HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Resolution 1013R)SOLUTION NO. /b~~
A RESOLUTION FORMALILING'FIII: APRIL 15, 2004, CITY
COlilv~CIL DECISION ON RL;VIEW REGARDING TILE SITE
PLAN RL:V[EW ANDTENTATIVE PAR'I'1TION FOR "IHE
PROPOSED RETAIL PEAR BLOSSOM PLA7A (Wal-Mart)
Recitals
This matter carne before the City Pla~miug C-ommission Central Point, Oregon for public
hearing on March 18, 2004 and March 30, 2004. "~l'he City Council adopted a resolution on
March 25, 2004, calling up for review the Planning Commission decision on this matter and
requests for review were also tiled by the applicant, I3ecca Croft and Central Point Fist.
2. The City Council held a hearing on this matter on April 15, 2004. At that hearing. the
City Council limited its review to the record developed before the Planning Commission, but
accepted argument from the applicant, appellants and other interested parties.
3. The City Council voted at the April l5, 2004, meeting to overture flee Planning
Commission and to deny the application for a nwnber of reasons, as detailed in the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of haw adopted on April I5, 2004. A notice of decision was provided to
the applicant and other interested party on April 16, 2004.
4. This resolution is to formalize the decision made by the City Council on April I5, 2004.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Central Point,
Oregon. as follows:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Central Point hereby accepts the decision made by
the City Council ou April I5, 2004, denying the application for the proposed retail Pear Blossom
Plaza (Wal-Mart), based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law adopted at that time, and
attached hereto and Formalizes that decision into a resolution of the City Council.
Passed by the Council and sighed by me in authentication of its passage this ~ day of April.
2004.
ATTF T: ,~
City Recorder
Mayor Hack Williams
Approved by me this c~ ~ d y of April, 2004.
~ ~~//y//
Mayor Hank Williams
In the Matter of the )
Application for the Proposed )
Retail Pear Blossom Plaza )
(Wal-Mart) by PacLand for )
a Site Plan Review and Tentative )
Partition Approval )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The applicant, PACLAND requested a Site Plan Review and minor partition to
permit the construction of a 203,091 squaze foot (combinatiop) general merchandise-
grocery store, a 10,200 square foot retail building and a 200 square foot coffee kiosk
(refer to Exhibit A). The application was forwarded by staff to the Planning Commission
.because the size, location and potentially adverse characteristics indicated that it should
be treated as a conditional use under CPMC 17.44.020 B.15.
In order to meet the 120 day deadline imposed by ORS 227.178, the City Council
passed a resolution calling the Planning Commission's decision up for review rather than
wait for an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. At the review hearing, the
applicant, proponents and opponents of the application, and other interested persons, were
given an opportunity to make an oral presentation in support of their respective positions.
The Council limited its review to the existing record, but allowed an opportunity for any
party to submit written or oral arguments.
Authority
CPMC 1.24.020 and CPMC 17.44.030 (20) vest the Planning Commission with
the authority to hold a public hearing and to render a decision on any application
submitted for Site Plan Review (when referred by City staff) and on any tentative plan
application for land partition. In addition, CPMC 1.24.080(A) and ORS 227.180.1.a
allow the City Council to review, on its own motion, a decision of a "hearings officer,"
which includes decisions of the Planning Commission. Notice of the public hearing
before the Council was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060.
Background
The Central Point Planning Commission conducted two public hearings on the
above referenced proposal on Mazch 18 and March 30; 2004. The Planning Commission
concluded that the proposed Wal-Mart super center is a `community shopping center' and
therefore a `permitted use' in the C-4 zoning district. The Commission also declined to
treat the application as one requiring conditional use review under CPMC
does not constitute a shopping center.
This interpretation is supported by the grouping that includes Community Shopping
Centers. The allowed uses in the C-4 zone consist of three broad groups: "Professional
and Financial," "Tourist and Entertainment Related" and "Telecommunication Antennae
Structures." The Community Shopping Center is included as a "tourist and
Entertainment Related" facility. The single large store with one small store and a 200
square foot kiosk does not comport with either tourism or entertainment.
CPMC 17.44.010 also describes the purpose of the C-4 zone as intending to allow for the
"development of concentrated tourist commercial and entertainment facilities." A big
box store, such as the one proposed in this application, is not typically directed to the
tourist trade. This type of development is more appropriate in the C-5 zone, which is
intended to "provide for commercial and business uses that aze most appropriately located
along or near major highways or thoroughfares and are lazgely dependent upon highway
visibility and easy vehicular access." The proposed development could occur in the C-5
zone without being forced into building adjacent uses.
The concept of a true shopping center is supported by the previous approval granted for
the Pear Blossom Center, which contained multiple separate uses in one building, as well
as the Albertson's location, which was also allowed as a "Community Shopping Center."
Those types of facilities, with an anchor store and multiple complementary retail
establishments more closely match the City's intent in allowing Community Shopping
Centers in the C-4 zone.
Alternatively, the Council interprets the term "community shopping center" to be
dependent on the "community, in this case, the City of Central Point. A community
shopping center is different from a regional center, or one that depends on the entire
region, including drawing its customers from Medford and elsewhere in the region. A
203,000 square foot big box store is simply too large to fit as a "community shopping
center" for a community of approximately 13,000 residents. This is further supported by
the evidence in the record showing that Wal-Mart had indicated to the City of Medford
that the store proposed for that community was appropriate for a site zoned "regional
commercial." The economic analysis supplied by the applicant also details the regional
effects of similaz stores in the communities of Ontario and Grants Pass. On balance, the
City Council concludes that the super center proposed for this location is not a
community shopping center and, therfore, denies the application because the use it
proposes is not allowed in the C-4 zone.
2) Uses Not Permitted in the C-4 Zone
The Planning Commission apparently found that the uses not specifically allowed
accordingly, the council denies the application on that basis as well.
If state law or other controlling legal authority prevents the Council from denying the
application on that ground, the City would place a condition on the development of the
property prohibiting the identified uses.
3) Site Plan Processed as a Conditional Use
The Planning Commission concluded that the application should be treated as permitted
use and rejected the City staffls recommendation to treat the application for a conditional
use under CPMC 17.44.030.A.20. Based on the Council's review of the record, the
Council disagrees and determines that the staff properly forwarded the application to the
Planning Commission for treatment as a conditional use and concludes that the
application exhibits potentially adverse or hazardous characteristics not normally found in
uses of a similar type or size. In particular, the Council interprets CPMC 17.44.030.A.20
to apply when the location of a development presents potential adverse or hazardous
chazacteristics, as demonstrated in this case.
The evidence in the record is clear that the site's location adjacent to Bear Creek and the
Pine Street Interchange with Interstate 5 presents potential adverse impacts that simply
would not be present if the development were located in another part of the City. In
particular, the Council believes the testimony from the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODF&W), the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Rogue Valley Council of Governments
(RVCOG) Water Resources Division, JRH Transportation Engineers and the Central
Point Public Works Department, who all agree that the individual and cumulative impacts
of the proposed super center exhibit adverse and hazardous characteristics upon traffic
circulation and Bear Creek.
Accordingly, if the Council had not denied the application as presenting a use not allowed
in the zone, the Council would treat the application as an application for a conditional
use.
Criteria for Granting a Conditional Use Permit
If the Council had not denied the application, it would make the following
findings regarding the criteria from Section 17.76.040:
17.76.040(A)-That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the
subject zonins district and all other provisions of this code.
opening. There is no indication in the code that the applicant's impact is judged solely on
day of opening. The Council interprets the protection required under this provision as
requiring the applicant to look into the future, at least as far as the planning horizon of 20
years. Given the limitation on the applicant's traffic study, it does not adequately address
the required period. The applicant's traffic report acknowledges that the I-5 northbound
ramps will operate on day of opening at the volume to capacity ratio of .85, which is
supported by the JRH report indicating a v/c ratio of no less than .83. What the applicant
has not addressed is the operation of the intersection beyond opening day. There was also
significant public testimony regarding the growth of the area, which the Council believed,
that convinces it that the northbound ramp from I-5 will exceed the minimum standard
and that the applicant's proposal should be rejected for that reason.
If other legal authority prevents the City from denying the application on that basis, the
City would impose a condition requiring the applicant to pay its share of the cost to
improve the northbound I-5 ramp as required by the JRH memorandum.
(2)
The Council believes the testimony from its traffic engineer, JRH, that a public road
through or adjacent to the proposed development is required to provide adequate
connectivity to serve the site and that the proposed traffic signal must be moved further
west on Pine Street. As currently designed, the project does not provide adequate
connectivity to allow patrons from the north side of east Central Point to access the
property. The Council notes that the applicant's traffic study indicates a portion of the
store's patrons will be approaching from the north on the day of opening. The Council
also notes there is a significant area of residential land that has not yet developed north of
the site and the Council believes that, as that area develops, even more residents will be
coming from that direction. Finally, the Council notes that the fairgrounds are also just
north and west of the site. All of the patrons in those areas would require a circuitous
route to approach the store; the eazliest that a patron could find their way into the store
would be the Beebe Road entrance, but many might not enter until the main entrance on
East Pine Street. Such a circuitous route is incompatible with effective accommodation
of the traffic generated by the proposal.
Further, with the creation of the new public road to accommodate the traffic generated by
this site, the location of the traffic signal as proposed by the applicant becomes
inappropriate because of spacing issue with Penninger Road and the I-5 off-ramps. The
precise location of the new public road and the new traffic signal would have to be
determined later, but the Council concludes that such a move is feasible and therefore, if
the application were not denied, the Council would impose a condition that the applicant
move the proposed traffic signal on East Pine Street further west and construct a new
public street through or adjacent to west edge of the proposed retail development.
7
hazardous storm water runoff and water quality characteristics to Bear Creek which is
currently water quality limited and is a fish bearing stream. Additionally, the proposed
development places improvements and structures within or alters the 100 year flood plain
associated with Bear Creek.
Conditions to mitigate -The City Council adopts the conditions proposed by Central
Point Public Works Department, RVCOG and DEQ. Those conditions require the
applicant to incorporate a more robust set of storm water treatment and infiltration
measures in the site design. Post-construction best management practices (BMPs) and
mitigation measures shall include, but are not limited to; detention facilities adequate to
detain 40-50 percent of the two-year storm, water quality treatment devices in addition to
`natural storm water bio-filters', a DEQ erosion control permit (1200-C), stream buffers
and catch basin inserts.
17.76.040(D) -That the establishment maintenance or operation of the use applied for
will comply with local state and federal health and safe regulations and therefore will
not be detrimental to the health safety and general welfare of persons residing or working
in the surroundine neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to the~roperty
and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community based
on the review of those factors listed above.
Finding -The City Council finds that the impact of the proposed super center exhibits
potentially adverse characteristics to the surrounding residential property owners by
creating increased traffic congestion, greater ambient noise, and glaze from new on-site
lighting. There have also been historic concerns associated with loss of domestic well
water due to surrounding development, underground utility construction and the reduction
in aquifer recharge areas.
Conditions to mitigate -the City Council finds that a condition requiring the applicant to
design and construct a berm and wall along the northern boundary of the property that
will sufficiently mitigate impacts of new noise and light generated by development on the
site. Plans shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to construction of the wall
and before building permits aze issued for any new buildings on the property.
Finding -The City Council interprets this provision to encompass not just health and
safety regulations but is far broader under the City's conditional use provisions. The
provision was enacted to protect the improvements made by other businesses and to
protect the community as a whole. The City interprets the "general welfare of the
community" to encompass a healthy working environment and quality of life
considerations. The City Council believes the testimony and evidence submitted by a
variety of city residents who eloquently describe the impacts on their quality of life in
Central Point. That testimony includes the letters from Duane Mallams, who indicated
9
sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses The Commission may
require the maintenance of existing plants or the installation of new one for pumoses of
screening adjoinin property.
Finding -The City Council finds that the proposal will create an adverse visual impact to
surrounding properties due to its size and orientation on the property. Previous plan
approvals for this site have conditionally required screening and landscaping to minimize
these impacts; those previous plan approvals adequately protected surrounding property.
Condition to mitigate -The applicant shall be responsible for the design and construction
of a landscaped berm and a wall along the northern boundary of the property that will
sufficiently mitigate impacts of new noise and light generated by development on the site.
Plans shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to construction of the wall and
before building permits are issued for any new buildings on the property.
17.72.040(Bl - Desim, number and location of in~ess and egress points so as to improve
and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets;
The issues involved in this criterion are substantialty the same as the issues discussed
above in addressing CPMC 17.76.040(B) and the discussion included therein is hereby
adopt herein to separately address this criterion.
17.72.040(C) - To provide off-street pazkinQ and loading facilities and pedestrian and
vehicle flow facilities in such a manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is
proposed to be used and capable of use and in such a manner as to improve and avoid
interference with the traffic flow on public streets;
Finding -The City Council finds that the project creates more pazking than the minimum
requirements of CPMC17.65.050, Table 3 dictates. Tlie amount of impervious surface
(over 18 acres) creates the potential for adverse impacts to Bear Creek.
Conditions to mitigate -The City Council adopts the conditions proposed by Central
Point Public Works Department, RVCOG and DEQ. Those conditions require the
applicant to incorporate a more robust set of storm water treatment and infiltration
measures in the site design. Post-construction best management practices (BMPs) and
mitigation measures shall include, but aze not limited to; detention facilities adequate to
detain 40-50 percent of the two-year storm, water quality treatment devices in addition to
`natural storm water bio-filters', a DEQ erosion control permit (1200-C), stream buffers
and catch basin inserts.
17.72.040(D) -Sims and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that thev do not
conflict with or deter from traffic control suns or devices and that they are compatible
11