Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 6, 2017 PC PacketCENTRAL PONT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 6, 2017 - 6:00 p.m. I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members, Mike Oliver (chair), Tom Van Voorhees, Elizabeth Powell, Craig Nelson Sr., Kay Harrison, Amy Moore, John Whiting. IV. CORRESPONDENCE V. MINUTES Review and approval of the May 2, 2017 meeting minutes. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to consider a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for Smith Crossing at Twin Creeks, a 245 -unit multifamily development within the Medium Mix Residential (MMR) zone in the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan area. The 9.45 acre project site consists of two (lots) on North Haskell Street identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 03C Tax Lot 138 and 37S 2W 03DC Tax Lot 3400. Applicant: PCMI, Inc.; Agent: Scott Sinner, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. VIII. DISCUSSION 0 IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS XI. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 2017 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M. H. ROLL CALL Commissioners, Mike Oliver, Craig Nelson, Amy Moore Tom Van Voorhees and Elizabeth Powell were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Don Burt, Planning Manager, Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner, Molly Bradley, Community Planner and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE III. CORRESPONDENCE Tom Humphrey explained that he had provided the commissioners with a publication entitled Model Rules of Procedure for Council Meetings from the League of Oregon Cities. He said he would provide the Commissioners with publications periodically for their information. IV. MINUTES Amy Moore made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 7, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. Craig Nelson seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Amy Moore, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, abstain; Elizabeth Powell, yes; Motion passed. Kay Harrison arrived at 6:15 p.m. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES None VI. BUSINESS No Business items. VII. DISCUSSION A. Consideration of Draft Housing Element Policies, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan. Don Burt explained that the purpose of the Housing Element was to ensure that development occurs at the densities and mix needed to meet the City's housing needs over the next 20 Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 2017 Page 2 years; and ensure that there is enough buildable land to accommodate the 20 -year housing need within the UGB. There are eight (8) tasks required to complete the Housing Element as follows; 1. Inventory current supply of residential lands (buildable lands); 2. Identify actual density and housing mix; 3. Conduct a housing needs analysis; 4. Determine if "needed" housing density and mix is the same as actual housing density and mix; 5. Determine adequacy of buildable lands at actual densities; 6. Determine likelihood that needed residential development will occur and what needs to be done to encourage needed residential development; 7. Determine if needed measures forego expansion of the UGB; and Adopt Housing Element including measures to provide needed housing and, if necessary, expansion of the UGB Mr. Burt reviewed the historical housing densities and the necessity for strategic zoning to accommodate the projected population. He stated that Twin Creeks was a good example of mixed uses that worked well. He added that the types of housing necessary would be market driven. The commissioners had questions regarding parking requirements for the different types of housing. They explored the fact that the number of vehicles per family depended on whether people waked or rode bicycles to work and the importance of providing for pedestrian traffic as well as vehicles in the future. They additionally discussed the older population living alone in single family residences and how that impacted the calculation of buildable lands. The Commissioners asked what was required of them at this time in regard to the Housing Element. Mr. Burt replied that currently, he needed their comments and thoughts on the subject which he would use to produce a final draft. B. Wild or Dangerous Animals Stephanie Holtey explained to the Commissioners that a resident had contacted the City to obtain a business license for the purpose of selling snakes from his home. He was informed that that was prohibited but the fact that he had 7 adult boa constrictors on his premises initiated a discussion as to whether the snakes were dangerous. In researching the matter, Ms. Holtey found that the City's Municipal Code was vague on the issue. She contacted the city attorney who said that the Code should be made more clear and distinct. Ms. Holtey then researched constrictor snakes on the internet. She informed the commissioners that she had found that there were relatively few fatal interactions with constrictors from 1978 to 2012. She found 17 recorded instances. Most of those involved pythons as opposed to boa constrictors. She stated that staff was asking the commissioners to discuss how to define "dangerous" animals in the code and recommend to the City Council whether constrictor snakes would be defined as dangerous and whether they should be prohibited in the City. The commissioners discussed whether snakes were more dangerous than dogs. They discussed the fact that size could be an issue. Mike Oliver had personally seen a large snake with a family Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 2017 Page 3 recently at the veterinarian's office and it had seemed under control and not dangerous. Craig Nelson added that there was a difference between dogs and snakes as snakes are not domesticated and trainable. Several commissioners said that if the owners took care of the animal and it was not a nuisance, they had no objection to constrictor snakes being allowed in the city. Tom Humphrey Stated that the issue was to clarify the code so that everyone would know how to enforce it. Stephanie Holtey added that some criteria to consider was whether or not the animal was vicious or whether it was capable of harming a child. She said that during her research she found that pythons were normally a more aggressive species than boa constrictors and that other communities were varied in their approaches to snakes. Some cities made size an issue and some prohibited snakes outright. Others did not mention them. She stated that Central Point did not inspect for dangerous animals, but only acted on complaints, and as the code was not clear it was difficult to know how to handle any complaints. The commissioners wondered if homeowners insurance would cover damage done by a snake as opposed to another animal. They also discussed the fact that an animal could be dangerous due to mishandling by the owner and not necessarily by nature, and that housing density might have an impact on the opportunities an animal might have to become a nuisance. They also asked what the County Animal Control said about snakes. Ms. Holtey informed them that Animal Control was not specific about snakes. Ms. Holtey asked if the Commissioners would like to have staff explore the issue more and return it to them for a future discussion. She also stated that the owner of the 7 snakes was present and perhaps could provide more information. Mike Oliver asked if the owner would like to speak. Dan Gregory Mr. Gregory said that reptiles had been a hobby for him for many years. He passed out an informational packet from the United States Association of Reptile Keepers for the Commissioners. He stated that there were two main issues regarding safety when keeping snakes 1) Public safety and 2) risk to keepers. He said that incidences of fatal snake attacks were extremely low and there were many people who kept reptiles. He stated that he had three children at home and he kept his snakes in locked enclosures and in a locked room in the garage. He added that it was important to be a responsible owner which included proper care, nutrition and adequate habitat for the animals. Mr. Humphrey suggested it might be good to think about possibly incorporating some of the code of ethics for reptile keepers in the municipal code. Mr. Gregory said that might be a good idea. Mr. Humphrey also asked if it were possible for the snakes to be housed in a location outside of the city limits in order to allow Mr. Gregory to obtain a business license and incorporate a business to sell snakes. Mr. Gregory answered that it would not be possible to give the care necessary for their health and wellbeing if the animals were housed in a location other than his immediate residence. Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 2017 Page 4 Ms. Holtey asked the Commissioners if they would like her to do more research and bring the issue back to them at a later date. There was no consensus as to whether or not the Planning Commission would review the issue at a later date. C. Current Project Updates Tom Humphry updated the Planning Commission on current projects in the City. He said the 2 year city budget had been approved by the City Council. Also, he was working on concept plans for CP -5 and CP -6 and would be bringing those to the Commissioners soon. The Downtown Streetscape project was moving forward. He said that Costco had closed on their property and would be picking up their permits in the near future so they could start building. The Veterinary clinic was almost done and Microdevices was moving forward. There were apartments and an assisted living facility proposed on Haskell Street. He informed the Planning Commission that the railroad crossing was progressing but there had been some delays so it was moving slower than they had hoped, but should be completed in 2018. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to adjourn.Kay Harrison seconded. All members said "aye". Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the May 2, 2017 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of, June, 2017. Planning Commission Chair SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SMITH CROSSING AT TWIN CREEKS CENTRAL Community Development -Tom-f mpftrey,AfCP STAFF REPORT POINT " Community Development Director STAFF REPORT June 6, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: (File No. SPAR -170021 Consideration of a Site -Plan and Architectural Review application to construct a 245 unit multi-farnily residential development. The project site consists of two (2) lots located in the Twin Creeks Transit Oriented Development (TOLD) Master Plan area within the Medium Mixed Residential (MMR) zone. The 9.51 acre project site fronts North Haskell Street and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2Wd' 03C Tax Lot 138 and 37S 2W 03DC Tax Lot 34W Applicant. Milo Smith; Agent: Scott Sinner_ STAFF SOURCE: Stephanie Holtey, CFM, Community Plaiatw L1 Matthew Burt, Planning Technician BACKGROUND: The Twin Creeks Master Plan (";Master Plan") was approved in 2001 to provide guidance and instruction dor land use and development on 230 acres of land within the city. The Master Plan provides a mix of ]Musing, types and densities throughout the Twin Creeks community. Per the Master Plan, medium density multifamily residential housing is: planned for two tracts of land along North Haskell Street near the intersections of Griffin Oaks (Tax Lot 138) and Richardson Drive (i'ax Lot 3400) (Attachments "A" and "B"). At this time PCMI,. Inc. ("Applicant") is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review approval to construct a multifamily residential housing development on Tax Lots 138 and 3400 (Attachiment "C -V and "C-2"). It's the Applicant's intent to develop the project in phases as follows: • Phase 1 — 37S 2W t13C Ta c Lot l38 —100 -units • Phase 2 — 37S 2W 03IDC Tax Lot 3400 — 145 units The project site is served by all planned infrastructure identified in the Master Plan, including but not limited to streets and stormwater treatment facilities. All utilities are available to the site. Project Description: The Applicant proposes to construct a total of seventeen (17) multifamily apartment buildings, including eight (8) in Phase I and nine (9) in Phase 2. The structures vary in size and unit count; however, each multifamily building includes 1 and 2 bedroom apartment flats and 2 and 3 bedroom townhouse .style units. The parking plan consists of off-street parking spaces and garages. As illustrated in Table 1„ the proposal is within the minimum/maximum range for density and complies with the minimum parking requirements for multifamily housing. Table 1. Density and Parking Analysis Open space and recreation amenities are proposed, including a clubhouse, pool, and playground (Phase 1) and a large central open space square (Phase 2). Both phases include landscape improvements, as well as a network of pedestrian pathways (Attachments "C-12" and "C-13" ). 1 I Minimum fift Wnimun Minhmrm Maximum MaximumI Proposed PeNng N0. Parkin Deficit Acres Density Na Units Density um Units I No. Unit Rokhoo Rathemm spaces til Phase 1 4.25 14 60 32 136 100 1.5 150 168 18 Phase 2 5.26 14 1 74 32 168 145 1.5 217 1 219 2 TOTALS: 9.51 14 1 133 32 304 245 1-51 67 L 390 23 Open space and recreation amenities are proposed, including a clubhouse, pool, and playground (Phase 1) and a large central open space square (Phase 2). Both phases include landscape improvements, as well as a network of pedestrian pathways (Attachments "C-12" and "C-13" ). 1 Architecturally, the multifamily buildings are three-story wood frame construction with articulation and craftsman detailing. All the building elevations demonstrate the craftsman style design using a blue/gray or green/tan color palette, including the clubhouse and garages (Attachments 'C-3 through "C- 1 I'). Per the Applicant's Findings, the proposed development was designed to be compatible with existing surrounding architecture and was presented to Elie neighborhood For comment at a voluntary meeting on January 6, 2017 (Attachment "E"). ISSUES: There are three (3) issues relative to the proposed development as follows: 1. Master Plan, The Twin Creeks Master Plan governs land use and circulation. A review of the proposed site development in the context of the Master Plan requires clarification of shared access and traffic impacts as follows: a. Shared Access, Phase I provides a private drive connection with the adjoining property to the northeast (TL 1500), which is illustrated in the Master Plan Exhibit 3, Circulation Detail (Attachment "G"). The Applicant is requesting that the shared connWion be for emergency vehicle use only through placement of a fire access gate or similar apparatus. Per the Applicant's findings, the basis of the request is to avoid potential safety conflicts of off-site commercial traffic generated by a future land use on Tax Lot 1500. Comment: On January 24, 2017 the Community Development Director approved a senior living and memory care facility on TL 1440 (File No. 16032). At that time the provision for shared open access was spilled to the east to avoid potential conflicts between the residential facility and a future commercial use on TL 1500. The current request reflects similar concerns for resident safety associated with shared open access to accommodate off-site commercial traffic on TL 1500. in consideration of these concerns and written testimony in support of the Applicant's request provided by the property owner of TL 1500 (Attachment "F'), staff recommends the Planning Commission grant the request to provide shared access for emergency vehicles only. b. Traffic. The Master Plan includes a Traffic impact :' nalysis (TiA) that evaluates the impacts of land uses planned throughout Twin Creeks. Per the analysis and public agency Feedback, a trip cap was imposed to assure traffic generated by new development is completed in sync with specified street capacity enhancement projects. The Twin Creeks Rail Grossing is the last project to be complete before the trip cap is removed. Based on an analysis of existing and approved development projects in Twin Creeks, there is sufficient capacity to accorrunodate the proposed development in Phase 1. However, Phase 2 will exceed the available trips identified in the Master Plan and cannot be built until the Twin Creeks Rail Crossing project is complete. Comment: Per the Public Works Staff Report elated May 19, 2017, the Twin Creeks Rail Crossing is scheduled for construction in September 2017 with an estimated completion of between January and July 2018, weather depending (Attachment "J"). Per the Applicant, Phase I construction is estimated to be complete in December 2018, 6 months following completion of the rail crossing. It is the Applicant's intent to immediately begin construction of Phase 2 in December 2018 with estimated completion one and half years following completion of the Twin Creeks Rail Crossing project. Although there is no uppareat eunfli t in tinting, the Public Works Dupartiuumt muouarttmuls Phase 2 be subject to the trip cap in the event there are unexpected delays in completing the Twin Creeks Rail Crossing. (Condition No. 2). 2. Special Flood Hazard Area (SFF[A). A small portion of Phase 1 is within the SFHA (Attachment "C-1 ") Most of the impacted area is planned for parking and landscape improvements but utilities for Building 5 are shown within the SFHA. Comment: Floodplain development proposals are subject to compliance with CPMC 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention. There are no requirements relative to the proposed landscape and parking improvements, however, Building No. 5 will be subject to the residential construction standards for development in high risk floodplains. Compliance verification is a f mction of the building permit process. Staff recommends a condition that the Applicant obtain a floodplain development permit for Building No. 5 prior to building permit issuance unless it can be demonstrated through a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) that the building site is located above the I00 -year flood elevation (Condition No. 3). 3. Accessory Structure Setback. Phase 2 proposes placement of the garage and maintenance facility 3 -ft from the rear property line (Attachment "C-2"). Per the Applicant's Findings, placement of the structure in this location is necessary to provide a visual and auditory buffer rorty the railroad and industrial area east of the project site. Comment: The proposed garage and maintenance building is an accessory structure. Per CPMC 17.60.030(A), accessory structures in residential districts may be located 3-€f from the rear and/or side property [me when the building is at [east I d -R from all other structures and 55 -feet from the street right-of-way. The proposal locates the garage/maintenance building at least 20 -feet from all other buildings and 311 -feet from North Haskell Street consistent with the setback standard in CPMC 17.60-030(A). No conditions are recommended. 4. Minor Pedestrian Accessway. Phase I proposes a mirror pedestrian accessway required per Master Plan, Exhibit 3. There is a 65 -ft segment at the northeast property corner that does not provide the required 24" landscape row between the drive and the pathway per the standard identified in Master Plan Exhibit 12 (Attachment "B"). Comment: The Master Pian identifies the pedestrian connection from North Flaskell Street to Twin Creeks Crossing, which could be on the project site or the adjacent open space tract owned by Twin Creeks Development Co- To meet the standard pathway cross section, it will be necessary for the Applicant to locate a portion of the pathway on the open space tract. Staff recommends that the Applicant provide written authorization and a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the Minor Pedestrian Accessway standard per the Master Plan prior to building permit issuance. 5. Landscaping. The Applicant's Landscape Plan (Attachments "C-12" and "C-13") does not provide adequate tree placement at the north entrance to Phase i as required in CPMC 17.67.050(K)(2)(a). This section of the code requires tree placement at 30 -ft on center. Phases 1 and 2 do not provide adequate screening at the parking lot driveway entrances from North Haskell Street. CPMC 17.67.050(K)(2)(b) requires screening evergreen hedges or decorative fences walls or transparent screens. Comment: There is sufficient are on the site to accommodate the required landscaping and screening per CPMC 17.67.050(x)(2)(a-b). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission impose Condition No. 5 to require submittal of a revised landscape plan at the time of building permit issuance. FINDINGS: The Site Plan and Architectural Review application for Smith Crossing Phases 1 and 2 has been evaluated for compliance with the Central Point Municipal Code requirements set forth in the applicable sections of Chapters l 7.65, 17.60, 17.07, 17.72 and 17.75 and found to comply as evidenced by the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (Attachment "L"). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: [ . Prior to building permit issuance for any structure in any Phase, the Applicant shall provide a copy of a signed and recorded reciprocal access easement with the adjoining parcel to the North (375 2W 03 CA Tax Lot 1500 and 37S 2W 03CA Tax Lot 1400) ("Lots") as necessary to allow shared access between the Lots For emergency purposes. 2. Per the Public Works Staff Report dated May 19, 2017, the Twin Creeks hail Crossing shall be complete prior to issuance of building permits for any portion of Phase 2. 3. Prior to building permit issuance for Building No. 5 in Phase 1, the Applicant shall either I) provide a Lette=r of Map Amendment (LOMA) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) demonstrating that the site for Building No. 5 is outside Flood Zone AE; or, 2) obtain a floodplain development permit For Building No. 5 in Phase f as necessary- to comply with CPMC 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention requirements for residential construction. 4. Prior to building permit issuance for any building in Phase 1, the Applicant shall provide a written authorization to locate a portion of the Minor Pedestrian Accessway identified in the Twin Creels Master Plan, Exhibit 3 on the adjacent open space tract, as necessary to comply with the Minor Pedestrian Accessway standard in Master Plan Exhibit 12. 5. At the time of building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan demonstrating compliance with the tree planting and parking lot screening requirements in CPMC 17.67.050(10(2) (a -b). 6. The Applicant shall comply with agency conditions as per the Fire District #3 (Attachment "1l"), Building Department (Attachment "F'), and Public Works Department (Attachment "J") staff reports. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" — Pmject Location Map Attachment "B" —Twin Creeks Master Plan Exhibits 3, 12, 35, 18 and 35 printed; remaining pages herein incorporated in the record by reference. Copies available upon request. Attachment "C -I"— Phase 1 Site Plan Attachment "C-2" — Phase 2 Site Plan Attachment "C-3" — Elevation Overview Attachment `C-4" —12 -Plea Street Side Elevation Attachment "C-5" — 12-Plex Parking Lot and Side Elevation Attachment "C-6" — Roof Plan, typical Attachment "C-7" —18 -flex Elevation Attachment "C-8" —11 -flex Elevations Attachment "C-9" — 22 -Plea Elevations Attachment "C-10" — 6-Plex Elevations Attachment "C-11" — Clubhouse and Typical Garage Elevations Attachment "C-12" —Phase 1 Landscape Plan Attachment "C-13" — Phase 2 Landscape Plan Attachment "C-14" — Phase; 1 Conceptual Utility and Drainage Plan Attachment "C-15" — Phase 2 Conceptual Utility and Drainage Plan Attachment "D" — Applicant's Findings Attachment "E" — Neighborhood Meeting Notice and Sign -in dated January 6, 2017 Attachment "F" — Letter from Twin Creeks Development Co. dated May 22, 2017 Attachment "G" — Master Plan Exhibit 3, Detail Attachment "H" — Fire District ##3 Plan Review Comments Attachment "I" — Building Department letter dated May 9, 2017 Attachment "T'— Public Works Staff Report dated May 19, 2017 Attachment "K" — Planning Department Supplemental Findings Attachment "L" -- Resolution No. 842 ACTION: Consider the site plan and architectural review application I) approve; 2) approve with conditions; or 3) deny the application. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution 842 approving the site plan and architectural review application for Smith Crossing per the Staff Report dated Jute 6, 2017. ATTR iiA9 ENT "A" r 43 M ILI O r = L7 ITE n' til n n 0 w D R r s co O It O'Y II N -i II II x1 IE 11 II II ZI II 11 II rn n 0 n Z EI -i II I'D cr a� o T W m_ O OE`+ vs r w A m N Q N a: 3 .� 1 _XR, k O n VJ .Zi ? �. �. 3. )Q Q�g N R of E N A ocl zRLo a d FU' o �. e m v o0 3 0 v v m b 0 0 ATTACHMENT "B" &WW A c.-94or" PIM Maiw Plan Application rill ' til ilk. 0o0 ��' 0 W0:3 Pil r.ID CID OR �`� C-30 ElU [7 CK3 r .. EIMI rrl Min 0 HOtl51!!G 1YPFS I Wi uuli HUG iniu EXHIBIT 35 HOUSING PLAN fto Modified 10-07-2014 A TT A -%I I Ira IT U n I 1 /'1VflIV[CIV I idq r § a�OOjr 2 D b w f ci N D ^ Lo N 1 1O t0 e SMITH CROSSING roweATIW _ ii • 11■v^mw7 w "m 1 - 100 umm � TWIN CREEKS C-1 w -w u -• '{S � & +f • Cl r n R � m l•6 �- iw weer o ESN wn, ri<Y cza arZw" N Vriis w �rTlw � Z =N R� � DDDR RZZ 1` D A Z Ll Z y r R pp D �41 C �y srF OCN �tlD CRNb O O Sj �D■1 AmZ Rlmn N � r CJ C S Z Z Li 2 3i 4 � r n SMITH CROSSING roweATIW _ ii • 11■v^mw7 w "m 1 - 100 umm � TWIN CREEKS C-1 ATTACHMENT "C-2" N arN - woD Wp� ZON —yGSDsZ • ,�•e w f oZ-v p�N' a •-• O AoRntzZ R D D � Nm yas N C A Z A M -OR Z- F.FLy S D AT TWIN CREEKS Ll rRp 33\ 2^ r DTy y6p C7 N Z cl CN tlIV O N �• mNZ p ,yb r p N Z D^ F.F = 2 m Ct O Z U CD'1 y �N dN N X V CDN N X Cl v�1 N � rn 0 p D < D D htl Vf o N 2 � L1 Z= N a a o N N • j SMITH CROSSING AT TWIN CREEKS FHAW 2-,M LXM ATTACHMENT "C-4" t '�R M7P� �olwroefc4n.pic 'Ytsr rtae .,_ __._ [I [!NMI m VL- PMGI, Inc. Twin Greeks Apartments and Tommhames Street Sdde Elevation Err. : r rle ATTACHMENT "C-6" I , 1 r� I r -r I -J, -i i 1 t � , j + 1 1 � 4 1 , r 1 I 1 e f 1 •, y I a 1 1 , e 1 1 1 1 f F 1 1 9 1 l t -------..-..- -------•--- - � -� 1 f 1 T 1 1 1 , 1 1' 1 1 , ` 4 1 i 1 r e 1 A 1 ' 1 1 t 1 � , I t , 1 � 1 1 r 4 I 1 , 1 1 i 1 4 1 7 1 4 1 ! 1 1 1� l ------------------------- ------------------------td —� 1 � 1 f f 1 I 1 k , i�-� •1 r7�-- i 1 11 1 l 11 1 rl l'' v - wuwwlre.rNfo�. P3�iGl, Iru. srvemaa>! r�rescesairrrairt Twin Greeks Ap Wmelrts+rWTwuslhames lne�r.mc ROOF plan— WE sir wr , rr I i ■E 1 ■== 1 rl Eel so - 9- O 1 0o I.. W. E ■_ 1' OEM 0o I.. W. E ■_ 1' I AM ATTACHMENT "C-10" I CL a rn 3" CI1 N Ep t k' n a� � °"'�"'�r••oweu a. ,� PHOO. Inc. =D MWrrin .�urrr mcrra� Twin Greeks L nts and Tptlryhpr"" aMen mis a Flex Elevatlons 8 Ttypkal Side Elevations ;X c cr s 0 N CL a rn 0 3 R r - Q S O O N Q 10 rn a 3 n CL A rn 0 3 u L 1 ' W f y! w � I9R�nw01 A1.nRQw ` PImML}OLXRIITfOR: Tu4m Greeks Apartments and Townhomes GtubhouseR TWlui Garage Ekvat6ons _ ATTACHMENT "C-11" ATTACHMENT "( s � CREEKS PHS 1 illillIllTWN ATTACHMENT "C- # ter. �� �'�r►_ - �..�+...� . -��- , oil ti w � ' I Aits . y "Il lilts [ Iff"If;lf I t Ply PI YeIC�m s ■ r+rxriasx s �L:�SSS� � �Illi���$f1 ��r�' �;�;s•;r�.��`�I tktfi#�l�I''� ' { �If�����;�€��#��' �� �t�t� �� ` �ijj r F';�=€:3[ � 1 � � f•� { k i iii ! �'�' � � � �i ' �� � ► �� i � `i�' t � ( r�� x fl1`' f � � ���r �! jai � z� ��}�t�s `� {�� ■ # g r�� � 3 i �� f � � } � t i �� R , . SMITH CROSSING AT r. Madam Design Inc TWIN CREEKS PHS 2 NOR �� KELLL STREET 13" IT �! iT iT r T I Aits . y "Il lilts [ Iff"If;lf I t Ply PI YeIC�m s ■ r+rxriasx s �L:�SSS� � �Illi���$f1 ��r�' �;�;s•;r�.��`�I tktfi#�l�I''� ' { �If�����;�€��#��' �� �t�t� �� ` �ijj r F';�=€:3[ � 1 � � f•� { k i iii ! �'�' � � � �i ' �� � ► �� i � `i�' t � ( r�� x fl1`' f � � ���r �! jai � z� ��}�t�s `� {�� ■ # g r�� � 3 i �� f � � } � t i �� R , . SMITH CROSSING AT r. Madam Design Inc TWIN CREEKS PHS 2 NOR �� KELLL STREET 13" I 23 ATTACHMENT "C-14" S ATTACHMENT "C-15" TL S 24 ATTACHMENT "D" FINDINGS OF FACT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CSNTRAL POINT OREGON: IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A ] SITTE PLAN REVIEW OF PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS ) FINDINGS OF FACT T37 -112W -03C TL 138 AND 37-R2W-03DC TL 3400 J AND PMCI, INC APPLICANT ] CONCLUSIONS SCOTT SINNER CONSULTING, INC. AGENT } OF LAW I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant: PMCI, Inc 353 Dalton St Medford, OR 97501 Milo Smith milosmith@gmial.com Philip Smith Philips.pmci@yahoo.com A_ge_nt" Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 4401 San Juan Dr. Suite G Medford, OR 97504 541-601-0917 scortsinner0yahoo.carn Propertyl: 37 2W 03C TL 138 Twin Creeks Development Co, L.L.0 N Haskell St PO Box 3577 Central Point OR 97502 4.25 Acres Zoning MMR Medium Mix Residential (TOD) Proyerty 2; 37 2W 03DC TL 3400 Twin Creeks Development Co, L.L.0 N Haskell St PO Box 3577 Central Point OR 97502 5.26 Acres Zoning MMR Medium Mix Residential (TOD) Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page i of Z6 25 FINDINGS OF FACT Protect Summary: This Site Plan Review application proposes the development of 245 dwelling units on two parcels in the Twin Creeks Development. The standards of the Twin Creeks Master Plan (TCMP)apply to this development proposal. The development is proposed in two phases. Phase 1 is on TL 138 and proposes 100 dwelling units in 8 three story multifamily buildings, a Club House and pool for the benefit of the residents and extensive landscaping of the Haskell Street frontage as well as the internal parking and maneuvering areas. Phase 1 also provides a pedestrian walking plan consistent with the adopted Twin Creeks Master Plan. Phase 2 is on TL 3400 and proposes a total of 145 dwelling units in 9 three story multi plex buildings. This phase features a large center square open space for the resident's enjoyment. A row of garages adjacent to the existing rail road tracks provides a sound and vision buffer from both the train traffic and the industrial activities on the west side of the tracks. The applicant has submitted an application for a minor modification of a master plan. The modification would revise the Twin Creeks Master Plan to eliminate a minor walking path south of Griffin Creek and west of the existing railroad tracks. The applicant asserts the location of this segment of the walking path creates a safety issue for the users of the path in an industrial area, adjacent to active tracks and screened from view by existing development and the existing developed sidewalk on N. Haskell provides a more direct and safer route for pedestrians. The site plan proposes garages along the tracks to mitigate noise from the adjacent industrial uses and the tracks. The garages are proposed as accessory structures with a a- foot setback to the property line for the most efficiency as noise and nuisance abatement. This request complies with the setback reduction elements of CPMC 17.60.030(A). Approval Criteria The applicants participated in a required pre -application conference with the City (PRE - 17001). The pre -application summary identified relevant Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) criteria relevant to the proposed site plan review Per the Pre Application Report prepared by Staff: Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 2 of 26 26 FINDINGS OF FACT Preliminary plans far the Project have been reviewed for compliance with the applicable standards and criteria set forth in Chapters 8.24, 17.65, 17.66 and 17.67. The following comments reflect the general nature of the preliminary submittal and therefore are not intended to be all inclusive. Chapter 17.65 TOD DISTRICTS AND CORRIDORS 17.65.010 Purpose. 17.65.020 Area of application. 17.65.025 Special conditions. 17.65.030 Conflict with other regulations. 17.65.040 Land use--TOD district. 17.65.050 Zoning reRuiations— TOD district. 17.65.010 Purpose. The purpose of the Central Point transit oriented development (TOD) district is to promote efficient and sustainable land development and the increased use of transit as required by the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule requires all mode of transportation are considered in a land use action. The subject parcels are within the Twin Creeks Transit Oriented District. Water transportation facilities are not available at the site. Phase Z of the development is adjacent to the railroad tracks; however, the development has no provision for any form of rail transportation. The site is proposed for multifamily development and there is no demand for rail freight, and the area does not have any passenger services utilizing rail. The subject parcels are 3.35 miles from Rogue Valley international Airport and 1.3 miles from Interstate 5 and .4 miles from Highway 99. The Twin Creeks Master Plan identifies proposed service routes from Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD), however RVTD does not currently have Route 40 into the Twin Creeks area_ The closest RVTD stop is 2`1 and Manzanita .66 miles from the site with schedules service every %2 hour from 6:18 AM to 7:18 PM weekdays_ The Twin Creeks Master Plan provides extensive bicycle and pedestrian transportation activities with connected sidewalks, bike lanes and multiuse trails. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 3 of 26 27 FINDINGS OF FACT The proposed site plan implements the pedestrian and bicycle transportation plans. The Master Plan indicates a minor pedestrian proposed for Phase 2. The applicant has requested a modification to the Master Plan to eliminate the path as shown on the TCMP for public safety reasons. The applicant asserts the existing developed sidewalks on N Haskell between Griffin Creek and Pine Street provide adequate pedestrian connectivity and a safer environment for the users of the route. 17.65.020 Area of application. These regulations apply to the Central Point TOO districts and corridors. The boundaries of TOO districts and corridors are shown on the official city comprehensive plan and zoning maps. A. A development application within a TOO district shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. B. At the discretion of the applicant, a development application within a TOD corridor shall be subject to: 1. The normal base zone requirements as identified on the official zoning map and contained in this code; or 2. The TOD corridor requirements contained in this chapter. 17.65.025 Special conditions. On occasion, it may be necessary to impose interim development restrictions on certain TOD districts or corridors. Special conditions will be identified in this section for each TOD district or corridor. A. Eastside Transit Oriented Development District (ETOD) Trip Caps. Development within the ETOD shall be subject to the following schedule: The subject properties are not in the area of the Eastside TOD. me. 17.65.030 Conflict with other regulations. When there is a conflict between the provisions of this chapter and other requirements of this title, the provisions of this chapter shall govern. 17.65.050 Zoning regulations--TOD district. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 4 of 26 28 FINDINGS OF FACT A. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses in Table 1 are shown with a V."These uses are allowed if they comply with the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the some application and review process as other permitted uses identified in this title. B. Limited Uses. Limited uses in Table 1 are shown with an "L." These uses are allowed if they comply with the specific limitations described in this chapter and the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the some application and review process as other permitted uses identified in this title. C Conditional Uses. Conditional uses in Table 1 are shown with a "C," These uses are allowed if they comply with the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the some application and review process as other conditional uses identified in this title. D. Density. The allowable residential density and employment building floor area are specified in Table 2. E. Dimensional Standards. The dimensional standards for lot size, lot dimensions, building setbacks, and building height are specified in Table 2. F. Development Standards. 1. Housing Mix. The required housing mix for the TOD district is shown in Table 2. 2. Accessory Units. Accessory units are allowed as indicated in Table 1. Accessary units shall meet the following standards: a. A maximum of one accessory unit is permitted per lot, b. The primary residence and/or the accessory unit on the lot must be owner -occupied; c. An accessory unit shall have a maximum floor area of eight hundred square feet; d. The applicable zoning standards in Table 2 shall be satisfied. Findings of Fact The subject parcels are located within the area of the Twin Creeks TOD and subject to the standards of the Twin Creek Master Plan (TCMP). The parcels are within the MMR (TOD) zoning district. The relevant standards for development are identified in 17.65.050. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 5 of 26 29 FINDINGS OF FACT This application proposes multifamily housing in the MMR zoning district. Recording to 17.65.050 Table 1 Multifamily dwellings are a permitted use. 17.65.050 Table 2 provides the Density Standards, dimensional standards for the zoning district. Referring to the Table 2, The minimum density for the zoning district is 14 units per acre and the maximum density is 32 units per acre. Phase 1 is a 4.25 -acre parcel. Development at the minimum density would be 59 dwelling units and at maximum density would be 136 units. The proposal is submitted at 100 unit and a density of 23.5 units per acre. Phase 2 is a 5.26 -acre parcel. Development at the minimum density would be 73 dwelling units and at maximum density would be 168 units. The proposal is submitted at 145 unit and a density of 27 units per acre. The proposed development complies with the density standards of the Code. zoning vats The application proposes apartments on each phase. The proposed use in consistent with the standards of Table 1 and the TCMP. Table 2 provides the standards of the zoning district. The standards are identified as well as the applicability of the proposed application for each phase. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 6 of 26 30 Table 1 TO District Land uses Use Categories Zoning Districts LYR MMR HILAR EC f GC C OS Residential Dwelling, Witifam fly mimplex, P P P Li L1 N N apartment Senior L6 P P Lt Lt N N housing The application proposes apartments on each phase. The proposed use in consistent with the standards of Table 1 and the TCMP. Table 2 provides the standards of the zoning district. The standards are identified as well as the applicability of the proposed application for each phase. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 6 of 26 30 2Ptow 161 OHSf,T" Table 2 TOD District Zoning Standards (Standard Required Phase 1 Phase 2 Compiles MMR Density -Units Per Not Acre M Maximum 32 MMimun 14 23.5 27 yes The proposed site plan does not have land division component. The parcels were created under a prior land use action and are lot dimension standards of Table 2 are not applicable. The lots are pre-existing. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 7 cf 26 31 FINDINGS OF FACT Table 2 TO© District ZoNng Standards Dimenslorral Standards Required Phase 1 Phase 2 Complies MWdmum Lot or Land AreaiUnit Large single-tamity NA NA NA WA Standard single- family NA NA NA WA Zero lot line 2J00 SF NA NA WA detached Attached row 1,MSF NA houses MultHanrt7y NA NA NA WA Average Minimum Lot or Land Arwa/Unit NA Large singte-tamlly NA NA NA WA standard single- family NA NA NA RA Zero lit line 3,000 SF NA NA NA detached Attached roti 2,000 SF WA houses Mulutamiy NA NA NA FHA Minimum Lot Width FYA (Large single•familly NA NA NA FHA Standardsingle- NA NA NA WA carr: By Zero lot line detached M. NA NA FHA Attached row WA houses Multifamily NA NA NA WA Mhtimum Lot Depth 50' NA NA WA The proposed site plan was developed to comply the following dimensional standards. Phase 1 is encumbered with several significant easements for existing urban facilities. The size and orientations of these existing facilities constrain the design. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 8 of 26 32 FINDINGS OF FACT Table Z TOD District Zoning Standards Building Setbacks Required Phase 1 Phase 2 Complies 10715' 15, 15' yes Front (minJmax.) f Required housing types as Gated 5' under Residential In Table 1. detached Over 5 Over 5' Side (between btdgs.) more housing types requires (detachedlattached) 0' apartments attached (a)le) I Yes Corner(minJmax.) Fri 01 10' 10' yes Rear 15, 15' 15' yes Garage Entrance (d) off street oft street yes Maximum Building Halght 45' 37` 37' yes Maxhrnurn Lot Coverage (g) am I 25% 33% yes Wnlmum Landscaped Area (aj 20%of 29% 27% J yes alta area The TCMIP requires Apartments as they only housing type on the subject parcels. Table 2 TOD District Zoning Standards Housing Mix c 16 units in development: I 16--40 units in f Required housing types as Gated development:2 under Residential In Table 1. 40 units he TCMP development:3 or more housing types requires apartments Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 9 of 26 33 FINDINGS OF FACT sir elj r l f N. F.WW M. w...x IF.. Conclusions of law The Planning Commission can conclude the proposed application is consistent with the standards of CPMC 17.65 for TOD Districts and Corridors. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 10 of 26 34 FINDINGS OF FACT Approval Criteria Chapter 8.24 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION 8.24.190 Site improvements andsubdivisians. A. Ail proposed new development and subdivisions shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage and ensure that the building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding as set forth in Section 8.24.050, The test of reasonableness is a local%udgment and shall be based on historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding etc. B. Building lots shall have adequate buildable area outside of the regulatory floodway and the special stream setback set forth in Section 9, 24,230, which shall be preserved as an open space by easement. C. New development proposals and subdivision development plans, including tentative plat and approvers engineered drawings and as-builts, shall include the mapped flood hazard zones from the effective FIRIVI, including the regulatory floodway, if applicable, and estimated 6FE5 at each parcel, D. Subdivisions shall be created and designed to minimize risk of damage to property and potential loss of life from flooding, and minimize the disturbance of floodplain riparian zones by locating infrastructure and lots outside the SFHA and preserving as open space by easement. When a subdivision proposal includes improvements that encroach into the SFHA, the applicant shall demonstrate that adverse impacts to existing and anticipated future development, in the farm of increased flood elevations, flood velocity, floodplain extent and floodway extent, are avoided or mitigated by providing the following information: 1. Engineered grading plan. 2. Floodplain encroachment analysis certified by a registered professional civil engineer that identifies the cumulative impacts of the proposed encroachments, including fill and new construction, on the flooding source (Le., stream) and all associated insurable structures, on the SFHA boundaries, BFE, and regulatory floodway, if applicable. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 11 of 26 35 FINDINGS OF FACT 3. CLOMR from FEMA. E. Where BFE data has not been provided or is not available from another authorized source, the applicant shall provide a hydrologic and hydraulic engineering analysis that generates BFEs for all subdivision proposals and other proposed developments, at least one acre or four lots in size (whichever is less). F. New development and subdivisions shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electric and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage.. G. On-site waste disposal systems shall be prohibited. H. Subdivisions and manufactured home parks shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards as provided in Section 8.24.240. In AO and AH zones, drainage paths shall be provided to guide floodwater around and away from all proposed and existing structures. (Ord. 1.947 §1 (part), 2011). The proposed Site Plan for Phase 1 identifies the extent of the mapped floors way impacting the site. The CPMC requires a 25 -foot setback from a mapped flood way. The site improvements are proposed to be consistent with the flood prevention standards. The development proposal does not include a land division and there is no tentative plat submitted with this application. The site plan includes the 25' setback line for the floodway. The conceptual grading and utility plans are proposed with consideration to areas susceptible to flood impacts. Upon approval of the proposed site plans, the design team will prepare construction documents with all required flood hazard information. The construction documents will be submitted to the City for a technical review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed plan does not utilize on site waste disposal systems, the dwelling units will be connected to the public sanitary sewer facilities. Chapter 17.66 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE TOD DISTRICT AND CORRIDOR 17.66.010 Purpose, Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 12 of 26 MI FINDINGS OF FACT 17.66.020 Applicability. 17.66.030 Application and review. 17.66.040 Parks and open saces. 17.66.050 Application approval criteria. 17.66.060 Conditions of approval. 17.66.070 Approval expiration. The subject properties are within the Twin Creeks Master Plan Area. Page 9 of these findings located the site on the Master Plan. The standards for the TOD District apply to this application. The size of the project requires a Type 3 site plan review. 17.66.030 Application and review. A. Application Types. There are four types of applications which are subject to review within the Central Point TOD district and corridor. 1. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan. Master plan approval shall be required far: a. Development or land division applications which involve two or more acres of land; or b. Madifrcations to a valid master plan approval which involve one or more of the following: i. An increase in dwelling unit density which exceeds five percent of approved density, ii. An increase in commercial gross floor area of ten percent or two thousand square feet whichever is greater,• W. A change in the type and location of streets, accessways, and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected, or iv. A modification of a condition imposed as part of the master plan approval. 2. Site Plan and Architectural Review. The provisions of Chapter 17.72, Site Plan and Architectural Review, shall apply to permitted and limited uses within the TOD district and corridor. For site plan and architectural review applications involving Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc, Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 13 of 26 37 FINDINGS OF FACT two or more acres of land, a master plan approval, as provided in this chapter, shall be approved prior to, or concurrently with, a site plan and architectural review application The applicant has submitted the proposed development on a single application. The basis for a single application is as follows: • One common plan for development. The proposed development consists of two phases that are part of one common plan for development (i.e. shared amenities Between the phases, including the clubhouse, maintenance facilities, recreational trails). Although the intervening open space lot is intended for public benefit, it provides a visual amenity to both phases of the project and has been considered in the overall site layout and design.; Intervening lot purpose is to restore and preserve a natural feature. The lot separating the properties is for the sole purpose of restoring and preserving a natural feature (i.e. Griffin Creek). • Proposal is consistent with a City -approved Master Plan. The proposed use and the existing open space designation is part of and consistent with the Twin Creeks Master Plan; • The proposed development is on lots within the same zoning designation. The lots For Phase 1 and 2 are within the same zoning district (Le. Medium Mix Residential); ■ The project is not separated by a street. The lots are not separated by a street as defined in CPMC 17.08; and, ■ Same Ownership. All three (3) lots are under the same ownership at the time of application. The properties are currently owned by Twin Creeks Development Company, LLC, This application is a Type 3 Site Plan Review. The use proposed is multifamily housing consistent with the MMR zoning district. The proposed density for each Phase is consistent within the requirements of 14 to 32 units per acre. 3. Land Division. Partitions and subdivisions shall be reviewed as provided in Title l Subdivisions. For a land division application involving two or more acres of land a master plan approval, as provided in this chapter, shall be approved prior to, or concurrently with, a land division application. This application does not include a land division. The existing parcel configuration is adequate for the proposed development. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 14 of 26 38 FINDINGS OF FACT 4. Conditional Use. Conditional uses shall be reviewed as provided in Chapter 17.75, Conditional Use Permits. The proposed application will develop multifamily dwelling units and the TCMP identified apartments as the housing type. The application proposing apartments is consistent with the TCMP and Apartments are a permitted use in the zoning district. A Conditional Use Permit is not required to approve the proposed application. B. Submittal Requirements. A master plan shall include the following elements: 1. Introduction. A written narrative describing: a. Duration of the master plan; b. Site location map,. c. [and use and minimum and maximum residential densities proposed, d. Identification of other approved master plans within the project area (one hundred feet). The development proposed with this application is consistent with the TCMP. Both phases proposed multifamily apartment buildings. This housing type is consistent with the TCMP exhibit on page 9 of these findings. This exhibit also provides the site location map with the sites indicated. The MMR TOD zoning district allows housing densities from 14 units per acre to 32 units per acre. Phase 1 is proposed at 23.5 units per acre and Phase 2 is proposed at 27 units per acre. The proposed density is within the standards of the zoning district. All properties within 100 feet of the site are within the TCMP area. 2, Site Analysis Map. A map and written narrative of the project area addressing site amenities and challenges on the project site and adjacent lands within one hundred feet of the project site. a. PAaster Utility Plan. A plan and narrative addressing existing and proposed utilities and utility extensions for water, sanitary sewer, storm water, gas, electricity, and agricultural irrigotion. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 15 of 26 39 FINDINGS OF FACT b. Adjacent Land Use Flan. A map identifying adjacent land uses and structures within one hundred feet of the project perimeter and remedies for preservation of livability of adjacent land uses. Both parcels are on street frontages with full street sections and have direct access to Category A facilities. A conceptual grading and utility plan is attached with this application as required for this Code section. Phase 1 has an existing sanitary sewer trunk line and easement running diagonally through the parcel from the south west to the north east. An irrigation easement is identified on the site plan. The easement if for an underground facility and a maintenance access easement for the irrigation facility. The site is designed around these easements. Offsite water lines will be tapped and brought on to the site. A public water line and the necessary easements will supply fire hydrants. The public lines will be tapped and private domestic water supply system will be provided to each structure. Sanitary sewer and storm water plans are identified on the conceptual utility plan. Upon approval, the civil engineer will prepare construction documents for all infrastructure. These plans will be submitted to the City for technical review and consistency with all master plans. Phase 1 is adjacent to Griffin Creek on the south and north property lines. A portion of the site is within the defined floodway and subject to a 25 -foot floodway setback. The site design was developed to be consistent with all elements and requirements of the CPMC with respect to development in flood hazard areas. Phase 2 is adjacent to Griffin Creek on the north property line. This phase is not within the floodway. A site utility and grading plan is also attached to the application and provides a conceptual utility layout. Upon approval of the site plan review, the civil engineer for the project will design construction documents for review and approval by the City. The design of the infrastructure for all utilities will minimize risk of flood damage. An irrigation easement is identified on Phase 1. The easement includes the irrigation facility and access for maintenance of the facility. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 16 of 26 40 FINDINGS OF FACT 3. Transportation and Circulation Plan. A transportation impact analysis [TIA] identifying planned transportation facilities, services and networks to be provided concurrently with the development of the master plan and addressing Section 17,67.04 Circulation and access standards. The approved Twin Creeks Master Plan identified Apartments on the proposed sites. The approval of the master plan included a review of the proposed traffic impacts. Of apartments on the subject properties. The TIA provided with the Master plan contemplated development of the subject parcels at the maximum density of the MMR zoning district, which is 32 units per acre. The adoption of the TCMP considered a maximum of 304 dwelling units at 32 snits per acre for the proposed parcels. This application proposes 245 dwelling units. The traffic impact of the development contemplated in the Master plan is 304 x 6.86 Average Daily Trips (ADT) for apartments equals 2,485 ADT for the parcels. The application proposes 245 dwelling units at 6.86 ADT per DU for a total of 1,680 ADT. The development proposed with this application reduces the traffic impact considered in the TCMP by 408 ADT. 4. Site Plan. A plan and narrative addressing Section 17.6ZC1Sa Site design standards. 17.67 050 Site design standards. The tollowing standards and criteria shall be addressed in the master plan, land division, andlar site plan review process: A. Adjacent Off -Site Structures and Uses. B, Natural Features. G. Topography. D. Solar Orientation. E. Existing Buildings on the Site. F. New Prominent Structures, G. Views Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SFR Page 17 of 26 41 FINDINGS OF FACT H. Adjoining Uses and Adjacent Services. L Transitions in Density. J. Parking. K. Landscaping L. Lighting. M. Signs. A. Adjacent Of -Site Structures and Uses. The subject parcels are within the TOMP area. The property contiguous to the north is vacant in the EC TOD zoning district, The property to the north west is vacant within the HMR TOD zoning District. The property to the east and south is vacant and owned by Twin Creeks Development Co, LLC. The parcel contains Griffin Creek and will remain undeveloped. Directly west, across the N. Haskell right of way from Phase 3 is MMR TOD zoning developed with attached row houses and some OS park spaces. The properties to the north and north west are owned by Twin Creeks Development Co, L.L.C. The parcels contain Griffin Creek and will remain undeveloped. The north-east property line abuts the railroad right of way. The abutting propertyto the east is a bin manufacturing plant within the HMR TOD zoning district. A portion of the subject parcel is fenced and being used for RV storage by the current owner. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 18 of 26 42 FINDINGS OF FACT North Haskell is fully improved with all urban facilities and the approved street section, curb to curb. The ROW landscaping and sidewalks adjacent to Phase 1 will be developed with Phase 1, The sidewalks and landscaping adjacent to Phase 2 will be developed with Phase 2. Upon site plan review approval, the applicant will commence the design of the infrastructure according to the current standards. The plans will be submiuccl to the City for review and compliance with the standards. B_ Natural Features. Both parcels do not contain any significant trees. Griffin Creek flows between the two parcels. Phase 1, north of the Griffin Creek channel, does have portions of the parcel impacted by the floodway of Griffin Creek. The site plan design includes the identified flood hazard areas and the design includes the measures prescribed by the CPMC. The TCMP has designated the parcel between the two phases as an open space. The property is subject to a conservation / preservation easement. G. Topography. Flat, Flat, Flat. Griffin Creek flows between the two subject parcels and is within a single parcel. The creek corridor area was specifically identified for preservation and adequate separation was provided in the land division process to protect the stream and the stream banks. The subject parcels are basically flat with a slight slope to the creek. Both subject parcels appear to have been graded and leveled for historical agricultural uses. Imagery form 1994 depicts a channelized Griffin Creek. The development of the Twin Creeks restored and enhanced Griffin Creek and the conservation / preservation easements and master plan status will insure protection of the feature. The proposed development complies with all streamside setbacks established to protect and enhance Griffin Creek as well as protecting the development and residents from the dangers of flooding. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc, Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 19 of 26 43 a AMU.' r /P ��; Ag i ■ tir .: s• • r :� - _ AW fir ! .� y FINDINGS OF FACT D. Solar Orientation. Both Phases of the development considered solar orientation in the design process. The siting objectives of this section were utilized and considered with other site constraints and existing easements. CPMG standards For building orientation adjacent to a right of way and natural features (Griffin Creek) constrained the sites. The sites, particularly Phase t are further encumbered with existing sanitary and irrigation easements, The structures were 0ed with the solar orientation in the code as much as possible given all the site constraints and density requirements. The common areas and open spaces were strategically sited for solar access and the cooling summer winds and reduced shadow impacts, particularly in winter, on adjacent buildings and outdoor spaces E Existing Buildings on the Site. Both subject parcels are currently vacant. The proposed architecture of the buildings has been designed to be compatible with other existing buildings in the neighborhood, featuring articulations, porches, gables, recesses, and attractive materials and patnt scheme. 9 V&rLff WrW '1 P o - VWw ®even J The proposed development is medium density housing build to a density of 23 and 27 units per acre. The proposed architectural style is 3 story wood frame construction. The closest existing buildings are across N Haskell from Phase 1 as seen it the photograph below. Scott Sinner Consufting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 21 of 26 45 FINDINGS OF FACT The senior housing development pictured below is across N. Haskell from Phase 2. This is a three story building with architectural styles compatible with the proposed development_ The front elevations of proposed buildings will be sited within the CPMC setback range for the TCPM. These setbacks provide an attractive front elevation of the buildings and adequate area for an attractive landscape design to provide an attractive streetscape for both pedestrians and vehicles traveling through the area. F. New Prominent Structures. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 22 of 26 46 FINDINGS OF FACT This application proposed apartments consistent with the TCMP requirements for the housing type and the zoning district. There are no public or civic buildings proposed with this application. G. Views. Both phases of the development propose apartments as the housing type. The buildings share an architectural theme designed to meet the standards of the CPMC and the TCMP and meet the density requirements of the MMR TOD zoning district. The buildings proposed are three story wood frame structures. The multi-plex buildings vary from 6 dwelling units to IS dwelling units. The use of these multiplexes provides space between buildings for views, landscaping and pedestrian access to the sites. The configuration of the buildings on the sites preserves views in the vicinity and reduces massing while achieving the targeted densities of the zoning district. H Adjoining Uses and Adjacent Services. One of the primary design objectives of the development was to create an attractive streetscape to be compatible with existing uses and development in the vicinity. The N. Haskell frontage of both phases provides an attractive streetscape with landscaping and spacing between the buildings to reduce massing of a medium density development. The common amenities of the development to be used by the residents of this development are internally located the reduce impacts to the surrounding developments and residents. The TCMP considered the impacts of uses and compatibility when designing the master plan, the zoning districts and the intensity of adjacent uses. The subject properties are within the MMR TOD zoning district. The properties are abutting the same, or more intensive zoning districts or open space zoning districts. The master planning has reduced the potential for conflicting adjacent uses and buffering requirements. Both Phases use a single access from N. Haskell for access to the developments. This creates an attractive streetscape and screens the parking areas and the common amenities to be used by the residents of this development. Scott sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 23 of 26 47 FINDINGS OF FACT The site facilities for storage and maintenance equipment is purposely located away from public view. The mail boxes forthe development comply with the standards of the CPMC. L Transitions in Density. The TCMP and the CPMC adequately provided standards to implement transitions in density and intensity of uses. The subject parcels were master planned for apartments as the only permitted housing type. Additionally, the properties are only abutting the same or more intensives zoning districts and designations or open spaces. The height of the propose buildings are within the range permitted in the Code. J. pare ing. The parking proposed for the development complies with the standards for the CPMC and the TCMP. The location of parking is internal to the development with no parking between the structures and the public street frontages. Phase 1 has 1010 dwelling units and provides a total of 168 total parking spaces. Phase 2 has 145 dwelling units and provides 222 total spaces. The total parking supplied is 1.6 spaces per dwelling unit. The parking is dispersed and landscaped throughout the sites to limit distances to the dwelling units minimize the areas dedicated to parking and maneuvering. K. Landscaping. The proposed landscape plan meets or exceeds all standards of the CPMC and the TCMP. The N. Haskell street frontages provide street trees and landscape areas to provide the desired streetscape envisioned with the master plan. Phase 1 includes the pedestrian path with prescribed landscape border described in the TCMP. The north-west corner of Phase 1 is encumbered by the 25' floodway setback. I grasscrete fire department turnaround is provided to ensure public safety and meet the requirements for the Floodway setback. The south and west boundaries of Phase 1 are adjacent to Griffin Creek greenway and the location of the buildings and the open spaces are designed to provide as must unobstructed view to the creek as possible. 5cott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 24 of 26 48 FINDINGS OF FACT Phase 2 borders Griffin Creek on the north border and the development provides views and pedestrian access to the areas bordering the Creek. The western boundary of Phase 2 is adjacent to the railroad tracks and industrial development on the west of the tracks. The site plan proposes garages along the tracks to mitigate noise from the adjacent industrial uses and the tracks. The garages are proposed as accessory structures with a a- foot setback to the property line for the most efficiency as noise and nuisance abatement. L. Lighting. Pedestrian scale lighting is proposed for sight and right of way lighting to comply with the CPMC and the TCMP. M. Signs. The site {clans indicate the location reserved For a ground mounted sign at the south side of each access off N. Haskell. The actual design of the signs will be submitted to the City for review to comply with the standards for signage contained in the Code. 5. Recreation and Open Space Plan. A plan and narrative addressing Section 17.67 060 Public parks and open space design standards. 6. Building Design Plan. A written narrative and illustrations addressing Section 17.67.0 Building design standards. 7. Transit Plan. A plan identifying proposed, or future, transit facilities (if any). 8. Environmental Plan. A plan identifying environmental conditions such as wetlands, flood hazard areas, groundwater conditions, and hazardous sites on and adjacent to the project site. Applications shall be submitted as required in Chapter 17.05. (Ord. 1971 §4 (Exh. C) (part), 2013, Ord. 1815 §1(part), Exh. 8(part), 2000]. Application summary and Conclusions The Planning Commission can conclude the proposed site plan application for Smith Crossing at Twin Creeks, Phase 1 and Phase 2 is consistent with all design requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code and the Twin Creeks Mast Plan. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 25 of 26 49 FINDINGS OF FACT The application meets the standards for a site plan review with a request to modify an approved plan, the requirements for development in a flood hazard and all elements for the development of the proposed 245 -unit development. On behalf of the application, i respectfully request the approval of the application. Regards, Scott Sinner Stott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Smith Crossings at Twin Creek SPR Page 26 of 26 50 ATTCHMENT "E" January 6, 2017 As a Twin Creeks neighbor, we would like to invite you to a neighborhood meeting to review plans for our new multifamily development located on North Haskell Street. 3 Dwr ermimW Street View EIen� The meeting will be Friday January 27th at 6_-00 PM at: Twin Creeks Retirement Center 888 Twin Creeks Xing, Central Point, Oregon 97502 We will be available to discuss the project and answer your questions. Thank you and we look forward to meeting you. Milo Smith PI Ell Scott Sinner 51 r Twin Creeks Neighborhood Meeting January 27, 2017 Sign in Sheet Name Address Prone r cl on f_ -a-] SLS- 52 ATTACHMENT "F" TWIN CREEKS DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC Twim CREEKS] PO Box 3577 _ — Phone (541) 665-5401 — Central Point, OR 97542 Fax (54t) 665-5442 May 22, 2017 Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director City of Central Poirrt 140 South 31' Street Central Point, OR 37502 Dear Tom; The purpose of this letter is to request a clarification of the Twin Creeks TO Master Plan relative to Exhibit 3, Circulation Plan specifically for the fallowing properties: ■ 375 2W 03CA Tax Lot 1540– Zoned Employment Commercial (EC) 0 375 2W 03C Tax Lot 138– Zoned Medium Mix Use Residential (MMR) We would like shared access to be limited to use by emergency vehicles between these lots, which will be controlled by a fire access gate or tither 5imiEar device. The basis of oris request is that the Master Plan does not articulate a clear requirement for private shared access other than to illustrate a conceptual connection in Exhibit 3. if required to allow unlimited shared access, there are concerns that commercial traffic generated by a future land use on Tax Lot 1500 would be incompatible with and cau-se a safety hazard to future residents of the medium residential murtifamity development on Tax Lot 138. By limiting a cress to emergency vehicles only, concerns about resident safety will be addressed. If this clarification is deemed acceptable, access to Tax Lot 1500 will be limited to the intersection of Boulder Ridge Drive and Twin Creeks Crossing. As shown on Exhibit 3, this intersection is restricted to right-in/right-out turning movements due to its proximity to the rail crossing. We understand that limited access conditions will require a Traffic Impact Analysis for any potential future development. this may pose a challenge to future development and use ofthe site, which is acceptable to Twin Creeks Development, Co. We request that the City accept this letter and justification as clarification that the Internal circulation be provided for emergency vehicle access only. Pending approval of this request, Twin Creeks Development Co., current owner of the subject properties, agrees to record a shared access agreement reflecting the approved clarification. If you have any questions, let me know. Sincere y%Y---- Bret Moore Twin Creeks Development Co., LLC www.twincreeksinc.entralpk)irit.com 53 1 VA gu OR CD I -A 1a a �vN � pz -0 CL _ yr• rop� `i� ❑ is � Y N ry r' Fri O ax,. r, p � CTS ��'• n o N 7C Q ❑ o � -0 0 Fir 0 _• ' A n ~F' CL W * � .Q,. m Gn o rt+ N pa �iCL O CL ACL ED Q. m W Q S SOAR z f®a p o P. m pb 3 w w '* o O r�'p 4 asa m !i = 3 CL m Ln O O'0 0 3 n r3 n 1A 3 ann ca cs• �' p � = �D G. am � � C �c❑ m S• � r'i rt�o ® in en �� IM ❑ N or 0 C IM 3 C 0 OR C m b � < G m d fQ m 5 W p� o D ro ^cs Q 5 S 3 NNNNN d cl m ro� cr O fu � •O m M m yr S n7n g, R�0fD < W 7 CLo R °* mm Im °; m 3 ° m CL ap ` m of 0-'o O to D y 55 ATTACHMENT "H" o° "--i �vN � G n • N � � Y o o Q OR Fri O ax,. r, p � CTS ��'• n o N Q OF CL s n z 0 3 s 0 Ln ul us O N O f� d 00 m 56 a � Q CL 3 F" ? R A j R fQ (A fD O o S N o m 2 a — 0 -0cr os► N I., C)w 11` i l W > m � R vo N r N 5-0 an a N a r► C�C Y/ 7 a x V re to ,n O o OR 'a c N r. an e 0 o -5 3 r- 3 N O _S c S N Q Qf N O C 3 r► ON4 �, Q p CLeD c m 0 s O 56 a � Q CL City of Central Point, Oregon 140 S Third Sven, Central_Point OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 �r�ry�r��in taremn.eav May 9, 2017 Stephanie Holtey, CFM Community Planner U City of Central Paint CENTRAL POINT ATTACHMENT "I" Building Department Derek Zwagernnm RE, Bugdmg Official RE: SPAR -17002 — Smith Crossing at Twin Creeks Building Deparft e t Commeaft The site plan accessible padring spaces are less dun required by the Oregon 5truchwai Specialty Code (OSSC) Table 1106.1. No other comments for comphance with the OSSC, can be determined at this time. -IuQrr� Derek Zwagewum, P.E. Building Official 57 Public Works Department CENTRAL POINT PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT May 19, 2017 ATTACHMENT "J" Matt Samitore, Director AGENDA ITEM (Land Use File: SPAR -17002): Site Plan and Architectural 245 -unit multifamily development to be constructed in two (2) phases. Applicant: Chuck and Milo Smith Traffic: The apartments proposed were pan of the original Twin Creeks Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The original TIA had a list of improvement projects to facilitate multi -modal transportation. The only remaining project still left to be completed is the Twin Creeks Rail Crossing. The crossing project is anticipated to start work in September and conclude in April of 2018. Them originally was a trip cap associated with Twin Creeks that will be lifted when the rail crossing project is complete. Public Works has reviewed the Applicant's construction schedule to ensure that additional traffic issues associated with West Pine and Haskell are not exaggerated by the apartment project, and to confirm that emits will not be occupied until May 2018. As provided in the table below, the Twin Crocks Rail Crossing is scheduled to be complete at least 6 months prior to completion of Phase 1. Even if there is a delay in the rail crossing, there are enough trips available to accommodate all proposed development in Please I but not Phase 2. Although further delays in the rail crossing are unlikely, Phase 2 is subject to the trip cap per Condition No. I below. Twin Creeks Rail Crossing Smith Crossing Pro ect Bid coin — Aer st 10°h Start Phase I Undergrouud Work -- Ady 2017 Start of Construction — September 2017 Start Phase 1 Construction —December 2017 Project Completion -- April July 2018 Start Phase 2 Und5nuound Work — Summer 2018 Co tete Phase I Construction- December 2018 Start Phase 2 Construction — December 2018 Complete Phase 2 Construction — April 2019 Existiine Infrastructure: Water: Both sites are services by 8" stub outs. Streets: North Haskell is a two lane collector that is fully improved, except for sidewalks and landscape row adjacent to tax lot 138. Storm water: Both sites are serviced by 12-24" stub outs. Conditions of Approval: 1. TriQCap - Prior to building permit issuance for any building in Phase 2, the Twin Creeks Crossing project shall be complete per the Twin Creeks blaster Plan implementation plan and trip cap. 2. Street lmyrovements — Prior to Public Works Final Inspection for Phase 1, the Applicant shall construct sidewalks and landscape rows consistent with Public Works Standards and Specification per drawing ST -20 2 Lane Collector Street. 140 South 3rd Street • Central Point, OR 97502 •541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 58 ATTACHMENT "K" FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW File No.: SPAR -17002 Consideration of a Site Plan & Architectural Review application to construct a 245 -unit multifamily development known as Smith Crossing at Twin Creeks Applicant: PCMI, Inc. 353 Dalton Street Medford, OR 97501 PART 1 INTRODUCTION Project Summary Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law The applicant proposes to construct a 245 -unit multi -family housing development ("Project") on two (2) lots totaling 9.51 acres within the'l'win Creeks Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan area. The project is to be developed in two (2) as follows: • Phase 1 — 37S 2W 03C Tax Lot 138— IM -units • Phase 2 — 37S 2W 03DC Tax Lot 3400 — 145 units The proposed development includes open space and recreation areas, including a clubhouse, pool and playground (Phase 1), as well as an open space square (Phase 2) an a network of pedestrian walkways (both phases). Other improvements associated with the proposal include: Off-street parking, including some garages within each phase; Street frontage improvements (i.e. sidewalks and landscape rows) ■ Parking lot and site landscaping. Review Procedures The site plan and architectural review request is a Major Project. Due to scope and location of the project the application is being processed using Type Ill procedures in accordance with CPMC 17.05.300(B)(3)(a). The Type HI procedures set forth in CPMC 17.05 A00 provide the basis for decision in the development code and the comprehensive plant, when appropriate. The project site consists of two (2) lots are separated by an open space conservation lot for Griffin Creek. Although non-contiguous lot are typically processed as separate applications, the City has determined this project may be processed as one application based on the following findings: • One common Oan for develo mens. The proposed development consists of two phases that are part of one common plan for development (i.e. shared amenities between the phases, including the clubhouse, maintenance facilities, and recreational trails). Although the intervening open space lot is intended for public benefit, it provides a visual amenity to both phases of the project Page 1 of 42 59 and has been considered in the overall site layout and design; • Intervening lot purpose is to restore and preserve a natural feature. The lot separating the properties is for the sole purpose of restoring and preserving a natural feature (i.e. Griffin Creek). • Proposal is consistent with aCitxslaroved MasterPlan. The proposed use and the existing open space designation is part of and consistent with the Twin Creeks Master Pian; • Thepropased development is on lots within the same zoning designation. The lots for Phase 1 and 2 are within the same zoning district (i.e. Medium Mix Residential); • The project is not separated by a street. The lots are not separated by a street as defined in CPMC 17.08, and, • Same Ownership. All three (3) lots are under the same ownership at the time of application. AgpNeable Criteria The project site is located in the MMIC, Medium Mix. Residential zone within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District and is subject to the following standards and criteria in the Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC): • Chapter 17.65, TOD Districts and Corridors; • Chapter 17.66, Application Review Process for the TOD District and Corridor; • Chapter 17.57, Design Standards-TOD District and Corridor, and, • Chapter 17.75, Section 39, Off -Street Parking Design and Development Standards. Findings will be presented in three (3) parts addressing the requirements of Section 17.05.300 as provided below. Firxiings for CFMC 17.67, Design Standards-TOD District and TOD Corridor will include those sections with standards denoted by "shalt" or "must" and not recommend standards denoted by "should". 1. Introduction 2, Twin Creeks Master Plan 3_ Central Point Zoning Ordinance 4. Summary Conclusion PROPOSAL BACKGROUND The proposed multifamily housing project is within the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan {"Master Plan") with frontage on North Haskell Street (Figure 1). The Master Plan was approved by the City in 2001 (Ordinance No. 1817) to guide land use and development on 280 -acres within the City. The Master Plan designates circulation (Figure 2), land use (Figure 3), and housing (Figure 4) requirements within the planning area. The Project Site has been designated for medium density, multifamily housing since the Master Plan was approved. All infrastructure surrounding the site has been constructed in accordance with the Master Plan with the exception of sidewalks and landscape rows for Phase 1 along North Haskell Street. Page 2of42 60 Figure 1— Project Location Map A CENTRAL POINT "imaLn=fm MW cmeav at 7WW cmem qk No. 3PAR-17m NIP b rsa=wro.ra..� +a•%. ".Mona �re11mN wt •e.�. wo....rpna Www,Nor.n..d moc.srpm w,Wd. W7-..ob.or.r.r wsN•iF(I.r.Y.-t�C m. .mmm*IA..it..l Findings and conclusions addressing the approval criteria are provided in the following sections based on the Twin Creeks Master Plam(herein incorporated by reference), the Figures provided herein and the Application Exhibits attached as follows: Exhibit 1 —Phase 1 Site Plan Exhibit 2 — Phase 2 Site Plan Exhibit 3 — Elevation Overview Exhibit 4 —12 -Plea Street Side Elevation Exhibit 5 —12 Plex Parking Lot and Side Elevation Exhibit 6 — Roof Plan, typical Exhibit 7 —18 -Plea Elevation Exhibit 8 —11 Plex Elevations Exhibit 9 --22-Plea Elevations Exhibit 10 — 6 Plex Elevations Exhibit 1 I — Clubhouse and Typical Garage Elevations Exhibit 12 — Phase 1 Landscape Plan Exhibit 13 — Phase 2 Landscape Plan Exhibit 14 — Phase 1 Conceptual Utility and Drainage Plan Exhibit 15 — Phase 2 Conceptual Utility and Drainage Plan Exhibit 16 — Twin Creeks Development letter dated May 22, 2017 Exhibit 17 — Bicycle Parking Memo dated May 30, 2017 Page 3 of 42 61 PART 2 TWIN CREEKS MASTER PLAN The Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan (`'Master Plan) was approved in 2000 to guide development within a 230 -acre Iand area in accordance with the TOD district zoning and design standards. The Master Plan governs land use and circulation within the Master Plan area. The Project has been evaluated against the Master Plan and has been found to comply with all applicable exhibits as %l lows: Exhibit 3, Circulation This exhibit (Figure 2) presents the requirements for public streets and off-street pedestrian accessways. Figure 2 -- Master Plan Exhibit 3 Cdlbq 1. 6'brdYHo. /M Page 4 of 42 62 Finding: Master Plan Exhibit 3, Circulation There are three aspects of the Circulation Plan that provide guidance and instruction relative to the proposed Project: 1) street network, 2) oft' -street pedestrian accessway; and, 3) Phase i shared access. These are addressed as follows: I ) Streets. Exhibit 3 (Figure 2) presents the required street network for Twin Creeks. Both Phase l and Phase 2 site have frontage on North Haskell Street, a Collector- North Haskell Street was constructed per Exhibit 3 as part of Twin Creeks Crossing Phase l and Pine Street Station in 2005-2006. The only outstanding improvement on North Haskell Street is the construction of frontage improvements (i.e. sidewalk and landscapc row) for Phase 1. Per the Applicant's Site Plan (Figure 5), the site improvements are proposed consistent with the Master Plan. 2) Off -Street Pedestrian A.ccessways. An off-street pedestrian accessway is identified on Exhibit 3 (Figure 2) providing connectivity between North Haskell Street and Twin Creeks Crossing along the Griffin Creek open space corridor. As illustrated on the Applicant's Site Plan for Phase I (Figure 5), a Minor Pedestrian Accessway is proposed along the project site perimeter from North Haskell Street to the northeast property boundary. The proposed design complies with the Minor Pedestrian Off -Street Accessway Cross Section identified as Exhibit I2 in the Master Pian with the cxcept.ion of a 65 -ft section at the north east property comer. Since the Master Plan doesn't indicate whether the pedestrian accessway is to be located on the project site or the adjacent open space lot, there is an opportunity to relocate this portion of the pathway and provide the required cross section. As conditioned, the Project can comply with Master Plan Exhibits 3 and I2. There are no pedestr an aecessways impacting Phase 2. 3) Phase 1 Shared Access. Exhibit 3 illustrates an internal connection via a private drive between Phase I and the adjoining properties to the north (Figure 3). The private connection illustrated appears to be for open access, but the ?Master Plan does not provide clear instruction relative to internal circulation. The Applicant's Site Plan (Exhibit 1) illustrates a private connection at the northeast property comer as required. However, since the property to the northeast (37S 2W 03CA Tax Lot 1500) is planned for Employment Commercial use the Applicant has requested the shared connection be for emergency vehicle use only. The Applicant's request is to eliminate potential safety conflicts between the multi family community and off-site traffic generated by a future commercial use. The owner of the "rax Lot 1500 has provided a letter of support for this request. Based on the lack of"clarity offered by the Master Plan and support offered by the affected property owner, the City agrees that the Master Plan allows for the access restriction to protect public safety from the conflicts between a potential high -impact cormnercial use and medium density multifamily housing. Conclusion Ala.vter Plan Exhibit 3, Circulation, Based on an evaluation ref the site plan for both phases the proposed Project complies with Exhibit 3, Circulation relative to streets, off-street pedestrian access (as conditioned) and shared access. Land Use (Exhibit ll) The Master Plan distributed land use designations throughout the Master Plan area, which is reflected on the City's Zoning Map. Page 5 of 42 63 Figure 3 — Master Plan Exhibit 18 ® EXHIBIT 18, Land Use Plan ^„ modified 10-07-2014 Finding Land Use (Exhibit 18): Per Master Plan Exhibit 18 and the City's Zoning Map, the Project Site is designated as Medium Mix Residential (MMR), which permits medium density multifamily housing The Project is multifamily housing within the minimum/maximum range for density (See Finding 17.65.050(D)) as required by the Master Plan, Conclusion Land Use (Exhibit 18): As evidenced above the proposed Project complies with the Twin Creeks Master Plan Exhibit 18. Page 6 of 42 64 Housing (Exhibit 35) The Housing Plan designates the housing types envisioned for each land use category within the 230 -acre planning area. Figure 4 — Master Pian Exhibit 35 ® EXHIBIT 35 HOUSING PLAN Modlfled 10-07-2014 Finding Housing Plan, Exhibit 35: The Site Plan far both Phases (Exhibits 1 and 2) illustrate the proposed multifamily housing project with eight (8) apartment buildings on Phase 1 and nine (9) apartment buildings on Phase 2. This layout proposes placement of buildings along the street frontage consistent with the maximum setback allowed in the MMR zone. Other buildings are clustered throughout the site to promote views of the adjacent open space area_ Conclusion Housing Plan, Exhibit 35: As evidenced by the Site Plan for both Phases (Exhibit I and 2), the Project is consistent with the Twin Creeks Master Plan Housing Plan (Exhibit 35). Page 7 of 42 65 Master Plan Summary Conclusion The proposed multifamily housing development on the Project Site has been evaluated against the Master Plan and has been found to comply with al[ applicable Exhibits including Land Use, Housing, and Circulation. PART 3 ZONING ORDINANCE 17.65.050 'Zoning Regulations---TOD district A. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses in Table I are shown with a -P.- These uses are allowed if they comply with the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the same application and review process as other permitted uses identified in this title. B. Limited Uses. Limited uses in Table I are shown with an "L." These uses are allowed if they comply with the specific limitations described in this chapter and the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the same application and review process as other permitted uses identified in this title. C. Conditional Uses. Conditional uses in Table I are shown with a "C" These uses are allowed if they comply with the applicable provisions of this titte. They are subject to the same application and review process as other conditional uses identified in this title. Finding 17.65.05001-0: The proposed multifamily housing project site is located in the .'LIMP, Medium Mir Residential zone within the TOD District. "multifandly Housing" is listed in Table I as "Permitted Use". Conclusion 17.65.0560(B): Consistent. D. Density. The allowable residential density and employment building floor area are specified in Table 2. Finding 17.65.050(D): In the MMI[ zoning district, the minimum density is 14 unitslacre and the rrraximism is 32 uniislacre. As shown in Table I below, the proposed Multifamily Housing project on the Project Site is within the allowable range for density in the MMR zoning district. Site Max. Area Min. Density Min. Units Density Max. Units Phase (Acres) (units/acre) Required (unitstacre)_ _Required _Proposed 1 4.25 14 60 32 136 100 2 5.26 14 74 32 168 145 Combined Totals 9.56 14 134 32 304 245 Conclusion 17.65.050(D): Consistent. Page S of 42 66 E. Dimensional Standards. The dimensional standards for lot size, lot dimensions, building setbacks, and building height are specified in Table 2. Finding I7.65.050(E): As shown in Table 2 below, the proposed multifamily housing project has been evaluated against the dimensional standards of the MMR zoning district and found to comply as ilhtstrated in Table 2. It needs to be noted that the setbacks for the front yard are the maximum, the side yard is the minimum, and the rear yard is the minimum distance measured from a residential building and the rear property line per the Site Plan in Exhibits I and 2. There is a proposed garage and maintenance building that is 3 -ft from the Phase 2 rear property line consistent with the accessory structure setback reduction per CPMC 17.610,030(A), which is not included in Table 2. Conclusion 17.65.050(E): Consistent. E. Development Standards. 1. Housing Mix. The required bousing mix for the TDD district is shown in Table 2. Finding 17,6 5.050 (F) (I).- The proposed multi,familyhousingfacility consists of three-story multifamily buildings including groupings of 8-9 apartment/ condominium buildings within Phase 1 and 2, respectively. The housing type is consistent with the TOD Master Plan Exhibit 35, Housing, which distributes a mix of housing types throughout the 230 -acre Master Plan area. Conclusion 17.65.050(F): Consistent. 2. Accessory Units. Accessory units are allowed as indicated in Table 1- Accessory units shall meet the following standards: a. A maximum of one accessory unit is permitted per lot; Page 9 of 42 67 MMR District Phase t Phase 2 Combined Total Minimum Lot or Land ArealUnk NIA 192,099 s.f. 229,125 s.£ 421,254 s.f. Average Minimum Lot or Land ArealUnit NIA NIA NIA 421,254 s_f. Minimum Lot Width NIA 10715' NIA 15' NIA 15' -- NIA 15' Front Lard Setback WnJmax_ Side Yard Setback min. 5' 15' 10' (between lexes Corner MinJmax. 5710' NIA NIA NIA Rear 10' 46' 20' (to driveway curb Maximum Budd" Hei t 45' 34' 34' 34' Maximum Lot Covera a 80% 75.4% 72.5% 71.9% Minimum Landscaped Area 20% 24.6% 27.5% 28.1% Conclusion 17.65.050(E): Consistent. E. Development Standards. 1. Housing Mix. The required bousing mix for the TDD district is shown in Table 2. Finding 17,6 5.050 (F) (I).- The proposed multi,familyhousingfacility consists of three-story multifamily buildings including groupings of 8-9 apartment/ condominium buildings within Phase 1 and 2, respectively. The housing type is consistent with the TOD Master Plan Exhibit 35, Housing, which distributes a mix of housing types throughout the 230 -acre Master Plan area. Conclusion 17.65.050(F): Consistent. 2. Accessory Units. Accessory units are allowed as indicated in Table 1- Accessory units shall meet the following standards: a. A maximum of one accessory unit is permitted per lot; Page 9 of 42 67 b. The primary residence and/or the accessory unit on the lot must be owner - occupied, c. An accessory unit shall have a Tnaximum Boor area of eight hundred square feet; d. The applicable zoning standards in Table 2 shall be satisfied. Finding 17.65.050(F)(1). 77ie proposal does not include accessory units. Conclusion 17 65.050(F). Not applicable. 3. Parking Standards. The off-street parking and loading requirements in Chapter ! 7.64 shall apply to the TOD district and TOD corridor, except as modified by the standards in Table 3 of this section (below). CPMC 17.55.050 - Table 3 TOD District and Corridor Vehicle Parking Standards Use Categories IMinimum Required Parking Residential Dwelling, Multifamily Plexes 1.5 spaces per unit. Apartments and condominiums 11.5 spaces per unit. a_ Except for multifamily housing, fifty percent of all residential off-street parking areas shall be covered. Accessory unit parking spaces arc not required to be covered. b_Parking standards may be reduced when transit service is provided in the TOD district and TOD corridor and meets the following conditions: i. Parking standards may be reduced when transit service is provided in the TOD district and TOD corridor. ii. Parking standards may be reduced up to fifty percent when transit service is provided in the TOD district and TOD corridor and when bits service includes 15 -minute headways during the hours of seven to nitre a.m. and four to six p.m. c. Bicycle parking standards in Chapter 17.54 shall not be reduced at any time. d. Shared parking easements or agreements with adjacent property owners are encuurugesd to satisfy a purtion of the parking requirements for a particular use where compatibility is shown. Parking requirements may be reduced by the city when reciprocal agreements of shared parking are recorded by adjacent users. Page 10 of 42 68 Finding I 7.65.050(F) (3): The minimum parking requirement for multifamily apartments is 1.5 spaces per unit or 367 total parking spaces for the 245 -unit proposal. Per the site plan for each phase of the project, the proposal complies with the minimum parking requirement as illustrated in Table 3 below. The project includes 25 single car garages (5 in Phase I and 20 in Phase 2). Since the covered parking requirement does not apply to multifamily housing types, the Project complies with the parking standards. Conclusion 17.63.050(F): Consistent. 17.66.030 Application and Review A. Application Types. There are four types of applications which are subject to review within the Central Point TOD district and corridor. 1. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan. 2. Site Plan and Architectural Review. 3. Land Division. 4. Conditional Use. Finding I7.66.030(A): The proposed multifamily housing development is a permitted use on 9.51 acres and has been submitted for a Site Plan and Architectural Review and processed using Type III application procedures per Section 17.66.030(A)(2) - Conclusion 17.66.030(A): Consistent. B. Submittal Requirements. A master plan shall include the following elements: 1. Introduction. 2. Site Analysis Map. 3. Transportation and Circulation Plan. 4. Site Plan. 5. Recreation and Open Space Plan. 6. Building Design Plan. Page 11 of 42 69 Vehicle Bicycle No. Parking Spaces Spaces Difference Parking Spaces Spaces Difference Phase Units_ Ratio Required Pro sed i+1) Ratio Re 'd Proposed +1) 1 100 1.5 150 168 18 1 100 105 5 2 145 1.5 218 222 5 1 145 149 4 Total 245 1.5 368 390 23 1 7.45 254 9 Conclusion 17.63.050(F): Consistent. 17.66.030 Application and Review A. Application Types. There are four types of applications which are subject to review within the Central Point TOD district and corridor. 1. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan. 2. Site Plan and Architectural Review. 3. Land Division. 4. Conditional Use. Finding I7.66.030(A): The proposed multifamily housing development is a permitted use on 9.51 acres and has been submitted for a Site Plan and Architectural Review and processed using Type III application procedures per Section 17.66.030(A)(2) - Conclusion 17.66.030(A): Consistent. B. Submittal Requirements. A master plan shall include the following elements: 1. Introduction. 2. Site Analysis Map. 3. Transportation and Circulation Plan. 4. Site Plan. 5. Recreation and Open Space Plan. 6. Building Design Plan. Page 11 of 42 69 7. Transit Plan. 8. Environmental Plan. Applications shall be submitted as required in Chapter 17.05. Finding 17.66.030(B): The proposed mutt family housing development is within the Twin Creeps Master Plan area. A new Master Plan is not required. Conclusion 17.66.030(B): Not applicable. 17,66.040 Parks and Open Spaces Common park and open space shall be provided for all residential development within a TOD district or corridor as per Section 17.67.060. Finding 17.66.040: The proposed multifamily housing development is within the Twin Creeks TOD Muster Plan area, which established parks and open spaces throughout the Twin Creeks TOD to meet the requirements of this section: Conclusion 17.66.040: Xot applicable. 17.66.050 Application Approval Criteria A. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan, Finding 17.66.050(A): The current application is a Site Plan and Architectural Review. Conclusion I Z6&050(A): Not applicable. B. Site Plan and Architectural Review. A site plan and architectural review application shall be approved when the approval authority finds that the following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable: 1. The provisions of Chapter 1M, Site Plan and Architectural Review, shall be satisfied; and 2. The proposed improvements comply with the approved TOD district or corridor master plan for the property, if required; and 3. Chapter 17.67. Design Standards—TOD District and TOD Corridor. Finding 17.66.050(B): As evidenced by the findings and conclusions setforth herein, the proposed multifamily housingfacility satisfies the approval criteria for site plan and architectural review. Conclusion 17.66.050(B): Complies. C. Land Division. Finding 17.66.050(C): The current application is a Site Plan and Architectural Review, Page 12 of 42 70 Conclusion 17.66.050(C): Not applicable. D. Conditional Use. Finding 17.66.050(D): The current application is a Site Plan and Architectural Review. Conclusion 17.66.050(D): Not applicable. 17.67.040 Circulation and Access Standards A. Public Street Standards. 1. Except for specific transportation facilities identified in a TOD district or corridor master plan, the street dimensional standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 300, Street Construction shall apply for all development located within the TOD district and for development within the TOD corridor which is approved according to the provisions in Section 17.65.024 and Chapter 17.66. 2. Block perimeters shall not exceed two thousand feet measured along the public street right-of-way. 3. Block lengths for public streets shall not exceed six hundred feet between through streets, measured along street right -of --way. 4. Public alleys or major off-street bikelpedestrian pathways, designed as provided in this chapter, may be used to meet the block length or perimeter standards of this section. 5. The standards for block perimeters and lengths shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary based on fundings that strict compliance with the standards is not reasonably practicable or appropriate due to: a. Topographic constraints; b. Existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or accessways; c. Railroads; d. Traffic safety concerns; e. Functional and operational needs to create a large building; or f. Protection of significant natural resources. Finding 17.67.040(A) (1-5): The proposal does not include the creation of blocks. The existing street network was established in accordance with the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan and the provisions of this section. Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(1-5): Not applicable. Page 13 of 42 71 6. All utility lines shall be underground but utility vault access lids may be located in the sidewalk area. Finding 17.67.040(A)(6): All proposed utility lines proposed are underground. Per the Site Plan (Exhibit I and 2) there are three (3) PP&L electrical vaults located on the site, outside oj'public sidewalks system their provide access the underground utilities.. Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(6): Consistent. 7. Connections shall be provided between new streets in a TOD district or corridor and existing local and minor collector streets. Finding 17.67040(A)(7): All streets have been constructed per the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan (Figure Z) as shown on the Project Location Map (Figure 1). As such. the proposal does not include the creation of new streets. Conclusion 17.6 7.040(A)(7): Not applicable. 8. Pedestrian/Bike Accessways Within Public Street Right -of -Way - a. Except for specific accessway facilities identified in a TOD district or corridor master plan, the following accessway dimensional standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and. Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 300, Street Construction shall apply for any development located within the TOD district and for development within the TOD corridor which is approved according to the provisions in Section 17.65.020 and Chapter 17.66. b. In transit station areas, one or more pedestrian -scaled amenities shall be required with every one hundred square feet of the sidewalk area, including but not limited to. i. Street furniture; ii. Plantings; iii. Distinctive Paving; iv. Drinking fountains; and V. Sculpture. c. Sidewalks adjacent to undeveloped parcels may be temporary. d. Public street, driveway, loading area, and surface parking lot crossings shall be clearly marked with textured accent paving or painted stripes. e. The different zones of a sidewalk should be articulated using special paving or concrete scoring. Finding 17.67.040(A)(8): Pedestrian and bicycle accessways proposed within the public right- of-way for Phase I (Exhibit I) is consistent with the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan street Page 14 of 42 72 sections for roadway classifications of the adjoining streets. The public sidewalks within Phase 2 (Exhibit 2) have been constructed in accordance with the Master Plan and Public Works Standard Specifications for Collector Streets. Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(8): Consistent. 9. Public Off -Street Accessways. a. Pedestrian accessways and greenways should be provided as needed to supplement pedestrian routes along public streets. b. Off-street pedestrian accessways shall incorporate all of the following design criteria: The applicable standards in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 300, Street Construction; ii. Minimum ten -foot vertical clearance; iii. Minimum twenty -foot horizontal barrier clearance for pathway; iv. Asphalt, concrete, gravel, or wood chip surface as approved by the city, with a compacted subgrade; V. Nonskid boardwalks if wetland construction is necessary; and vi. Minimum one hundred square feet of trailhead area at intersections with other pedestrian improvements. A trail map sign shall be provided at this location_ c. Minor off-street trails shall be a minimum of five feet wide, have a minimum vertical clearance of eight feet, a minimum two -foot horizontal clearance from edge of pathway and be constructed of gravel or wood chips, with a compacted subgrade. Finding 17.67.040(A (9): Per the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan, Phase I includes construction of a Minor Pedestrian Accesswsay along the property perimeter. Per the Phase I Site Plan, the trail provides a S ft pathway and a minimum 2 ft landscape buffer with the exception of a 65 -ft segment along the north east property boundary. As conditioned, the Applicant shall coordinate with Twin Creeks Development Co. to locate a portion of the path on the adjoining open space tract or amend the site plan to comply with the minimum trail design standard in this section. Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(1-5): The Phase I Minor Pedestrian Accessway complies as conditioned. . B. Parking Lot Driveways. 1. Parking lot driveways that link public streets and/or private streets with parking stalls shall be designed as private streets, unless one of the following is met: a. The parking lot driveway is less than one hundred feet long; Page 15 of 42 73 b.The parking lot driveway serves one or two residential units; or c. The parking lot driveway provides direct access to angled parkin; stalls. 2. The number and width of driveways and curb cuts should be minimized and consolidated when possible. 3. Where possible, parking lots for new development shall be designed to provide vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent sites. 4. Large driveways should use distinctive paving patterns. Finding 17.67.040(B)::4s illustrated on the Site Plan.far each Phase, proposed parking lot driveways are designed as private drives with standard curb and gutter per Public Works Standard SpeciJication ST -42. There are two (2) driveways proposed on North Haskell Street for each Phase in accordance with the Master Plan. The Phase / driveways are spaced 270 -feet apart and one shares an intersection with Griffin Oaks Drive. Phase 2 driveways are roughly 160 -feet apart and one shares an intersection with Richardson Drive_ Conclusion 17.67 040(B): Consistent. C. On -Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Attractive access routes for pedestrian travel should be provided by_ I . Reducing distances between destinations or activity areas such as public sidewalks and building entrances. Where appropriate, develop pedestrian routes through sites and buildings to supplement the public right--of-way; 2. Providing an attractive, convenient pedestrian accessway to building entrances; 3. Bridging across barrizrs and obstacles such as fragmented pathway systems, wide streets, heavy vehicular traffic, and changes in level by connecting pedestrian pathways with clearly marked crossings and inviting sidewalk design; 4. Integrating signage and lighting system which offers interest and safety for pedestrians; 5. Connecting parking areas and destinations with pedestrian paths identified through use of distinctive paving materials, pavement striping, grade separations, or Iandscaping. Finding 17.6 7.040(C): On-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation is provided along the public sidewalk .system on Twin Creeks Crossing and North Haskell Street.. 1n addition, the Site Plan for each phase illustrates a network of private pedestrian walkways within the housing development to provide connectivity between the apartment buildings, clubhouse and poo[, playground and open space amenities. There is a Minor Pedestrian Accessway proposed for public use along the perimeter of Phase I the Grin Creek open space conservation area. Conclusion 17.67.040(Q: Consistent. 17.67.050 Site Design Standards. The following standards and criteria shall be addressed in the master plan, land division, and/or site plan review process: Page 16 of 42 74 A. Adjacent Off -Site Structures and Uses. All off-site structures, including septic systems, drain fields, and domestic wells (within one hundred feet) shall be identified and addressed in the master plan, land division, or site plan process in a manner that preserves and enhances the livability and future development needs of off-site structures and uses consistent with the purpose of the TOD district and as necessary to improve the overall relationship of a development or an individual building to the surrounding context. Finding 17.67.050(A)(1): All off-site structures are identified in the Twin Creeks Master Plan. There are none within 100 -feet of the Project ,Site. Conclusion I Z67.050(A): Not applicable. 2. Specific infrastructure facilities identified on site in the master plan, land division, and/or site plan shall comply with the underground utility standards set forth in the City of Central point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 400, Storm Water Sewer System and, mare specifically, Section 420.10-02, Ground Water Control Plan, in order to safeguard the water resources of adjacent uses. Finding, 17.67.050(A)(2): All proposed utility infrastructure has been revie%wd by the Public Works Department and determined to comply with all applicable sections of the City of Central Point Department Public Works Standard Specification and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction. Conclusion 17.67.05U(A)(2): Consistent. B. Natural Features, 1. Buildings should be sited to preserve significant trees. 2. Buildings should be sited to avoid or lessen the impact of development on environmentally critical areas such as steep slopes, wetlands, and stream corridors. 3. Whenever possible, wetlands, groves and natural areas should be maintained as public preserves and as open space opportunities in neighborhoods. Finding 17.67.050(B): The Project Site is a flat, vacant lot vegetated with a mix ofgrasses. There are no trees on the site. The proposed development complies with all stream setbacks established in order to reduce impact to Gruen Creek, which runs between the two phases. Located to the North East of Phase I is a ,stormwater pond, which has been designed to treat run- offfrom the proposed development and surrounding area per the Twin Creeks Master Plan. Conclusion 17.67.050(B): Consistent. C. Topography. 1. Buildings and other site improvements should reflect, rather than obscure, natural topography. Page 17 of 42 75 2. Buildings and parking lots should be designed to fit into hillsides, for instance, reducing the need for grading and filling. 3. Where neighboring buildings have responded to similar topographic conditions on their sites in a consistent and positive way, similar treatment for the new structure should be considered. Finding 17.67.050(C): The Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan considered the generally flat topography within the iWaster Plan at -ea. The proposed building design (Exbhils 3-10) proposes three-story residential buildings within the maximum allowable building height, which is similar to the existing two- and three-story residential buildings on North Haskell Street to the west of Phase I and 2, respectively. The clubhouse and garages are single -story buildings that miinic the design style of the residential buildings (Exhibit Il). Conclusion 17.67.050(C): Consistent. D. Solar Orientation. 1. The building design, massing and orientation should enhance solar exposure for the project, taking advantage of the climate of Central Point for sun -tempered design. I Where possible, the main elevation should be facing within twenty-five degrees due south. 3. In residential developments, the location of rooms should be considered in view of solar exposure, e.g., primary living spaces should be oriented south but a west facing kitchen should be avoided as it may result in summer overheating. 4. Outdoor spaces should be strategically sited for solar access and the cooling susnnYer winds. 5. Shadow impacts, particularly in winter on adjacent buildings and outdoor spaces should be avoided. Finding 17.67.050(D): The proposal maximizes solar orientation to the greatest extent possible within the context of the existing street network. Conclusion 17.67.050(D): Consistent. E. Existing Buildings on the Site. 1. Where a new building shares the site with an admirable existing building or is a major addition to such a building, the design of the new building should be compatible with the original. 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. Finding 17.67.050(E): There are no existing buildings on the site; however the proposed building design is architecturally consistent with the single-family and attached row houses in the Page 18 of 42 76 surrounding neighborhood to the west of Phase 1 and the three-story residential facility to the west of Phase 2 Conclusion 17.67.050(E): Consistent. F. New Prominent Structures. Key public or civic buildings, such as community centers, churches, schools, libraries, post offices, and museums, should be placed in prominent locations, such as fronting on public squares or where pedestrian street vistas terminate, in order to serve as landmarks and to symbolically reinforce their importance. Finding 17.67.050(F): The proposed multifamily housing development does not include any public or civic buildings. Conclusion 17.67.050(F): Not applicable. G. Views. The massing of individual buildings should be adjusted to preserve important views while benefiting new and existing occupants and surrounding neighborhoods. Finding 17.67.050(G): Dews of Table Rock and Mt_ McLoughlin were identified in the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan. The proposed multifamily housing development preserves important by proposing construction within the maximum allowable building height in the zoning district and consistent with existing structures in the vicinity of the project site. Conclusion 17.67.050(G): Consistent. H. Adjoining Uses and Adjacent Services. 1. When more intensive uses, such as neighborhood commercial or multifamily dwellings, are within or adjacent to existing single-farnRy neighborhoods, care should be taken to minimize the impact of noise, lighting, and traffic on adjacent dwellings. 2. Activity or equipment areas should be strategically located to avoid disturbing adjacent residents. 3. All on-site service areas, loading zones and outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, transformer and utility vaults, and similar activities shall be located in an area not visible from a street or urban space. 4. Screening shall be provided for activities, areas and equipment that will create noise, such as loading and vehicle areas, air conditioning units, heat pumps, exhaust fans, and garbage compactors, to avoid disturbing adjacent residents. 5. Group mailboxes are limited to the number of houses on any given block of development. Only those boxes serving the units may be located on the block. Multiple units of mailboxes may be combined within a centrally located building of four walls that meets the design guidelines for materials, entrance, roof form, windows, etc. The structure must have lighting both inside and out. Finding 17.67.050(H): The proposed multifamily housing facility design is similar with the architectural style and density of surrounding row house development and residential facilities throughout the Twin Creeks area. The majority of vehicle parking and loading areas are Page 19 of 42 77 centrally located within the site and therefore screened by buildings and .site landscaping. Group mailboxes are indicated on the site plan for each Phase (Exhibits 1 and 2). Since there are no blocks dividing the lots, the proposed locations are in conformance with the mailbox locational criteria. Conclusion 17.67.050(If): Complies. 1. Transitions in Density. 1. Higher density, attached dwelling developments shall minimize impact on adjacent existing lower density, single-family dwelling neighborhoods by adjusting height, massing and materials and/or by providing adequate buffer strips with vegetative screens. Finding 17.67.050(1)(1): The proposed housing project is consistent with the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan land use (Figure 3) and housing plans (Figure 4), which addresses transitions in density through the planned distribution ofzoning districts and housing types. Property to the west of Phase I is zoned MMR and is developed with existing two-story single family attached residences. Property to the west of Phase 2 is zoned Open Space (OS) and MMR. The OS lands are part of a conservation easement for Griffin Creek and the MMR land is developed with a three-story residential dare facility Tire proposed residential housing project consists of three-story construction, which uses location (i.e. applies the maximum front yard setback and exceeds the minimum side yard setback) and landscaping to provide a buffer from the adjacent use (Exhibits 12-13). Conclusion 17.67.050(1)(1): The proposal is consistent with the density transition standard of this item as evidenced by its compliance with the TOD Master Plan, use of the maximum front yard setback, and street frontage and site landscaping 2. Adequate buffer strips with vegetative screens shall be placed to mitigate the impact of higher density development on adjacent lower density development. Finding 17.67.050(1)(2): As shown on the Landscape Plan for each Phase, rhe proposed buildings along North Haskell Street are buffered by a combination ofsetbacks (i.e. maximum front yard requirement) and street frontage and site landscaping (Exhibits 12- 13). Conclusion 17.67.050(1)(2): Consistent. 3. New residential buildings within fifty feet of existing low density residential development shall be no higher than thirty-five feet and shall be limited to single-family detached or attached units, duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes. Finding 17.67.050(1)(3): As shown on the Site Plan for Phase I (Exhibit 1), the proposed multifamily buildings are 75- feet from the attached row house lots west of the site on Phase 1. The proposed multifamily buildings on Phase 2 are 75- feet from the residential facility lot to the southwest of the project site. The proposed building height is 34 ft per Exhibits 3-11. Conclusion 17.67.050(1)(3): As demonstrated by the site plan (Exhibits 1 and 2) and the building elevations (Exhibits 3-11), the proposal complies with the density transition Page 20 of 42 78 standard per this section, since all buildings are more than SS ftfrom the existing structures to the west and the maximum building height is 34 ft, measured per CPMC 17.08 Definition for "Building Height. " 4. New commercial buildings within fifty feet of existing low density residential development shall be no higher than forty-five feet. Finding 17.67.050(1)(4): The proposed multifamily housing project does not include any commercial buildings. Conclusion 17.67.050(1)(4): Not applicable. 5. Dwelling types in a TOD district or corridor shall be mixed to encourage interaction among people ofvarying backgrounds and income levels. Finding 17.67,050(1)(3): The proposed multifamily housing development for Phase 1 and 2 is consistent with the land use and housing plans in the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan. The Master Plan establishes a mix of housing types throughout a 230 -acre community, which encourages interaction among individuals with diverse backgrounds and income levels. Conclusion 17.67.050(1) (5): The proposed multifamily housing project complies as evidenced by its compliance with the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan. 6. Zoning changes should occur midblock, not at the street centerline, to ensure that compatible building types face along streets and within neighborhoods. When dissimilar building types face each other across the street because the zoning change is at the street centerline or more infill housing is desired (for instance, duplexes across the street from single dwellings), design shall ensure similarity in massing, setback, and character. Finding 17.67.050(1)(6): The proposal does not include any zone map amendments. Conclusion 17.67.050(1)(6): Not applicable. 7. Density should be increased incrementally, to buffer existing neighborhoods from incompatible building types or densities. Sequence density, generally, as follows: large lot single dwelling, small lot single dwelling, duplex, townhomes, courtyard multifamily apartments, large multifamily apartments, and mixed use buildings. Finding 17.67.050(1)(7): The land use and density requirements for the site were established per the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan approved in 2001. The current proposal to construct a 245 -unit multifamily housingproject is consistent with the land use and density established per the Master Plan and MMR zoning standards. There are no changes proposed to the land use plan or zoning text. Conclusion 17.67.050(1)(7): Not applicable. J. Parking. 1. Parking Lot Location. Page 21 of 42 79 a. Off-street surface parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of buildings. Parking at midblock or behind buildings is preferred. b. Off-street surface parking lots shall not be located between a front facade of a building and a public street. c. If a building adjoins streets or accessways on two or more sides, off-street parking shall be allowed between the building and the pedestrian route in the following order of priority; 1" . Accessways; 2". Streets that are non -transit streets. 3`a. Streets that are transit streets. d.Parking lots and garages should not be located within twenty feet of a street corner. Finding 17.67.050(J)(1): The site plan illustrates proposed off-street parking areas central to the site. There are some parking spaces located to the side of buildings fronting North Haskell Street in Phare 1. There are no proposed off-street parking areas between a front faVade and a public street. Garages are localed toward the rear (east) part of each Phase. Conclusion 17.67.050(J)(1): Consistent, 2. Design. a. All perimeter and interior landscaped areas must have protective Curbs along the edges. Trees must have adequate protection from car doors and bumpers. b_A portion of the standard panting space may be landscaped instead of paved. The landscaped area may be up to two feet in front of the space as measured from a Iine parallel to the direction of the bumper of a vehicle using the space. Landscaping must be ground cover plants. The landscaping does not apply toward any perimeter or interior parking lot landscaping requirements, but does count toward any overall site landscaping requirement. c. In order to control dust and mud, all vehicle areas must be paved. d. All parking areas must be striped in conformance with the city of Central Point parking dimension standards. e. Thoughtful siting of parking and vehicle access should be used to minimize the impact of automobiles on the pedestrian environment, adjacent properties, and pedestrian safety. f. Large parking lots should be divided into smaller areas, using, for example, landscaping or special parking patterns. g. Parking should be located in lower or upper building levels or in less visible portions of site. Page 22 of 42 80 Finding 17.67.050(.)7(2): Paved off-street parking areas are provided within the parking area for Phases 1 and 2 and include interior and perimeter landscaping (Exhibits 12 and 13). Per the site plan for both phases, the proposed striping is consistent with the parking dimension standards in CPMC 17.75.039. Conclusion 17.67.050(J(2): Consistent. 3. Additional Standards for LMR, MMR and HMR Zones. a. When parking must be located to the side of buildings, parking frontage should be limited to approximately fifty percent of total site frontage. b. Where possible, alleys should be used to bring the vehicle access to the back of the site. c. For parking structures, see Section 17.67.070(H). Finding 17.67.050(J)(3): See Finding 17.67.050(J)(1). Conclusion 17,67.050(J)(2): Consistent. K. Landscaping. 1. Perimeter Screening and Planting. a. Landscaped buffers should be used to achieve sufficient screening while still preserving views to allow areas to be watched and guarded by neighbors. b. Landscaping should be used to screen and buffer unsightly uses and to separate such incompatible uses as parking areas and waste storage pickup areas. Finding 17.67.050(1(}(1): As illustrated in the Landscape Plan, Phase 1(Exhibif 12) and Phase 2 (Exhibit 13) provide landscaping along the street frontage, within parking areas and throughout the development to soften the building appearance and provide screening between adjacent uses. Conclusion 17.67.050(8)(1): Consistent. 2. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening. a. Parking areas shall be screened with landscaping, fences, walls or a combination thereof. Trees shall be planted on the parking area perimeter and shall be spaced at thirty feet on center. ii. Live shrubs and ground cover plants shall be planted in the landscaped area. iii. Each tree shall be located in a four -foot by four -foot minimum planting area. iv. Shrub and ground cover beds shall be three feet wide minimum. Page 23 of 42 81 V. Trees and shrubs must be fully protected from potential damage by vehicles. Finding 17.67.050(K)(2)(a): The Landscape Plan (Exhibits 12-13) illustrate landscape screening for off-street parking lot areas, including trees along the site perimeter. As conditioned, the Applicant is required to submit a revised site plan that includes two (2) additional trees on both sides of the north entrance to Phase I in accordance with this section. Conclusion 17.67.050(A)(2)(a): Complies as conditioned. b. Surface parking areas shall provide perimeter parking lot landscaping adjacent to a street that meets one of the following standards: A five -foot -wide planting strip between the right-of-way and the parking area. The planting strip may be interrupted by pedestrian -accessible and vehicular aceessways. Planting strips shall be planted with an evergreen hedge. Hedges shall be no less than thirty-six inches and no more than forty-eight inches in height at maturity. Hedges and other landscaping shall be planted and maintained to afford adequate sight distance for vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot; ii. A solid decorative wall or fence a minimum of thirty-six inches and a maximum of forty-eight inches in height parallel to and not closer than two feet from the edge of right-of-way. The area betwom the wall or fence and the pedestrian accessway shall be landscaped. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians and shall be constructed and maintained to afford adequate sight distance as described above for vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot; iii. A transparent screen or grille forty-eight inches in height parallel to the edge of right-of-way. A two -foot minimum planting strip shall be located either inside the screen or between the screen and the edge of right-of- way. The planting strip shall be planted with a hedge or other landscaping. Hedges shall be a minimum thirty-six inches and a maximum of forty inches in height at maturity. c. Gaps in a building's frontage on a pedestrian street that are adjacent to off-street parking areas and which exceed sixty-five feet in length shall be reduced to no more than sixty-five feet in length through use of a minimum eight -foot -high screen wall. The screen wall shall be solid, grille, mesh or lattice that obscures at least thirty percent of the interior view (e.g., at least thirty percent solid material to severity percent transparency). Finding 17.67.050(A)(2)(b-c): Surface parking areas are located along the side elevations of Buildings #I, #2, and #8. Per the requirements of this section, parking lots are screened with 15 - ft deep landscape terminals. As conditioned, the Applicant is required to submit a revised landscape plan for phases l and 2 that, provides the parking area screening at the parking, lot driveway entrances on North Haskell Street as required in this section. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(2)(b-c): Complies as conditioned. Page 24 of 42 82 d. Parking Area Interior Landscaping. i. Amount of Landscaping. All surface parking areas with more than ten spaces must provide interior landscaping complying with one or both of the standards stated below. (A) Standard 1. Interior landscaping must be provided at the rate of twenty square feet per stall. At least one tree must be planted for every two hundred square feet of landscaped area. Ground cover plants must completely cover the remainder of the landscaped area. (B) Standard 2. One tree must be provided for every four parking spaces. If surrounded by cement, the tree planting area must have a minimum dimension of four feet. If surrounded by asphalt, the tree planting area must have a minimum dimension of three feet - Fin ding eet. Finding 17 67 0 50(K) (2) (d) rz): Per the Landscape Plan far Phases 1 and 2, the proposed landscaping plan has been designed to comply with Standard I as follows: • Phase I provides 168 parking spaces and requires at least 3,360 s f. of interior landscape area and 25 trees. The proposed landscape plan (Exhibit 12) illustrates 4.900 sf. of interior parking lot landscape area including 35 trees within interior islands, and terminals. • Phase 2 provides 222 parking spaces and requires at least 4.380 s f, of interior landscape area and 27 trees. The proposed landscape plan (Exhibit 13) shows 5,300 sf. of interior parking lot landscape area including 37 trees within interior islands and terminals. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(2)(d)r): Consistent. ii. Development Standards for Parking Area Interior Landscaping. (A) All landscaping must comply with applicable standards. Trees and shrubs must be fully protected from potential damage by vehicles. (B) Interior parking area landscaping must be dispersed throughout the parking area. Some trees may be grouped, but the groups must be dispersed. (C) Perimeter landscaping may not substitute for interior landscaping. However, interior landscaping may join perimeter landscaping as long as it extends four feet or more into the parking area from the perimeter landscape line. (D) Parking areas that are thirty feet or less in width may locate their interior landscaping around the edges of the parking area. Interior landscaping placed along an edge is in addition to any required perimeter landscaping. Page 25 of 42 83 Finding 17.67.050(K)(2)(d)(U): The proposed landscaping plan provides for interior landscape islands, terminals that are landscaped with a combination of trees and ground covers consistent with the requirements of this section. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(2)(d)(U): Consistent. 3. Landscaping Near Buildings. Landscaping shall serve as a screen or buffer to soften the appearance of structures or uses such as parking lots or large blank walls, or to increase the attractiveness of common open spaces. Finding 17.67.050(K)(3): The proposed landscaping plan (Exhibits 12 and 13) provides a mix of trees, shrubs and ground covers along the frontage, sides and rear of the proposed buildings and parking areas consistent with this requirement. Conclusion 17.67.050(x)(3): Consistent. 4. Service Areas. Service areas, loading zones, waste disposal or storage areas must be fully screened from public view. a. Prohibited screening includes chain-link fencing with or without slats. b.Acceptable screening includes: A six-foot masonry enclosure, decorative metal fence enclosure, a wood enclosure, or other approved materials complementary to adjacent buildings; or ii. A six foot solid hedge or other plant material screening as approved.. Finding I7.67.050(K)(4): There are five service areas or loading zones indicated on the site plan, including two (2) in Phase 1 and three (3) in Phase 2. The Site Plans provide a detail for the service areas that illustrate construction materials consisting of concrete block with 2" inch tubular metal framing and 4 " rectangular metal post to best match main buildings. Landscape screening is illustrated near each service area to soften the facility appearance. Conclusion 17.67.0500(4): Consistent. Street Trees. Street trees shall be required along both sides of all public streets with a spacing of twenty feet to forty feet on center depending on the mature width of the tree crown, and planted a minimum of two feet from the back of curb. Trees in the right-of- way or sidewalk easements shall be approved according to size, quality, and tree well design, if applicable, and irrigation shall be required. Tree species shall be chosen from the city of Central Point approved street tree list. Finding 17.67.050(K)(5): Street trees are provided in accordance with the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan, which was found to be compliant with this section when originally approved. Conclusion 17.67.050(x)(5): Consistent. L. Lighting. Page 26 of 42 84 1. Minimum Lighting Levels. Minimum lighting levels shall be provided Por public safety in all urban spaces open to public circulation. a. A minimum average light level of one and two-tenths foot candles is required for urban spaces and sidewalks. b.Metal-halide or lamps with similar color, temperature and efficiency ratings shall be used for general lighting at building exteriors, parking areas, and urban spaces. Sodium -based lamp elements are not allowed. c. Maximum lighting levels should not exceed six foot candles at intersections or one and one-half foot candles in parking areas. 2. Fixture Design in Public Rights -of -Way. a. Pedestrian -scale street lighting shall be provided including ail pedestrian streets along arterials, major collectors, minor collectors and local streets. b.Pedestrian street lights shall be no taller than twenty feet along arterials and collectors, and sixteen feet along local streets. 3. On -Site Lighting. Lighting shall be incorporated into the design of a project so that it reinforces the pedestrian environment, provides continuity to an area, and enhances the drama and presence of architectural features. Street lighting should be provided along sidewalks and in medians. Selected street light standards should be appropriately scaled to the pedestrian environment. Adequate illumination should be provided for building entries, comers of buildings, courtyards, plazas and walkways. a. Accessways through surface parking lots shall be well lighted with fixtures no taller than twenty feet. b. Locate and design exterior lighting of buildings, signs, walkways, parking lots, and other areas to avoid casting light on nearby properties. c. Fixture height and lighting levels shall be commensurate with their intended use and function and shall assure compatibility with neighboring land uses. Baffles shall be incorporated to minimize glare and to focus lighting on its intended area. d. Additional pedestrian -oriented site lighting including step lights, well lights and bollards shall be provided along all courtyard lanes, alleys and off-street bike and pedestrian pathways. e. In addition to lighting streets, sidewalks, and public spaces, additional project lighting is encouraged to highlight and illuminate building entrances, landscaping, parks, and special features. Finding 17.67.050(L)(1-3): Lighting levels and fixtures within the public right-of-way and along the pedestrian accessway in Phase I was established per the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan Exhibit 34, Lighting Plan. Per the Site Plan, lighting within the pedestrian and parking lot areas as well as the street right-of-way are provided consistent with the requirements of this section and the Master Plan. Page 27 of 42 85 Conclusion 17.67.050(L)(1-3): Consistent. M. Signs. Finding 17.67.050(M): Signage is not included in the proposal. Conclusion 17.67.050(7W: Not applicable. 17.67.060 Public Parks and Open Space Design Standards. A. General. Parks and open spaces shall be provided in the TGD districts and TGD corridors and shall be designed to accommodate a variety of activities ranging From active play to passive contemplation for all ages and accessibility. B. Parks and Open Space Location. C. Parks and Open Space Amount and Size. D. Parks and Open Space Design. Finding I7.67.060(A-D): The Parks and open ,space requirements were addressed as part of the Master Plan by establishing a network of neighborhood parks, pedestrian trails and open space areas. Phase 1 includes construction of a Minor Pedestrian Accessway around the property perimeter consistent with the Master Plan. Additional passive and active recreation areas are proposed within the multifamily housing project including a swimming -pool clubhouse and playground (Phase 1) and a large open space square (Phase 2). Conclusion 17.67.060(J)(2): Consistent 17.67.070 Building Desi;n Standards. A. General Design Requirements. 1. In recognition of the need to use natural resources carefully and with maximum benefit, the use of "sustainable design" practices is strongly encouraged. In consideration of the climate and ecology of the Central Point area, a variety of strategies can be used to effectively conserve energy and resources: a. Natural ventilation; b. Passive heating and cooling; c. Daylighting; d. Sun -shading devices for solar control; e. Water conservation; f. Appropriate use of building mass and materials; and, g. Careful integration of landscape and buildings. It is recommended that an accepted industry standard such as the U.S. Green Building Council's Page 28 of 42 86 LEEDPprogram be used to identify the most effective strategies. (Information on the LEEDTM program can be obtained from the U.S. Green Building Council's website,www.usgbc.org.) 2. All development along pedestrian routes shall be designed to encourage use by pedestrians by providing a safe, comfortable, and interesting walking environment. 3. Convenient, direct and identifiable building access shall be provided to guide pedestrians between pedestrian streets, accessways, transit facilities and adjacent buildings. 4. Adequate operable windows or roof -lights should be provided for ventilation and summer heat dissipation. Finding 17.67.070(A): Pedestrian routes are designed in accordance with the Master Plan. Streetscape and buildingfronlage landscaping is provided. Conclusion 17.67.070(A): Consistent. B. Architectural Character. L General. a. The architectural characteristics of surrounding buildings, including historic buildings, should be considered, especially if a consistent pattern is already established by similar or complementary building articulation, building scale and proportions, setbacks, architectural style, roof forms, building details and fenestration patterns, or materials. In some cases, the existing context is not well defined, or may be undesirable. in such cases, a well-designed new project can establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues. b. Certain buildings, because of their sire, purpose or location, should be given prominence and distinct architectural character, reflective of their special function or position. Examples of these special buildings include theaters, hotels, cultural centers, and civic buildings. c. Attention should be paid to the following architectural elements: i. Building forms and massing; ii. Building height; iii. Rooflines and parapet features; iv. Special building features (e.g. towers, arcades, entries, canopies, signs and artwork); V. Window size, orientation and detailing; vi. Materials and color; and vii. The building's relationship to the site, climate topography and surrounding buildings. Page 29 of 42 87 2. Commercial and High Mix Residential. Finding 17.67.070(B)(2): The proposed multifamily housing project does not include any commercial or high mix residential development. Conclusion 17.67.070(.1)(2): Not applicable. C. Building Entries. 1. General. a. The orientation of building entries shall: Orient the primary entrance toward the street rather than the parking lot; ii. Connect the building's main entrance to the sidewalk with a well -defused pedestrian walkway. b.Building facades over two hundred Feet in length facing a street shall provide two or more public building entrances off the street. c.A]I entries fronting a pedestrian accessway shall be sheltered with a minimum four -foot overhang or shelter. d. An exception to any part of the requirements of this section shall be allowed upon finding that: i. The slope of the land between the building and the pedestrian street is greater than 1:12 for more than twenty feet and that a more accessible pedestrian route to the building is available from a different side of the building, or ii. The access is to a courtyard or clustered development and identified pedestrian accessways are provided through a parking lot to directly connect the building complex to the most appropriate major pedestrian route(s). Finding 17.67.070(C)(1): Building entries are provided for each unit of the multifamily buildings. Entries for units with frontage on North Haskell Street are oriented toward the street with second story units being accessed through central stairwells that are interior to the buildings. Units central to the site connect the ground floor unit entries and central stairwell entries to the nearest internal pedestrian route and parking lot area. As shown on the building elevations (Exhibits 3-10), no building entrances are located along a side elevation. Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(1): Consistent. 2. Commercial and High Mix Residential. Finding 17.67.070(C)(2): The proposed multifamily housingproject does not include any commercial or high mix residential development. Conclusion 17,67.070(C)(2): Not applicable. Page 30 of 42 88 3. Residential. a. 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 streets 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. b.Residential buildings fronting on a street shall have an entrance to the building opening on to the street. Single-family detached, attached and row house/townhouse residential units fronting on a pedestrian street shall have separate entries to cacti dwelling unit directly from the street. ii. Ground floor and upper story dwelling units in a multifamily building fronting a street may share one or more building entries accessible directly from the stmt, and shall not be accessed through a side yard except for an accessory unit to a single-family detached dwelling. c. The main entrances to houses and buildings should be prominent, interesting, and pedestrian -accessible. A porch should be provided to shelter the main entrance and create a transition from outdoor to indoor space. d.Generally, single -dwelling porches should be at least eight feet wide and five feet deep and covered by a roof supported by columns or brackets. If the main entrance is to more than one dwelling unit, the covered area provided by the porch should be at least twelve feet wide and five feet deep. e. if the front porch projects out from the building, it should have a roof pitch which matches the roof pitch of the house. If the porch roof is a deck or balcony, it may be flat. f. Building elevation changes are encouraged to make a more prominent entrance. The maximum elevation for the entrance should not be more than one-half story in height, or six feet from grade, whichever is less. g. The front entrance of a multi -dwelling complex should get architectural emphasis, to create both interest and ease for visual identification. Finding 17.67.070(Q(3): Building entries for each unit of the multifamily structures face a public street. Covered porches are provided for each unit on the ground floor and the central stairwell entries for all building entries are emphasized with a gabled roof and columns with craftsman details. Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(3): Consistent D. Building Facades. 1. General. Page 31 of 42 89 a. All building frontages greater than forty feet in length shall break any flat, monolithic facade by including discernible architectural elements such as, but not limited to: bay windows, recessed entrances and windows, display windows, cornices, bases, pilasters, columns or other architectural details or articulation combined with changes in materials, so as to provide visual interest and a sense of division, in addition to creating community character and pedestrian scale. The overall design shall recognize that the simple relief provided by window cutouts or sills on an otherwise flat facade, in and of itself, does not meet the requirements of this subsection. Finding 17.6 7.0 70(D) (1) (a): Buildings with frontage on North Haskell Street include 11 plea and 15 plea structures (Exhibits 4, 5, and 8). As shown, each building elevation breaks the fagade with architectural elements including recessed entrances and windows, building entries with gabled moflines and craftsman columns and vertical articulation. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(1)(a): Consistent. b. Building designs that result in a street frontage with a uniform and monotonous design style, roofline or facade treatment should be avoided. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(b): The proposal includes a mix of I I-plex and 15 plea building elevations along North Haskell Street using a varied color palette of greenlian and bluelgray as encouraged by this section. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(1)(b): Consistent. c. Architectural detailing, such as but not limited to, trellis, long overhangs, deep inset windows, should be incorporated to provide sun -shading from the summer sun. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(c): The proposed building elevations utilize a combinations of roof overhangs and inset windows and doors to provide sun shading as encouraged by this section. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(1)(c): Consistent. d. To balance horizontal features on longer facades, vertical building elements shall be emphasized. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(d): The proposed building elevations emphasize the vertical elements through the use of building insets and building materials and high pitch rooflines. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(1)(d): Consistent. e. The dominant feature of any building frontage that is visible from a pedestrian street or public open space shall be the habitable area with its accompanying windows and doors. Parking lots, garages, and solid wall facades (e.g., warehouses) shall not dominate a pedestrian street frontage. Page 32 of 42 90 Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(e): As shown in the building elevations (Exhibits 3-10), the front entrance doorways and indoor and outdoor living areas face onto the adjacent public right-of-way, as well as the internal parking lot areas. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(1)(e): Consistent. f. Developments shall be designed to encourage informal surveillance of streets and other public spaces by maximizing sight lines between the buildings and the street. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(f): See Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(e). Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(1)(f): Consistent. g. All buildings, of any type, constructed within any TOD district or corridor shall be constructed with exterior building materials and finishes that are of high quality to convey permanence and durability. Finding 17.67,070(D)(1)(g): The proposed building construction utilizes a combination of 8 inch horizontal lap siding, board and batten siding, and hardi- shingle to accent the roojline. Conclusion 1 y 67 070(D)O)(g): Consistent. h. The exterior walls of all building facades along pedestrian routes, including side or return facades, shall be of suitable durable building materials including the following: stucco, stone, brick, terra cotta, tile, cedar shakes and shingles, beveled or ship -lap or other narrow -course horizontal boards or siding, vertical board -and -batten siding, articulated architectural concrete or concrete masonry units (CMU), or similar materials which are low maintenance, weather -resistant, abrasion -resistant, and easy to clean. Prohibited building materials include the following: plain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, unarticulated board siding (e.g., T1-11 siding, plain plywood, sheet pressboard), Exterior Insulated Finish Systema (EIFS), and similar quality, nondurable materials. Finding 17.6 7.0 70(D) (1) (h): See Finding 17.6 7.0 70(D) (1) (g). Conclusion 1767.070(D)(1)(h): Consistent. i. All visible building facades along or off a pedestrian route, including side or return facades, are to be treated as part of the main building elevation and articulated in the same manner. Continuity of use of the selected approved materials must be used on these facades. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)r): As illustrated in Exhibits 3-11, all side and rear building articulation s are articulated as the primary building elevation throughout the proposed housingproject. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(1)(i): Consistent. Page 33 of 42 91 j. Ground -floor openings in parking structures, except at points of access, must be covered with grilles, mesh or lattice that obscures at least thirty percent of the interior view (e.g., at least thirty percent solid material to seventy percent transparency). Finding I7.67.070(D)(l)(j): No parking structures are proposed. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(1)6F): Not applicable. k.Appropriately scaled architectural detailing, such as but not limited to moldings or cornices, is encouraged at the roofline of commercial building facades, and where such detailing is present, should be a minimum of at least eight inches wide. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(k): No commercial buildings are proposed. Conclusion 17.6 7.0 70(D) (1) (k): Not applicable. 1. Compatible building designs along a street should be provided through similar massing (building facade, height and width as well as the space between buildings) and frontage setbacks. Finding 17.67.070(D)(I)(h): See Finding 17.6 7.0 70(D) (1) (b). Conclusion 17.67070(D)(1)(h); Consistent. Conclusion I7.67.070(D)(1): Consistent 2. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Commemial. Finding 17.67.070(D)(2): The proposed multifamily housing project does not include any commercial or high mix residential development. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(2): Not applicable. 3. Residential. a. The facades of single-family attached and detached residences (including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and row houses) shall comply with the following 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. Finding 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(i): The proposal does not include single family attached or detached housing types. Proposed garages are all located along the back section of the development. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(i): Not applicable. Page 34 of 42 92 ii. Residential building elevations facing a pedestrian route shall not consist of undifferentiated blank walls, but shall be articulated with architectural details such as windows, dormers, porch details, balconies or bays. Finding 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(u): Dwelling units facing the pedestrian accessway to the south west have a singular wall face articulated with windows and a covered porch. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)r): Consistent. iii. For any exterior wall 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 twenty percent of the ground floor wall area shall be comprised of either display area, windows, or doorways. Finding 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)rii): Units facing an to the adjoining public accessway are within 1 -5 -ft of the public right-of-way. The typical building elevation (12plex) has a ground floor wall face that is 1,248.5 sf in area. Doors and windows provided consist of 288 s.f in area or 23.1 of the ground floor wall area. If the central stairwell entries are included (220 s.f additional area), the ground floor consists of 4416 display area, windows and doorways. All other building elevations utilize the same unit configuration and exceed the 20% requirement of this section. Conclusion 17.66.070(D)(3)(a)(iii): Convistent. iv. Architectural detailing is encouraged to provide variation among attached units. Architectural detailing includes but is not limited to the following: the use of different exterior siding materials or trim, shutters, different window types or sizes, varying roof lines, balconies or porches, and dormers. The overall design shall recognize that color variation, in and of itself, does not meet the requirements of this subsection. Finding 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)rv): See Finding 17.67.0 70(D) (3) (a) (ii). Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(1v): Consistent. V. Fences or hedges in a front yard shall not exceed three feet in height. Side yard fencing shall not exceed three feet in height between the front building facade and the street. Fences beyond the front facade of the building in a side yard or back yard and along a street, alley, property line, or bike/pedestrian pathway shall not exceed four feet in height. Fences over four feet in height are not permitted and hedges or vegetative screens in no case shall exceed six feet in height. Finding 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(v): Fences are not proposed for the multifamily housing facility. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(v): Not applicable. b.The facades of multifamily residences shall comply with the following standards: Page 35 of 42 93 Building elevations, including the upper stories, facing a pedestrian route shall not consist of undifferentiated blank walls, but shall be articulated with architectural detailing such as windows, balconies, and dormers. Finding 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(v): See Finding 17.6 7.0 70(D) (3) (a) (N). Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)r-ii): Consistent. ii. For any exterior wall which is within twenty feet of and facing onto a pedestrian street or public open space and which has an unobstructed view of that pedestrian street or public open space, at least twenty percent of the ground floor wall area shall be comprised of either display area, windows, or doorways. Finding 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(v): See Finding 17.6 7.0 70(D) (3) (a) #i), Conclusion 1 y 67.070(D)(3)(affl4i): Consistent. iii. Arcades or awnings should be provided over sidewalks where ground floor retail or commercial exists, to shelter pedestrians from sun and rain. Finding 17.6 7.0 70(D) (3) (a) (v): Ground floor retail and commercial uses are not proposed as part of the multifamily housing development. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(i-U): Not applicable. E. Roofs. 1. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Commercial. Finding 17.67.070(E)(1): The proposed multifamily housing project does not include any commercial or high mix residential development. Conclusion 17.67.070(E)(1): Notapplicable. 2. Residential. a. Flat roofs with a parapet and cornice are allowed for multifamily residences in all TOD, LMR, MMR and 1 -[MR districts, in which the minimum for sloped roofs is 5:12. b. Flat roofs with a parapet and cornice are allowed for single-family attached and detached residences (including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and row houses) in all TOD residential districts, except the LMR zone. c. For all residences with sloped roofs, the roof slope shall be at least 5:12, and no more than 12:12. Eaves shall overhang building walls at a minimum twelve inches deep on all sides (front, back, sides) of a residential stnichire, d.Roof shapes, surface materials, colors, mechanical equipment and other penthouse functions should be integrated into the total building design. Roof terraces and gardens are encouraged. Page 36 of 42 94 Finding 17.67.070(E)(2): The proposed multifamily buildings are designed with gable roofs with a roof pitch that is 5:12 consistent with the standards of this section. Conclusion 17.67.070(E)(2): Consistent, F. Exterior Building Lighting. 1. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Commercial. Finding 17.67.070(F)(1): The proposed multifamily housing project does not include any commercial or high mix residential development. Conclusion 17.67.070(F)(1): Not applicable. 2. Residential. a. Lighting shall not draw inordinate attention to the building facade. b. Porch and entry lights are encouraged on all dwellings to create a safe and inviting pedestrian environment at night. c. No exterior lighting exceeding one hundred watts per fixture is permitted in any residential area. Finding 17.67.070(F)(2): The building elevations (Exhibits 3 - 11) illustrate building lighting at each building entry and along the ground floor adjacent to the central stairwell locations. Conclusion 1767:070(F)(2): Consistent: G. Service Zones. 1. Buildings and sites shall be organized to group the utilitarian functions away from the public view. 2. Delivery and loading operations, mechanical equipment (HVAC), trash compacting/collection, and other utility and service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building(s) and the landscaping. 3. The visual and acoustic impacts of these functions, along with all wall- or ground - mounted mechanical, electrical and communications equipment, shall be out of view from adjacent properties and public pedestrian streets. 4. Screening materials and landscape screens shall be architecturally compatible with and not inferior to the principal materials of the building. Finding 17.67.070(F)(2): Service areas for each building (i. e. HVAC) are identified on the proposed site plan along the side and rear elevations away from public view. Trash and recycling areas are illustrated within each phase in locations away from the public right-of-way. Facility designs and landscape screening shown on the site plan (Exhibit 1 and 2) and landscape plan (Exhibit 12 and 13).further minimize the appearance ofservice areas. Conclusion I7.67.070(F)(2): Consistent, Page 37 of 42 95 17.72.020 Applicability No permit required under Title 15, Buildings and Construction, shall be issued for a major or minor project, as defined in this section, unless an application for site plan and architectural review is submitted and approved, or approved with conditions, as set forth in this chapter. A. Exempt Projects. Except as provided in subsection (B)(3) of this section the following projects do not require site plan and architectural review: l . Single-family detached residential structures; 2. Any multiple -family residential project containing three or less units; 3. Landscape plans, fences, when not part of a major project; 4. Storage sheds, patio covers, garages and carports, decks, gazebos, and similar non -occupied structures used in conjunction with residential uses; and 5. Signs that conform to a previously approved master sign program for the project site. Exempt projects are required to comply with all applicable development standards of this chapter. B. Major Projects. The following are "major projects" for the purposes of the site plan and architectural review process and are subject to Type 2 procedural requirements as set forth in Chapter 17.05, Applications and Types of Review Procedures: 1. New construction, including private and public projects, that: a. includes a new building or building addition of five thousand square feet or more; b. Includes the construction of a parking lot of ten or more parking spaces; or c. Requires one or more variances or conditional use permits and, in the judgment of the director, will have a significant effect upon the aesthetic character of the city or the surrounding area; 2. Any attached residential project that contains four or more units; 3. Any minor project, as defined in subsection C of this section, that the director determines will significantly alter the character, appearance, or use of a building or site. C. Minor Projects. Except when determined to be an exempt project or a major project pursuant to subsections A and B of this section respectively, the following are defined as "minor projects" for the purposes of site plan and architectural review, and are subject to the Type I procedural requirements of Chapter 17.05, Applications and Types of Review Procedures: 1. New construction, including private and public projects, that involves a new building or building addition of less than five thousand square feet; 2. Signs that meet all applicable standards as set forth in Section 17.75.050, Signage standards; 3. Exterior remodeling within the commercial or industrial zoning districts when not part of a major project; Page 38 of 42 96 4. Parking lots less than ten parking spaces; 5. Any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities owned and operated by a public utility and not subject to Section 17.60.040, Antenna standards; 6. Minor changes to the following: a. Plans that have previously received site plan and architectural review approval; b. Previously approved planned unit developments; 7. At the discretion of the director any changes to previously approved plans requiring site plan and architectural review. As used in this subsection, the term "minor" means a change that is of little visual significance, does not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improvements, is not proposed for the use of the land in question, and does not alter the character of the structure involved. At the discretion of the director if it is determined that the cumulative effect of multiple minor changes would result in a major change, a new application for site plan and architectural review is required. All minor changes must comply with the development standards of this chapter. Finding 17.72.020: The proposed Smith Crossing multifamily housing project includes new construction greater than 5, 000 s, f. and qualifies as a Major Project. It is being processed using Type III administrative procedures. Conclusion 17.72.020: Consistent. 17.72.030 Information Required Application for site plan and architectural review shall be made to the community development department and shall be accompanied by the application fee prescribed in the city of Central Point planning department fee schedule. The application shall be completed, including all information and submittals listed on the official site plan and architectural review application form Finding 17.72.030. The Smith Crossing multifamily housing application was reviewed for completeness and accepted as complete per the notice of completion dated May 2, 2017. Conclusion 17.72.030: Consistent. 17.72.040 Site Plan and Architectural Standards In approving, conditionally approving or denying any site plan and architectural review application, the approving authority shall base its decision on compliance with the following standards: A. Applicable site plan, landscaping and architectural design standards as set forth in Chapter 17.75, Design and Development Standards. Finding 17.72.040(A): The proposal is subject to the off-street parking dimensions and vehicle maneuvering requirements in CPMC 17.75.039. The project proposal has been reviewed against applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 17.75 and found to comply with the parking dimension schedule in Table 17.75.039.1 and the vehicle maneuvering requirements of Section 17.75.039 Page 39 of 42 97 Conclusion 17.72.040(A): Consistent. B. City of Central Point Department of Public Works Department Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction. Finding 17.72.040(B): The Parks & Public Works Department reviewed the application for compliance with the .Standard Specifications and Uniform Standards Details for Public Works Construction and found it to be compliant. Conclusion 17.72.040(B): Consistent. C. Accessibility and sufficiency of firefighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to Fire apparatus. Finding 17.72.040(B): Fire District #3 evaluated the proposal and determined that adequate water supply and access are sufficient, provided that additional review will occur at the building plan submittal. Conclusion 17.72.040(B): Complies. 17.75.039 Off-street parking design and development standards. All oft -street vehicular parking spaces shall be improved to the following standards: A. Connectivity. Parking lots for new development shall be designed to provide vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent sites unless as a result of any of the following such connections are not possible: 1. Topographic constraints; 2. Existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude a logical connection; 3. Traffic safety concerns; or 4. Protection of significant natural resources. Finding 17.75.039(A): The proposed housing project provides connections to North Haskell Street via parking lot driveways as required per the Twin Creeks Master Plan. Conclusion 17.75.039(A): Consistent. B. Parking Stall Minimum Dimensions. Standard parking spaces shall conform to the following standards and the dimensions in Figure 17.75.03 and Table 17.75.02; provided, that compact parking spaces permitted in accordance with Section 17.64.040(G) shall have the following minimum dimensions: 1. Width --Shall be as provided in column B in Table 17.75.02; 2. Length --Shall reduce column C in Table 17.75.02 by no more than three feet. Page 40 of 42 98 Finding 17.75.039(B): The proposed parking plan includes 168 spaces in Phase 1 and 222 spaces in Phase 2. All proposed spaces are at a 90 degree angle, which meet the required stall dimension (i.e. 9 -ft wide by 19 feet long) per Table 17.75.02. Conclusion 17.75.039(B): Consistent. C. Access. There shall be adequate provision for ingress and egress to all parking spaces. Finding 17.75.039(C): See Finding 17.75.039(E)(8). Conclusion 17.75.039(C): Consistent. D. Driveways. Driveway width shall be measured at the driveway's narrowest point, including the curb cut. The design and construction of driveways shall be as set forth in the Standard Specifications and Public Works Department Standards and Specifications. Finding 17.75 039(0): The driveways have been evaluated by the Public Works Depart,nenr and found to comply with the driveway dimension requirements per the Public Works Standard% Specifications. Conclusion 17.75.039(D): Consistent. E. Improvement of Parking Spaces. 1. When a concrete curb is used as a wheel stop, it may be placed within the parking space up to two feet from the front of a space. In such cases, the area between the wheel stop and landscaping need not be paved, provided it is maintained with appropriate ground cover, or walkway. in no event shall the placement of wheel stops reduce the minimum landscape or walkway width requirements. 2. All areas utilized for off-street parking, access and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved and striped to the standards of the city of Central Point for all-weather use and shall be adequately drained, including prevention of the flow of runoff water across sidewalks or other pedestrian areas. Required parking areas shall be designed with painted striping or other approved method of delineating the individual spaces, with the exception of lots containing single-family or two-family dwellings. 3. Parking spaces shall be designed so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right -of --way shall be necessary, except for one- and two- family dwellings with frontage on a local street per the city of Central Point street classification map. 4. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking or loading areas shall be so arranged as to direct the light away from adjacent streets or properties. 5. Service drives shall have a minimum vision clearance area formed by the intersection of the driveway centerline, the street right-of-way line, and a straight line joining the lines through points twenty feet from their intersection. Page 41 of 42 99 5. Parking spaces located along the outer boundaries of a parking lot shall be contained by a curb or a bumper rail so placed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line, a public street, public sidewalk, or a required landscaping area. 7. Parking, loading, or vehicle maneuvering areas shall not be located within the front yard area or side yard area of a corner lot abutting a street in any residential (R) district, nor within any portion of a street setback area that is required to be landscaped in any commercial (C) or industrial (M) district. 8. Except as provided in subsection (E)(3) of this section, all uses, including one- and two-family dwellings on arterial and collector streets, shall provide adequate vehicle turnaround and maneuvering area through the use of aisle extensions and/or turnaround spaces as illustrated in Figure 17.75.04 and 17.75.05. Functionally equivalent turnaround and maneuvering designs may be permitted by the approving authority through the site plan and architectural review process. Finding 17.75.039(E): The proposed parking spaces are paved and striped in accordance with the City's parking dimension standards and contained with a curb. All spaces have been evaluated for compliance with the backup and maneuvering requirements in Item 8 and exceed the minimum turnaround requirements of this section No parking areas are within a required setback or clear vision area for private drives and collector streets per the Public Works Standard Specifications. Conclusion 17.75.039(E): Consistent, PART 3 SUMMARY CONCLUSION As evidenced in findings and conclusions, the proposed multifamily housing project known as Smith Crossing at Twin Creeks Phases l and Z site plan and architectural plan is consistent with applicable standards and criteria in the Central Point Municipal Cade as conditioned. Page 42 of 42 100 Z O z z D N A m r r O m m o i•!�1 ■ ra■y■aP a-_..�r.y.1 i `, s..� sapl `.ones i � ii vo. ■.. IRI PI srrra.�r � 1 � X I 1 �- 1 . 1! n Ilw.. w..ww 111 I ill illi III IS1111..w..� �•• Z Ur;ii —mw ^ac Z;q,- ��� Rl uap � .open dp= Vim VG72p fJL'1� NZ uz N +mom Ll n EXHIBIT 1 0 0 = A O 0 .du N SMITH CROSSING TOMNATW . $ P.M.C.I. INC. PL�i PIAN AT TWIN CREEKS � M PHASE 9-145 UNITS YJ N mq 1E m m D n � to to m ciirmi mz r'�i D N p � a zz� 1on on z r r i D r D W D Gl Z Ll ti D N Z Z 1 Z m N L1 r A D m lC ti 31 C D Z x n z r r f7 N r � � o D r o it z = Vl < EXHIBIT 1 0 0 = A O 0 .du N SMITH CROSSING TOMNATW . $ P.M.C.I. INC. PL�i PIAN AT TWIN CREEKS � M PHASE 9-145 UNITS YJ N mq 1E m m .cl m A EXHIBIT 2 m z � G7 Z 0 m 3i i Z o SMITH CROSSING TOO s T'" ,,,mom l `' PMC.I. INC. E TWIN CREEKS , ,00inns "We J � ` t� r n � � O w -w N ^' � D '� 8 ❑ y m 0-,- Z 'm-,0 � C{S ^ o -Iw �N w^ LN LN = 1 = 1 N^ wna� ADDD 3a�j JOH w O D DiyO r DD<D yNj .11 ZZ 1�1 .-. D nZL1 0 D "" Z /� L D 3 f'1 C N f•1 Z �r A r Ow ON pym ym NOtl l'Id Ip�1 f'll�'11 Qv. 9AA D 0' j j ppJ��OG m, i\\ f0+1 m D N 11 A 2 Ll y "" y A Iy.IA NA 00 NZm �Ooz- JZOwz 3. � G'I ap NCN.-4C] ACI Z m y d CZ'1 cm bN aN W N�!' 44 U NOD N q A D m $��CI 2V- V m'v r O y N= 2m �m m N ♦l�I LZ,� N N � ti A N i Z o SMITH CROSSING TOO s T'" ,,,mom l `' PMC.I. INC. E TWIN CREEKS , ,00inns "We wt5g m EXHIBIT 4 i EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT 6 , �•--�--�-��--mss -- --� �r-�--- 1 7 1 r r L 1 � 1 1 I 1 I � I L I , I . � ----------------- -------- -------- ------------------------- I f 1 1 1 1 y I1 { I }f 1 I ----1 „ f . I`` I r � I 1 � 1 1 1 I rI '}' -i-----'---------------------------------------- - - - - -- r 1 i r I , 1 f I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 � 5 I � 1 1 1 ___------�------------- - -- --- ---- ---- - - I f r f{ I •� � I 1 +I I I 1 I n I s I -\• II I I II II 1 11 II I IT su�wr�/r nnnctoeeclertwn: wN*MteNIMI PMGi. Inc. 11 Twln Greeks Roof Plan Apartments and Tau maa rr ur.lw ffil O MCI F ■ raw. 1 1 _� C ; _■ l - ■� ■= _ MCI F Lim 0 I f� '� 1111111111111110 illllilll i ' i I�WJF i .itll3', J EXHIBIT 10 N Ltl mm PMGI, Inc. Twin Greeks a, Plex Elevations d Apartments and T-"Mes typical Side Elevations 0 L C Kr S O C N l0 Q f0 rn co 3 �1 �wY�07 wa c_e o-rT f rwncr xsc�rr� �P�if'Fri� PMGI, Inc. Twin Greeks Clubhouse &Typical Apartrnents and T mss ,;, n; ° I °1�° Garage Elevations Ai EXHIBIT 11 n N c a w o m �1 �wY�07 wa c_e o-rT f rwncr xsc�rr� �P�if'Fri� PMGI, Inc. Twin Greeks Clubhouse &Typical Apartrnents and T mss ,;, n; ° I °1�° Garage Elevations Ai EXHIBIT 11 n N lA a w ,r rn rn < 0 0 3 � N �1 �wY�07 wa c_e o-rT f rwncr xsc�rr� �P�if'Fri� PMGI, Inc. Twin Greeks Clubhouse &Typical Apartrnents and T mss ,;, n; ° I °1�° Garage Elevations Ai EXHIBIT 11 E:An I On I it I fig Will i +- r xrssea sacrrasrxx°'a - - •; •� • ---' • � [ 1 ., A� nSa as ea�ias8 tt .� = w • 11L7 1 k S S II i P N lily. f ; r � �► } �� 9 �.;{3:1 s� j:.rs{ � � tet- F• T [fix # ��il# � a ; }#g;=4#: 1t' ii lipIf s:?€, t = f all#- oEnC3 f)EDC1 . e - - s� a �i•�- z- .-_,____.,_^r^• r � r , s•p � • aa� � r j , : T�.o. F 3fi! �3 gi gi'� e a .���r� 4 1 _�1��•�t }IJ}j �*'�• alit"ir �!< �iFY�7��if};1 1r iSI# ii e�€ !IIF,a Ir i }i■rri =g[ x A#11iS -3•"1x+ Yj' 1#f r r. r�i 1lS ; ljr. i� 4 lit m 9 if in SMITH CROSSINGAT Madara Design Inc j TWIN CREEKS PHS 1 UMM A W. p 97'�V! NORTH FIASKELLSTREET Hian4ross Cerfrj Point, Or r a w� I 111 IN11111 F� CROSSING AT m �Z CA/LJIQIT 4112 ��� Tsui ■ ! E 1 -vi r Y moi' It ■ i' k E ° 0000 oo❑ z0 0 � S�Res=h j[rriLC■�z'rY '�r..rww p �1�r� I'l rrres s u rrarrrir u --• -- � 111 IN11111 1111SMITH CROSSING AT II NORTH .r•M 3 C 5 qpq c •� FZ5Z zO 114 EXHIBIT 14 EXHIBIT 15 115 EXHIBIT 16 Z7�1_ TWIN CREEKS DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC - — _- - - - - — ' Twim CRieKs ' PO Box 3577 Phone (540 (541) 665-54oi �r • * Central. Point, OR 9750-2 Fax (541) 665-5402 May 22, 2017 Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director City of Central Point 140 South 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 Dear Tom: The purpose of this letter is to request a clarification of the Twin Creeks TOD Master Plan relative to Exhibit 3, Circulation Plan specifically for the following properties: • 37S 2W 03CA Tax Lot ISM- Zoned Employment Commercial (EC) • 37S 2W 03C Tax Lot 138 -Zoned Medium Mix Use Residential (MMR) We would like shared access to be limited to use by emergency vehicles between these lots, which will be controlled by a fire access gate or other similar devir_P. The basis of this request is that the Master Plan does not articulate a clear requirement for private shared access other than to illustrate a conceptual connection in Exhibit 3. If required to allow unlimited shared access, there are concerns that commercial traffic generated by a Future land use on Tax Lot 1500 would be incompatible with and cause a safety hazard to future residents of the medium residential multifamily development on Tax Lot 138. By limiting access to emergency vehicles only, concerns about resident safety will he addressed. If this clarification is deemed acceptable, access to Tax Lot 1500 will be limited to the intersection of Boulder Ridge Drive and Twin Creeks Crossing. As shown on Exhibit 3, this intersection is restricted to right-in/right-out turning movements due to its proximity to the rail crossing. We understand that limited access conditions will require a Traffic Impact Analysis for any potential future development. This may pose a challenge to future development and use of the site, which is acceptable to Twin Creeks Development, Co. We request that the City accept this letter and justification as clarification that the internal circulation be provided for emergency vehicle access only. Pending approval of this request, Twin Creeks Development Co., current owner of the subject properties, agrees to record a shared access agreement reflecting the approved clarification. If you have any questions, let me know. Sincere y� Bret Moore Twin Creeks Development Co., LLC www.twincreeksincentralpoirit.com iii[: EXHIBIT 17 Smith Crossing at Twin Creeks To: Stephanie Holtey From: Milo Smith CC: Scott Sinner Date: 5/30/17 Re: Smith Crossing at Twin Creeks Bike Parking Comments:Each unit's patio or deck will accommodate one bike parking spot. Residents will secured their bikes to a 6 x 6 post on each patio or deck. Phase 1 Bike Parking Patio bike parking spaces 100 Clubhouse/pool bike parking 3 Community garden bike parking 2 Phase 2 Bike Parking Patio bike parking spaces 145 Large open space bike parking 4 Thank You 117 ATTACHMENT "L" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 842 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR A 245 -UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE TWIN CREEKS TOD MASTER PLAN AREA AND MEDIUM MIX RESIDENTIAL ZONE (FILE NO. SPAR -17002) WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a site plan and architectural review application for to develop an 9.56 acre site within the MMR, Medium Mix Residential zone with a 17 apartment buildings consisting of 245 -units together with a clubhouse, pool, playground and site landscaping and parking lot improvements; and, WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, the City of Central Point Planning Commission conducted a duly - noticed public hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the 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 TOD-MMR, High Mix Residential section 17.65, Application Review Process section 17.66 and Design Standards — TOD District section 17.67 of the Central Point Municipal code; and WHEREAS, after duly considering the proposed use, it is the Planning Commission's determination that, subject to compliance with conditions as set forth in the Staff Report (Exhibit "A") dated June 6, 2017, the application does comply with applicable standards and criteria for approval of the site plan and architecture. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. 842, does hereby approve the Site Plan and Architectural Review application for Smith Crossing at Twin Creeks. This approval is based on the findings and conditions of approval as set forth on Exhibit "A", the Planning Department Staff Report dated June 6, 2017 and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as set forth in Exhibit `B, " including attachments incorporated herein by reference. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 6`h day of June, 2017. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Relnesentative Planning Commission Resolution No. 842 (6/6/2017) 118