Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04062021 Planning Commission minutesCity of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2021 Meeting Held Via Zoom and in person L MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:04 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Comrnissioners Tom Van Voorhees (chair), Jim Mock, Kay Harrison, Brad Cozza, pat Smith and Amy Moore were present in person. Also in attendance were, `["om Humphrey, Community Development Director (via zoom) Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner (in person) Matt Samitore, Public Works Director, (via Zoom) Karin Skelton,. Planning Secretary (in person). III. CORESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES Kay Harrison made a motion to approve the March 3, 2021 minutes. Pat Smith seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Brad Cozza, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Pat Smith, yes. Amy Moore, abstain. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. 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. Thera 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) Planning Commission Chair Tom Van Voorhees read the rules for a quasi -j udicial hearing. The Commissioners had no Conflicts of interest, bias or ex parte contact to declare. Community Development Director Tom Humphrey gave an overview of the Twin Creeks Master Plan (TCN4P) which was approved by the City Council in 2001. According to the 2 A CENTRAL POINT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 1, 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 1V. CORRESPONDENCE V. MINUTES Review and approval of the April 6, 2021 Planning Commission meeting minutes. VL PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to consider text amendments to the flood damage prevention regulations in order to comply with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards and the Community Rating System (CRS) program requirements. 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, IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS XI. ADJOURNMENT 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: deantn case centralpaititor_ a&u; k oy . Si necesita traductor en espanol o servicios de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a una junta publica de la Ciudad por favor Mame con 72 horas de anticipaci6n al 541-664-3321 ext. 201. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 2021 Page 2 Master Plan, high -mix residential/ commercial was planned for the subject property. He said the Applicant is proposing to construct 4 buildings. Two of the buildings are townhomes and flats, and two are mixed use buildings with commercial space on the first floor and flats and townhomes on the second and third floor. Two of the units are considered `live -work' which have a commercial/office space and a residential component that is occupied by the same tenant. The proposal is within the minimum/maximum range for density. He added the Applicant is proposing more than the minimum parking requirement for the project. They are also proposing to create additional on street parking. The project site is served by all infrastructure identified in the Master Plan and all utilities are available to the site Mr. Humphrey said buildings 1 and 4 are three-story structures designed to be visually interesting and pedestrian friendly with large windows and entries from the sidewalks. The Twin Creeks Master Plan (TCMP) governs land use and circulation. Mr. Humphrey stated RVTD planned to begin a new route (Route 43) last June but the COVID pandemic caused staffing shortages and reduced service. Their intention is to resume all service levels 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. He said The Master Plan included a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that evaluated the impacts of land uses planned throughout Twin Creeks. He added the opening of the Twin Creeks Rail Crossing has 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. Mr. Humphrey stated some residents of Blue Moon Drive have expressed concern about the use of the 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 proposed driveways. 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. Buildings 2 and 3 will be the most prominent buildings south of the Central Common Park. Per the Applicant's Findings, placement of the structures 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. He said the Applicant has proposed several options to resolve the issues. 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. On Blue Moon Drive the houses are all alley loaded and so their back yards abut the internal parking area and rear entrances to the mixed-use buildings." 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. The Twin Creeks Crossing Loop is a one-way street and the Public Works 3 Planning Commission Meeting ,4pril6, zozi Page 3 Department has determined that the expansion and addition of diagonal parking will enhance and not diminish traffic circulation in this area. Those concerned about parking in front of the business can alternatively park in the internal on-site lot and walk through to stores. Two recommended conditions of approval from Public Works address parking and frontage improvements on Twin Creeks Crossing Loop. The proposed site plan does not address the on-site fighting standards necessary to illuminate building entrances, upper stories and pedestrian walkways per CPMC 17.67.050(L). It will be necessary to provide an overall lighting plan. 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, The proposed site plan depicts a covered parking garage. The landscaping plan indicates that it can only be accessed from the north side and this arrangement conflicts with five other dedicated parking spaces. 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. The Public Hearing was [3 encd Milo Smith A fieant Mr. Smith stated he appreciated being part of the Twin Creeks vision for the commercial aspect of the Master Plan. The Commissioners asked what was planned for the commercial units. He said the spaces are designed to be flexible and by moving walls they could open up more square footage depending on what a tenant needed. They have envisioned possible restaurants on the plaza portion and have designed outdoor seating there. He thought they would be able to start underground construction this summer and possibly begin construction of the buildings around the first of the year. Mr. Smith said he wanted to address the concerns that have been stated starting with the mass of building 4. He said it had been designed to be consistent with the Municipal Code and he understood the concerns of the neighbors with the size of the building. He said he could eliminate the third floor windows looking down on the alley. Building 4 could be shifted to the north approximately 6 % feet he thought. He said he would need to check the exact distance. He said this would enable them to create a larger buffer area and landscaping to soften the impact of the building. He said to eliminate windows would require a redesign of the building but he was willing to do that. Regarding traffic he explained there were 100 units in the first phase of the Smith Crossing apartments and the tragic has not been significantly impacted. This application is 89 units with 4 on twin creeks crossing loop which would not be utilizing the alley. He stated the commercial traffic would most likely be parking on the street in the front of the building with the residential traffic utilizing the parking lot. Most of the traffic would be on North Haskell or Silver Creek. He did not envision significant traffic impact to the alley. The Commissioners asked about delivery and loading traffic for the commercial units. Mr. Smith said he thought most of that traffic would come off Twin Creeks Crossing Loop and would be early in the morning, however he did not have any actual information at this time. He added that as the owners they would be able to dictate how and when deliveries can occur. The Commissioners discussed the size of the parking spaces. Mr. Smith said there were 6 -8 compact spots and all the rest were 9 by 17 feet, which was an average size. They discussed Planning Commission Meeting April b, 2021 Page 4 various local areas where parking was a problem. Mr. Smith said they were very sensitive to the parking issues, In his opinion most of the commercial traffic would utilize the on street parking in the front of the building. He added the alley access on North Haskell and on Silver Creek will be 25 feet wide which should be sufficient for traffic in and out of the parking lot. He said the walking path which crosses the parking lot could be raised to act as a speed bump. There are other speed bumps in the parking lot to slow traffic. They discussed landscaping and the garage units which could be rented by tenants. C uthia Sorenson 654 Blue HN Ms. Sorenson stated this has been very stressful for her. She has lived on Blue Moon for 14 years and is unhappy that the view from the bedroom windows will be of the new buildings instead of the mountains. She said she did not feel that the proposed parking spaces were enough for 16 businesses. She said the number of parking spots for the 89 residential units did not seem sufficient either. She said driving on North Haskell was not the same as it used to be with all the on street parking from the new apartments. Drivers were pulling out in front of other drivers. She was concerned that people might be parking in front of her house on Blue Moon leaving her no space there. She said there is insufficient space in her driveway to park her car should she need to. She thought utilizing the existing parking around Twin Creeks Park would be problematic because people already fill those spaces when they come to use the park. Additionally, there is already a lot of traffic on Blue Moon Alley. People drive too fast and it is dangerous for children who live there. More traffic would make it worse. She wanted to know if the additional traffic will interfere with the garbage collection from the alley. She reiterated the building would be too close and too large. She said other neighbors were also concerned. She stated this would devalue their properties. She asked who the tenants would be, what the rents would be, and if there would be any low income housing included in the project. She also asked who will manage the property and take care of the landscaping. She was especially concerned about the use of lavender plants. She asked if the lighting would be problematic for bedrooms which face the parking lot. Judi Chappell Ms, Chappell said she lives on Blue Moon and her garage is on the alley. She said she had originally been told the whole alley was being expanded to 25 feet. Her concern is that the 25 foot width applies only to the ends of the alley where the entrances to the parking lot are located. She also asked if there are going to be speed bumps put in the alley. She said she thought her garage will face the parking lot, however Cindy Sorenson's will be facing the 3 story building. She asked for clarification. Ms. Holtey explained the configuration for her. Mr. Humphrey added comments stating there would be three dwellings which faced the three story building. Ms. Sorenson asked where people will be able to park when they go to events at the park. Mary Knoth, Blue Moon Dr. Ms. Knoth said she also shares the concerns that have been presented. She said with all the new development there was more traffic. She wanted to know why things were so close to each other. She thought the development was too cramped. Mr. Van Voorhees stated the Planning Commission's job was to help the City anticipate and thoughtfully facilitate its projected growth over the next 20 years. Ile said the State of Oregon has regulations regarding growth which affect development. The preservation of farmland land and agricultural resources is a priority for both the state and the City. By increasing the density near 5 Planntrrg Commission Meeting April 4. 2021 Page 5 the downtown area, it allows people the option to walk or bike to services rather than drive, thus reducing emissions and preserving valuable farmland. He said the Master Plan for Twin Creeks was approved with the mixed use concept many years ago. He explained this discussion is about the best way to develop the land in accordance with the Master Plan. Mika Smith Mr. Smith said he thought the best option would be to move building 4 as far to the north as possible in order to give more space for landscape buffering. He said he could redesign the building to eliminate the windows that would overlook the properties directly behind it. Fie said the rents will be between $900 and $I350. As far as speed bumps go he said it was a City street so he could not address that, He said there would be speed bumps at the entrances to the parking lot to control traffic. Tom Van Voorhees asked if the seating on the plaza would be available for pedestrians or only restaurant patrons. Mr. Smith said there was one bench for pedestrians and he could put in another one. M•. Smith said at this time it is hard to predict what businesses will locate there. The Commissioners clarified that 1.5 spaces for each unit is regular calculation for all multifamily developments. They discussed directional signage as a means of traffic control. The Public Hearing was Closed. Pat Smith made a motion to approve Resolution 890 with the conditions as proposed by staff. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. They reviewed the purpose of the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. Ms. Holtey stated the staff presentation rioted the location, zoning and architecture of the proposed buildings. In the process Mr. Humphrey identified a series of issues raised by the community and potential code conflicts. He did an analysis of how those issues could be resolved. She said the Planning Commission's job tonight is to look at all facts in the record pertaining to the proposal at hand and to render a decision based on whether or not the application complies with the applicable standards in the zoning code. She said the applicant has provided findings of fact and conclusions of law and there are supplemental findings prepared by planning staffthat address each of those criteria. The recommendation made by staff in the presentation was to approve the Site Plan and Architectural Review application subject to conditions of approval. The conditions have been identified to be necessary to meet the standards in the CPMC. She explained the public hearing is an opportunity for everyone to give their input as to whether or not the application meets the standards set forth in the code. She added if the applicant does make ally changes to a site plan it would be subject to a modification process. Mr. Humphrey made a suggestion to add a condition of approval directing the applicant to revise their plan to reflect the changes proposed in this meeting. The motion was amended to approve the Site Plan and Architectural Review as presented by staff with the additional condition of approval that the applicant make modifications to building 4 as proposed in this meeting. Including modifying the site plan to shift Building Oto the north; add evergreen landscape buffer enhancements to soften the appearance of the building and adjust the third floor windows. Farad Cozza seconded the motion. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 2021 Page 6 ROLL, CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Brad Cozza, yes. Motion passed. 7:43 p.m. There was a short break 7:48 the meeting was reconvened. 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. Tom Humphrey said Mr, Gindlesperger could not be there to present this evening. There will be a general discussion of this topic and the Commissioners can continue it until the May meeting. IIe stated Food trucks are gaining in popularity. They have been allowed in C-4 zones for many years. More recently some have been allowed temporarily on Front Street. The City has been asked about the possibility of a food court. The main concern is that they are competing with local restaurants who have a lot of overhead. Tom Van Voorhees stated the Rogue Creamery might do a truck in 2021. It would facilitate a lot of opportunities for the store. Would that preclude him from this discussion? Mr. Humphrey said no. The Commissioners expressed mixed feelings. They felt loyalty to restaurants was important but Food Trucks would add more variety. A larger variety of food options might not impact restaurants negatively, but could draw additional customers. They felt Food trucks are gaining in popularity and the City should make thoughtful arrangements to incorporate them, They agreed that power sources, restrooms and handwashing stations would be some things to evaluate. They also discussed that noise might be a concern. Mr. Humphrey said this item will be going to the Citizen's Advisory Committee next week. The Commissioners agreed to continue the item to the May meeting and review the CAC's comments. 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. 2ZO A Ms. Holtey said In December 26#, the City Council approved the City's first Housing Implementation Plan (HIP). The HIP sets forth the City's 5 -year strategy for increasing housing supply and affordability, It includes short-term and long-term projects that address a variety of issues that affect the housing situation in Central Point. Since adoption of the HIP, the City has completed an update to its Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations and is in the process of amending its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to increase its residential land supply. At this time, the City is starting the process of amending its residential zoning districts to add new housing types, increase residential densities and eliminate identified barriers to housing construction. 7 Planning Commission bleeling ,4pr'il6, 2021 Page 7 She stated the City is required to allow duplexes in zoning districts that allow single-family detached housing. This requirement was enacted by the State with passage of douse Bill (HB) 2001 in 2019 to increase housing supply in already developed neighborhoods, HB 2001 limits maximum setbacks and specifies that a duplex may be created on a lot even if doing so would exceed the City's existing maximum density standard. She said the state's definition of a duplex is two dwelling units on one lot in any configuration. She showed examples of standard units that share a common wall, two detached units on one lot, units attached by a breezeway, and stacked units and units attached by garages. She added the critical question for discussion at this time is what design and development standards may be appropriate to promote neighborhood compatibility. She said that staff is also preparing code amendments to allow cottage clusters in low and medium density zoning districts. Ms, Holtey explained that before lands in the new UGB expansion areas can be annexed, the City is required to increase its minimum density requirements provide a minimum average density of 7.04 units per acre from now until 2040. The result of this change will be smaller lot sizes and more housing required throughout the City. She said that as we make these changes, it would be beneficial to start exploring design and development standards that can foster creation of neighborhoods that are attractive and reflect the community's preferred vision for its future. She reviewed the regulatory barriers to housing stating some standards in the current residential zoning districts limit feasibility of high density residential development projects. One objective of the code amendments is to address these standards to increase feasibility of housing projects in the city that align with the intent and purpose of the zoning district it is located in. The proposed code amendments will not resolve all of the issues that affect supply and affordability, but they do aim to address outdated standards needed to help improve the housing situation. The Commissioners agreed infill development should be a priority. They discussed development standards and said they preferred thoughtful and creative design to more cookie cutter neighborhoods. They reviewed the standards in the 'Twin Creeks development and expressed opinions of what worked well and what could be different. They agreed there was a need for a diverse housing inventory. The Commissioners identified walkabiIity and affordability while retaining a small town feel as important issues. They also felt there was an opportunity to design a place that would appeal to a wide variety of residents. This would include attention to parks and open spaces, schools and community resources. They talked about the differences between duplexes and townhomes and the different types of accessory dwelling units that could be constructed. Ms.. Holtey said the state building regulations were also a component in these issues. She summarized the density requirements and the strategies that could be implemented to encourage. The Commissioners suggested changes to the glazing requirements, building materials and setback requirements as things that would make a difference in development. Also expanding lot coverage standards would help in increasing density. They stated again a diverse inventory of housing types was very important. Ms. Holtey said she would prepare changes along the lines of things discussed and present them Planning Commission Meeting Aprit 6, 2021 Page 8 at the next meeting. Mr. Humphrey said the County Board of Commissioners would be approving the UGB Amendment on April i 4, ,24DQ1 •: ,,-D 21 ey He invited the Planning Commission to attend a Council study session on land use procedures with City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer on April 19, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS XI. ADJOURNMENT Pat Smith moved to adjourn the meeting. y H isan eco ded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Planning Commission Chair 0