Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04062021 Planning Commission Agenda Packet.rs- A CENTRAL FOf NT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA April 6, 2021- 6:00 p.m. I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members, Tom Van Voorhees (chair), Amy Moore, Jim Mock, Pat Smith, Kay Harrison, Brad Cozza IV. CORRESPONDENCE V. MINUTES Review and approval of the March 2, 2021 Planning Commission meeting minutes. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to Consider a Site -Plan and Architectural Review application to construct a mixed-use development on three lots totaling 2.83 acres in the Twin Creeks TOD. The proposal depicts two of the 3 -story buildings with a common plaza area on either side of a pedestrian promenade. There will be a total of 11,482 square feet of ground floor commercial lease space (broken down into 16 separate spaces); two live -work units and 87 dwelling units incorporated into a total of four building complexes. The site is within the High Mix Residential (HMR) zone and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37 2W 03CA TLs 107, 108, 130.Applicant: Smith Crossing LLC; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. (Scott Sinner) VIII. DISCUSSION A. Discussion regarding standards and regulations for Mobile Food Vendors and other vending units, such as food trucks, trailers and carts within the City of Central Point. B. Residential Zoning Code Amendments. Discussion of pending code amendments needed to comply with HB 2001 authorizing duplexes in single family zoning districts and other changes to meet average minimum density requirements in the Regional Plan Element and eliminate identified barriers to housing Individuals needing special accommodations such as sign language, foreign language interpreters or equipment for the hearing impaired must request such services at least 72 hours prior to the City Council meeting. To make your request, please contact the City Recorder at 541-423-1026 (voice), or by e-mail at: deanna.casey tLi)centralpointore otg 1.&o . Si necesita traductor en espahol o servicios de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a una junta publica de la Ciudad por favor llame con 72 horas de anticipaci6n al 541-664-3321 ext. 201. 1 City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2021 Meeting Held Via Zoom and in person I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:04 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Tom Van Voorhees (chair), and Jim Mock were present via Zoom .Kay Harrison, Brad Cozza and Pat Smith were present in person. Also in attendance were, Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner (in person) Matt Samitore, Public Works Director, (via Zoom) Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner (in person) and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary (in person). III. CORESPONDENCE None. IV. MINUTES Kay Harrison made a motion to approve the February 2, 2021 minutes. Pat Smith seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Brad Cozza, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Pat Smith, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit application to allow the Parks & Public works Department to operate a Public Facility at 235 South Haskell Street. The 5.19 acre site is within the General Commercial (GC) zoning district in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Corridor and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 10AD, Tax Lots 700 & 798. Applicant: City of Central Point Parks & Public Works Department: Agent: S&B James Construction Management. Chair Tom Van Voorhees opened the meeting at 6:05 p.m. He read the rules for a quasi- judicial public hearing. The commissioners had no conflicts of interest, ex parte contact or bias to declare. Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner described the Conditional Use Permit for the construction and operation of a public facility for the City of Central Point Public Works Operation Center. He said the property is located at 235 South Haskell Street, near the A Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 2021 Page 2 intersection of Cheney Loop and South Haskell Street. It is currently undeveloped and the application for Conditional Use Permit is being reviewed concurrently with an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review. He noted that specific site development considerations are detailed in that application. Mr. Gindlesperger said a public facility is designated a conditional use in the GC zoning district. He explained the proposed facility will consist of a 7,746 square foot 2 -story office building, an approximately 15,000 square foot warehouse, and parking for equipment and machinery and on-site storage of materials. There will be additional site improvements for the facility to include frontage improvements, landscaping and perimeter fencing. The project will have two points of access: the main entrance for staff and visitors is along South Haskell Street, which aligns with the intersection of Cheney Loop, and an access is proposed near the northeast corner of the property along Ash Street, which will be used by large trucks, equipment and machinery The project is not anticipated to create traffic conflicts due to low traffic volume and separate access provided on Ash Street for larger fleet traffic and South Haskell Street for office and visitor trips. The initial phase of development proposes to occupy the first floor of the office building and approximately 11,000 square feet of the proposed warehouse. This will not generate enough peak hour trips to require a TIA. Future development, including development of future phases, will require additional traffic analysis. Mr. Gindlesperger said the proposed office building design will complement the existing residential developments and landscape areas will provide a visual buffer. He said the building situated closest to the residential properties is the proposed office building, which will be designed to complement the residential development and landscape areas will provide a visual buffer. The proposed site design and building designs will be reviewed for compliance as part of the Site Plan and Architectural Review. He explained the equipment and maintenance facilities will be located to the rear of the property, along the railroad right-of-way, at the farthest location on the project site from the residential properties The area experiences a large amount of traffic noise along South Front Street and the nearby railroad tracks. The buildings will provide a buffer from the traffic noise. Public Hearing was opened Commissioner Cozza asked Matt Samitore, the applicant, for information regarding the timing of employee traffic to and from the site. Mr. Samitore answered morning traffic would be 6:30 a.m. which is before school starts and afternoon traffic would be around 4:30 which is before the afternoon peak traffic hour. Time frame for the project is possibly starting in the next few weeks and hopefully finishing in December of 2021. 91 Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 2021 Page 3 Completion by early winter of 2022 is the ultimate goal. They clarified there would not be any rezoning. Pliblic 1-learitig was closed. Kay Harrison made a motion to approve Resolution 888 approving a Conditional Use Permit application to allow the Parks & Public works Department to operate a Public Facility at 235 South Haskell Street within the General Commercial (GC) zoning district. Pat Smith seconded the motion. The commissioners expressed appreciation of the thought given to the impact on the neighborhood. They felt it was a good location, especially when South Haskell is extended to Beall. Mr. Samitore stated the City is in the process of obtaining an appraisal and preparing an offer to the landowner for the road extension. If that offer is accepted the extension will be included in the next two year budget. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Brad Cozza, yes. Motion passed. B. Public Hearing to consider a Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a public facility that includes a 7,746 square foot 2 -storey office building, a 15,000 square foot warehouse, parking for equipment, on-site storage of materials, and landscape areas. the 5.19 acre project site is located at 235 South Haskell Street in the General Commercial (GC) zoning district in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Corridor and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 10AD, Tax Lots 700 & 798. Applicant: City of Central Point Parks & Public Works Department: Agent: S&B James Construction Management Mr. Van Voorhees stated the rules for the public hearing stood as previously read. The Commissioners had no conflict of interest, ex parte contact or bias to declare. Mr. Gindlesperger reviewed the description of the application stating it is a Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a public facility for use as the Parks & Public Works Department Operations Center. He stated the Improvements include a 7 - foot wide sidewalk and 7 -foot wide landscape row adjacent to the project site. He described the proposed building design and said it complies with the building design standards in CPMC 17.75.042. There is off-street parking to accommodate employees, visitors and large vehicles and equipment used in daily operation. The parking areas include interior and perimeter landscape improvements to reinforce pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including parking lot entries, pedestrian access ways, and parking aisle. He said the proposed warehouse will cross an existing 20 -foot wide utility easement. It will be necessary to vacate the utility easement. He noted that staff has presented a ll Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 2021 Page 4 condition of approval that the applicant demonstrate the easement is vacated prior to construction, however due to the delay that would cause, Staff is suggesting changing that to require proof of vacation prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Also, the trash enclosure is situated within the right-of-way for Ash Street. The City will need to vacate the unused portion of the right-of-way or find a suitable location outside the security fence for the trash enclosure. Staff recommends requiring that the unused portion of the Ash Street right-of-way be vacated and incorporated into the project site. The applicant's site plan identifies proposed landscape areas to comply with the standards for frontage landscape along South Haskell Street and Ash Street and parking facility interior and perimeter landscaping standards. However, the application did not include a landscape plan that identifies the number, size and location of trees and shrubs specified in the standards. He said staff has suggested condition of approval requiring submittal of a landscape and irrigation plan demonstrating compliance with design and landscape requirements before building permits are issued. He reviewed the conditions of approval • Prior to final inspection/certificate of occupancy, provide documentation that demonstrates the 20 -foot utility easement, bisecting Tax Lot 700 east -to -west, is vacated or relocated to avoid conflicts with proposed structures. Provide a revised site plan that depicts the location of the proposed trash enclosure entirely on the subject property and outside of the public right-of-way; or initiate a right-of-way vacation of the unused portion of Ash Street. The right- of-way vacation shall be complete prior to final inspection and certificate of occupancy. • Provide a landscape and irrigation plan that demonstrates compliance with frontage and parking facility landscape requirements, including a minimum of 19 street trees along South Haskell, a minimum of six (6) street trees along Ash Street and a minimum of five (5) trees and 24 shrubs along the perimeter of the parking area facing South Haskell Street. • Demonstrate compliance with the following conditions listed in the Public Works Department Staff Report. • Submit civil improvement plans to the Public Works Department for the street frontage improvements. The applicant shall use the 2014 revised Public Works Standards and Specifications for all new construction drawings. • Submit a storm water management plan for the entire tax lot demonstrating compliance with the MS4 Phase II storm water quality standards. 5 Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 2021 Page 5 • Any modifications to the site plan necessary to meet storm water quality requirements shall be subject to CPMC 17.09, Modifications to Approved Plans and Conditions of Approval. • Apply for an erosion and sediment control permit and provide a copy to the Public Works Department. ■ Pay all System Development Charges and permit fees. • Demonstrate compliance with conditions of approval provided by the Rogue Valley Sewer Services in a letter dated February 11, 2021. • Demonstrate compliance with conditions of approval listed in the Jackson County Fire District No. 3 Staff Report submitted on February 10, 2021. Prior to Public Works Final Inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. Complete frontage improvements along South Haskell and Ash Streets as required per the civil improvement and landscape and irrigation plans approved by the Public Works Department. b. Complete storm water management improvements per the Storm water Management Plan approved by the Public Works Department. Record an operations and maintenance agreement for all new storm water quality features Clarified the security fence around only the warehouse and equipment yard. Mr. Samitore said the fence height will be six feet. Also camera system for security. The Public Hearing was opened Neil Olson 661 Silver Creek I) rive Mr. Olson asked what was going to be done with the unused portion of the property. Matt Samitore responded. He said it is important to buffer this site from the neighborhood. There is over one acre right along the street between the project and the neighborhood which is not being utilized. Mr. Samitore stated the City has the option to lease or sell this portion of the property in the future. He added the property will be re -platted to create this portion as a separate parcel and also to clean up all the old easements on the site. Mr. Samitore explained the City is consolidating 5 different parks/public works locations into 1.1 Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 2021 Page 6 one central location. There will be joint usage of the different locations until they can all be consolidated. Once that is accomplished the planned Community Center can be built utilizing the property currently occupied by the different public works entities. He stated the City was exploring options to sell property on Old Military Road to fund the storage and equipment buildings which are not yet funded. He said the City is trying to secure prices and lock them in so we can proceed. If those buildings cannot be done concurrently the project will be done in a phased approach Mr. Samitore explained it will take Pacific Power 5 months to process the easement vacation due to covid restrictions. He said it will be done prior to the building getting the certificate of occupancy. Public hearing was closed. Kay Harrison made a motion to approve Resolution 889 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a public facility that includes a 7,746 square foot 2 -storey office building, a 15,000 square foot warehouse, parking for equipment, on-site storage of materials, and landscape areas. The 5.19 acre project site is located at 235 South Haskell Street in the General Commercial zoning district in the Transit Oriented Development Corridor. With the modified condition that the vacation of the Pacific Power Easement would be completed prior to final plat. Pat Smith Seconded the motion. The Commissioners discussed their appreciation of the architecture and staff efforts to buffer the surrounding neighborhood. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Brad Cozza, yes. Motion passed. VII. DISCUSSION Ms. Holtey gave a Development Update She listed the projects currently under construction • Premier Oil ■ A 2 story commercial building by the emergency veterinary hospital on Biddle which will have a regular veterinary clinic on the first floor and a transportation broker on the second floor ■ Les Schwab ■ Southern Oregon Spine and Rehab ■ 12 unit apartment complex on Hamrick Road • White hawk was approved and should be doing public improvements to street construction soon 7 Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 2021 Page 7 • Professional office and commercial bldg. on Freeman • Jewett Elementary is constructing a gym and multi -use building On Hwy 99 Dusty's Transmission is using a fagade improvement grant to modify their facade ■ Continued residential development She said the following projects are In the plan review stage • Firestone/Bridgestone • Early learning Center In Current Planning are: Application for Twin Creeks Village mixed use development Two Buildings for Central Point Station Tom Humphrey joined the meeting via zoom. He said • Twin Creeks Village will have approximately 11,000 — 12,000 square feet of commercial space • Rogue Valley Bin is gradually getting the property ready for sale ■ He is working on transitional housing for Jackson County for people displaced by the fire • The City is beginning to work on the next 2 year budget Ms. Holtey said • the City Council will be conducting a public hearing on the UGB next Thursday • The Board of County Commissioners will be conducting their public hearing on the Ordinance to adopt the UGB Amendment. The second reading would be on May 12tH Mr. Van Voorhees stated the Creamery has been contacted regarding the possibility of locating multiple food trucks at their property on 119 W. Pine Street. He said it wasn't something the Creamery could make happen. Ms. Holtey said the City has been contacted also. Mr. Humphrey said there were multiple things to consider before approving a food court type of area in the city. He added it might be a discussion item on the April agenda. Mr. Van Voorhees asked if FEMA would want to locate some mobile units on the Creamery property. Mr. Humphrey said he would need to discuss this with the County and various organizations. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 2021 Page 8 IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Pat Smith moved to adjourn the meeting. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 7: 25 p.m. Planning Commission Chair TWIN CREEKS VILLAGE 10 STAFF REPORT �y CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT April 6, 2021 Community Development Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM: File No. SPAR -21001 Consideration of a Site -Plan and Architectural Review application to construct a mixed-use development on three lots totaling 2.83 acres in the Twin Creeks TOD. The proposal depicts two of the 3 -story buildings with a common plaza area on either side of a pedestrian promenade. There will be a total of 11,482 square feet of ground floor commercial lease space (broken down into 16 separate spaces); two live -work units and 87 dwelling units incorporated into a total of four building complexes. The site is within the High Mix Residential (HMR) zone and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37 2W 03CA TLs 107, 108, 130.Applicant: Smith Crossing LLC; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. (Scott Sinner) STAFF SOURCE: Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director BACKGROUND: The Twin Creeks Master Plan ("TCMP") was approved by the City Council in 2001 to provide a format for roughly 230 acres of land development. The Master Plan depicts a mix of commercial, residential and civic land use types throughout the Twin Creeks community. According to the Master Plan, high -mix residential/ commercial was planned for land south of the Central Commons Park beginning at the prominent southwest corner of Twin Creeks Crossing Loop and North Haskell Street west for an entire block (Attachment "A"). At this time Smith Crossing LLC ("Applicant") is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review approval to construct the following (Attachments "D"-1 through "D"-5) • Building 1 — Two Story 10-plex transitioning to Three -Story (Flat Roofed) building consisting of one and two bedroom townhouses and 1 and 2 bedroom flats. ■ Building 2 — Three -Story (Flat Roofed) Mixed -Use Building with 10 flats and 25 townhouses above first floor commercial space totaling 7521 square feet in 11 separate spaces. • Building 3 — Three -Story (Flat Roofed) Mixed -Use with 5 flats and 15 townhouses above 3,961 square feet of commercial in 5 spaces. Two of the units in this building are considered `live -work' which have a commercial/office and a residential component that is occupied by the same resident. • Building 4 — Three -Story building with 12 second and third story townhouses and ten 1 and 2 bedroom flats. 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 (Attachment "E"). Project Description: The Applicant proposes to construct a mixed-use residential/commercial development with 16 commercial spaces and 89 residential units. The parking plan consists of off-street parking spaces. 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 and commercial square footage. Table 1. Densitf and Parking Anal sis SiteMinimum Acres/ Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Proposed Minimum No. Proposed Surplus/ sq ft Density No. Units Density No. Units No. Units Parking Parking ;cit Spaces Spaces _ Res 2.83 25 71 n/a n/a 89 1.5 134 149 15 Com 11,482 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1/500 23 157 23 172 15 TOTAL 2.83 25 71 /a 89 1.5 The open space amenity proposed with this application is a common plaza area on either side of a pedestrian promenade and is immediately associated with the commercial uses. The entire block and parking area show landscape improvements, as well as a network of pedestrian pathways (Attachments "C"). Architecturally, two of the four buildings will be the most prominent in this development; three-story, flat - roofed structures with parapets, awnings and other unique features (Attachment "D"). Buildings 1 and 4 are three-story structures of similar appearance to Buildings 2 and 3 with scaled massing (three-dimensional form) appropriate for their locations along North Haskell and Silver Creek Drives in the vicinity of the TOD core area. All the building elevations demonstrate a visually interesting and pedestrian friendly scaling with large windows and entries from the sidewalks. Per the Applicant's Findings, in Attachment "F" the proposed development was designed to be compatible with itself and with existing surrounding architecture. ISSUES: There are five (5) issues relative to the proposed development as follows: 1. Master Plan. The Twin Creeks Master Plan (TCMP) governs land use and circulation. A review of the proposed site development in the context of the Master Plan requires clarification of public transit, shared access and traffic impacts as follows: a. Transit. The Planning Department received the following comments from a resident; "TOD suggests that residents of the apartments and visitors to the lease spaces will be encouraged to use public transportation rather than personal vehicles. If so, the RVTD will need to change their bus routes to serve the proposed development. What are those plans?" Comment: This resident's questions, my response and that of RVTD Planning and Programs Manager are found in (Attachment "H"). In short, RVTD planned to begin the `Central Point Circulator' (Route 43) last June but the COVID pandemic caused staffing shortages and reduced service. Their intention is to resume all service levels this September 2021 and add Route 43 in early 2022. This route will circulate through Twin Creeks, serving those residents and traveling east and west across town with connections to Medford. b. Traffic. The Master Plan included a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that evaluated 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 Crossing was the last project to be completed before the trip cap was removed. Comment: The construction and successful opening of the Twin Creeks Rail Crossing removed a self-imposed trip cap and now allows the TCMP to build out consistent with the adopted zoning. Changes to the TCMP may necessitate a review of traffic impacts but the applicant is not proposing changes to the land use or zoning that was approved by the City. Parking Lot and Use of Blue Moon Alley. Some residents of Blue Moon Drive have expressed concern about the use of entrances to an existing alley to enter and leave the Twin Creeks Village parking lot. The alley right of way is 25 feet wide and currently provides access to rear loaded garages. The access from North Haskell can be used more directly without traveling behind existing homes. The access from Silver Creek would be shared along with four other driveways that are proposed (Attachment "B"). Comment: The Master Plan for the Twin Creeks Development depicted only two points of access to this area, one from North Haskell and the other from Silver Creek as the applicants propose. 12 The circulation plan reflected in the site plan indicates that there will be multiple ways to enter and leave the new parking area and minimize conflicts with Blue Moon residents. Architecture and Scale. The principal buildings (Buildings 2 and 3) will be the most prominent buildings south of the Central Common Park. These buildings will make a statement that is consistent with the mixed-use concept described in the TCMP (Attachment "G"). Per the Applicant's Findings, placement of the structure in this location is desirable to provide a visual reference to the TOD core area. Building 4 is also a 3 -story building with frontage on Silver Creek Drive. Some residents from Blue Moon Drive have expressed concern about the size and scale of the building relative to the backs of their homes. Proximity, obstructed views and privacy are main concerns. Comment: The TCMP encourages street frontages to be pedestrian friendly with active public space. The TCMP depicts this type of development in the HMR zoning district (Attachment "G"). The massing of individual buildings is addressed in staff Finding 17.67.050(H) as follows; "the applicant has taken care to transition building height from two to three stories on North Haskell but not on Silver Creek Drive. The applicant is relying instead on architecture and landscaping to minimize massing impacts for Building #4. The houses on Blue Moon Drive are all alley loaded and so their back yards abut the internal parking area and rear entrances to the mixed-use buildings." 3. Diagonal Parking on Twin Creeks Crossing Loop. The proposal for mixed-use development in the core of Twin Creeks and its emphasis on commercial activity inspired the idea of creating a "Main Street" appearance and a "satellite downtown" complete with more on -street parking. In collaboration with the Public Works Department, the applicants redesigned their parking lot to dedicate the required right of way to add diagonal parking on the south side of Twin Creeks Crossing Loop to compliment that on the north. Comment: The Twin Creeks Crossing Loop is a one-way street and the Public Works Department has determined that the expansion and addition of diagonal parking will enhance and not diminish traffic circulation in this area. The added advantage is the creation of a "sense of place" in the core area of the Twin Creeks Development. The use of public parking to access 11,482 square feet of commercial space and 16 potential businesses promotes better market visibility. Those concerned about parking in front of the business can alternatively park in the internal on-site lot and walk through to "main street' stores. Two recommended conditions of approval from Public Works address parking and frontage improvements on Twin Creeks Crossing Loop. 4. On-site Lighting. The proposed site plan does not address the on-site lighting standards necessary to illuminate building entrances, upper stories and pedestrian walkways per CPMC 17.67.050(L). Although this is a minor issue, it will be necessary to provide an overall lighting plan with the details for proposed building and walkway lighting to comply with the on-site lighting standards. Comment: The applicant has stated in their findings that lighting is a design -build contract and was not included in the development proposal. A condition has been added to address on-site lighting. Garage. The proposed site plan depicts a covered parking garage without explaining how it and the parking spaces in conflict with its doors might be used. The landscaping plan indicates that it can only be accessed from the north side and this arrangement conflicts with five other dedicated parking spaces. Comment: The applicant needs to clarify for the Planning Commission what they have in mind for the use of this building and whether or not the total parking space count will remain the same or be reduced. 13 FINDINGS: The Site Plan and Architectural Review application for Central Point Station has been evaluated for compliance with the Central Point Municipal Code requirements set forth in the applicable sections of Chapters 17.65, 17.66, 17.67, 17.72 and 17.75 and found to comply as evidenced by the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (Attachment "K"). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall submit an lighting plan to the Planning Department indicating all proposed on-site lighting, including the illumination of building entrances, the parking lot and pedestrian walkways, in conformance with Section 17.67.050(L). 2. The applicant shall comply with agency conditions as per the Fire District #3, Rogue Valley Sewer Service and the Public Works Department (Attachment "J") staff reports. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" — Project Location Map Attachment "B" — Central Point Station Plot Plan Attachment "C" — Central Point Station Landscape Plan Attachment "D-1" — Building 1 Attachment "D-2" — Buildings 2/3 Attachment "D-3" — Pedestrian Promenade Attachment "134" — Building 4 Attachment "D-5" — Garage Attachment "E" — Conceptual Utility Plan Attachment "F" — Applicant's Findings Attachment "G" — Twin Creeks Master Plan Housing and Mixed -Use Exhibits, Pages 48, 66, 68, and 70. Attachment "H" — Correspondence Attachment "J" — Agency Comments (Public Works, RVSS and Fire District #3) Attachment "K" — Planning Department Supplemental Findings Attachment "L" — Resolution No. 889 ACTION: Consider the site plan and architectural review application 1) approve; 2) approve with conditions; or 3) deny the application. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution 889 approving the site plan and architectural review application for Central Point Station per the Staff Report dated April 6, 2021 14 ATTACHMENT66A q 7 1:1.1�'K-.-.' PAOYArq Figure 8 Project Location Table I identifies the proposed residential uses are permitted within the HMR Zone. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village 15 Site Plan Review Page 8 of 18 ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 11 ALM4(22ll WArr.7orw I$ • iwdo.ei CZJ a ,IIIc.] 2 - e -2Ned � 0t 'fwln Greeks Crossirlq Loop I ' NM� a Lj— Eue97Ew r 1wrJ fired Endos.e: TWIN Cl2TTK5 VIL.L-AGF- Yd RAE Mw.b•,k 572ACMG faLd 190,107,109 fOOL LOrAFEA -2M A— ' tMr ;bel I w pi'MA� (125,275 `AFD 15L T-+C?(ZJI 15-Toxdoaes (Zd B 5rd Fhr) err�erertEe NIL91N6 2(551,") ilrm 51- ans - — 5 -IBed Sheet LehS, 25:,f-i— 25 - faniaaes (lid a Nd FL-) uzve,err.sl.lm udree a�,msq (51N 119-5TbB 1 - Lne Wal d Ned 0 pedesMm/rAm Ld Ly+ 10-I Dad 1,961 agRdcaim,.cd 7,521 sA,(G--W ALM4(22ll WArr.7orw I$ • iwdo.ei CZJ a ,IIIc.] 2 - e -2Ned � 0t 'fwln Greeks Crossirlq Loop I ' NM� a Lj— Eue97Ew r 1wrJ fired Endos.e: - LECEM: l#M LLL Yd RAE Mw.b•,k fOOL LOrAFEA -2M A— K06+Yw P. s� zp sa I w pi'MA� (125,275 `AFD naert err�erertEe - — ('odWbiEm�Fradl.Ma Sheet LehS, Nudrgl - 5595 uzve,err.sl.lm udree a�,msq (51N 119-5TbB 0 pedesMm/rAm Ld Ly+ N.Idrg2 .16.955 %id,,S -10,007 N"d^a4 - 9,175 e�.$.n..N V (tly Mel Da Lo-att>, Ld p r• ^L�' r A/cu� dJ Coca e - A,250 qR iS: •(a7 Eud q m"L" G.b LM 878E AREA - 19,568 sqR drDrA. d Rum L�he15F(W, Prgmty Lro wI Mel i, N N t0 I NIIAw I( IO IAee) 2� 55hm 5 -INd 5 -2 Dekmiee6—(Zd65rd Pon) 4 -Gond Flmr 2 D.&— Tawi— N0115'N6SI)MMAkY: 2 26 - I & 2 Dedman 6mM F6w rka E 4-2PM— 21/2 Dath fowlnves I% 2 - Lne Wnrk Dec — 51- 2 Dedman 2 1/ 2 Dat, f.4 - 5—m zrd ihrd Flans s 4 - 3 Dedman 2 1/ 2 Path fawrhanes Serail ad Thrd Fleas 89 TOTAL LIVING wlf5 LOMM.EkLIAL SPACE 5UMMAkY: I - 11,482 sgfi dLame vA 5p— (I6se —L -leasable spares) ON -51M FAM4 5UMM MY 4 - Gaa(e pakrq� 194 -AssWd resldenNd Spares 25 - La(m a4 pAN spaces 6 - OM Spares 5 - APA spa -es 3 - Van —.bl ADA spaces 122 foto paklrq spares 159 keq)red ADJALENf OFF -5111 FAld'JNG 26 - NEW head -n p -k q spies 50 fatal dr-slte pa krqspies ii .t �� fyplci Pad(1q Spare - l#M LLL Yd RAE Mw.b•,k �s�nNfimrq K06+Yw P. s� zp sa I w pi'MA� �M rri`e: naert err�erertEe sue Siwfnelugk ('odWbiEm�Fradl.Ma ++a s�.i.�a. sec wr a, aeF9r5w (5M)6(]I-0T1 uzve,err.sl.lm udree a�,msq (51N 119-5TbB ATTACHMENT" py TWIN CMF -K5 Vl[-LA6F- -vu -rwirl Creeks Cro-,rirzl Loop All, 17 Twin Greeks Village ATTACHMENT "" '".0 East Elevation Aest Elevation MINA aiii ilbl on NN I ® iai N�! n ai wi North Elevation PageAl South Elevation ATTACHMENT I `�'2 It Twin Greeks Village e—ptlm oe*l E.t El—tlon (Along N Haskell 5b -t) Ma Sheet Perspcctiv 'Am(Looking Norttwest) 5treel Perspective Vim (Lmking Ne I) Street Perspect'ne Vlew (Looking Scum M) ter—•' F .1; � �e�� '' --• 11l '_ �� •� ���� ` qqr �,� , rcev�lr.+rrar. PageM CHI ATTACHMENT "D 3 i, Twin Greeks Pedestrian Promenade PageAl ll� ail CEE) ©- Ni�il : N Ford 61U-1 des I iiY 1 illy Illl If EE ® i n:.l III�I rnu udnlQ�uuu min iQie vv nidi die ii sl`rse FORM MR Fu--Illl NO M " FUM -1 p14�,1 flltll �i 1�� acne If mg o M FORM MR Fu--Illl NO M " FUM -1 p14�,1 flltll �i 1�� acne If Twin Greeks Village Conceptual Design I South Elevation North Elevation ATTACHMENT"� "'`' DATE: West Elevation East Elevation 1 Page )1 1 ATTACHMENT 91 o LE,._NO _F ,• n,M � .s s I /VC Gt ` 1 ,-N1\ CREERC CPCSSiiVG Coo, [xis ,C T - —'NE \$�'• F___ �_____� fii� '••A1.0 =x si L s aJlE ►►.:n� —r. • - ---L' - — - - ram E sr nc re ET E s„,NG Ge,N Ar - —LiL �L - PFGaJ A,— SEe,.CE .nE / ■! ... _: r..... _ a.:_a' - --- - - rrrr __ r z_ - ---_ _�� o : ATTACHMENT" F 9k BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT OREGON: IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A j SITE PLAN REVIEW OF PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS j FINDINGS OF FACT T37-112W-03CA TL 107,108,130 j AND SMITH CROSSING LLC APPLICANT j CONCLUSIONS SCOTT SINNER CONSULTING INC. AGENT ) OF LAW I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant: Agent: Smith Crossing LLC 353 Dalton St Medford, OR 97501 Milo Smith milosmith@gmail.com Philip Smith Philips.pmci@yahoo.com Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 4401 San Juan Dr. Suite G Medford, OR 97504 541-601-0917 scottsinner@vahoo.com Property 1: 37 2W 03CA TL 107 Smith Crossing LLC Twin Creeks Crossing Loop and N. Haskell Central Point OR 97502 1.05 Acres Zoning HMR High Mix Residential Commercial (TOD) Property 2: 37 2W 03CA TL 108 Smith Crossing LLC Twin Creeks Crossing and N. Haskell Central Point OR 97502 .29 Acres Zoning HMR High Mix Residential Commercial (TOD) Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 1 of 18 24 Propertv 3: 37 2W 03CA TL 130 Smith Crossing LLC Twin Creeks Crossing and N. Haskell Central Point OR 97502 1.49 Acres Zoning HMR High Mix Residential Commercial (TOD) Prosect Summary: This Site Plan Review application proposes the development of Twin Creeks Village, a mixed use development within the Twin Creeks TOD. The net acreage of the project is a total of 2.83 acres, within the HMR High Mix Residential Commercial zone. Conceptually, this proposal emphasizes the frontage facing the Central Commons Park. The focal point for the development is a mixed use commercial hub for the Twin Creeks Community. The development provides plaza area on both sides of the Pedestrian Promenade that runs through the Twin Creeks Community. TWIN CPE M5 VIL -AGr euLou:Srnlri ne smr nuer.7[>r u.l rti Z,. IL2XW. 5.'A4f1*' 5-10.1 z9 �T.Naw(2tle S1Pu) Qa 7tl-187B.Jrm !u>[dfv'Flis z.i,.w.0 nd p"1°N C 1-2W-2l/`s \ >9el.geafa.,tl t,ve Mwr,..a t-Lm'P�.1 CeAa� 5'..". ,,""d Fins q-5 Pw6•xo,2I WLPIGe(n Wd m.s1.. 'Awn Graek+Graanl[[q LOW® .ea<„dtw:lF— 12 •r..l....l Jrle Ad166F9 Cal- LRU IM _ e -zed cou'reaok v�;r aLwrev L`a �i 11 I WHO J Y/.I 16 did anal Au 4-a :j.Ie,,.[d 5-!fA- 5 VmR�VA— Irr-aanva�> e...a 14tY Pakq �w'e � �L.wW L'J'!OXPXe� ".v DO . �.IXn R•.1.. -. 1/�� 'o.ILa:..res -YJ.'L.O dL �w/I1p W1eN5vr v...amrn ;y . 6115 15 9 -Itlw M1 s l` iNS.a. .•`i-•:'A.y i'. I! 4MrN S.RNF foiwrsf bl [1rd RvJ it r tiu > -luN M 1e1sYa b/rs Figure 1 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village 25 Site Plan Review Page 2 of 18 The proposed site plan provides a total of 11,482 square feet of ground floor commercial lease space. 2 Live — Work units and 87 dwelling units, for a total of 89 units. The proposal provides both horizontal and vertical mixed use buildings as anticipated with the Twin Creeks Master Plan. The existing Twin Creeks Pedestrian Prominade links the northern and southern portions of the Twin Creeks community with a wide, walkable connection. The Prominade is currently undeveloped at this location between tax lots 130 and 107. The Pedestrian Prominade will be developed as a plaza area between Buildings 2 and 3. It is anticipated the adjacent commercial spaces fronting on the plaza will be a gathering place for patrons and residents of the Twin Creeks Community. Figure 1 Pedestrian Promenade Plaza The code requirement for parking for this mix of uses is 157 off street parking spaces and 172 off street parking spaces are provided. The development fronts three public streets and the applicant coordinated with Staff to reconfigure the proposed buildings to modify the existing on street parking on Twin Creeks Crossing Loop from parallel parking to angled parking to match the existing parking on the north side of the loop. Reconfiguring this parking increased the on street parking adjacent to the development to SO on street spaces. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 3 of 18 Building 1 is south of the primary parking lot entrance from North Haskell. This building is a transition building, 2 story on the south end stepping up to a 3 story building on the north. Figure 3 Building 1 North Haskell Frontage Mlo yv y my Mwp i�Mrc4vwf YnJaFKuemliw �+rrtr.rn The design of this building is intended to transition in mass and scale from the existing townhouses on Blue Moon Drive to the proposed mixed use buildings to the north. This building is 100% residential with 10 dwelling units. Building 2 extends from the site entrance on North Haskell, to the corner of Twin Creeks Crossing Loop and North Haskell to the Pedestrian Prominade on Twin Creeks Crossing Loop. Figure 4 Building 2 North Haskell Frontage Figure 5 Building Z Twin Creeks Loop Frontage This building proposes 7,521 square feet of ground floor, street frontage commercial lease spaces, and two 1 bedroom street frontage dwelling units. The ground floor, parking Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 4 of 18 27 lot side of the building is 1 bedroom dwelling units. The second and third floors are residential townhouse units for a total of 35 dwelling units. Building 2 will have one open pedestrian corridor on the North Haskell frontage and three corridors on the Twin Creeks Loop frontage. This building establishes a strong commercial corner with a main street feeling for this section of North Haskell through the Twin Creeks Crossing Loop. This proposal would create a Pedestrian Plaza area at the Pedestrian Prominade coming from the Central Commons Park. Buildings 2 and 3 each have a commercial space with covered outdoor seating area fronting on the Prominade to create a plaza. Building 3 goes from the Pedestrian Plaza to the corner of Silver Creek Drive. This is a 3 story building with the same architectural style as Building 2. This building has 3,961 square feet of frontage commercial and two Live -Work units. The second and third floors are residential townhouse units for a total of 22 dwelling units. I[ &, fff1 imall as M ■A 01 ® In4sI Irkid ng IEUMII in■. u) pI]LI;i FO,nl� i� �l! Ilfl !..:l __ l _ :�1 [ 111 � 0 117, Ilq fill fr I�, �i ...i� �� W F.1 J, -I - _ lot 1 I�JIM tvm ra.bp HIfn1�1 w1Y� Si.'tsRMw �1 W �Mlry y 1 W� �'a mc• Figure 6 Building 3 Twin Creeks Loop Frontage Building 4, facing Silver Creek Drive is all residential use with 10 units on the ground floor with 12 townhouse units on the second and third floors for a total of 22 dwelling units. �O��eJnMeJ MIwYa JNWOK •"eJ�re mmhdPO abbe Ma mus Ju�rJ abae Figure 7 Building 4 Silver Creek Drive Frontage Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 5 of 18 OR This plan provides 89 dwelling units with 16 separate commercial lease spaces for a total of 11,482 square feet of commercial lease space. This plan provides 172 off street parking spaces intended for the residents and patrons of the project. There is no plan for shared parking with adjoining lots. There is a total of 50 on street parking spaces on the adjacent right of way. The 11,482 square feet of commercial space does not contain any dedicated VRBO units and it also does not contain any tenants. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 6 of 18 29 Review Procedure The applicant has been in communication with the City since the property was acquired in 2019. Discussions with the staff indicated this development would be considered a Major Site Plan review and of significant interest and impact to the City so the application would be treated as a Type III procedure with the Planning Commission as the approving authority. Type III applications require a pre application conference. The applicant submitted a pre application request on May 26, 2020 and the pre app conference, PRE -20006 was held on June 17, 2020. As stated above, this application is a major site plan review, typically classified as a Type II review. The director has the discretion to process a major site plan application as a Type III procedure when a development is of substantial size, and of significant public interest. This application is subject to the procedures of Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) 17.05.400. CPMC 17.05.400 provides the required submittals, noticing requirements, and review and decision procedure for the Planning Commission. Approval Criteria The project is subject to the standards of Chapters 17.65 TOD Districts and Corridors, 17.66 Application Review Process for the TOD District and Corridor, and 17.67 Design Standards — TOD District and TOD Corridor. Chapter 17.65 TOD-Districts and Corridors Twin Creeks Village is a mixed use development located on 372W03CA Tax lot 107, 108, and 130. North Haskell Street is on the east, Twin Creeks Loop is on the north, Silver Creek Drive on the west. A public alley is on the south and a pedestrian path runs north south bisecting the project. The project site is within the TOD district and the Twin Creeks Master Plan (TCMP) area and the High Mix Residential / Commercial (HMR) zoning district. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 7 of 18 K�1 ' aae sup, i� q5 Rf 4111 • '11U.ti 1GGf 4^Ttl Ai97 nlflfi 4170 1174 !flfl !YY 11111, 1 i 3 e' I r- Alf Figure 8 Project Location Table 1 identifies the proposed residential uses are permitted within the HMR Zone. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village 31 Site Plan Review Page 8 of 18 Table 7 TOD District Land Uses Use Categories Zoning Districts LMR MMR HMR EC GC C OS Residential Dwelling, Single -Family Large and standard lot P L5 N N N N N Zero lot line, detached P P N N N N N Attached row houses P P P C N N N Dwelling, Multifamily P L6 P P P P L1 L1 L1 L1 N N N N Multiplex, apartment Senior housing Accessory Units P1 P1 P1 C N N N Boarding/Rooming House N C C N N N N Family Care Family day care Day care group home Adult day care P C P C P P N N N N N N N N C C C N N N N Home Occupation P P P P N N N Residential Facility P P P N N N N Residential Home P P P N N N N Commercial Entertainment N N C P P N N Professional Office C L3 L3, L4 P P P N Retail Sales and Service C C N N N L3 L3 N N N L3 L3, L4 N N N P P P P P P P P P P I N N N N N N N N N N Sales-orlented Personal service-oriented Repair -oriented Drive-through facilities Quick vehicle service L3 --Permitted in existing commercial buildings or new construction with ground floor businesses with multifamily dwellings above ground floor. Maximum floor area for commercial use not to exceed ten thousand square feet per tenant. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 9 of 18 32 The primary proposed commercial use for Buildings 2 and 3 will be commercial lease space. This plan does not include VRBO rental dwelling units. The applicant has not secured any tenants for at this time; however, the anticipated tenants are within the Professional Office, Sales Oriented and Personal Service Oriented classifications. This development will provide Live/Work opportunities for business that may currently be home based businesses. The current plans indicate four buildings with a total of 89 dwelling units and approximately 11,482 square feet of commercial space. Figure 9 Typical Architectural Style All 4 buildings of the development share a common architectural style designed to create a Main Street attraction for the Twin Creeks area. Buildings 1 and 4 are all residential and are transitioning from the existing residential development south of the site to the commercial mixed use buildings of Buildings 2 and 3. Building 1 is south of the primary parking lot entrance from North Haskell. The use of this building is all residential which is a permitted use in the zone. This building is a transition building. 2 story on the south end stepping up to 3 story building on the north end. The building configuration creates a transition in mass and scale from the proposed mixed use buildings to the north and the existing residential uses developed on the Blue Moon Drive frontage. Building 2 extends from the site entrance on North Haskell, to the corner of Twin Creeks Crossing Loop and North Haskell to the Pedestrian Prominade on Twin Creeks Crossing Loop. This building proposes 7,521 square feet of ground floor, street frontage commercial lease spaces, and two 1 bedroom street frontage dwelling units. The ground floor, parking Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 10 of 18 33 lot side of the building is 1 bedroom dwelling units. The second and third floors are residential townhouse units for a total of 35 dwelling units. The building will have one open pedestrian corridor on the North Haskell frontage and two corridors on the Twin Creeks Loop frontage. The building will have street trees in tree wells without planter strips to allow potential commercial uses for the 9'— 10' sidewalks. This application proposes a Pedestrian Plaza area at the existing pedestrian walkway coming from the Central Commons Park. Building 3 is west of the Pedestrian Plaza to the corner of Silver Creek Drive. This is a 3 story building with the same architectural style as Building 2. This building has 3,961 square feet of frontage commercial lease space, 2 Live - Work spaces and 20 dwelling units. This building will also use tree wells for the street trees and no planter strip. Building 4, is a 3 story building facing Silver Creek Drive containing all residential dwelling units. The first floor will be 1 and 2 bedroom units with townhouse units on the second and third floors. South of the building will be the access drive from Silver Creek Drive to the interior parking area. The Silver Creek frontage will have a planter strip 17.65.050 Zoning Regulations—TOD District CPMC 17.65.050 Table 2 provides density and lot standards. This application does not propose a land division and all development is proposed on an existing parcel; therefore, the minimum lot size, dimensions and area requirements are not applicable. The term townhouse, as it is used in this application, is a multifamily dwelling unit consisting of 2 floors with an internal staircase and is not a unit proposed for individual unit ownership. The applicant intends to maintain ownership of all dwelling units and commercial lease spaces in the development. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 11 of 18 9M Referring to Table 2, the HMR zone requires a minimum density of 25 dwelling units per acre with no maximum density. The parcel is 2.83 net acres. This application proposes 89 dwelling units which is a density of 31 units per acre and above the minimum required density. The minimum the setbacks for the HMR zone is 0'- 15'. This application proposes a 3 foot and 5 foot setback for Building 1 on N Haskell and 13' on Blue Moon Drive. 1' and 3' setbacks for Buildings 2 and 3 and an 8-1/2' minimum setback for Building 4. All setbacks are met with the proposed site plan including space between buildings. The maximum building height for the HMR zone is 60'. Building 1 is proposed at 33', Buildings 2 and 3 are 36' and building 4 is 33'. All buildings comply with the maximum building height standard and the setback standards. Table 2 indicates that residential development in the HMR zone with more than 40 dwelling units must incorporate 3 or more housing types. Building 1 is comprised of 2 story townhouse unit and 1 story flats under 2 story townhouses. Buildings 2 and 3 have 1 bedroom flats and 2 story townhouses over a flat and 2 story townhouses over commercial space. The 2 story townhouses over commercial spaces are Live Work Units. Building 4 has 1 bedroom flats, 2 bedroom flats and 2 bedroom townhouses The project meets the requirement for at least 3 housing types. Table 3 of the 17.65 provides the parking standards for the HMR zone. All dwelling units in the proposal would require 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, the commercial spaces would have a 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area. Using the Table 3 parking requirements, the required parking is 134 spaces for the 89 rental dwelling units, and 23 spaces for 11,482 square feet of commercial lease space, for a total of 157 required spaces. The site plan provides 172 parking spaces of which 6 are ADA compliant spaces. The TCMP Exhibit 32 parking plan indicates the entire block of the subject property is proposed for on street parking. At the required pre application conference for the project, Staff discussed the importance of parking for the development. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 12 of 18 35 Staff discussed reconfiguring the Twin Creeks Loop frontage from parallel parking to angled parking to match the angled parking fronting the Commons Park. The site plan was adjusted to accommodate the angled parking and increase the on street parking to 50 spaces. The project is located in a TOD, Transit Oriented District, where development is designed to promote multi modal transportation opportunities. The development has embraced the concept and created a major focal point with the Plaza at the Pedestrian Prominade. The development is intended to generate pedestrian traffic and lower vehicular trips. Chanter 17.57 DESIGN STANDARDS--TOD DISTRICT AND TOD CORRIDOR 17.67. 010 Purpose. The purpose of the Central Point TOD district and TOD corridor design standards is to complement and support efficient and sustainable land development, to reduce auto reliance and to increase transit use as required by the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule. (Ord. 1815 §1(part), Exh. C(part), 2000) The subject property within the Twin Creeks TOD. The Twin Creeks TOD has an adopted Master Plan. This site is over 2 acres and is required to comply with a Master Plan and the TCMP standards are applicable and this application does not request any master plan revisions. Circulation and Access Standards This application does not include a land division orthe creation of public streets and some of the design standards within 17.67 are not applicable as the site already has some improvements that would have been reviewed and approved as consistent with the master plan. The existing block perimeter and length at the site are consistent with the standards. All utilities are required to be located underground and the development will comply with the standards. The TCMP indicates a major pedestrian corridor is to be utilized with the existing public right of way on the property. Exhibit 20 of the TCMP indicates this pedestrian corridor is developed as a Pedestrian Prominade. This is a major feature of the Twin Creeks Community providing pedestrian connection throughout the area. This development embraces the Promenade by developing a plaza area between buildings 2 and 3. Commercial lease spaces are provided facing the plaza with the intent of attracting dining business to create social hub for the community. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 13 of 18 [time Parking Lot Standards There are no parking lot driveways proposed with the application. The plan utilizes the existing two way public alley between North Haskell and Silver Creek Drive. Two drive aisles are proposed at the north end and the center of the parking area crossing the pedestrian walkway. The parking lot is surrounded by internal sidewalks connecting to the public sidewalks on all three street frontages. This development also will develop the Pedestrian Promenade from Twin Creeks Loop to the public alley on the south side of the development. All buildings have ground floor breezeways connecting the parking area to the public rights of way. Site Desi n Standards 17.67.050 A. Adiacent Off -Site Structures and Uses. This application is infill development with virtually all offsite infrastructure currently in place. All connections to these facilities will be designed and submitted to the city for technical review and approval. The adjacent uses are as follows: • North, OS zone, Civic Park • West, Civic zone, vacant, owned by the school district • South, HMR zone developed with attached townhouses • East, HMR zone Pear Valley Senior Living B. Natural Features The site is flat with no significant natural features. There are no wetlands on the site. C. Topographv The site is flat with no significant topography, all adjacent parcels are similarly flat. The proposed plan will match, exactly, the topography and the manner other buildings have developed on this flat ground. D. Solar Orientation The priority of the Code to meet minimum density requirements and site structures close to street frontages dictate building orientations with respect to solar orientation. E. Existing buildings on the Site Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 14 of 18 37 The site is vacant. F. New Prominent Structures The development does not propose and key public or Civic structures. The plaza formed between buildings 2 and 3 is expected to be a destination or gathering place for residents of the area. G. Views, The HMR zone requires development with 0' to 15' setbacks. All buildings comply with this standard. The development will have little impact on views from the north and west as the adjacent uses are a developed park and a vacant site for a school. The town houses south of the development are oriented with rear entry garages on the alley between the parking areas of this development and the adjacent townhouses. This development will not impact the view to the Blue Moon Drive frontages. The Pear Valley Senior Living development on the east is of similar mass and use and the proposed development. The views on the N. Haskell frontage will still have views to the Park area while gaining new views of a vibrant urban mixed use streetscape. H. Adjoining UsesR Adjacent Services The proposed site plan is within the HMR—High Mix Residential/Commercial. This is the highest density residential zone intended to be near the center of the TOD district. High density forms of multifamily housing are encouraged along with complementary ground floor commercial uses. Both the Twin Creeks Crossing Loop and the North Haskell frontages are proposed to be predominately ground floor commercial street frontages with the mixed use residential above. The HMR Zone has minimum density standards and the site plan proposed is within the allowable density for the Zone. The Central Commons Park is located directly across the Twins Creeks Loop from the development. The Pear Valley Senior Living complex is east of the subject property and is within the same HMR zoning district. The property to the west is owned by Jackson County School District #6 and is currently vacant and zoned for a school. The properties south of the development are within the same HMR Zone and are developed with townhouses. I. Transitions in Density Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 15 of 18 This section of the Code is intended to minimize and mitigate conflicts in uses within the master plan area. The proposed development has incorporated the techniques identified in the Code. Building 1 and building 4 are designed to transition density and uses from the high intensity mixed uses of buildings 2 and 3. Building 1 is adjacent to existing townhomes facing Blue Moon Drive. The south portion of Building 1 are proposed as 2 story units with the northern section comprised of 3 story units. Building 4 is 3 story fronting on Silver Creek Drive. The public alley serving as access for this development provide separation from the existing development on Blue Moon Drive. The architecture, right of way separation, and building height are density transition techniques identified in the TCMC. 1_ Parking Table 3 of the 17.65 provides the parking standards for the HMR zone. All dwelling units in the proposal would require 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit and the commercial spaces would have a 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area. Using the Table 3 parking requirements, the total required parking for the development is 157 spaces. The plan provides 172 spaces including 6 onsite parking spaces The City Staff identified an opportunity to provide diagonal on street parking on south side of Twin Creeks Loop to match the north side of the Loop. The modification required the applicant to dedicate additional right of way and reconfigure buildings 2 and 3. The reconfiguration of on street parking increased the available on street parking from 27 spaces to 50 spaces. This project is also on the primary pedestrian path in the Twin Creeks Community. The development of the Pedestrian Prominade and the Pedestrian Plaza is expected to increase pedestrian activity to this commercial hub are reduce reliance on automotive use. Protective curbs are provided on all landscaped areas. Tree islands are utilized to provide protection to the trees from adjacent parked cars. The site plan specifies a 17' by 9' parking space with a 7' sidewalk to allow full depth parking, landscape protection and ample pedestrian width. All parking and maneuvering area are paved. On- site parking is proposed to be behind the buildings and to the interior of the parcel as required by the Code. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 16 of 18 K. Landscaping The Landscape Plan provides 18,568 square feet of landscaped area representing 15.1% landscape coverage on the 2.83 acre site. The proposed landscape plan was prepared to the standards in this code section. The landscaping is designed to complement the architecture and plaza areas and conform to the TCMP standards. Street Tree and shrub species are per the TCMP approved lists. The site plan provides the location of the fully screened trash and recycling area. There is no chain link fencing or screening proposed. The site plan does not propose parking between the buildings and rights of way. The buildings do not have large unbroken massive sections and landscaping is proposed to be in harmony with the architecture. The plaza area provide an attracting hardscape paver adjacent to a commercial area. The desire is to attract a coffee house or other eatery that will be able to use the plaza for attractive outdoor seating. L. Lighting Pedestrian scale street lighting are currently installed on the public rights of way. The proposed elevations includes building mounted lighting for safety and interest. The parking lot lighting is a design build contract and has not been designed at the time of submittal in case there are changers to the parking lot. The applicant will comply with the lighting densities described in the Code. M. Signs The only signs proposed at this time are conceptual building face signs on Buildings 2 and 3 on the Twin Creeks Crossing Loop frontage. The applicant is not proposing any monument signage at this time and if a monument sign is desired, the design will be submitted under a separate application. Application Summary and Conclusions. These Findings of Fact and plans demonstrate the application is consistent with all applicable requirements contained within the Central Point Municipal Code. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 17 of 18 Bull The development is proposed to create a Main Street Appearance with uses allowed within the HMR zoning district. The development will improve the existing Pedestrian Prominade and developed a Plaza area expected to be a hub and gathering place for the community. The applicant coordinated with City Staff to reconfigure parking to provide additional parking to exceed the parking requirements of the Code for the benefit of the community. 0 behalf of the application, I request the approval of the site plan application. F Scot Sinner Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-601-0917 Twin Creeks Village Site Plan Review Page 18 of 18 41 IW I NC k P: L K s I 'f - o 1t I IL y' '1' 1•, 1) 1) [: ;" F 1, 0 P 11 I. :v i J ATTACHMENT it SYMBOL CNC 00 COMMERCIAL USE OPPORTUNITIES NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERY/CONVENIENCE STORE, DRY CLEANER, CAFE L.J PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, HOME BASED OCCVPAnON (LIVE/WORK) RESTAURANTS, ENTERTANMENT. rypL OFFICE.RETAL SALES AND SERVICE. 4AJM CAU DESTINATION RETAIL, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ® COWWRDEr SERVICES, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, PNGFE04KM. OFFICE NOTES: (1) SEE TOO DISTRICT ZONING CODE FOR MORE IN FORMATION ON A_'L USE CATEGORIES G 4 t=7 W N.M it 07 Aw Exhibit ?7. Cindy and CnrnmrrriNl Plus M-Wr plan Application 70 42 F'�' OL Exhibit 35. llao ring Mon Master Plan Application ani rkgklI It PO Housing about-streel Iez".1 r•clail 3 SI rrel lwr's and awnings Heusi ng a aL• rrlatr., fu sl red Irtad retail. I'WIN CRh:GI<N RII?N'I'L;1) 1)FVV1,0PNIHNT Sreezroa ys I o par kung court behind - Pedestrian friendlyslreelscalre. Mww Non Ar4dfi- iko ME MIXED-USE Street frontages are to be pedestrian- triendly — eg, awnings are provided over entrances and display windows, large ground floor windows with lrao- sem windows provide visual conncctiv- ity, entrances off the sidewalk are clearly defined and articulated to provide interest and orientation, All main entrances are off the primary street frontage, and are complemented by suitable signage that is integrated into the overall building design. Sidewalks are active pedestrian spaces, with outdoor display of goods, cafe seating, street furniture,lighling and trees combining together to create a pleasant and comfortable atmosphere. All building facades, notable over 40' in length, have variation in the architectural forms, elements and materials, to en- hance the visual quality of the street edge. A range of quality, durable materials is used to augment and highlight the building forms, while conveying a sense of permanence and distinction. Corner buildings are detailed to provide a strong emphasis to a corner, with continuity of architectural detailing and materials on the front and side facades. Extensive windows, relites and skylights allow for natural light and ventilation for the lower and upper Flours. Sun shading devices such as awnings, canopies, large overhangs, building projections and street trees provide protection from the summer sun. For the residentiol units, the plan layout, orientation and window treatment of the building are to be lusted to minimize infringing upon the privacy of other adjacent units. Balconies and decks create private out- door space for the upper level residen- tial units. Roof gardens allow for shared or private outdoor spaces. ATTACHMENT isILH Tom Humphrey From: The Huefners <huefner@juno.com> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 12:54 PM To: Tom Humphrey Subject: Twin Creeks Village Hello Tom: The land use application from Smith Crossing references "Zoning Standards for HMR within the TOD District...." I assume the development meets the HMR requirements, and that the lots on which the project will be built (if approved) is part of the Transit Oriented Development (TOD). TOD suggests that residents of the apartments and visitors to the lease spaces will be encouraged to use public transportation rather than personal vehicles. If so, the RVTD will need to change their bus routes to serve the proposed development. What are those plans? When will they be implemented? Several apartment buildings have already been constructed and occupied on North Haskell without a change in bus service. Construction of additional apartments is underway on the east side of North Haskell north of the entrance to Twin Creeks from Highway 99. And now the developer wants to build an additional 87 dwelling units and 16 commercial lease spaces. Will the RVTD routes be changed by the time the apartments and commercial spaces are constructed? I look forward to your reply. Jim Huefner 418 Stone Pointe Drive Central Point, OR 97502 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 45 Tom Hum hre From: West, Paige <pwest@rvtd.org> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 9:28 AM To: Tom Humphrey Cc: The Huefners; Stephanie Holtey Subject: Re: Twin Creeks Village Good Morning, Tom described the situation very accurately. COVID has caused staffing shortages and service was reduced beginning May 2020 and we have yet to resume pre-COVID service levels. Our intention is to resume service levels this September 2021 and then consider additional improvements, such as the Route 43, in early 2022. Paige West RVTD Planning & Strategic Programs Manager (541) 608-2429 www.rvtd.org On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 5:17 PM Tom Humphrey < Ibin.i-ium hre ci)ceiitral ointore )on. gov> wrote: Hello Jim, Thank you for writing about Twin Creeks and the development that is pending there. The Twin Creeks development was one of ten activity centers conceived in 1999-2000 as part of a regional effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and encourage greater use of public transportation. The study was initiated by the Rogue Valley Council of Governments in cooperation with RVTD. The Central Point site was one of the top three out of ten and when the prospective developer got behind the idea and created the Master Plan the City supported it enthusiastically adopting the Twin Creeks Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in 2001. There have been a lot of benefits to this development concept such as the performance-based zoning, attractive architecture, open space, livability, more efficient land use, etc. but it has been embarrassing for me to tout this over the years as a TOD without the "T". In fairness, this has also been embarrassing for RVTD who has tried to figure out how to serve the site from its existing Central Point Route (40). We all believed that once the Railroad Crossing was built that RVTD would make every effort to make this happen. RVTD's Master Planning efforts in 2017-2018 did result in what are called 'City Circulators' and they created one for Central Point. I have attached a map of the Central Point Circulator for your consideration. As you will see, the new route (43) will serve both the TOD and the east side of Central Point where other new development is planned including the East Side TOD. This circulator was scheduled to begin last June, was delayed until September 2020 and now longer because of the COVID pandemic. I believe that RVTD has every intention of getting this started as soon as they can. The new mixed-use developments in Twin Creeks will not be completed for another 18 to 24 months even though planning approvals have been/may be given. Of course the other challenge is encouraging people to actually use public transit once it is available. We hope the new route and incentives associated with its connections to east Central Point, Medford and elsewhere will make this mode of transportation more desirable. Once again, I appreciate your interest in this subject and in helping to make it work. You're welcome to call me at 541- 423-1025 or continue to send email messages should you have other questions or suggestions. Sincerely yours, Tom Humphrey AICP Community Development Director City of Central Point From: The Huefners <huefner@muno.com> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 202112:54 PM To: Tom Humphrey <Tom.Hum hre central ointore an, ov> Subject: Twin Creeks Village Hello Tom: The land use application from Smith Crossing references "Zoning Standards for HMR within the TOD District...." I assume the development meets the IIMR requirements, and that the lots on which the project will be built (if approved) is part of the Transit Oriented Development (TOD). TOD suggcsts that residents of the apartments and visitors to the lease spaces will be encouraged to use public transportation rather than personal vehicles. If so, the RVTD will need to change their bus routes to serve the proposed development. What are those plans? When will they be implemented? Several apartment buildings have already been constructed and occupied on North Haskell without a change in bus service. Construction of additional apartments is underway 47 `Y101 _ Silver Creek ti Prak S: o v n m �_ ro D W p O _ E Q C c_i 10 O E O To F C la $ v ` F o o S m 0 3 E E w yfO� 0 yw� a_ g g o ° V (a� E m is G eyye w ,C, E �pEp c g a N E- L N Zi X U LL b-0. •ITI c� E ppm E v b '2.� '� v E �i ani ci o F v S E w= s f a —61 c f f` 3 vLLi vui vi o Z VW II II f O J U Co N I!7 II •� IO. 11 11 O N a' 11 II II �O 00 II m U U U u t7 LLi lii = fJ m N .� .a J vl dlK KO v � � N o T O ~ O W Pa puel.'Z"A cn O o h.l . Tom Humphrey_ From: The Huefners <huefner@juno.com> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 3:34 PM To: Tom Humphrey; pwest@rvtd.org Subject: Twin Creeks bus service Hello Tom and Paige: As I have considered further the proposed development in Twin Creeks, especially as it relates to vehicular congestion and the RVTD system, I offer comments on three possible solutions. The city could pass an ordinance restricting on -street parking. That would make it easier for city employees to sweep the streets, garbage collection trucks to pick up the garbage and landscape contractors to mow the grass, pick up leaves, etc. Enforcing that would be time consuming and probably not successful or well-received by the residents. The zoning regulations could require more parking stalls per apartment, home or business. That would increase the costs for the developer, which in turn would be passed on to the renter, home -owner or businesses. That approach could limit the number of people or businesses that might locate here, which would likely be unpopular. Expand the RVTD options and adjust the routes to hopefully make public transportation a more attractive option. My wife and I spent two years in Moscow, Russia. They had four public transportation options. First, the Metro consisted of eight routes, about 90% of which were underground. Secondly, there were numerous above ground electric trains on fixed tracks. The third option consisted of a large fleet of buses, similar to RVTD buses. And finally, innumerable 10-12 passenger minivans. Obviously Jackson County is not ready for either a Metro system or electric trains. But perhaps some minivans could prove beneficial when coupled with express bus routes. For example, consider the Central Point express route. The first stop might be at Costco. From there it would drive to Ray's Food Place then south on Highway 99 to the Mall and the final stop would be at the Front Street Station, arriving there in time for transfer to another bus if needed. The bus would follow the same route and stops to Costco. The proposed `City Circulators' would feed the buses. Around each of the stops there could be minivan routes. Leaving Costco it would circulate north of Costco, returning to Costco then circulate south of Costco. Similarly, the circulator based at Rays would drive through Twin Creeks and north Central Point and then south of downtown Central Point. Similar express buses and `City Circulators' would serve other parts of Jackson County. Hopefully such a mixed system would attract more riders, reducing the congestion. Thanks for your efforts. Jim Huefner 418 Stone Pointe Drive Central Point, OR 97502 W. Public Works Department CENTRAL POINT PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT March 29, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: Twin Creeks Village (SPAR -21001) Mixed Use Development - 37S 2W 03 CA, Tax Lots 107, 108 and 130 Applicant: PMCI, Inc. Traffic: ATTACHMENT " . �d Matt Samitore, Director This concept was evaluated as part of the original master plan and development plan for the Twin Creeks Development, The Traffic Impact Analsyis included a series of projects including upgrades to Ilighway 99 at Pine and the new Signal at Twin Creeks Crossing. All of those improvements are now complete. No TIA is required for this development. Existing Infrastructure: Water: There are 8 -inch water lines in Twin Creeks Crossing Loop, Silver Creek Drive and the internal alleyways. Streets: Twin Creeks Crossing Loop is Minor Arterial and North Haskell Street is a Collector. Silver Creek is a residential street. All are improved. Stormwater: There is an existing 15 -inch storm in Twin Creeks Crossing Loop and a 12 -inch in North Haskell and the alleyway. Background: The proposed project includes a series of mixed use buildings and exclusive multi -family developments. Issues: The only issue is the expansion of Twin Creeks Crossing Loop to include diagonal parking on both sides. This will require moving some of the existing utilities. The City agrees with the request. A system development credit is allowed for the expansion. Conditions of Approval: Prior to the building permit issuance and the start of construction activities on the site, the following conditions shall be satisfied: 1. Tronta a Improvements - Applicant will need to improve the frontage on North Haskell, Twin Creeks Crossing Loop and Silver Creek Drive as shown in their site plan. Improvements will include additional parking on Twin Creeks Crossing Loop. 2. S stem Devela meat Credits —Applicant is showing the expansion of the diagonal parking for Twin Creeks Crossing Loop. City and applicant shall agree upon the amount of the expansion for a credit 140 South 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 - 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 50 Prior to final inspection and certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions of approval: l . P W Standards and Secif cations — Applicant shall comply with the standards and specifications of the public work for construction within the right of way. 2. Stormwater ualit Operations & Maintenance— The Applicant shall record an Operations and Maintenance Agreement For all new stonnwater quality features and provide a copy of the Public Works Department's recorded document. 51 ROGUE VALLEY SEWER S ERVICES 00 CLEAN WATER - HEALTHY COMMUNITIES March 17, 2021 City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: SPAR 21001— Twin Creeks Village, Map 37 2w 03CA, Tax Lot 130 & 107 There are existing 8 inch sewer mains along Twin Creeks Crossing Loop and North Haskell Street. Sewer service for the proposed development can be had by a sewer main extension as generally shown on submitted site conceptual utility plan. Rogue Valley Sewer Services requests that approval of this development be subject to the following conditions: I. Sewer construction plans must be submitted to RVSS for review and approval. 2. All proposed sewer construction shall be performed per RVSS standards. 3. The sewer main must be accepted by RVSS prior to the issuance of sewer connection permits. 4. Prior to the issuance of connection permits the developer must submit architectural plumbing plans to RVSS for the calculation of sewer SDC's. 5. The developer must obtain sewer tap and/or connection permits and pay all related fees to RVSS. Feel free to call me if you have any questions Sincerely, Nicholas R Bakke, PE District Engineer �. (541) 664-6300 138 W Vilas Rd, Central Point, OR 97502 0 www.RVSS.US P.O. Box 3130, Central Point, OR 97502 ►moi 52 Jackson County Fire District 3 8383 Agate Road White City, OR 97503-1075 (541) 826-7100 (Office) (541) 826-4566 (Fax) www,jefd3.com March 23, 2021 Central Point Community Development Tom Humphrey AICP City of Central Point Subject: Twin Creeks Village Dear Tom: Here is a list of the requirements we will be looking for in regards to this development. Requirement ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION OFC 505.1 Building numbers shall be placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Requirement FIRE HYDRANTS -INTERNAL OFC 508.5.1 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. Exceptions: 1. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m) 2 For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). Requirement AERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS OFC D105 SECTION D105 -AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS D105.1 Where required. Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. D105.2 Width. Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet 53 (7925 mm) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. D105.3 Proximity to building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572 mm) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144 mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building Requirement "NO PARKING -FIRE LANE" SIGNS REQUIRED OFC 503.3 Fire apparatus access roads 20-26' wide shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane. Fire apparatus access roads more than 26' to 32' wide shall be posted on one side as a fire lane (OFC D103.6.1). Where parking is prohibited for fire department vehicle access purposes, NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs shall be spaced at minimum 50' intervals along the fire lane (minimum 75' intervals in residential areas) and at fire department designated turn -around. The signs shall have red letters on a white background stating "NO PARKING FIRE LANE TOW AWAY ZONE ORS 98.810 to 98.812" (See handout). Fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. The minimum widths (20' wide) and clearances (13'6" vertical) shall be maintained at all times (OFC 503.4; ORS 98.810-12). This restriction shall be recorded on the property deed as a requirement for future construction. Requirement COMMERCIAL AREAS (PAINTED CURBS) OFC D103.6 NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs shall be spaced at 50' intervals along the fire lane (minimum 75' intervals in residential areas). The signs shall have red letters on a white background stating "NO PARKING FIRE LANE TOW AWAY ZONE ORS 98.810 to 98.812" For privately owned properties, posting/marking of fire lanes may be accomplished by any of the following alternatives to the above requirement (consult with the Fire Department for the best option): Alternative #1: Curbs shall be painted red along the entire distance of the fire department access. Minimum 4" white letters stating "NO PARKING -FIRE LANE" shall be stenciled on the curb at 25 -foot intervals. Alternative #2: Asphalt shall be striped yellow or red along the entire distance of the fire department access. The stripes shall be at least 6" wide, be a minimum 24" apart, be placed at a minimur7l 30-60 degree angle to the perimeter stripes, and run parallel to each other. Letters stating "NO PARKING -FIRE LANE" shall be stenciled on the asphalt at 25 -foot intervals. Fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. The minimum widths (20' wide) and clearances (13'6" vertical) shall be maintained at all times (OFC 503.4; ORS 98.810-12). 54 This restriction shall be recorded on the property deed as a requirement for future construction. Requirement FIRE FLOW - OTHER THAN 1 & 2 FAMILY DWELLINGS OFC B105.2 The minimum fire flow and flow duration for buildings other than one- and two-family dwellings shall be as specified in Table 13105.1. Exception: A reduction in required fire flow of up to 75 percent, as approved, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 of the International Fire Code. Where buildings are also of Type I or II construction and are a light -hazard occupancy as defined by NFPA 13, the reduction may be up to 75 percent. The resulting fire flow shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute (5678 I/min) for the prescribed duration as specified in Table B 105.1. Requirement FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM OFC 903 A fire sprinkler system will be required by code for this occupancy. Requirement FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS OFC 903.3.7 The Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be located away from the building (out of the collapse zone if possible) and within 75 feet of a fire hydrant. The fire hydrant and fire department connection shall be located on the same side of the fire department access route. The exterior water flow alarm bell shall be attached to the fire department connection. A sign shall be installed on the FDC before final inspection signoff stating what type of system it is (AUTO- SPKR, STANDPIPE, STAN DPI PE -AUTOS PRK) and what address it serves. The sign shall be a minimum 8" wide by 6" tall and constructed of aluminum with red letters/numbers (min. 1" tall) on a white background. A vertical sign with multiple addresses can be used when multiple addresses are fed by a single FDC. Signs can be increased in size if needed to accommodate the lettering/numbering. The sign can be zip -tied or bolted to the FDC pipe. Requirement FIRE ALARM SYSTEM OFC 903.4 A dedicated function Fire Alarm system will be required by code for this occupancy. Requirement KEY BOXES OFC 506.1 Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or fire -fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an approved type listed in accordance with UL 1037, and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. Key boxes shall be provided for the Riser Room, Fire alarm panel location, and each commercial space. Respectfully, Mark Northrop Deputy Fire Marshal JCFD3 (541)-831-2776 55 FINDINGS OF FACT ATTIC H M E 1 T" AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW File No.: SPAR -21001 Consideration of a Site Plan & Architectural Review to construct the development referred to as Twin Creeks Village Applicant: ) Smith Crossing, LLC ) Finding s of Fact 353 Dalton Street ) and Medford, OR 97501 ) Conclusions of Law PART 1 INTRODUCTION The applicant proposes to construct a mixed-use development on three lots totaling 2.83 acres in the Twin Creeks TOD. The proposal depicts two of the 3 -story buildings with a common plaza area on either side of a pedestrian promenade. The proposal emphasizes the frontage facing the Central Commons Park and a focal point for mixed use commercial hub for the Twin Creeks community. There will be a total of 11,482 square feet of ground floor commercial lease space (broken down into 16 separate spaces); two live -work units and 87 dwelling units incorporated into a total of four building complexes. The site plan and architectural review request involves the application of existing policies and is processed using Type III application procedures. Type III procedures set forth in Section 17.05.400 provides the basis for decisions upon standards and criteria in the development code and the comprehensive plan, when appropriate. The project site is located in the HMR, High Mix Residential/Commercial zoning district within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD). The applicant is using the standards and criteria for TOD Districts and Corridor set forth in CPMC 17.65, Application Review Process for the TOD District and CPMC 17.67, Design Standards for TOD District and Corridor. The following findings address each of the standards and criteria as applies to the proposed application for the development referred to as Central Point Station. PART 2 ZONING ORDINANCE 17.65.050 Zoning Regulations—TOD District A. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses in Table 1 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 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 same 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 same application and review process as other conditional uses identified in this title. Finding I7.65.050(A-C): The proposed project site is located in the High -Mix Residential/ Commercial zone within the TOD District. Multiplex, Family Day Care and Home Occupation are listed in Table I as "P ". Professional Office and Retail Sales and Service are listed as "L3 "- Permitted in existing commercial buildings or new construction with groundfloor businesses with multifamily dwellings above ground floor. Wei Conclusion 17.65.050(A -C): The land use is consistent with the permitted uses in the High -Mix Residential (HMR) Zone within the TOD Corridor. D. Density. The allowable residential density and employment building floor area are specified in Table 2. Finding 17.65.050(D): A minimum density of 25 units per net acre has been met by the applicant who is proposing 89 units (31 units per net acre). A maximum density is not specified for development in the HMR-TOD zone. Conclusion I Z65.050(D): Complies. E. Dimensional Standards. The dimensional standards for lot size, lot dimensions, building setbacks, and building height are specified in Table 2. Finding 17.65.050(E): The proposed development will comply with the minimum setbacks and provides landscaping on 15% of the lot area, which meets the required minimum. Conclusion 17.65.050(E): Consistent. F. Development Standards. 1. Housing Mix. The required housing mix for the TOD district is shown in Table 2. Finding 17.65.050(F): The proposal includes 28, 1 and 2 bedroom ground floor flats, four 2 -story townhouses, 2 live -work units, and 55 overstory townhouse units, four with 3 bedrooms. The development has more than the 3 required housing types. Conclusion 17.65.050(F): Complies. CPMC 17.65.050(F)(3) Parking Standards. 2. The off-street parking and loading requirements in Chapter 17.64 shall apply to the TOD district and TOD corridor. a. Except for multifamily housing, fifty percent of all residential off-street parking areas shall be covered. Accessory unit parking spaces are not required to be covered. b. Vehicle parking standards may be reduced when transit service is provided in the TOD district and TOD corridor and meets the following conditions: 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 bus service includes 15 -minute headways during the hours of seven to nine a.m. and four to six p.m. c. Bicycle parking standards in Chapter 17.64 shall not be reduced at any time. d. Shared parking easements or agreements with adjacent property owners are encouraged to satisfy a portion 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. 57 Finding I7.65.050(F)(3): The minimum parking requirement for a retail sales and service is 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area or 23 spaces for the proposed 11,482 square feet . Live -Work units, Mats and townhouses will require 1.5 spaces per unit for a total of 134 spaces. One hundred and fifty-seven (157) parking spaces are the minimum required. The proposed Twin Creeks Village development provides a total of 172 parking spaces on-site, which exceeds the minimum requirement for off-street parking. The Twin Creeks Master Plan (TCMP) actually envisioned some on -street parking to serve the mixed-use buildings. In this case, the applicant worked with public works staff to design on -street diagonal parking in front of first floor commercial uses on Twin Creeks Crossing Loop creating a "downtown " central business district feel. The reconfiguration of on street parking increased overall parking spaces from an additional 27 spaces for this development to 50 spaces. The minimum bicycle parking standards for proposed commercial uses is 1 space per], 000 square feet, or 12 total bicycle parking spaces. The proposed site plan illustrates a bicycle rack location. Conclusion 17.65.050(F): Complies. 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. This proposal comes under Site Plan and Architectural Review. Finding I7.66.030(A): The proposed mixed-use development consists of permitted uses on 2.83 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). The requirement for a Master Plan was satisfied with the original approval of Twin Creeks. Conclusion 17.66.030(A): Consistent. 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 development is part of an approved master plan in which parks have been previously planned and developed. However, it should be noted that the applicant is creating an outdoor plaza common to Buildings 2 and 3 and which enhances the pedestrian promenade that has been part of the TCMP overall open space design. Conclusion 17.66.040: Not 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. Per Finding 17.66 030(A), a Master Plan is not required. Conclusion 17.66.050(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 17.72, Site Plan and Architectural Review, shall be satisfied; and KI 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 set forth herein, the proposed mixed-use development satisfies the approval criteria for site plan and architectural review. Conclusion 17.66.050(B): Complies. 17.67.040 Circulation and Access Standards A. Public Street Standards. 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 17.65.020 and Chapter 17.66. Finding 17.67.040(A)(1-7): The proposal does not include the creation of new streets and will not alter the block length or perimeter block length. No new utilities lines are proposed and service lines to the structures will be located underground. Sidewalks with tree wells and/or landscape rows will be installed along North Haskell Street, Silver Creek Drive, an existing alley and Twin Creeks Crossing Loop. The access points will comply with the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 300. Conclusion 17.66.040(A)(1-7): Complies. 2. 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: Street furniture; ii. Plantings; iii. Distinctive Paving; iv. Drinking fountains; and Sculpture. c. Sidewalks adjacent to undeveloped parcels may be temporary. 59 d. Public street, driveway, loading area, and surface parking lot crossings shall be clearly marked with textured accent paving or painted stripes. The different zones of a sidewalk should be articulated using special paving or concrete scoring. Finding 17.67.040(A)(8): The proposal will complete and enhance pedestrian and bicycle accessways within the public right-of-way. Conclusion 17.66.040(A)(8): Complies. 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; b. The parking lot driveway serves one or two residential units; or c. The parking lot driveway provides direct access to angled parking 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): As shown on the Site Plan, the proposed parking lot driveways access North Haskell Street and Silver Creek Drive of the subject property. The proposed parking lot driveways and connecting drive aisles facilitate multiple options for traffic flow and building access. Conclusion 17.67.040(B): The proposal is consistent with the standards and guidelines for parking lot driveways. C. On -Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Attractive access routes for pedestrian travel should be provided by: 1. 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 barriers 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 landscaping. Aft Finding 17.67.040(C): On-site pedestrian circulation is provided by a pedestrian accessway that connects the building entrances with the parking area. Conclusion 17.67.040(C): 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: A. Adjacent Off -Site Structures and Uses. Finding 17.67.050(A): There are no off-site structures servicing the subject property. All proposed utility infrastructure has been reviewed 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 17.67.050(A): 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. There are no trees or mapped wetland areas or stream corridors on the site. Conclusion 17.66.050(B): Not applicable. C. Topography. 1. Buildings and other site improvements should reflect, rather than obscure, natural topography. 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): Topography on the project is relatively flat with minor grade changes across the subject property. Conclusion 17.67.050(C): Not applicable. 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. IVI 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. Existing Buildings on the Site. 2. 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. 3. 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 I Z 67.050(E): The existing property is currently undeveloped. As noted in the Findings for CPMC 17.67.070 — Building Design, the proposed buildings are consistent with the building design standards in the TOD Corridor. Conclusion 17.67.050(E): Consistent. E. 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 mixed-use buildings are not key public or civic buildings but they have been placed in prominent locations within the TCMP. Conclusion 17.67.050(F): Not applicable. F. 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): The proposed mixed-use buildings are proposed south of Central Commons Park on the Twin Creeks Crossing Loop and draw attention to the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) as intended. The heights of buildings on North Haskell are reduced from north to south as the development transitions to an existing two-story neighborhood but does not do the same thing on Silver Creek Drive.. The development will hinder some views from various angles; however, the clustering of the structures and separation of massing are intended to have the least impact on surrounding views as possible. Conclusion 17.67.050(G): Consistent. G. Adjoining Uses and Adjacent Services. 1. When more intensive uses, such as neighborhood commercial or multifamily dwellings, are within or adjacent to existing single-family 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. MM 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 17.62 050(H): The site and landscape plans show all vehicle parking and loading areas are centrally located within the site and therefore screened by buildings and site landscaping. Some residents from horses on Blue Moon Drive have expressed concern about massing of individual buildings. The applicant has taken care to transition building height from two to three stories on North Haskell but not on Silver Creek Drive. The applicant is relying on architecture and landscaping to minimize massing impacts for Building #4. The houses on Blue Moon Drive are all alley loaded and so their backyards abut the internal parking area and rear entrances to the mixed-use buildings. Proposed utilities are located underground and waste storage will be screened by an enclosure and site landscaping. Conclusion 17.67.050(H): Complies Transitions in Density. 6. 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. 7. Adequate buffer strips with vegetative screens shall be placed to mitigate the impact of higher density development on adjacent lower density development. 8. 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. 9. New commercial buildings within fifty feet of existing low density residential development shall be no higher than forty-five feet. 10. Dwelling types in a TOD district or corridor shall be mixed to encourage interaction among people of varying backgrounds and income levels. 11. 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. 12. 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): Both Buildings 1 and 4 are located within fifty feet of neighboring residential development and the applicant has limited the height of Building 1 to 23 feet and the height of Building 4 to 33 feet. The heights of buildings 2 and 3 are 36 feet and consistent with standard CPMC 17.67.050(1) (4). Site landscaping proposed on the Landscape Plan will further screen on-site development from the existing residential development. The proposed development does not include changes in zoning. Conclusion 17.67.050(1): As demonstrated by the proposed building location, height and landscape design, the proposal is consistent with the standards and guidelines relative to transitions in density. H. Parking. 1. Parking Lot Location. a. Off-street surface parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of buildings. Parking at midblock or behind buildings is preferred. Finding I7.67.050(J) (1): The f ont facades of the buildings face Twin Creeks Crossing Loop, North Haskell Street and Silver Creek Drive.. Per the Site Plan, the proposed off-street parking area is located to the rear of the buildings and is not located between a f ont fagade and the public street or accessway. The applicant has coordinated with the City to create excess public parking and to create a `main street' appearance in the Twin Creeks mixed-use core area. The off-street parking area is the same as that depicted in the TCMP. Conclusion 17.67.050(J)(1): Consistent. 2. Design. Finding 17.67.050(J)(2): The paved off-street parking areas are centrally located on the site to limit visibility and further screened with perimeter and interior landscaped areas. Trees are provided behind the curb in the landscaped areas as shown on the Site and Landscape Plans. 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): The proposed mixed-use development has designed all of its parking so as to avoid using additional standards. Conclusion 17.67.050(J(2): Complies. I. 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(K)(1): Landscaping is provided throughout the site consistent with the standards of this section. Parking areas are centrally located on the site and further screened with perimeter and interior landscaped areas. The waste storage pickup area is located in the center of the parking area and screened by a 6 -foot high enclosure. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(1): Consistent. 2. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening. a. Parking areas shall be screened with landscaping, fences, walls or a combination thereof. Finding 17.67.050(K)(2)(a): Proposed landscaping is provided for the mixed-use development consistent with the standards of this section as illustrated on the Landscape Plan. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(2)(a): Consistent. 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 accessways. 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 between 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 seventy percent transparency). Finding 17.67.050(K)(2)(b-c): Surface parking areas adjacent to the existing Blue Moon Alley use street trees and shrubs to address this requirement. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(2)(b-c): Complies. M d. Parking Area Interior Landscaping. 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. Finding 17.67.050(K)(2)(d)(i): The proposed interior landscaping plan includes over 18, 000 square feet of landscape area and more than the required number of trees for the 157 proposed parking spaces, exceeding the minimum required in standard 1. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(2)(d)(i): 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. Finding 17.67.050(K)(2)(d)(ii): The proposed landscaping plan proposes 18,568 square feet of landscape area and trees dispersed throughout the parking area and complies with the applicable standards of this section. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(2)(d)(ii): 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 provides a mix of trees, shrubs and ground cover along the frontage, sides and rear of the proposed buildings and parking areas consistent with this requirement. This also extends to the entrances to ground floor flats and townhouses. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(3): Consistent. 4. Service Areas. Service areas, loading zones, waste disposal or storage areas must be fully screened from public view. Finding 17.67.050(K)(4): The applicant proposes to screen the waste disposal area with a 6 -foot tall enclosure which will also be screened by landscaping. . Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(4): Complies. 5. 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): Per the landscape plan provided with the application, street trees are provided along Twin Creeks Crossing Loop, North Haskell Street, Silver Creek Drive and in planters along the existing Blue Moon Alleyt. Trees are planted with a spacing of approximately 30 feet, with a larger space where there are points of vehicle access to the parking lot. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(5): Consistent. J. Lighting. 1. Minimum Lighting Levels. Minimum lighting levels shall be provided for 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 all 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, corners 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): There is pedestrian scale street lighting within the public right-of-way to match other Twin Creeks lighting characteristics. The applicant has also shown pedestrian/parking lot lighting on the site plan. Lighting detail within the parking lot may be further refined during construction. Conclusion 17.67.050(L)(1-3): Complies.. K. Signs. Finding 17.67.050(M): Signage is not included in the proposal but the applicant understands that should signage be desired, it will be the subject of a separate application and/or building permit. Conclusion 17.67.050(M): Not applicable. 17.67.060 Public Parks and Open Space Design Standards. A. General. Parks and open spaces shall be provided in the TOD districts and TOD 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 ]7.67.060(A -D): The current project is for the proposed development of three parcels in an area that has been master planed and in which parks have already been developed. Although additional parks are not intended, the applicant is proposing a common plaza area/courtyard to enhance a pedestrian promenade and serve as additional open space in the vicinity of retail and office commercial uses. . Conclusion 17.67.060(A -D): Complies but not applicable. MKI 17.67.070 Building Design 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 LEEDTMprogram 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): Building access is provided by a series of pedestrian walkways that guide pedestrians between buildings on three street frontages and through the associated parking lot. Conclusion 17.67.070(A): Consistent. B. Architectural Character. 1. 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 size, 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. M 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. 2. Commercial and High Mix Residential. a. Buildings should be built to the sidewalk edge for a minimum of seventy-five percent of their site's primary street frontage along collector and arterial streets in C, EC, GC, and HMR zones unless the use is primarily residential or the activity that constitutes the request for increased setback is intended to increase pedestrian activity, i.e. pedestrian plaza or outdoor seating area. b. Commercial structures and multi -dwellings should be sited and designed to provide a sensitive transition to adjacent lower density residential structures, with consideration for the scale, bulk, height, setback, and architectural character of adjacent single-family dwellings. c. In multi -dwelling structures, the plan layout, orientation and window treatment of the building design should not infringe upon the privacy of other adjacent dwellings. Finding 17.67.070(B)(2): The building entries are oriented towards pedestrian accessways with the exception of the ground floor flats and walk up townhouses with entries from the parking lot. Buildings 1, 2 and 3 propose a 2 foot setback from back of sidewalk on the Twin Creeks Crossing Loop and North Haskell Drive to increase a "downtown "feel and to increase architectural appeal.. Conclusion 17.67.070(B)(2): Consistent. 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-defined 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. 70 c. All 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: 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 17.6Z070(C)(1): The building entries are oriented towards pedestrian accesswas with the exception of the ground floor flats and walk up townhouses from the parking lot. Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(1): Consistent. 2. Commercial and High Mix Residential. a. For nonresidential buildings, or nonresidential portions of mixed-use buildings, main building entrances fronting on pedestrian streets shall remain open during normal business hours for that building. b. Nonresidential and mixed-use buildings fronting a pedestrian street shall have at least one main building entrance oriented to the pedestrian street. Finding 17.67.070(C)(2): The proposed mixed-use buildings have at least one main building entrance oriented to the pedestrian street pursuant to Section 17.67.070(C) (1) above. Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(2): Consistent. 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. i. Single-family detached, attached and row house/townhouse residential units fronting on a pedestrian street shall have separate entries to each 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 street, 71 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(C)(3): The proposed mixed-use development meets the residential design criteria for attached dwellings and multi -dwellings. Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(3): Complies D. Building Facades. 1. General. 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. b. Building designs that result in a street frontage with a uniform and monotonous design style, roofline or facade treatment should be avoided. 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. d. To balance horizontal features on longer facades, vertical building elements shall be emphasized. 72 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. 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. 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. 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 Systems (EIFS), and similar quality, nondurable materials. 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. 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). 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. 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)(1): The fagades for the mixed-use buildings provide architectural detailing and massing consistent with the requirements of this section. Architectural elements include articulation along the fagade to break massing, use of light colored brick for store fronts,principal elevations and breeze ways. Other architectural features include parapets, wall insets and generous glazing through installation of ample windows and doors. Proposed building materials include Hardi or allura fiber cement, stained hardi vertical and lap siding. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(1): Consistent. 2. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Commercial. a. In areas adjacent to the transit station, sidewalks in front of buildings shall be covered to at least eight feet from building face to provide protection from sun and rain by use of elements such as: canopies, arcades, or pergolas. Supports for these features shall not impede pedestrian traffic. 73 b. Canopies, overhangs, or awnings shall be provided over entrances. Awnings at the ground level of buildings are encouraged. c. Awnings within the window bays (either above the main glass or the transom light) should not obscure or distract from the appearance of significant architectural features. The color of the awning shall be compatible with its attached building. d. Ground floor windows shall meet the following criteria: i. Darkly tinted windows and mirrored windows that block two-way visibility are prohibited as ground floor windows. ii. On the ground floor, buildings shall incorporate large windows, with multi -pane windows and transom lights above encouraged. iii. Ground floor building facades must contain unobscured windows for at least fifty percent of the wall area and seventy-five percent of the wall length within the first ten to twelve feet of wall height. iv. Lower windowsills shall not be more than three feet above grade except where interior floor levels prohibit such placement, in which case the lower windowsill shall not be more than a maximum of four feet above the finished exterior grade. V. Windows shall have vertical emphasis in proportion. Horizontal windows may be created when a combination of vertical windows are grouped together or when a horizontal window is divided by mullions. Finding 17.67.070(D) (2): The proposed mixed-use buildings provide a front favade to the pedestrian walkways with metal awnings, balconies and/or overhangs. The ground floor incorporates large, unobscured windows with windowsills less than 3 feet from grade.. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(2): Consistent. 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-five percent of the horizontal length of the ground floor front elevation of a single-family detached or attached dwelling with frontage on a public street, except alleys, shall be an attached garage. 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. 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. 74 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. 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 sideyard 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): The proposed mixed-use development introduces transitional residential building design on North Haskell Drive where it better integrates with adjoining attached single family homes. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3): Consistent. E. Roofs. 1. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Commercial. a. 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. b. When the commercial structure has a flat parapet roof adjacent to pitched roof residential structures, stepped parapets are encouraged so the appearance is a gradual transition of rooflines. Finding 17.67.070(E)(1): The proposed mixed-use development includes a flat roof design, with a 3.5' parapet wall with deck over hang, that is integrated into the building design and follows the articulation of the building fagade. Conclusion 17.67.070(E)(1): Consistent. 2. Residential. a. Flat roofs with a parapet and cornice are allowed for multifamily residences in all TOD, LMR, MMR and HMR 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. 75 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 structure. 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. Finding 17.67.070(E)(2): The proposed mixed-use capitalizes on flat roofs with a parapet design. Conclusion 17.67.070(E)(2): Consistent. F. Exterior Building Lighting. 1. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Commercial. a. Lighting of a building fagade shall be designed to complement the architectural design. Lighting shall not draw inordinate attention to the building. Primary lights shall address public sidewalks and/or pedestrian plazas adjacent to the building. b.No exterior lighting shall be permitted above the second floor of buildings for the purpose of highlighting the presence of the building if doing so would impact adjacent residential uses. Finding 17.67.070(F)(1): The location of pedestrian and on-site lighting in the parking lot is shown on the site plan. The lighting for building entries, facades and plazas is not shown. As a condition of approval, the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan that depicts the location of all proposed on- site lighting that complies with the standards of this section. Conclusion 17.67.070(F)(1): Complies as conditioned. 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 proposed development includes a combination of commercial and residential uses. The locations of lighting associated with the residential uses is not shown. The applicant is required to submit a lighting plan that depicts the location of all proposed on-site lighting that complies with the standards of this section. Conclusion 17.67.070(F)(2): Complies as conditioned. Wei 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): Electrical equipment servicing the buildings will be located along the sides of the buildings, will be incorporated into the building design and screened from view by the site landscaping. The trash collection area is screened f om view by a 6 -foot tall enclosure and on site landscaping. Conclusion 17.67.070(F)(2): Consistent. 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 (13)(3) of this section the following projects do not require site plan and architectural review: 1. 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; 77 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; 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 Twin Creeks Village project includes new construction greater than 5, 000 square feet, is of significant interest and impact to the City and qualifies as a Major Project. It is being processed using Type III 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 Twin Creeks Village Mixed-use application was reviewed for completeness and accepted as complete per the notice of completion dated March 12, 2021. Conclusion 17.72.030: Consistent. %Z' 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 I7.72.040(A): The project is located within the TOD District. Design and development standards for projects in the TOD District and Corridor are in Chapter 17.67 of the CPMC. The proposal has been reviewed against applicable criteria and found to comply. 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. The Public Works Department recommended two conditions of approval prior to building permit issuance and two conditions of approval prior to final inspection and certificate of occupancy. . Conclusion 17.72.040(B): Complies as conditioned.. 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 I7.72.040(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. Aerial apparatus access is required for the 3 story buildings and road right of way is sufficient. The applicant may be required to provide internal hydrants based upon file flow requirements. A single FDC (Fire Department Connection) for the complex would be desirable in a mutually agreed to location. Other requirements include, but are not limited to; address identification, "no -parking -fire lane " signs, painted curbs in commercial areas, fire sprinklering, dedicated function fire alarm system and key boxes. Conclusion 17.72.040(B): Complies as conditioned. PART 3 SUMMARY CONCLUSION As evidenced in findings and conclusions, the proposed Twin Creeks Village mixed-use site plan and architectural plan is consistent with applicable standards and criteria in the Central Point Municipal Code as conditioned. ATTACHMENT is PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 889 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR TWIN CREEKS VILLAGE, A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE TWIN CREEKS TOD MASTER PLAN AREA AND HIGH MIX RESIDENTIAL ZONE (FILE NO. SPAR -21001) WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a site plan and architectural review application to develop a 2.83 acre site within the HMR, High Mix Residential zone with 5 buildings consisting of 11,482 square feet of commercial space, 2 live -work spaces, a garage and 89 residential units, site landscaping and parking lot improvements; and, WHEREAS, on April 6, 2021, 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-HMR, High Mix Residential section 17.65, Application Review Process section 17.66 and Design Standards — TOD District section 17.67, Site Plan and Architectural Review section 17.72 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 April 6, 2021, 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. 889, does hereby approve the Site Plan and Architectural Review application for Twin Creeks Village at Twin Creeks as per conditions in the Staff Report dated April 6, 2021 (Exhibit "A"). PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 6" day of April, 2021. ATTEST: City Representative Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. 889 (4/6/2021) :1 FOOD TRUCKS STAFF REPORT CENTRAL POINT April 6, 2021 Agenda Item: VIII -A Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Director Discussion regarding standards and regulations for Mobile Food Vendors and other vending units, such as food trucks, trailers and carts within the City of Central Point. Staff Source Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner II Background The Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) permits the placement and operation of mobile vending units on private property within the Tourist and Office Professional (C-4) commercial zoning district, as a permitted use, and within the Thoroughfare (C-5) commercial district, as a conditional use. The CPMC does not permit the operation of mobile vending units within the right-of-way of streets or alleys. Discussion: The popularity of food trucks, food carts, and mobile vending units has increased in the Rogue Valley throughout the past few years. In the past few months, the Planning Department has received several requests to increase the areas within the City that are available to mobile vending. There is interest in specific properties within the Artisan Corridor along Front Street that are for sale (the Yellow Basket property), properties with large parking areas (Poblano's and CraterWorks), or currently vacant/undeveloped properties (Creamery property at Pine Street & S. Haskell Street). While 'mobile vending units' is not defined in CPMC 17.08 - Definitions, it is generally accepted that the term includes food trucks, trailers, and carts that are moveable vehicle(s) operating as a temporary use for the purpose of offering ready -to -eat food for sale. The use of mobile vending units is typically divided into two (2) categories: as temporary uses on private property, either individually or as a group or 'pod', and mobile vending in the right-of-way, usually in an on -street parking zone. Central Point does not permit mobile vending units within the right-of-way and applications for units on private property would follow the site plan review process to ensure the site is compatible with the placement of the unit and there are no safety concerns. In the C -S zone, applications for mobile vending would follow the conditional use permit process and require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. All mobile vending units are required to obtain a business license to operate within City limits and must be licensed by the Jackson County Health Department. The City does not have additional permits or inspections of mobile vending units. There are currently two (2) mobile vendors operating within city limits, with one (1) located along E Pine Street and one (1) unit located along S. Front Street. The zoning along Front Street does not include mobile vending as permitted uses, units have been permitted along Front Street as temporary uses. In reviewing these requests, the Planning Department has considered the locations in regard to proximity to other brick -&-mortar businesses, access and circulation, business hours, and number of days operating. The purpose of this discussion is to identify advantages and concerns from expanding the use of mobile vending units in Central Point and discuss additional regulations, standards and permitting processes necessary to ensure safe and appropriate location and operation of these units. Issues Despite their popularity, the use of food trucks and other mobile vending units has been limited due to either a lack of specific regulations permitting their use or restrictions on their placement. The American Planning Association has published guidance for communities interested in expanding the use of mobile vending (Attachment "A"). As this publication points out, there are many benefits to expanding the use of mobile vending units in Central Point. But there are questions and concerns that remain, including: ■ Location — where should food trucks and other mobile vendors be permitted to set up? ■ Hours — how long can a food truck be open? • Duration — how long can a food truck operate from a single location? • Safety— can the use of food trucks be expanded without creating safety issues due to fire hazards or sanitation concerns? Attachments Attachment "A" — Zoning Practice — Food Truck Feeding Frenzy Action Discuss mobile vending in Central Point. Attachment "A" Food Truck Feeding Frenzy: Making Sense of Mobile Food Vending By Rodney Arroyo, AICP, and Jill Bahm, AICP Recent economic and cultural trends show an explosion in the popularity of food trucks, or mobile vendors, over the past several years. According to research done by Emergent for the National Restaurant Association, the growth of mobile food trucks will soar in the next five years, generating up to $2.7 billion in revenue nationally by 2017—up from $65o million in 2012 (Emergent Research 2012). All across the country, cities, small towns, and suburbs are seeing food trucks popping up, some in unex- pected places like office and industrial parks, where zoning ordinances typically preclude res- taurants. Amplifying the push for food trucks are the twin trends of"buying local" and "food as entertainment" that are enhanced by pro- grams such as the Great Food Truck Race an the Food Network. While ice cream trucks and job - site lunch wagons haven't disappeared, they are increasingly being joined by gourmet trucks and trucks specializing in ethnic offerings. All across the United States, people are exploring how mobile food vending might IN make a difference in their lives and their com- munities. More resources are starting to be- come available for potential business owners. Networks for mobile food vendors are grow- ing; the Southern California Mobile Food Ven- dors Association was formed in zoio as one of the first associations dedicated to helping vendors break down barriers to business (www.socalmfva.com). And this fall, Roam—a first-ever industry conference for mobile food ZONINGPRACTICE 9.13 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 1page 1 suppliers and owners—will take place in Port- land, Oregon. On the worldwide stage, the World Street Food Congress is the first of its kind to connect and open up fresh ideas and thought leadership in the massive and growing street -food culture and industry throughout the world. This io-day street -food festival was hosted in Singapore in January 2013 and featured well-known leaders in the food industry (www.wsfcongress.com). Faced with inquiries from food vendors, many communities turn to their zoning codes, only to discover that mobile food vending isn't really defined and may not be permitted in the way vendors might like. With the approach to regulating mobile vending varying widely in communities, it can be hard to know where to begin when considering if and how to accom- modate food trucks. WHAT IS MOBILE FOOD VENDING? Regulatory codes for many communities rec- ognize transient merchants—those goods and services provided by a traveling vendor. The typical ice cream truck would be a good example of a transient merchant who is mobile most of the time, stopping onlywhen requested fora Few short minutes. Many operators oftoday's food trucks or carts, however, are seeking more than a few minutes on the street, sidewalk, or parking lot, staying in place for a few hours to serve breakfast, lunch, or dinner. In fact, when they are located on private property, some Food trucks may be in one location for days, weeks, or even months. It is important to make a dis- tinction between the food vendors that are more transient in nature, like an ice cream truck, and those that seek to move about less frequently. Both types of uses can offer benefits to the com- munity, and they will each have different poten- tial issues to regulate. Many mobile food vendors utilize self -driven vehicles that permit easy reloca- tion throughout the community. However, mobile food vending also includes trailers, food kiosks, and food carts. Food kiosks are temporary stands or booths that are typically intended to sell prepared foods, including ice cream, pretzels, and the like. Food kiosks may be found inside a large office building or shop- ping mall, but may also be secured for outside use. Some communities, like Maui County, Hawaii, allow a variety of products to be sold at a kiosk, provided certain standards are met (§3o.o8.030). While temporary in structure, food kiosks are often stationary with a defined location. Food carts allow the vendorto sell from outside the moveable unit and are often used to sell fresh fruits and vegetables. Typi- cally, the food in kiosks and carts is prepared elsewhere and kept cold or hot in the unit. The city of New York encourages "green carts" that offer fresh produce in certain areas of the city and has special regulations for these uses (www.nyc.gov/greencarts). In communities across the U.S., mobile food vendors are seeking permits to start these innovative businesses. They often run into road- blocks at city hall, because while many zoning ordinances include provisions for temporary uses, most do not contain current definitions for mobile food vending nor do they include any standards that specifically relate to vending and the issues that may arise. The net result in many communities, intentional or unintentional, is a prohibition on mobile Food vending. THE PROS AND CONS OF MOBILE FOOD VENDING Over the past few years, most of the economy has been struggling and the workforce has been challenged to adapt. With laid -off workers try- ing to reinvent themselves and new immigrants looking for opportunities, the number of people starting new businesses is rising. Mobile food vending seems, for some, like a low-cost way to wade into the pool of business ownership. There are a number of reasons why communities may elect to sanction mobile food vending: • It provides an opportunity to increase jobs and businesses. The cost of starting a food truck business can start at $25,000, where a tradition- al bricks -and -mortar establishment may start at $300,000, according to the National Restaurant Association (Emergent Research zoiz). • It offers opportunities to provide food choic- es where zoning precludes restaurants. Tradi- tional zoning codes tend to restrict the uses permitted in office and industrial districts, only allowing uses that narrowly meet the intent of those districts. Office and industrial parks, in particular, are often isolated from the rest of the community, requiring employees to drive to retail and restaurant areas. In addition, some communities may not have access to variety of ZONINGPRACTICE 9.13 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3 healthy, fresh foods, and therefore decide to encourage such food vendors in certain neigh- borhoods by relaxing requirements. New York's green carts initiative allows additional permits to be issued over the city's defined limit to mobile food vendors that offer fresh produce in underserved neighborhoods, and Kansas City, Missouri, offers reduced permit fees for mobile food vendors in city parks that meet certain nutritional standards (Parks and Recreation Vending Policy 4.7.08). • It can increase activity in struggling busi- ness districts by creating a dynamic environ- ment where people gather around the avail- ability of new and fresh food. The economy has taken a tall on businesses over the past several years. Those that are hanging on in some areas find that their neighboring buildings or businesses are vacant. Food trucks can be a way to enliven an area, generating traffic for existing businesses and possibly spinning off new business activity. The restaurant industry is evolving to meet the demands of patrons who are looking for locally grown, sustainable, healthy, and fast options for dining. When food trucks use social media to communicate about their location schedules, it can build up a cer- tain level of excitement and anticipation that can make a positive social impact. In addition, the rising trend of "cart pods" and "food truck rallies" brings multiple mobile food vendors to one location, creating a festive atmosphere in an area fora short time. • They signal to other potential businesses that the community is adapting to the evolving economy and supporting entrepreneurship. Mobile food trucks are a new way of doing business; in these early years, communities that anticipate the demand from businesses and consumers may also find that this flexibil- ity signals receptivity to new business models. • They areaway for restaurateurs to test the local market for future bricks -and -mortar facili- ties. Mobile food trucks offer opportunities to interact with a potential market, to test recipes and pricing, and see if the restaurant fits with the community. All across the United States there are examples of food truck businesses evolving into permanent establishments, includ- ing El Carrion ("the truck") in northwest Seattle that has recently opened a restaurant and bar in the Ballard neighborhood after several years of experience with its two mobile food units. Tor- chy's Tacos in Austin, Texas, started with a food truck and now has eight bricks -and -mortar res- taurants in Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, and Hous- ton—and two more opening this year. The Lunch Room in Ann Arbor, Michigan, plans to open its bricks -and -mortar location soon, using social media to solicit fans of its existing "Mark's Carts" to become investors in the restaurant. Along with these potential benefits can come community impacts and possible con- flicts. Some of the challenges associated with went through an extensive research and public input process, surveying their local chamber of commerce and meeting with prospective mobile food vendors, residents groups, and restaurant owners. Their resulting ordinance language responds to the needs and concerns of the community (Longmont zoic). MOTOR CITY STREET EATS A CATHERINE OF MURO RETROIT'srias 1000TRUDIM 1xc'usauF !�' lis6enW roc�rr5s�em6+tswr/ Q Food truck gatherings are increasingly common in communities with extensive food truck offerings. mobile food trucks might include problems with maintenance, trash, parking, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation. In addi- tion, some restaurateurs may be threatened by this new competition and try to prevent mobile food vending. Food trucks also have their own operational challenges, includ- ing dealing with unpredictable weather and maintaining an appropriate inventory despite limited storage. The bestwayto understand and manage the pros and cons of food trucks in individual communities is to solicit public input and dialogue about the needs and wants of the community. For example, Longmont, Colorado, • r. ADDRESSING AREAS OF CONCERN THROUGH ZONING Many communities are up- dating their codes to accom- modate or regulate mobile vending. In lune 2012 Grand Rapids, Michigan, included the following statement of intent in a new set of mobile food vend- ing provisions: Employment and small busi- ness growth in the city can occur while providing a broad range of food choices to the public through careful allow- ances fortemporary conces- sion sales. The provisions of this section are intended to prevent predatory practices on bricks -and -mortar restaurants while allowing for new food vending opportunities that can add vitality to vacant parking lots and underutilized sites... (§5.9.32.K). Other cities, including Phoenix, Arizona (§624.D.87); Chapel Hill, North Carolina (§§to -66-74); and Fort Worth, Texas 65.4o6)—just to name a few—adopted regulations in 2012 to allow mobile vending or food trucks. Chapel Hill's provisions note that allowing food trucks will "promote diversification of the town's economy and employment opportunities and support the incubation and growth of entrepreneurial/ start-up businesses" but also that food trucks pose "unique regulation challenges." While specific approaches vary from place to place, communities interested in adding or updating regulations for mobile food vending should start by defining the uses and then consider each of the following questions: • Where in the community should such uses be permitted? • How long should a food truck be permitted to stay in one location? ZONINGPRACTICE 9.13 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ppge 4 • Are these mobile units just for food sales, or can other goods be sold as well? • Does the community wantto increase activity? • How can the zoning ordinance address up- keep and maintenance? • When can food trucks operate? • How are visitor parking and circulation ac- commodated? • How are these uses reviewed and permitted? • What do vendors and their customers want orneed? • How is signage for the mobile unit regulated? • How is the site lit to ensure safety? Location It is common to allow mobile food vending in commercial districts, but some communities add industrial districts or specify mixed use districts. Start with the community's comprehen- sive plan—is there a need or desire to increase activities in specific parts of the community? Are there concerns about the impact of single -pur- pose districts (especially office and industrial) on connectivity, traffic congestion, and business In consideration for existing facilities, some communities decide that there should be a minimum distance between mobile units and bricks -and -mortar restaurants. Some communi- ties try to limit the impact on adjacent residen- tial uses through a distance requirement or by restrictions on hours of operation. Planners should test these locational restrictions to ensure that realistic business opportunities exist. El Paso, Texas, repealed its locational requirement of 1,000 feet from bricks -and -mor- tar establishments following a zoic lawsuit to provide sufficient opportunities for mobile food vendors (Berk and Leib 2012). Attorneys Robert Frommer and Bert Gall argue that separation from other establishments is not necessary and that food truck regulations should be narrowly tailored to legitimate health, safety, and wel- fare concerns, not regulate competition (2012). The American Heart Association has also looked at location issues related to mobile food vending. They report that several commu- nities across the country prohibit mobile food vending within a certain distance of schools (or nity and often is related to where mobile food vending is permitted. Some communities allow food trucks on public property but prohibit overnight parking. Where on -street parking is at a premium, communities may consider allow- ing food trucks to utilize public parking spaces for the same duration as other parked vehicles. Chicago requires food trucks to follow posted meter time restrictions, with no more than two hours in one location. In addition, the city also limits mobile food vending to two hours on private property NO). In contrast, some communities allow food trucks on private property for up to 3o days or more at one location. For example, Grand Rapids allows concession sales for up to zoo consecu- tive days over iz calendar months 65.9.32XQ, Regulations like this may impact vendors in terms ofthe types offood that can be sold and the manner in which they are prepared, especially when preparation is done on-site. Communities maywish to consider whether the allowed duration is reasonable for food ven- dors as well as adjacent property owners. retention and recruitment? Are there any areas in the community where the population is un- derserved by food choices? Planners can take these concerns to the community and invite residents and business owners to share their thoughts on where mobile food vending might be appropriate and desirable. Some communities make a distinction between vending on public property, which often requires a license but is not regulated by zoning, and private property, which often re- quires a temporary use permit and is regulated by the zoning ordinance. When permitted on private property, zoning standards should re- quire evidence of property owner approval. at school release times) to limit the sometimes nutritionally challenged food choices avail- able (2012). Woodland, California, prohibits mobile food vending within 300 feet of a public or private school, but will allow them on school property when approved by the school (§14-15). It a different twist, the Minneapolis Public School System introduced a food truck program this year to offer free nutritious meals to students during the summer months at four different sites in Minneapolis (Martinson 2013). Duration The length of time food trucks are permitted to stay in one place varies widely by commu- M. Goods Available for Sale Some communities, like College Station, Texas, are very specific that the goods sold from mo- bile vending to be food related (§4-20). This is often borne of a desire to start with mobile vending on a limited basis to gauge its impact. As mobile food trucks become more prevalent, surely people will explore the ideas of start- ing other types of businesses in this format. Communities may wish to consider the ques- tions raised earlier about location and assess whether or not it makes sense to allow other goods in addition to food to be sold in desig- nated areas. For example, Ferndale, Michigan, allows a variety of wares to be sold by a mobile ZONINGPRACTICE 9.13 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 5 vendor, including apparel, jewelry, household goods, and furnishings (§§7-73-82). That might be just the place for book publisher Penguin Group (USA) to take its recently intro- duced first mobile bookstore, which aims to make books accessible where big box retailers aren't located (Edsall 2013). Number of Units in One Location Some communities that are getting on board with mobile food vending have started allow- ing them to congregate for certain events and activities. For example, Royal Oak, Michigan, started a food truck"rally" attheir indoor farm- ers market during colder months. It is a good way to utilize the facility as well as provide entertaining food options for city residents. It has now become a great family event every month year-round, with musical entertainment, bouncy houses, and face painting. The city lim- its the rally to no more than 10 different trucks with a variety of cuisine for the whole family. units to function on private property as a single business. To address potential negative impacts, each mobile food court must have its own on-site manager, who is responsible for the maintenance of the area 05.406). Trash The type of standards for trash removal and upkeep will vary depending on the location and duration ofthe vending. Most communities require waste receptacles for every mobile food vending unit and some further require waste to be removed from a site daily. Keep in mind that where communities allow seating along with the mobile food unit, people will generate more trash on-site than in situations where there is no seating provided and people take their food (and trash) to go. Hours of Operation Some communities limit hours of operation to around lunchtime (e.g., 10:30 a.m. until 3:30 trucks on private property, communities typi- cally require the vendorto ensure that there is sufficient parking available for its use and any other uses on the site, including the space taken up by the unit itself. Some cities allow public parking areas to be utilized for food trucks, and may even allow metered parking spaces to be used provided the related meter fees are paid. For example, Minneapolis al- lows a mobile vendorto park at no more than two metered spaces, as long as they are not short-term spaces and are not located within loo feet of an existing restaurant or sidewalk cafe—unless the restaurant owner gives con- sent (§188.485.c.7). Licenses and Permits Most communities require permits or licenses regardless ofwhether the trucks operate on public or private property. It is also common for the community to reference compliance with other codes, particularly state or local health codes. These other codes can impact Crate. For example, California's Health and Safety Code re- quires trucks to have hand - According to Market Master Shelly Mazur, "It's nice to be able to offer a family -friendly event in a climate -controlled building with renovated bathrooms and seating." On the other hand, in its 2010 ordinance, the city of Zillah, Washington, banned mobile food vending altogether, declaring it a "nui- sance," and finding that "when mobile ven- dors congregate in the same area, the height- ened intensity of use negatively impacts the surrounding area, particularly by increased trash" (§8.32). Fort Worth tackled this issue head-on, defining a group of food trucks as a "mobile food court" when two or more mobile vending units congregate. They allow these p.m.), and others allow sales from early in the morning to late in the evening (e.g., 7 a.m. until 10 p.m.). Some communities place no time limits on these operations in the zoning regula- tions. Again, consider where these units will be permitted and the potential conflicts with adjacent uses. Parking and Circulation Given the mobility of these vendors, they by necessity are typically located in parking areas. Whether in public spaces or a private parking lot, it is important to ensure sufficient parking for existing uses to prevent an undue burden on bricks -and -mortar establishments. For food • W, washing stations if food is prepared in the truck, but does not require them on trucks selling only prepack- aged foods like frozen des- serts (§114311). Some communities cap the number of licenses available for food trucks to limittheir impact, but many others do not. Grand Rapids porary use permit, subject to nission approval, and gives :onsideration 65.9.32.K.18), including an assessment asking "[w]ill the proposed stand, trailer, wagon or vehicle contribute to the general aesthetic of the business dis- trict and include high quality materials and finishes?" Site Amenities Some communities specify that no tables or chairs are permitted, or if they are, then sanitary facilities are also required. There may be flexibility in the permitted arrange- ments for such facilities (for example, hav- ing permission to use such facilities within a reasonable distance of the mobile unit). Frisco, Texas, prohibits connections to po- ZONINGPRACTICE 9.13 AMERICAN PLANNING A550CIATION 1page 6 REFERENCES • American Heart Association. 2012. "Mobile Food Vending near Schools Policy Statement." Available at www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart- public/@wcm/@adv/documents/downloadable/ucm_446658.pdf. • Berk, Keith, and Alan Leib. 2012. "Keeping Current: UCC—Food Truck Regu- lations Drive Controversy." Business Law Today, May. Available at http:// apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/btt/content/2012/o5/keepingcurrent.pdf. • Edsall, Larry, 2013. "Food Trucks Inspire Mobile Bookstore," Detroit News, July 11. Available at www.detroitnews.com/article/20130711/AUT003 /307110040/1121/autoo6/Food-trucks-inspire-mobile-bookstore. • Frommer, Robert, and Bert Gall. 2012. Food Truck Freedom. Washing- ton, D.C.: Institute forJustice. Available atwww.ii.org/images /pdf. folder/economic_liberty/vending/foodtruckfreedom.pdf. table water, requiring mobile food vendors to store theirwater in an internal tank. The city also requires vendors to be located within 5o Feet of an entrance of a primary building, and drive-through service is expressly prohibited (§3.O2.o1.A(20)). King County, Washington, requires that all mobile food vending in the county be located within 200 feet of a usable restroom (§5.34)• Signage Some communities use their existing sign regula- tions, but others tailor standards for mobile units. In Michigan, both Grand Blanc Township 67.4.9•11 and Kalamazoo (§§25-63-68) allow one sign on the mobile vending unit itself, but do not allow any other signage. This is fairly common. In many cases, the truck itself essentially functions as one big sign with colorful graphics. Additionally, many mobile food vendors now use social media to get out the word regarding the time and place they will set up shop, potentially reducingthe need For ad- ditional signage beyond that on the unit itself. Emergent Research. 2012. "Food Trucks Motor into the Mainstream." Intuit, December. Available at http://network.intuit.com/wp-content /uploads/2012/12/Intuit-Food-Trucks-Report.pdf. • Longmont (Colorado), City of. 2011. Mobile Food Vendors Longmont Municipal Code Amendment. Planning & Zoning Commission Com- munication, June 20, 2o11. Available atwww.ci.longmont.co.us /planning/pz/agendas/2o11/documents/Hnal_mobilefoodvendors .pdf. • Martinson, Gabrielle. 2013. "In its First Summer, District's Food Truck is a Success." The Journal, July 16. Available at www .IournaImpIs.com/news-feed/in-its-first-summer-districts-food- truck-is-a-success. Lighting Lighting is not as commonly addressed as other issues, especially if a mobile food vending unit is located in an existing developed area, but it is likely presumed that other applicable lighting requirements appropriate to the location are to be followed. Consider adjacent uses and the impact of light trespass and glare. For example, Grand Blanc Township requires mobile food vending units to be lit with available site light- ing. No additional exterior lighting is allowed unless permitted by the zoning board of appeals upon finding that proposed exterior lighting mounted to the mobile vending unit will not spill over on to adjacent residential uses as mea- sured at the property line 67.4.91.1o). TESTING, FOLLOW-UP, AND ENFORCEMENT One of the nice things about mobile food vending is that it is really easy for a community to put a toe in the water and test the impact of regulations on mobile food vendors, other community business- es, and the public, and to adjust the regulations I Cover image by Rodney Arroyo; design concept by Lisa Barton as appropriate. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville -Davidson County, Tennessee, initiated a test phase beginning April 2012 that will provide evaluative data for a successful mobile food ven- dor program. The program will initially be operated under a temporary permit issued by the Metro Public Works Permit Office for two specified zones, the downtown core and outside of it. Oakland, California, has a pilot program for "Food Vending Group Sites," defined as "the stationary operation ofthree (3) or more 'mobile food vendors' clus- tered together on a single private property site, public property site, orwithin a specific section of public right-of-way" 65.51). Before embarking on extensive zoning re- writes, reviewthe suggested considerations with the community to anticipate and plan for appropri- ate ways to incorporate this use in a reasonable way. Mobile food vending is on the rise all overthe country, from urban sites to the suburbs. When regulated appropriately, mobile food vending can bring real benefits to a community, including jobs, new businesses, fresh food, and vitality. VOL. 3o, NO.9 Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $95 (U.S.) and $120 (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, mcP, Chief Executive Officer; David Rouse, AICP, Managing Director of Research and Advisory Services. Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, AICP, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Missing and damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Association, los N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 6o6o1 (312-431- 91oo or customerservice@planning.org) within 90 days ofthe publication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or month, and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable. Copyright ©2013 by the American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 6o601-5927. The American Planning Association also has offices at 103015th St., NW, Suite 750 West, Washington, DC 20005-1503; www.planning.org. All rights reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and lo% postconsumer waste. ZONINGPRACTICE 9.13 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION page 7 i O RESIDENTIAL ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS we, MEMORANDUM Ak CENTRAL POINT April 6, 2021 To: Planning Commission From: Stephanie Holtey, Planning Director Re: Residential Zoning District Text Amendments Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Director The City is in the process of preparing text amendments to all residential zoning districts. The purpose of the amendments is to: • Comply with House Bill (HB) 2001; • Adopt minimum densities required by the Regional Plan; • Add cottage clusters as a new housing type; • Eliminate barriers to housing identified in the Housing Implementation Plan (HIP); and, • Provide a more user-friendly and accessible format. HB 2001 HB 2001 requires that cities greater than 10,000 in population allow duplexes in single family zoning districts and limits the off-street parking the City may require. However, the City may impose clear and objective standards to regulate siting and design to promote neighborhood compatibility. Staff will present an overview of requirements and duplex siting and design options that can be pursued. Density The City is proposing adjustments to minimum densities in residential zoning districts to implement the Regional Plan Element requirement to achieve a minimum average density of 7.04 units per acre through 2040. In addition to increasing land use efficiency, the density changes are needed to allow lands in proposed UGB expansion areas to be annexed. Housing Implementation Plan_ The HIP identifies actions the City can take to promote increased housing supply and affordability. The situation has becomes more critical in the Rogue Valley during the COVID-19 pandemic and following the summer fires. The pending UGB amendment will increase the available land supply. However this issue is complex and requires a multi -pronged approach. By adding new housing types, such as cottage cluster housing and duplexes in single-family zones, the City will increase options for more people to construct housing. Identifying and removing regulatory barriers is another strategy being proposed at this time. For example, the R-3 (multifamily) zone requires high density housing developments but limits lot coverage for structures to no more than 50%. This significantly limits feasibility for projects and can be 91 remedied by increasing lot coverage to 70-80%. Although it is recognized that the proposed amendments will not change market forces that are driving up construction cost, increasing housing options and eliminate outdated standards are a good start. At the April 6th meeting, staff will present an overview of the residential zoning code changes, including new housing types, identified barriers and recommended solutions. At that time staff will request feedback on needed changes and direction from the Planning Commission to schedule a public hearing for the changes in May. 92