,
2_ increasing street widfhs, modifications in street designs or 8ddition of street signs or traffic signals t4
accommodate tl~e traffic generated by the proposed use,
3. Adjustments to off-street parking requirements in accordance with any unique characteristics of the
proposed use,
4. Regulation of points of vehicUlar ingress and egress,
5. Requiring landscaping, irrigation systems, iighting and a property maintenance program,
6, Regufation of signs and their locations,
7. Requiring fences, berms, walls, landscaping or other devices of organic ar artifcial composition to
eliminate or reduce the effects of noise, vibrations, odors, visual incompatibility or ofher undesirable
effects on surrounding properties,
8. Regulation af time of operations for certain types of uses i# their operatians may adversely affect
privacy of sleep of persons residing nearby or otherwise conflict with other community or neighborhood
functions,
9. Establish a time period within which the subject land use must be developed,
10. Requirement of a bond ar other adsquate assurance within a specified periad of t+me,
11. Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and
generaf welfare,
42. In considering an appeal af an application for a conditional use perm~t for a home occupation, the
planning commission shall re~iew the criteria listed in Sectian 17.60,190. ~Ord. 1823 §5, 2401; Ord_
9684 §72, 1993; Ord. 1615 §55, 1989; Ord. 1533 §1, 1984; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981).
Discussian; Conclttsions of Law: The Plannxng Commission finds and cancludes tl~at
tlae language in Criterion E does not operate as a decisional standard, but rather funetions
to provide municipal decision makers with guidelines to deterncune appropriate conditions
that it nzay attach to approvals under this section of the CPZ~. As such, no responsive
findings of fact or conclusions of Iaw are necessary and tk~e Planning Commission
concludes that the application is eansistent by reason af inapplicabilxty ~~ith respect to
Applica~~t's burden o~proof.
-
Page 10 af 17
Findings of Fact and Conclusians of Law
Nonconforming Use 17eterminatiqn and Cpnditional Use Parmit
Rogue Federa! Credh Union: Applicant
V~ ~
L1L71MATE CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the preceding fiudings af fact and conc7usions af law, the Planning
Comrnisszon for the City of Central Foint ultimateJy concludes that these
contemporaneously fled land use applications conform with aII of the relevant
substantive approval criteria. Therefare, the Planning Comrnission ordezs that the same
be and hereby are approved and that the subject property be added to tl~e official 7ist of
Class A Noncanfarming Uses pursuant to CPZO 17.56.d34(A}, and that a cond'rtional use
per~nit is hereby approved to pernut this single story building to continue to be used for
professional of~'ices.
Re~pectfully submitted on behalf of Applicant Rogue Federal Credit Unio~:
CSA PLANNING, LTD.
r"'r.
Cr ' A. tor~e
Dated: ctober 8, 2Q 10
~
~ Page 11 of 11
ATTACh~~iEN~'" `g ~
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Fve Na: 11009
INTRODUCTION
These findings supplernent the Applicant's findings to the CanditionaI Use Permit as presented
in Attachment "A" relative to the praposed operatian of pr~fessional off ces. The ~ropos~d
professional affices are ]ocated is in the Transit Oriented Development District (TOD) High Mix
ResidentiaVCommercial zoning district and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's rnap as
37S 2W O~CC, Tax Lo# 2200. "I'~ie proposed space is located at 524 Manzanita Street, Central
Point, OR 97502 (Applicant: Rogue Federal Credit Union. Agent: CSA Planning Ltd/Craig
Stone)
17.76.020 Inforn:ation requirer~
An r~pplicc~tion for a cafzditional use pesrnit shall include tlte_ folloivirzg r'nfot°mation:
A. Name arad addt~ess of the appdicant,•
B, Staterrient. that the upplicar~t r's the o~vner of'the praperty or is the author•ized agent of the
ow~er;
C. Address and legal description or the assessor's paj-cel ~tumbet~ of the property;
D, An accuf•ate scale dt•awi~zg of the site and improvements proposed. Tlae drawing must be
adequate to enable the planning comnar'ssion to determine tlze cornpliance of'the proposal ~.=ith.
the ~~ec~zciren2e~2tS Of tjiis title;
E. A statemer2t indicating the precise mafaner af compliance wit.lz each of ~he applicable
provisio~zs of this title together with any other dat.a pe~•tanent to the~ndi~zgs pref°eqxrisite to the
grantir:g of a use pet°rnit.
Finding: The applicant has subrnitted all of the necessary infonnat~on ta proceed with the
review of this application.
Canclusion: The applicant has met this criterian.
17. 76.040 Findings at:d conditions.
The plan~ing comnzission, z~2 granting a conditional use pe~rn.it, shall fand as, follotivs:
.q. T1aat t.he site,for the proposed use is udequate in size and shape to acco»tm.oc~ate the use
ar~d ta meet all other• de~~elopn2ent and lot t•equirements of the subject zonirtg c~ist~ict and all
other pt~ovisions of thrs code;
Findirtg: Per the applicant's narrative, the existing spaee is adequate in size and sliape tv
accomuaodate the proposec] use. Previously, the building served as a professional of~-ice
/medical building and wi11 be remodeled to meet the requiren~ents for the Applicant's
propased use. Bot1i uses axe considered "pzofessional offices" aceording to C~'MC
defnitians.
Conclusion: The proposed site and use meet this criterion.
B. That the site has adequate access to a public st~eet or hfghway and tlac~t the st~°eet or
highway is aclequate zn size and condition to e~ectively accorn.niadate the trafftc that is expected
to be generated by the proposed use;
Finding: The projeet site is located on the corner of Manzanita Street and N. Sixth
Street. Both streets are improved City streets with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. 7ngress
and egress are provided on both Manza~xita and N. Sixth Street. The intended use of the
structure will be professional/adininistrative affices whicl~ will likely produce iess traf~ic
than did the previous use so it is unlikely exacerbate traffic conditions.
Conclusion: The proposed use meets this criterion,
C. That the pr•oposed use will have no signi, ficunt adverse effect on abutting pro~er°ty ar tXze
pe~rzitted r~se f1~er~eof. In malcing this determination, the comntission shall considet• the proposed
location of irnprovements ora the site.,- vehicular ingress, egr•ess and internczl circulation;
setbc~cks; height o,f buildings and strtcetu~•es; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoof° lightirr.g;
and signs;
Finding: The structuz'e was designed and buiIt in 1974 with the intention of praviding
professional offices and was used for that purpose unti12009. The Ap~licant's proposeci
use of the building will be similar to the previous use -~rofessional offices.
The existing structure wili nat be expanded beyond its current capacity. Setbacks,
building height, walls and fencing, landscaping, and outdoor lighting will not be changed
fro7n their curtent configuration. A new sign will be added ta the site but will meet HMR
- TOD standards. Since this is the case there will be no sig,~uficant impact on abutting
properties or permitted uses.
Conclusion: The proposee3 use will not adversely affect abutting properties or the use
thereof.
D. Tlaat the establishrrient, ~naintenc~nce of- opef•ation af the use a~p~ied for will comply ~vith
local, st.a.te and, federal liealtlt and safetv r•egulations and there, fore will ridt be detr•imental to the
health, safety or general ~-velfare ofpersons residing or working in the surr•our~dirtg
n~ighbo~~hoods ar~d will not be detr7~nental or i~ajuf•ious to the property artd impro~~ements in the
netghborhood or to the general welfare of the community based on the r•eview of those,fa.ctors
listed in subsec~ion G` of this sectia~~t;
Finding: The applicant agrees to comply with all of the a~ove requirements as stated in
the applicant's narrati~ve.
Conclusion; The applicant has or intends to meet this criterion.
E. That any conditions reqi~iyed for approval of the perrrait czt-e deemed t~ecessary to pt~otect
rhe pxcblic health, safety and general welf'ai•e and may include:
1. Adjustrnents to lot size or yat•d at~eas as needed to best accornrnodate the pro~osed use;
pr~ovided the lots or y~ard areas conforrrt to the sta.ted rnif~limum drmensions for the
subject zoning dists~ict, unless a va~iarzce is also gt•anted as ~t~ovided for iri Chapter
17.13,
.2. Increasinb street width.s, rnodificatio~as in st~eet designs or addition ofstreet signs or
tra~c signals to acconan~odate the tra~c generated by tlte proposed use,
3. .~4djustments to of'f-street parking reguirernents in accardance with uny unique
character-islics of the proposed use,
4. ,Regulafion ofpoifats of vehicular ingress and egress,
S. ~Zequiring landscaping, irragation systems, lighting t~nd a property naarnteru~nce progr•a~rt,
6. Regulation ofsigrzs anc~ their locations,
7. Requiring_fefzces, berrns, 1-valls, landscaping or other deyJices of org~nic or~ ar•tifzcial
composition to elimi~uxte or reduce the effects of noise, vibrati.ons, adors, visual
i~icomputibilit7~ o~ othe~ undesif°cr.ble effects on srdrropdnding p~opet°ties,
8. Regr~latfon of time af operation.s for• certain types of atses if their opertations rru~y adl~ersely
affect privc~cy ar sleep of persons residirag n.earby or otherwise coraf7ict ~tiith other
comn:isni~~ or neighborhood,ficnctions,
9. Establish a time period ~1~ithin wlar'ch. tlie s~cbje.ct land use must be developed,
10_ Requirernent of a bond oy~ oth.er adequate a.ssurarace ~°ithin a specified period of time,
11. S~tch other co~zdrtions that are fot~nd to be necessaty to protect the public health:. safety
and general welfare.
F~~ading: As stated above, the existing structure is adequate in size anci shape to accomrnodate
the Applicant's proposed use. Prevxausly, the building sen~ed as a~rafessional office hnedieal
building and only the interior u~ill be zemodeled to meet the requirements for the propased use.
Surrounding streets are established and f~unctional. Off-street parking and ingress and egress
points are established arid are adequate to serve the propased use. Landscaping, iz-tigatiot~,
lighting is established and well7naintained, and fences andlor benns, etc. would not be required
due to the proposed use as professional offices. Hours of operation are expected to be between 7
a.m. and 6 p.m. so should not impact the surxounding neighborhood.
Conelusion: The proposed use com~lies with the above requireznents.
/~YTACHM~~VT j` ~ ~
~~ ~~~
~,
~ ~ ~~ ~. RC}GUE VALL~Y SEWER SER'I~ICES
~~ > Locarion: 138 Wesi Vilas goad, Central Point, OR - Mailing Address: P.O, $ox 3] 3Q Cenba] Point, OR 7502-0005
~ ' Te]. (54l} 664-6300, Fax (54]} 664-7771 www,RVSS.us
~- ~ r~
October 18, 20'~ ~
Da~e Jacab
Gi#y af Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Centraf Point, Oregon 97502
Re: Conditional Use Permit for 524 Manzanita Street, File # i 70d$ and 11009
The subject property is curren~y ser~ed by twa connections to an 8 inch sewer main on
Manzanita Street. These senrices are adequate ta serve the proposed uses.
If the proposed uses invalve any changes to the plumbing af the existing building there
may be development fees owed to Rogue Valley Sewer Services. The appEicant shauld
contact Rogue Valley Sewer Services so that these fees can ba calculated and paid.
Fee! free to cafl me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Digltnllysrened by Car~Tappert
Carl T~ppert ~ ~~~~T~p~«
Date:2o1a1Q180S~4:A1 -07'00'
Carl Tappe~t, RE
District Engineer
11BCVSA TREEIBCVSA41_VOLI.MEDOR.BCVSAIDATAIAGENCIESICENTP'I'IPLANNGI
CUP12009111008 524 MANZANITA.DOC
~-T~'~~;~IMEN~' ~` ~ ~
PLANNING COMMISSION RES4LUTION NO.
A RESULUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A C4NDITIONAL USE PERMYT
FOR THE OPERATI~N OF R~GUE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
PROFESSIONAL 4FFICES
Applicant: Rogue Federal Credit Union. Agent: CSA Planr.ing Ltd/Craig Stane
(37S 2W 02CC, Tax Lot 2200
524 Manzanita Street}
File No. ] 1009
WHEREAS, the applicant subnutted an application for a Conditional Use Perrnit for the
operation of Rague Federal Credit Union Professional Offices lacated are in the Transit
Oriented Developnaent District (TOD) Higl~ Mix Residential/Coznmezcial zoning district
and identified on the Jackson County Assessar's rnap as 37S 2W 02CC, Tax Lot 2200,
APN 10133517.
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2010, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted a
duly-noticed public hearing on the ap~~lication., at which time it reviewed the City stai~
report and heard testimony and cornments on the application; and
WHEREAS, the Plai~z~zx~g Commission's consideration af the application is based on the
standards and critena a~plicable to the Canditianal Use Permit secti~Yi 17.76 of the Central
Point Municipal code; and
WHEREAS, the P1alming Cammissian, as part of the Conditional Use Permit application,
has considered and finds per the Staff Report dated November 2, 2010, that adequate
findings have been made demonstrat.ing that issuance of the conditional use permit is
consistent with tk~e intent of tl~e High Mix ResidentiaUComrnercial zoning district, naw,
therefore;
BE IT RESQLVED, that the City of Central Point Planriing Cominission, by this
Resolutiori No. does hereby approve tl~e application based on the findings and
conclusions of approval as set forth on Exhibit "A", the Staff Report dated November 2,
2410, which includes attac~ments, attached hereta by reference and incorporated I~erein.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authenticaHo~i of its passage
this 2~' day af November, 24] 0.
Planning Commission
Planning Commi.ssion Resalution Na. (110210}
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this 2t'' day of November, 2010.
Planning Cflmmission Chair
Planning Commission Resalution No. (110210)