Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Commission Packet - April 3, 2007
1~~~~~°~ , ~~~~~'~ ~ '14€li~ ~~,~~fa l't:.'X~ I~I21]11111i- (.~#t11i~115;ii(?t1 l~csc)luti<~Il Vii). ;~;'" ~~~.~I.:t1 CALL Coi~llic~ ~fit~~z~ t~ctlit~a. C~3i~ii~~ i~`is, T3~rTli~sz~ T ii~jT't. C'hi~cl;. Pi1«r)c~, Wayne Tcit,<Ts, Pitt 13k:cle~ 4ztlc~ ~.1ik~ Olr'~-~;r III. C't~13~~~~19(~'~~~R~;~C.'E V. III ?,~' Aa Reve~~- allci ~1~~~~t~c)~ <~I of M ch 6, ~, P1a ink ~~l~~~liysic~~l '~IilTtltt~s VI. 1~~~~1~'~i:~; Pis. l -46 A, ~'ilc. ~Q~, ~~ 1i~ ~~. A I?tlr~lc Ilearitl.T to cc)rlsic%~1~ <1 r~~cju~st c~r• `~it~: Phil t1pl7rt)S~1 fog. f'lc' ~~.~~.~a~d ~- cc)T11n1~rcTal tlc~elc>)1111c~Tli c)f` ~)i~Ii~~ ~lrlci Tc:i~1il l~t~ilcliTl~7s. "1`llc~ subject Ilro~)cri~~ is ic>catec3 itl ~~ ~'-~1. "l cnTrist aTld {)f-lice PTt~4c°ssic>~~~tl rc~rTi~l~~ cli~trici t~Tld cotl~i~ts cif ag~i~rc)yirllatel~~ 4.~7 ~tcr°es. ~l lle sul~jcct }lropert~ is id~latilieci oll t[lc' ,lacl;sclT1 C`cnlnty ,~1s5t'ssoT''s 111<lp STS 7 i `~ 7~~~ () ] C.;, ~C tl~ 1.c~t ~()2. 1`}le I1roI~<>scil I~rc~jec:t tTrea is lilcatecl Qi': 1;~st PiTlc ~tT~ee.t (L3icic3lc~ 1Zc)~tcij i;~TSt ~)I~ Ii<tTnrick I~o~ld. :~~~~liculnt: I:x~:~lsicTr ~I't' ~'`iiYl~-T2t ~'~~IIlJ)cTll~'; ~t?,c',T1t: 1.1.11 ~,~I31I('9 ~~~itll~,: fjI1C~ ~SSf)(`1t'~~LS P~s.4'1-56 B. ~~a~~,~'~a~'7~~4)z. ,'~ Iltllalic. Ilc~aril~~~~ ~;~ ; oTlsici~~r ~l T'~G?i_~;~,i 1'~1' tllc: d~111~11itiotl o1`a r~.sidenti~ll btTilciirlf~> <>i' ttTldclcultletltecl Ilitor i<~ iT1tcT•t;st Iocateci ttt t(le c:c>rllt:r o1~ i)~jk ±r1cl "I.llircl. ~trcets (:9l? ()~lll °~tT•t:'i't) ill the `I`{)~~-•i3T>s~ii :orlitl4z cli~~tT•ic~t. "l~hc sutajc~ct i~1~c~Ia:rt~ is idellti)ieLl on llli/ ,I~TCksc~rl ~'t)tlt~t~' .~.sscsstlr°~; lllap <TS ;~"7~ ?~,~' I1 i:3I3e ~T~T~ List l()0. ,~pplictltlt is j~rc~I7oiT~±~ ~ c~o~ntlleT'cial ci~~;~~loi~llleilt c,f this res7~f°rt` , A)7i~7ic~)Tlt; I11~~~lclt ~:rltel"l~ri51:~s Vii. MISCELLANE{)US A. Tree Removal Applications -- Zone Redwood grove (Parmenter}, File Igo. 07109 -- C7alc & Third Streets {Malot Enterprises), File No. 07110 B. Urban Growth Bonndaty Expansion Update C. Regional Problem Solving Update Viii. ADJUUF:NMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March b, 2007 I. MEETING CALLED Tt7 tJRDER AT 7:00 P.M. II. RQLL CALL: Commissioners Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, Wayne Riggs, Pat Beck, and Mike {liver were present. Also in attendance were: Tom 1-lu~raphrey, Community Development Director; Don Burt, Planning Manager; Connie Clone, Community Planner; Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician; Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary; and Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator. III. CC?RRESPi3NDENCE There were several items of correspondence and a revised stai'1`report pez-tinent to item D an the agenda that were distributed to Commissioners. IV. MINUTES Candy Fish made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Wayne Riggs seconded the motion. R{~LL CALL: Fish, yes; C}liver, yes; Beek, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. "V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. File No. '7033. A public hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Ise Permit far a Planned Unit Development application to allow for a S3 single- famiIy zero lot line residential development located in an R-2, Two Family zoning district and identified an the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W O1BA, Tax Lots S00 and 700. The addresses are 137 and 165 'Vitas Road and are located north of East Pine Street, east of Hamrick Road and south of Silas Road. Applicant: Heritage Development Inc., Agent: .Iim Clark There were no conflicts or ex pane communications to disclose. Commissioner Mike {3liver stated he had made a site visit; Candy Fish said she knows the applicant. Pl~nnitzg Cotnrnisrion Minutes r~Itct•cIz 6, 2007 Page 2 Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician, presented the staff report, indicating that three applications needed to lac reviewed in connection with this project. Criteria for consideration is different for each application; the applicant's findings are, however, the same for each application. Applicant proposes to develop zero lot line homes with a five {5) foot side yard setback on one side for two-story residences, which varies from the side yard setback requirement of ten (10) feet for two-story homes in the R~2 zoning district thus creating the need for the PUD. Ms. Morgan pointed out that there were several other PUDs in the imzrzediate vicinity and proceeded to review site layout and proposed home designs, adding that the fzre district dzd not have an issue with the sixteen (l6} foot driveways that were proposed in portions of the developz~ent. It was later pointed out that because of the short distance, the fire district would treat these as driveways. Commissioners expressed concerns with density, compatibility with the existing neighborhood in light of the fact that the development is located adjacent to an industrial area, ingress and egress to the developzrzent, and the fact that the entire project hinges on the ability of the applicant to purchase property from the City of Central Point for access to North Mountain Drive through Don Jones Park. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Dale Clark came forward and stated that he concurred with the findings as set forth in the staffrepart. He commended staff for all oftheir assistance in helping to shape the project and stated further that it was the applicant's intent to keep the price ranges of the homes at entry level. Commissioner Mike CJliver was concerned with access onto Vilas Road. Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator, agreed that there were access limitations with getting out onto 1-famrick and Vilas froze this developzxzent. Mr. Samitore informed Commissioners that although there would be a traffic control device installed at Beebe and I-lamrick Roads, Jackson County is doing a site vision analysis and the applicant may have to acquire a portion of a neighboring property to provide for a deceleration lane into the development. Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, added that the installation of a traffic control device at Beebe and Hamrick would probably discourage a lot of the cut through traffic in that area and traffic would be more inclined to use Table Rock Road instead. Dale Clark stated that they hadn't done a traffic study for the proposed development and were agreeable to creating a connection to Table Rock Road but that could potentially create a problem with. industrial traffic going through their development. 1-le was not opposed to having this connection added as a condition of approval to the project. Plczttttirtg Corrrrrrissiort Mirtactes M~zreh b, 2t~~17 Frtge 3 Mr. 1-luzxzphrey suggested that if tl~e City Council determines that access through Don Jones Park to N. Mountain Avenue is not feasible, alternatives could be explored at that tune. Lisa Morgan pointed out that the quiet title issue with Lot l still needed to be resolved. Don Burt, Planning Manager, suggested that the simplest solution to connectivity would be to go east but that involves industrial propezty. N. Mountain Avenue z`naintains connectivity, however, if the Planning Commission is concerned about additional connectivity, staff should be directed to determine the best way to canned to Table Rock Road. David Painter carne forward and questioned whether the applicant was going to build or sell the lots in the subdivision. Mr. Painter additionally expressed concerns with the width of the street in the subdivision and stated that he was opposed to the two lot flag lots and the narrowness of the turn froze the proposed Parkway Drive onto Sugar Pine Court. Mr. Painter stated further that he was concerned about the potential for an increase in traffzc with residents of Central Paint least using the road through the subdivision, and if traffzc were to be cut through to Table Rock Road, he felt that serious traffic issues would result for residents of the new subdivision. Dale Clark addressed Mr. Painter's eoncerzzs and explained that approximately 6(}°l0 of the subdivision would be built by the applicant with the remaining 40°lo being sold. Mr. Clark informed that the subdivision was well within {~D4T standards, and Matt Samitore added that the proposed Sugar Pine Court was 28 feet wide and Parkway Drive was intended to be 36 feet wide. Mr. Samitore added that all Public Works conditions had been met for this development. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Candy Fish made a motion to approve Resolution No. 719 granting a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for the creation a 53 single-fatuity zero lot line residential development in an R-2, Two Family zoning district (Jackson County Assessor's snap 37S 2W O1BA, Tax Lots 504 and '704} based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Pat Beck seconded the motion. Rt~LL CALL: Fish, yes; C)liver, yes; Beck, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. B. File No. 47032. A public hearing to consider a request for a Planned Unit Development to allow for a 53 single-family zero lot line residential development located in an R-2, T~vo Fatuity zoning district and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S ZW 018A, Tarr Lots 500 and 700. The addresses are 137 and 165 Vilas Road and are located north of East Pine Street, east of Hamrick Road and south of Vilas Road. Applicant: Heritage Development Inc.; Agent: Jim Clark Planning Conznrissi~atr Minutes Mcr~•cTz 6, 2(~~J~ Page ~l There were no conflicts or ex pane communications to disclose. Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician, presented the staff report and stated that with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, a Planned Unit Development was appropriate and proceeded to review the exceptions that would be required for this development if approved. Ms. Morgan then addressed the issues that needed to be resolved and the recommended conditions of approval. Chug Piland asked if the applicant intended to rename the subdivision and Ms. Morgan responded that this matter would be discussed at the time tentative plan is reviewed. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Mike Oliver indicated that he was still not happy with the five {5} foot setbacks and would like to see more distance between the homes. Dale Clark assured the Planning Co~n~nission that they had not maximized the densities available to them. It is important to the applicant that the architecture of the proposed homes fit the lots, that the development has a nice character to it and that the cost of the homes remain affordable. Mr. Clark estimated that the price of the homes would be somewhere between ~24{},0{}{l _ $2?4,(700. David Painter came forward and expressed concerns with setbacks, privacy, common areas, and traffic. Lisa Morgan responded that the Public Works Department was working with the applicant on a contribution towards park equipment or something similar as the development would be utilizing the proposed park in lieu of creating its own open space. Don Burt added that per building codes, there cannot be any openings {windows or doors) on the zero lot line sides of the residences. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Lisa Morgan asked that condition #8 be modifzed to reflect that applicant would add a clause to their CCBcRs reflecting that "architectural controls necessary to assure compliance with the condition #5" of the conditions of approval. Wayne Riggs made a motion to approve Resolution No. x`20 granting approval fora 53 single-family zero lot line residential development in an R-2 Two Family zoning district {Jackson County Assessor's map 3'7S 2W O18A, Tax Lots 500 & 700} based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Pat Beck seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes, Oliver, yes; Beck, yes; Riggs, Yes. Motion passed. Plcrnnirzg Conltnissir~n 1tlirautes March b, 2tJ(17 Page S The Planning Commission took a break at 8:35 p.tn. and reconvened at 8:4~} p.an. C. File No. 07025. A public hearing to consider a request for approval of a Tentative Plan application for the creation of a 53 single-family zero lot line residential development located in an R-2, Two Fatt~ily zoning district and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 01BA, Tax Lots 500 and 700. The addresses are 13'7 and 165 Vilas Road and are located north of East Pine Street, east of Hamrick Road and south of Vilas Road. Applicant: Heritage Development Inc.; Agent; Jim Clark There were no conflicts or ex pane communications to disclose. Planning Technician Lisa Morgan presented a staff report, indicating that the final development plan for this project would carne back to the Planning Commission for approval. With respect to the Warne of the subdivision, Jackson County has requested that the applicant come up with another name and secure county approval. Streets will also have to be renamed prior to submission of a final development plan. Dale Clark asked how much time they had to do this and Ms. Morgan responded that the sooner they accomplished this, the better. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Dale Clark came forward ©nce again and thanked staff for all of their assistance adding that everyone had been great to work with. Mike Oliver asked if access to Don Jones Park would be between Lots 34 and 35. Matt Samitore said "yes" but that it was going to have to be moved because of its current location in the middle of two driveways. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Candy Fish made a motion to approve Resolution No. 721 granting tentative plan approval far the creation of a 53 single-family zero lot line residential development in an R-2, Two Family zoning district {Jackson County Assessor's map 37S 2W 0113A, Tax Lots 500 and 700), based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Wayne Riggs seconded the motion. ROLE, CALL: Fish, yes; Oliver, yes; Beck, yes; Riggs, Yes. Motion passed. D. File No. 07036. A public hearing to consider a request for approval of a Site Plan application for the purpose of constructing a 120-unit residential facility with various residential services located within the facility. The subject property is located in an HMR, High Mix residential zoning district and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's .snap as 37S 2W 03C, Tax Lot 100. The address is 888 Twin Creeks Crossing and is located north of Taylor Plnnning Camnzissiatz Minutes Mttf•cla 6, ~t1{37 f'rrge 6 Road, east of Rustler Peak Street» Applicant: Twin Creeks Retirezxzent, C}regan Limited Partnership; Agezzt. Ronald L. Grimes, Architect There were no Conflicts or ex pane Coz~~niuniGations to disclose. Mike Oliver, Pat Beck and Candy Fish had made site visits. Planning Manager Don Butt presented Camz~zissioners with a revised staff report, pointing out that the changes to the original staff repaz-t in the packet were indicated in blue ink. Mr. Burt stated that the project is consistent with the Twin Creeks master plan. The proposed dCVelapment is far a senior citizen housing facility. Mr. Burt then proceeded to review the accessory uses that would be available on site for residents of the facility, parking was adequate as proposed and the applicant had met the requirements for the minimum number of units. Mr. Burt further stated that all required setbacks had been met with the exception of the rear yard setback, and applicant has requested a variance for this which has been included in the resolution. The applicant would, however, need to get an exception for a six {~} foot fence. The access easeznezat on the east side of the proposed development is a condition of the master plan. Qpen space requirements have been met. The design of the building is for three {3} stories and has meet applicable design criteria in the master plan. Mr. Burt reviewed the issues that needed to be addressed and proposed conditions of approval as set forth in the revised staff report. if the applicant wishes to reduce parking at a later time, they can apply far a variance at that time. Prior to occupancy, the applicant will need to obtain a conditional use permit for the police substation. Mike C3liver inquired about the status of the railroad crossing. Torn Humphrey presented an update on the negotiations with the railroad and C~Dt~T for the use of the crossing, stating that a copy of the appraisal done on the proposed crossing along with a proposal far the payment of fees had been sent to the railroad. A traffzC signal is also proposed in Conjunction with the Grassing. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Ron. Grimes, architect for the applicant, Game forward and described the proposed senior housing facility and what the applicant intended to do with the facility. Mr. Grimes presented carrespondenCC from four different senior housing facilities that addressed parking; Concerns that Commissioners might have with the proposed number of parking spaces for this development. Mr. Grimes went on to present a Comprehensive description of all of the accessory uses and amenities that will be available to residents of this facility. The applicant, he stated, is attempting to provide a fun atmosphere for people to live in and use. Mr. Grimes noted that security is a big issue and having a police substation on the premises adds to a feeling of security for the residents, as well as the neighborhood. ~'Icrnnirag C'onarrtission Minutes M~rrc]r 6, 2~Q7 Pcr,~e 7 Care has been given to the selection of ~~ailding ~1~ateriais and siding i~~ order to remain consistent with the development aspects used in the area. Every attezxzpt leas been made to stay away from an institutional feel to the design of the building. Adequacy of parking was discussed and Mr. Grimes indicated that they would like to fence the garage side and service entrance with a six {G} foot wrought iron fence for security purposes. Bret Moore came forward and stated that as the developer of Twin Creeks, he was very pleased with the project and is working with the applicants. Mr. Moore said that the proposed facility was a great addition to the area and will continue to add to the diversity of the Twin Creeks development. Joe I=lellman, a neighbor on Rustler Peak Street, came forward and questioned the proposed hve {5} foot shift of the building westward towards Rustler Peak Street. Ron Grimes assured him that there would be twenty three {23} feet of landscaping to provide a buffer between the senior housing facility and residences along Rustler Peak Street. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mike t~liver made a motion to approve Resolution No. 722 granting site plan approval for the development of a 124-unit senior housing facility r~vith residential accessory uses and granting a one {1} foot rear yard Class "A" variance {Jackson County Assessor's map 37 2W 43C, Tax Lot 144} based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Candy Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes, Oliver, yes; Beek, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator, presented two design options for improvements to Freeman Road, from Hopkins Road to South of Mountain "triew Shopping Center, reviewed the same, and requested a recommendation from the Planning Commission to be presented to the City Council for approval. The Planning Commission recommended option #1 where the bike lanes and sidewalks are combined in one place for approximately ~ 0(7 feet. TSP/Urban Growth Boundary Update Don Burt advised that a meeting has been scheduled with the transportation consultant. Tom Humphrey distributed an updated map of where the City is with respect to their proposed urban reserve areas. Some of the areas still need the approval of the Department of Agriculture; however, Mr. Humphrey indicated that he was in the process 1'Ictntxirr,~ Co»rnrission Mrrrutc~s March fr, 2fJ~7 Pcrg~ ~ of completing justification far the inclusion of agricultural lands in the proposed urban grawth boundary expansion. IX. ADJ(JURNMENT Mike t)iiver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Candy Fish seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at l (}:1 {} p.m. The faregoing minutes of the March 6, 24Q7 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Coznznissian at its meeting an April 3, 2t}0'~. Planning Coznn~ission Chair NC}F~T~ ~AL.~L~~ ~~"T`~Ft ~ i~ ~ ~ .__ t,,,,~~i 'r'. ti 111 ~, .ei 1.'ils ~)(t.,C it i(.-l }k`, ",~~; lil it ( ~ ~,'dllilit 11 ~_<1 i.Uf f' '~~ ~i ~, b. f ~ ? ~ ~~' ~?. 11 },~ ~ I ~, 207 Ct~tls~der~ttit~€i ol~a `~itc Plan ah~rli~:~iti~~.t it~1" tl~e hur}~~~se ofi'~:~•t'atittt7, <t Ti~~i~:~d t~s~~ cc~r~t1~1~°rci,t} ~i~t~I7hiri~ i`acility c:>~~ iii e {"~ ~ lets l:r~cj~~r~ <~~ tlae '~~c>rl}~ ~;'t~}lei C't:~~tci-- '.! he suk~jeci I~ri?l~~'rt~ is }i3c~r~tc°ck ~~~1 l ~z~,t I'ir1c ~h-eei~(;}3ic}c}le I.~>ad) i~~ tl~e t'-•~, } i~~tritit ar~cj (}f~ic~c~ 1';c~fcssiot7<~.1 <~~~it~` cli~~tt'it~t, <~~id isr~.i~°~3ii}lc°c3 i,n tlts~. Jacksc>i1 t'c~ttt~i~, :lsses~t»'`s r~itt}~> tt~ 7"; ~; :~1~; (?1 C, l tax k ,ot ~(J:'.. ;~"I'.~Y~ ~~' ~i~~J~~~'~'e - - - -- C`~~~~tie. C It~~~~, (:c>tnn~~u~ity I'l~tta~tez' ~I`he 1?ri)jt ~ t t~t~et~ c~c3r7si51s c?i itllprc~xit~~utelti 4.41 t~cres a~tck 7viceivt;cl te~~t~itive tal~prnt t~l) t°l~rt~~~r~~ fi.:'()0"7 fcn' a live. (lot) ctnn~t3c°rcit.l stt}G.iivist?tl (lilt; 1~'c~. (~i()>()j. -}_l~e }~t-t~perl:~ ~s loct?t~tl i~~~ I:tt~> 1'ir~i: `~t~'eet tjp~~r;:~xir~~tttely :~1.()0(i icct east o`I-lttz~~rit:k .I:ot~<I. 111c ~t~lx:r ~ '~~uie1 is aclit~c:et~t tc> the «c°~;t, 1}~~ f~4.« l,ws ~cl~«~i17 ti~'e 1't;cilii~ i~; I>t't7l~ctscd tt7 tkie et~~~t ttr~cl t~~;1: Izeclc}tt~vtty [r;c. tct~tki~~<~ #acilii~ iF3 ti> the >otatla. ~1 Gcllicl'e.ti.' l?locl~ ~~tt1l ttkotls~ t}te }jrivate rc~t~ck l~~-ovicles 1t~3f~Iic ~3~~t.3. vis~.z,:~1 sc~it~ratic?n kr~t't~~;e~;t~ tf7e ~,;1_? (l':~l eclclati~~~t~~~ ka~c.) t~Yu} the C-4 (}~h=t~~zec? sk~«17q~irlr! }acilii~'}. ~t this tit~;c~ the. t~l~}~licarr[ is t'eckt~esti=lY <~l~}~rovttl o(~a tnastea~ }?lay (or clevcloljrt~ea~t of il~e k7rol~c~'ty ~s a sho1~~?irt~~ IGl{.ilitti. 'I i~t•ot~t~}~ ih~ t~ta~;icl- ~}a~l~iirg I~rocc5~; ii is 11~c Gtl~l~lictti'~t~s i~lici~tic~r~ to cst,~t?lislt c~~et'z~ir~~ clesi~~r~ st<t~lclat-ds tend eriteritt 111th rill ec3r~tr<~l il~e ir~creti~er~ttti clevelt~k~trte~lt of the I~rol?ert~~, 1~,liic}~ ~~;l~ei~ c~~~n}Mete, r,~ill result izi a cc~jt~},~•el~et~si~~ air<1 irlte~rtttecl sh~~}~l~itat~ f~;ti;iliiv. !'lie iitaster l~1at~~lin~~ ,~rc>}~•ai~~ will inclt~clG «iihi7l tl~e. 9ia~~l i~lai ar~d t}ae. ~"~>vet~~~r~t>. (:c~ijclitic~~~s, t~tlcl l~estr°(c-~toi~s the li>11o~vi1~<~: ~teCi~7i~~c2tk ~?tli't<it144? f't!`~'1T]%`tlt~y (~'7-{>sS t7(~CeSS et15et1leli`t°~: ~~ til<<stt't' ltat~~lst;<~}?e 177'c)~rt1ltl; ttt~~ - A~'c~I~iteeCt~t'al ttusigt~ regt~ire~neni,. ~~;~tt~:t° the }}~•~~j~ect tiit~is ct~rtt}»i~;ecl c~`indivd~ak lets that wi11 lac rtd~:l~etaclct~tl~;t o ed ~3.~ack, r.levk°1~}:~;:d, it is ?l~~ ttl7l~liea~it`s ol~jectivc: tc~ t~ett~i~~ t~s i7~t~e}<~ i~lcxibilit~ as }.u»si7le t{~ tt}lc3~v c~htui~>c:s io the tt,7l~rc~veck master j>i~~r~ t~~itl~t>tti httvinz to rel~cttt tl.e `~it~: Plttr~ I~rc}c:c~;s. l u ~t~tilittttt• t}~t; C'i~~ ~s tzrYCit;r.st_Inclitf~s oi` tl~c. extent ofdes~,it l~e:~ik~i}it~~ ret~est~d, tht; t±I~I~lictltl~ ht~s st~~»~~i11et~ six l~') concc;iyis fot' tleveloi~t~lez~ ofd Page 1 cif the property, After a review of each concept staff has concluded that the variation between the design of each concept is minimal, and classified as a minor modification as defined in Section 17.09.200. Consequently, in an effort to simplify the review of this application staff has focused an the mast intense {Concept 1 }, and least intense {Concept 2} development proposal, with the understanding that any subsequently proposed modification within the limits of Section 17.09.020 would be addressed administratively. Modifications that exceed the limits of Section 17.09.200 would require resubmittal of a Site Plan application for the subject lat. General Project Description: The proposed project is a master plan for the uniform architectural design of the commercial development encompassing the five {5} lots. The applicant proposes a mix of commercial uses with the opportunity for individual lot purchase. The architecture of the buildings, the landscape plan and the ingress/egress access points remain the same for each variation. As Hated, to simplify review of the application, staff has reduced the six concepts to two basic proposals as follows: Concept I: The proposed uses include a restaurant, or a bank {Lot 1 Building A}, multi-retail {Lot 2 Building B}, professional off ces {Buildings C, and L3, Lots ~ & 5}, and an automobile lubrication with a carwash facility {Building E, Lot 3} as illustrated by applicant's Site Plan 1A. The structures will total 51, l38 square feet with a 24.16% site coverage. The minimum number of parking spaces required per Section 17.64.040 is 228. Concept 1 provides a total of 234 parking spaces. Concept 2: This project design is without an automobile lubrication facility. The proposed uses include a restaurant or a bank {Lot 1 Building A}, multi-retail {Lot 2 Building B}, professional off ces {Buildings C, and D, Lots 4 & 5} as illustrated by applicant's Site Plan 2C. The structures will total 44,375 square feet with a 20.96°lo site coverage. The variations in conceptual design represent a minor modification of the fatal square footage of the structures and lot coverage. This difference in coverage is 3.2°lo and is considered a minor modification as defined in Section 17.09.200. With the exception of the carwash all uses are permitted in the C-4 district. The carwash requires a conditional use permit. Any use proposed that is permitted conditionally will require an application for a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed carwash, accessary to the lubrication facility, will require a Conditional Use Permit as per Section 17.44.030 { 11 } of CPMC. The project site has paved road access via East PineBiddie Road and ingresslegress from the private road east and along the southern property line. The parking aisles form internal circulation travel ways. All utilities are available and sufficient to service the proposed development. Parking: The project proposes a mix of commercial uses and as such parking space requirements vary with the type of commercial use. The applicant has provided site diagrams illustrating the parking areas with the number of spaces required for each proposed use as illustrated in these comparison parking space tables. °~ Page 2 of 6 at`~Ci z ~ ~~~ T'~rble l . ~crcet l {bite 1az~ l ) uil't Fl~r~ ~~ ~_:~,~~ ~ ed L.ni ~ ~;f~, - - COFiec' >I~o~~ _ ~c rt+ Lot ? ~3 ~i @?`2 i ''. e i_:; i ~(~ Lute., "o~: __ 16 l.of ~ ;D) ~ C?fr cc `~a `~:> _ _. ~_ot ~ (t/) Otis e 42 ~,? -- - 7of~ar - ~~8 i 2~4 ~'~~t'l;iz~~~ I'zrlr~: (`~~zzcc~l'zi ~ (`iic; I'Irnt C} .3i2s= r'I~a3~ :~(: ~uiicd ;-'r,.~;n I ~~t ? fir; r. ~ rar' on I_o: „ ~ ~ T i .S I t /~ (l3i U~ ~. - 55 5 1'ot~! ;~33 X98 As I.zes cl~~zri<,~e the 17<r~i`ir~<; z~c°c)rrirer~lent ~~,ill also chtlrr;~~,c° ~rnc~ ii ~~i)1 b~~ the ~~r~~lic~rrt'Y, *~; -,j,Pr+~ ~iilty tc~ ci~rz~lrf~ ~vitl~ t)re cl'f'~-sit•ect parl~in`r r~~c)uir•z~r~~erit~s c~~~ `~zrclic,ra 1 '.(~~~.()<_zU. "l~l~e ,~rc~}~osecl 1:>~rilclirl~ localic~~r~~~ ,,1i~rl ~7~rz'l:in~ zr~e~zs that c<zr~ he ilti sltaz~ed. l ir~trre 2 il)ir~,irtztes the <z}~l?i.c~~ ~cl subc~itFiSio~l's lot s)ltr;7~'s, per ir)e ;'~'(1. C?'~l`?>(). ~tr1 t13e tll',~c,~i1~' lt>r reci)~r•ocal ~?~lr'I~1T1`', ]rl~?I'ess, et,r'ess tiPlc~ ti;i'()5S- ~3C'Ll;`i4 t'.ati.111t:'I1t!i. .'~s £1 C(?r]clfiroza fczi` this l~roier~t aril irr<zl play ~'-ppro~~zi; r'ecil7rczca) I~at•iiili4?. irl`~r,~ss'~:~z`~:ss ~zrrcl crc~ss~-access es~;r~ents ~~ ilk ~ie rec~~tir~;d. The l~r-o?ect site ~l shave beep z'e~'ieti~ecl <1r1(1 tz'~ fi~trr~cl tc:) ~rc~~-ic{c tl~e r•ec}~zirecl tofal rnzrrsb~;z" ~~i"I7arl:itrs~ s)~~zces )car` ilte uses lisiccl. Irr ~zclclitiot~, tl~e s~~aces pf~ovicled exceed ilae r~irrnl>er" rec)~zir•ccl i«t~:lceessil~lc (~:~i~:'1} h<zr"kir~~, rrreetir~<? i)~e z~~;cluirel~~er~ts cif tl~e i-rrifi~rrt~ 13Gti1%lirl<~ Ccrt);, ~~ _._ . _, _, <~; t, ~ L,~>r~~s~~t~i~~i~: T17e rtj~l7lic;~zr~t sz.rl~r~~tteci ~t ~t:il7C~fiC~1I)c', )~I~zt~ (~l~ect L, ~,(?()) Thai ineor°nor`atc~s il~e. ~7r"c~jcc:t site ~rr~d the ~~cl.j~rc:erlr I.es ~c;Ir~~~z.b sire. r"~~r 1~znclsc~r7~e zzrli):orri~it` . The i~zr~clsc;tr~e Ijl~zr~ (>r`cz~ isles a I7c;rirl~eter~ plarrtir~I~ clesi`,~r~ fc>z• i)ic )~r•oicct site ~~itlz )~l~rr7(irrr~ rc3~~ ; tern ()()j iec°1 <~r gretrter ire ~,~iclih as r•ecllrirr~tl 1:?~ '~c,ciic~~l 17.~'~.~)(i() l~}. "I'l~e clt~si~n aiscf l~rotiic)cs arr ):asi I'ir~~z 13iclcl)+~ 1' ,~ci sft•eet trc~ I~zridsc;~rlje ~`crti~~s <zI~}~r'o~~it~~ati~~y ,hirtCr~z~ (l~) a~e:t to tl~,~;~~:ty' (`0) feet i.ti lvi~.t~~ in t;s~rzi~~~ ~rz ~~ .e ~,~iil~ ~ec;tic~rl 1~'..~G.U~I?. .,r _. , I's ;~~~ 3 c~6 L3etailed landscape plan for the five ~5) lots to include individual building landscape, the parking areas and a plant key have also been submitted, applicant's sheets L.l O1 - L.112, e _~ ._mmmm__ t.,.m_ _ ~_... µl ~.. j ~` ~ s;~- ,a Figure 2 „d ..~k.t i. ~-~ ~i yOJC ;mv~~ ~~jj ~f ~ $"? x'~=~ ""~ $ 6 ~~'"r°""' ~~~ i l i C:~G*'~Ad. pgp,r. [g,y;rA{47'4 Y. p1~(3a1.R/¢¢1.1 ~1^ep&,,JpA/8 J~ ~v yyy gry~g 9.Je{/ a6, 1,aR+S~Lr~ L"lttalrh.A 11418t ~~J99 ~M..1 AJ RJ iJ i 1. The shopping facility design necessitates reciprocal cross_access and parking easements for the lots within the development. As such, these easements are a condition of approval to assure the complex adequately addresses parking and access and. must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to final plat approval, 2. The applicant states in a March 9, 2{J07 letter that the site's infrastructure, including the primary access driveways, will be developed all at once and prior to construction of any of the proposed structures. Page 4 of 6 CUND~TIC}NS 4F APPROVAL: 1. Friar to final plat approval the applicant shall have prepared, in accordance with Section 17.05,900 of the CPMC and approval by the City, a Traffic Impact Analysis {T1A} evaluating the impact of the project at build-out on the intersections of the private drive, {MeadowbraalC} and East PinelBiddle Road. The applicant shall be responsible far mitigation of all identified traffic impacts to a minimum level of service D, as conditioned by the Central Point Public Works Department (Attachment G}. 2. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall prepare and record reciprocal cross-access easements for each of the five (5}proposed lots and said easements shall be spawn an the final subdivision plat. The reciprocal cross-access easements shah be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation with the Jackson County Clerk and building permit approval. 3. Friar to final pint approval the applicant shall prepare and record reciprocal parking easements for each of the five (5} proposed lots and said parking easements shall be declared on the final subdivision plat. The reciprocal parking easements shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation with the Jackson County Clerk and building permit approval. 4. Prior to f nal plat approval the applicant shall prepare far the City's approval Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("CC&Rs} referencing the architectural and landscaping requirements as approved by the City per File No. 07038, The CC&Rs shall be recorded with the final plat. 5. Conditions as listed by Fire District 3 (Attachment H} and prior to Certificate of Occupancy issuance the following will need to be verified as completed. 5a. No Parking Fire Lane, street/lane signage plan to be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings. This can be part of the building phase safety review. Sb. Red Curb Paint plan with conditions this will be maintained and who will be responsible for the maintenance. Sc. Plans shall be submitted for review for each building site. Fire Plans examiner will review the plans and submit comments to the commercial inspector for the City. 6. Rogue Valley Sewer Services (Attachment l}, the Central Point Building Department {Attachment J} and Jackson County Roads Attachment K}. 7. The developer shall submit lighting and signage plans prior to building permit approval. Said plans shall be consistent with the provisions of CPMC Sections 15.24 and 17.44A70, Signs and lighting of premises. 8. Application far a Final Subdivision Plat consistent with the site development plan shall be submitted for review by the City. The final approved subdivision plat map shall be recorded with a mylar copy filed with the City prior to building permit approvals for any lot. 9. Site Plan Approval shall lapse and becorrie void one year following the date on which it becomes effective. Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment ``A" -Master Pian Concept Comparison Table Attachment "~" -Applicant Concept 1, Site Plan lA Attachment "C" -Applicant Concept 2, Site Plan 2C Attachment "D" -Applicant Conceptual Elevation Attachrrient "E" -Applicant Landscape Pian Attachment "F"- Applicant Submittal Narrative Attachment "G" -Public Works Staff Report Attachment "I-I" -Comments -Fire I7istriet 3 Attachment "I"- RVSS Attachment "S" -Jackson County Roads Attachment "R" -Building L7epartment Staff Report Attachment ``L"- Findings of Fact Attachment "M" - Proposed Resolution ACTIC)N. Consideration of a master Site Plan for the mixed use commercial planned shopping facility development on five (S~ lots knowvn as the North Valley Center. RECC.~MIVIENDFATIUN: Approve Resolution ,conditionally approving the Site Pian for the mixed use commercial planned shopping facility development on five (5) lots knovan as the North Valley Center submitted by Excelsior Investment Company. -~ Page 6 of ~ ~,~~~~~ i6 9~ NQRTH VALLEY CENTER ~1'IA~TER PLAN: Sig Concep>~ Coxxxpax~is+4xx La# Area Individual °lo Parkin Accessible Acres Lat Sq Ft Building Sq. Ft Coverage Re aired Pra used Re gured Provided Site Plan 1A Coffee Sha W___ .__ Lat 1 {A} Coffee Sha 0.96 41$17.6 5950 14.24°l0 70 76 Lat 2 B Retail 1.1 47916 114$$ 23.14°la 45 45 Lat 5 C Office 0.86 37461.6 12604 33.63°l0 42 42 Lot 4 ~ O€fice 1.14 4965$.4 36600 33.43°I° 55 55 Lat 3 {E} LubelOil 4.$ 34$4$ 4940 14.06°I° 16 16 Total 4.$6 211741.6 5113$ 24.16°/0 22$ 234 7 17 SI#e Plan 1 B Bank Lot 1 A Bank 0.96 41$17.6 3354 $.01°!a 11 22 Lo# 2 B Retail 1.1 47916 110$$ 23.14°l0 45 9$ Lat 5 C Office 4.$6 37461.6 12844 33.63°l0 42 42 Lot 4 D Office 1.14 4965$.4 16600 33.43°t° 55 55 Lot 3 {E} LubeJOil 4.8 34$4$ 4944 14.06°I° 16 16 Ta#al 4.$6 211741.6 4$53$ 22.93°l0 169 233 7 13 Site Plan 1C Retail Lot 1 {A} Restaurant 0.96 41$17.6 $040 19.13% 104 123 Lot 2 B Retail 1.1 47916 2$40 5.$4°l° 14 14 Lot 5 C Office 0.86 37461.6 12604 33.63°I° 42 42 LOt 4 D Office 1.14 4965$.4 16600 33.43°la 55 55 La# 3 {E} Lukrei0il fl.$ 34$4$ 4944 14.06°I° 16 16 Total 4.$6 211701.6 44944 21.21°I° 227 254 7 17 Site Plan 2A No LubeJOil ~~~ Lat '€ {A} Coffee Sha 0.96 41$17.6 5950 14.23°!° 70 97 Lot 2 {B} Retail art on Lot 3 1.1 47916 116$8 24.39°!° 65 94 Lat 3 0.8 34$4$ 3304 9.47°/0 Lot 5 C Office 4.86 37461.6 12640 33.63°I° 42 42 Lot 4 C} Office 1.14 49$5$.4 16600 33.43°/° 55 55 Ta#al 4.$6 211701.6 5413$ 23.68°I° 232 2$4 7 1$ Site Plan 2B Na C.ubeJOil -Bank Lo# 1 A Bank 0.96 41$17.6 3350 $.01°t° 11 22 Lot 2 {B} Retail art on Lot 3 1.1 47916 116$$ 24.39°t° 65 140 Lat 3 4.$ 34$48 3304 9.47°J° Lat 5 C Office 4.$6 37461.6 12604 25.37°I° 42 42 Lot 4 D Office 1.14 4965$.4 16644 33.43°l0 55 55 To#aI 4.86 211701.6 4753$ 22.46°I° 173 259 7 14 Si#e Pian 2C No LubelOil -Befall Lat 1 (A} Coffee Sha 0.98 41$17.6 $044 19.13% 100 161 Lot 2 (B} Retail art on Lat 3 1.1 47916 3875 $.49°I° 36 40 Lat 3 4.$ 34$4$ 3304 9.47°l0 Lot 5 C Office 4.$6 37461.6 12640 33.63°l° 42 42 Lot 4 D Offce _ 4.14 49658.4 16600 44.31°l0 55 55 Ta#al 4.$6 211741.6 44375 24.96°I° 233 29$ _ ~~ 7 15 .~ t ir,?` ~- ~~ f ~' `•~ .f f ~~ t!~ i i + it i ~~ }, .. ~ .~, J' -W--_ _.___- ___l_ ~ ..~... _. z~.._Y,_.. n iw. ~r. ~a ns~rwti xur in un. siE tNH ._._._ _ _. _......~ _ ,.._.__..._. . _..... ~+UOS.c un..a 1D' xx~ :a ri ~` "~A e~ `~` etaizar+~u~ _ f . _ --.- _..._-,. ~wcw c xo'r 'w. ui.v :~~y cittttxatu~ .....,y. €tu.G~e. ~. fiatYi/ Yi'CS" u,[.'~>.+,~FV MGQf(%U.QEOPNYTlA ti ---~--~~'-- -- ___...__~.: x __ ~~ _, ~. ~ T .-.C ..,. ~ ~`~ r ~,.r .w. v~.e .va, ens. w,r ~~...~., ' airowa cw~ i . .. ~ ... ...~ " .. ~ ~""_ ~ .-"'~ ,~ ~~.,` ;_. _. ~,._ FtGYiJIRCt? t+i )7.gdR't7 fA% A ~ _ 1 1 it~` _. ~=," _ R ~ V »t :: p _-_ _ n' u' F' 'Y ~. __ ,. u:.iii. ~.an:« v,>.:..-nu: tu.. t.+i y.w~E. i.. M'.P• tn. A . - PtWk:Rk> F eut - is ,rx "S ~ ~ pAit~~ \ s , ~ O ~uirvr.~~ . ,, ~ P ~ LL, c...u..r.~o~ .is_~. v, c ~ O ., E ~ d a ~ ~~~ ~ ~ Q tft ., :. ~'. X 11.1 W ~ tf} ts~ x ~ ~ -~ X Cz }'~ ~ ~ ~ t~ O ~~ {~ ~~ ~~ -~ ~~ ~~ a ~~ ~ ~...v..~_.:3=.~= _;_... JI ~~' ~.".».. 3 t i ~ I 't ~' I ~~!~ ~ ;~. I( °~ Ali I I a ~~ ..,. .~r,.~.a,r,wu:, ~.: .c-ara~ t i~ ~ ~ ~ I i ..l..f.;~t_~_~_r.~i_`x-~.y...._ }_._ ~, .~+~7~ ,.r-.4v.~, . ,:.rr:,,.:~.~.~. rr,,, ,t ~,.~ ~.,,~t ~ 4 ~.., . fS'9 r----------~; ~,..:~..~a,.,::::.:.~,-~::v~~s,.t~,.,_,t~>~x~,m~ ----. r~>r t' ~~~~ ~ - ~-r-. ~ ~-~_~_~ _ _i~L~~'Y ~t.~..~~.._~. Y ;~ ti ^: ~- ~; ..n ~~~ '. $Ma. l~CJ3?11 d» uarv :'.n 3: r„xtA~ }~4.:{'rv*:n.+f.:.r?evi( e~.,,,v~sxx>` --'.'+~. - ~ ...»,....-......~--~..........~. { J nYS30 HOttl3zUS :~' ^'y. I ~ -.~.~.. ~...-.._ . .... __._........_..,._ ........ ....... ........ ~"L'R:>3ArliaZrt nd3S'~J3 a: cc+~n ~s:+.~^.v~anv,.a>~+,wr,~ ~.ruirn ~ 3L'tL'~9.13to'dx ~ ~ ~ ;r, a2 M.xx, irn..;: ~t~'w'n+z.~ ~u} ..~nl i ( .,_... .,.~,..,, _ -.,..... _ ..,..~_..... i ~,... p ..~._. _ _...._... _ ._....~ r T Grq .. _.-.~ _ .....~.. ...~.,. _ v:v 3HN.a:ai,«av ~ r,.~a.s.:,.an,~.vk,u. ave 3013atl1~ sr~avrsasnsxrm~na ( 'y~ J _. ='-~'-~--'-~`-~-~:~.~..~.,..o:..,...,..,,...,. r-------- _~__ _~. _. ~.__. _.. ~ _! t~uau~as~rric~-.Wl.t~"arta-~: I ~ ~~ ~` -- .--__~__...._..___~.___..__...__~._._...____..__...____..,____~.~__.~_._ ~ ~ I E ~ ~ ^ ~' a i 7 ~~ I; i I. ~ ~ t ...~.__.-..,.~~.....~__......_.....~.~.~. f l `~ r.»fi 'y. f" a-i 4 z _ I_...._....__.____~_.__._.____~O~~N /ALLEY G~I~T~R 51~1~ R~VII~W I;X~EL5IQR I~V~~TMI=SIT G~JMPANY EXHIBIT ~ c~n~ ~o~x~, or~~a~ ATT _.______.__.___._.___~ ~._..._r__~___. _.._..,______.__._w_.~....~_._._ .__... --t O x f~ ~ ~., i rz "s:." : t ~5.~':~ .k.: ( ~_o ~ :: h: ~: a.:.:. } . ! f :ni<. .y . x 5 1 ~~ ~ f: ~ ~ t.~ 5~; ' ~' S .s s "~t,~~~:' ~ is ~ j ~~J ~ , i~ ~ ~ a z ~^~ ~ i~ f 1 I 35 / I z-4trxa~ %....k.r •:t.t ".iCt~7c -_ ... j F _ 1 -04~ 1 s ~,,,,. tti ~~^ -i Tk' ~ a 4 S ~ ~ (! 5 i ~ t ~; ~ 5 r~~ -. 1;---- ' I` ,,, __ y , _ Y ,;~ ___~. f , ~., ~ ~ i - % it t `. ~ '° _ S • `yv ch ~' 5-' ;~ ri <}1 ~" 4~ , c~ ~, x `~ h1~CItr1EL.T. MINDfiR µ ; ~SIJ i f fiS 5 ~+' YAMY)iCApEDY.4inx 1'hnTFA£SOxwL ~ ~ ~ FV! I ~( r t~i...... t 4/i~v3 '~ CJ s SUBIVIi"T'TAL NE1.R~2ATIVE F~ND~NG~ OF I`ACT AND C(~NCL~[.1S[OI1rS OT LAW BEFORI31 THE CITY of CENTRAL POIN T PLANNING CoM1vI~sSi(JN IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAItii APPLICATION FOR APPLICANT'S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON ~ 4.56-ACRE SITE ~.XHII3IT 1 WITHIN THE CIT"~' OF CI<~N`I"~tAL POINT, JACI~S4N COUNTY, OREGON APPLICANTI Excelsior Investment Company OWNER: APPLICATION. Request far site plan approval far the commercial develapn~ez~t of a 4.56-acre site located an il~e south side of Biddle Rand, apex-oxitnately 190 feet east of I~3atnrick Road, within a C-4 {'T'ourist and Office-I'rafessianal pistrict). A. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION The applicant proposes to develop the site with a nix of cozn~nercial uses consisting of offices and retail buildings, tagethex with either a bank ar restaurant located in the narihwest career of the site. l-s,t~ auto lubriealian business is also proposed at the east side of the development. Because of uncertainties in the commercial marketplace, the applicant has submitted site configurations, which represent six possible develapn~ent scenarios. The applicant requests that the T'lanning ~aminissian approve the series of development schemes to allow for a defined amount of flexibility in the development of the property. All applicable Cade requirements will be met with each of the proposed development schemes, with the nature of the building architecture and landscaping remaining tl~e same regardless of the final configuration. B. PROPERTY INFORMATION The subject property proposed fox development is a 4.56-acre parcel located on the south side of Biddle Raad, approximately 190 feet east of the Ilamrick Raad intersection, The parcel is identified on the Jacl~san County Assessor's Map 3'T-2 W- OIC as Tax La# S{1C?. The property is vacant, with. a slope of less than 5 percent. .ft ~, `l~e subject parcel and the parcels abttttizag to floe east, west, and south wez•c platted as part of Hanxz•iek I3usizxess Park several years ago. That subdivisions was respozasible for izxxprovernezats tlxat izacluded private streets, czzrbs and gutters, sidewalk, utilities, streetlights, together with a block wall and Ianclscapizxg along floc east/west private street. The adjacezat uses are a Super 8 Motel to floe west of tlxe subject site, with I.]SF Reddaway Truckizag's terminal to the south, separated by the private street, block wall, azxd landscaping. Across Biddle Road from the s>wzbjcct site is "Cezatral Point East", asingle-fazaxily residential subdivision. The abutting parcel to floe east is currezatly vacant, but has recently received site approval foz~ a Les Schwab "l"ire More. That facility is showza on each of the site plans A tentative plan application for floe subject property has been submitted to the City of Cezxtral Point to create 5 fats. Review of the plaza by the Plan~xizag Cozxxznissioza is scheduled for the Conazxzissioza's znceting of February G, 2007. C. APPLICATIION AND REVIJCJ~V PRQCI~DURES Section 17.72.0120 and 17.72.021 of the Central Point Muzxicipal Code specify that a site plan application conforming to the requirements of Section 17.72.030 shall be made foz• all construction requirizag a building permit. The application and tlxe review of that application shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 17.05. City staff has determined float the review shall be in accordance witlx the Type III quasi judicial procedure specified iza Section 17.05.40(). Section 17.72.030 lists submittal requirements as part of the applzeatiozx, includzng a site plan, landscape plan, azad building elevations, A review of these requirements has been izacluded under floe review section of tlxis document. D. ~.EL,EVAIrIT APPRC?VAL C1~,ITERIA Section 17.72.040 establishes standards and approval criteria for Site Plazx applications, as idezatifzed below, and are reviewed in dais report: 1172.[1411 ,5fa~zrfczrds In approving, conditionally approving, or- detzying the plans szrbtnitled, floe city shall base their- decision on the following standards: ~. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner° as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping sclaezne of the neighborhood, acad in such a manner as to use the .same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing rzeighborlaood uses. The planning coznnzission nzay require the rzzaitatairaing of exi.stiz2g trees for screening purposes and for sound and sight insulation frozrz existing neiglzborizood use; Su6n~itta] Narrative lVort]1 Val]ey Site I'Ia[l Cit}~ of Central Point -~- lanuary 26. X007 Pale 2 o f 8 .Li. 17esign, nurrzber and location of r'ngress arxcl egress paints so as to improve and to avoid rnterfer•enee sa~itli the traffic flaw orz publr`c streets; C. 7'o provide riff-street parking and loading .facilities arzd pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in srcch a nzanrzer as is compatible with the use,for• which the site is proposed to be used and capable of u.se, and in such a rrsanrzer as to improve and avoid irxterference with tlxe tra~ ffic flr~~v pn public .streets; 1~. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not car?flict tis~ith ar deter from traffic control signs or devices and that they are conzpatrlile with the design of their buildingsr or uses and will rsot interfere with or detract from the appearance ar visibility of nearby signs; F,. tleeessibility and sufficiency of free frghting facilities to suds a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety of life, lirrrb arzd properly, including, but not linsited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire larses so that all buildings on the premises ar•e accessible to fire appar°atus~,- F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regrtlatians, including Section IG.Zt1.(78(~ pertaining to the rrsaximuras nurrsber af.sirsgle family dwellings or- dss~ellirxg units allowable an cul-de-sac streets, and applicable .state lais1s; G. Corraplimxce ~alitls such architecture and design standards a.s to provide aesthetic acceptability irz relation to the neighborhood and the Cerxtral Point area arzd its environs. The architecture and design proposals may be rejected by the planning commission if found to be incorrspatible ~vitlz the existing architectrcral or design cTiaraeter-istic.s of adjacent properties or uses. In addition, the planning eornrnissiorz reserves the riglxt to establish additional lzeiglzt, setback, buffering, or other development requirements that naay be necessary to ensure land use carrspatibility and ensure the health, safety, and privacy of Central .F'oirzt residents. ~. STANDARDS AND IZEQUI.RLMENTS Sections 17.44.040 through 17.44.090 of the Central Paint Municipal C}rdinance define the standards that apply for development within tl~e C-4, T4Llrist and C}ffice- Professional District. Those requirements consist of lot di~nezlsions and coverage, setbacks, building height, screening, landscaping, signage and lighting, and off-street parking, and are reviewed below. F. APPLICANT'S SUBMITTALS Exhibit "1" Submittal narrative -Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Exhibit " 2" Site Plans Exhibit "3" Landscape and Irrigation Plans (Typical} Exhibit "4" Building Elevations {Typical} Subtnitsal Narrative Ncr~-tit Vale}r site E~1an Cit}, of Central Point " G' Jarzzzary 2fi, 2Q07 '~" ~' Pa~c 3 o f 8 ~. F~1~~>lv~s Q~ r<~~T ~~r~ co~rc~v~~e~~~ ~z~ ~.,~u~ caz~~IS~1~El~c~ ~VITI1 SI"1"~ P1:~1~N APP~.avAlV, s~~~~~~~as ala ~~~~L c-~ DISTI2.I,CT {IC"1"IaNS 17.44.020 - 17.44.090}. Tl~e following requirements apply to developz~cnt in the C-4 zoning dzstz•ict. 1. Permitted and conditional uses (17.44.020 and 17.44.030} liindizz of Fact All proposed uses are uses that are permitted in tl~e C-4 zoning d'zstriet. 2, I~eight regulations {17.44.{}40} loo building or structure may exceed ~O feet in height. Findin~f Fact Buildings within the development will not exceed 35 feet iz~ height. 3. Area, width and yard requirezxzez~zts {17.44.050} 1-~indiz~gs of Fact Although no z3e~v lots are proposed as part of this application, those elelrzents of the lets proposed in the tentative plan are also shown in Table ] . ~l'able 1 ~'Tltllttillili Standard ,Cllr ~ ~..+tTt ~ LOt ~ ~C3t ~ LQt ~ area 5000 sq. ft. 41,81$ 47,916 37,462 49,658 34,$48 Width 50 ft, 256 66 125 305 195 1~e th 100 #t. 165 280 305 190 .210 All structural setbacks for the proposed developnrez~t relative to the current property lines are met. setbacks to tlae proposed parcels will also be net at the time of Final Plat approval and at the time of issuance of building permits for the individual buildings. I~ot line adjustzxzents znay be needed to alter the parcels' boundaries slightly. Sty!? n3 i ttal 1~ arrafly e 1tiei~fli valley Sife Flan City oECenfral Poinf lanttat~y 26, 24{}7 Pale 4 of 8 4. General requirements { 17.44.060} Frozxt yards are required to be landscaped azxd ccantizxuously maizxtained. ~~ indizx~ of Fact No open outdoor stcarage is proposed. Trash cozxtaizxers will be screened with gated enclosures, as depicted on tlxe site plan. As slxowrz oza the lazxdscape plan, wlxiclx is typical for azxy of the possible anal site developzxxent sclxemes, all of the fiont yards axe landscaped with. lawn, trees, and shrubs, In thane izxstazxees where ofd=street parking is located izx tlxc front yard axes, a landscaped strip alazxg tlxe T3iddle Road right-of way adjacent tea the subject property line yields a nxinizxxum 10-foot width. of landscaping that vain be installed and maizxtaizxed by tl~e property owners and assured by recorded owzxers' docuznezxts. 5. Signs and lighting cif premises (17.~4.Q'7Q) Sigzxs for the develolaznezxt lxavc not been. izxclz.zded izx the proposed plans, taut will be subzxxitted to tlxe City for approval before they are installed. All signage will meet the standards of tlxis sectiozx. lj indizx~;s of Fact 6. Off street parkitxg (17.44.080} Findings of Fact The parking requirezxxents for each of the development schezxxes, together with tlxe zxuzxxber of spaces prcavided, are shown on each of the site plans. The site plans izxclude a panting table showing that the parking requirements have been zxxet under each. of floe design sclxemes, izzcludzng the required AT_)A Accessible panting spaces. 7. Antezxna standards { 17.44.090} Fizxdin~s ofltact There are zxo antennas proposed with. the devel~pzxxezxt. submittal l~ arrati<<e Nc~rtli Vatley Site Plan `"' Cit}~ of Ce~itral Point .~. Januar~~ 26, 2fl(~7 F'a~e 5 of fi Coz~clusicrz~ czf Law As sl~owz~ tzn the subzxzitted plans and as discussed in the above findings, tlxe application is consistent with tine site plan aplaroval standards of the C-4 district as defizzed in Sections 17.4-,020 - I ~.44.O~t}. CC}NS~STENC~' WITI-~ Tl"IE ~FN~RAL SITI I'LAI~ AI'I'I2.C}VAL S'l'AND1aRDS 4F SI~,CT~Q~S 1'7.'2.040 1 ~ 72, [14(1 Sttcnrlartts In a~~rovin~; ennditionally a~l~r-oving, crr~ denying the 1~lcxns sul~n~ittecl, the city shall Lase tl2eir decision an the_fallawing standards: ~. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on floe site in .such a manner as to cause the carne to riot su6,stantialty interfere with the landsca~,ring scheme of the neighbor~l2ood, and fn such a trranner as to tr,se t7~e carne to screen sxclz aetivitie,r and sights as ntiglit be heterogeneous to existing neiglthorhoad uses. Elie i~larrning commission may require the maintaining of existing trees far screening pur~ases arzd for sound and sight insulatian~-orn existing neigTabar~Tiaod use; Findings of Fact The Frontage landseapizzg along Biddle Raad will be cozzsistent wit% Frontage landscaping that lzas been installed along the froz~ztage czf Super $ Motel to the west, and will be the sane landscape pattern on the parcels to the east. The proposed landscaping, particularly the franta~;e trees, will provide a buffering mitigation from neiglzbaring properties, particularly these residential neighbors to the naz•th. No fencing or ~cnralls are proposed, atlzer tkzan the trash enclosures. .B. Design, nunrher and location of ingress arzd egress points so as to inal~r-ove and to avoid interference i#lith the traffic flaw an~ublie streets; Fizadings off' Fact The access into the development will 6e taken primarily tram the private street along the south. l~aundary of the site, arzd tlu•augh the Les Sclzwal~ site. Access From diddle liaad will be limited to right turn entrance only. During review aF the cazxzpazxion subdivision application, the City staff and Plazxrzing Coznzxzissian agreed to the proposed design. Srabtrtittal t~tarrative ~, „~ Rit~rti3 Voile}~ Site i'lan ~ ~ City e~f Central Paint January 26, 2007 T'age G o f $ C. 7'o pt•ovide off=,strfeet parking arxd loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flo~~~ facilities in such a rtxanner as is compatible ~=ith tlxe ttse for ~wl~ich the site i.s proposed to be used and capable ref rrse, and in sxrch a rnarxrxcr• ex,c to iraxpr•ove and avoid interfer°ence t~uith the tra~efloiv orx public .sheets; Findzzxgs ofl~act The ol'1=street parking azxd loading ~aeilities will zxxcct tlxe standards ol` tlxe code as discussed above, The project has beezx designed to provide for pedes#z-tan az~.d ve~Zicular flaw #hat will zxot interfcre with the traffic flow on 13icldle Road. .D. Signs and other- outdoor advertising str•aretures to ensure tlxat tlxey do not conflict tt1ith or• deter fi~orrx traffic control sigtxs or devices and tlxat they are compatible tt~it]x the design of their buildings or uses and will not interfere ti~~ith or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; Findzn,~;s t~f Fact .t-1.11 signage wiii conforrzx to City s#aixd~z~ds aixd will zxc~# in#ez•~ere with traf~zc control signs and will 6e coznpatiblc ~~~itlx the design ol` the buildings within the development. T`. ~#ccessibilily and sufficiency of fire figlxting facilities to such a standard as to provide for tlxe reasarxable safety of life, limb and property, itxeludirxg, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and ftr•e latxes so that all buildings on tlxe premises are accessible to fire apparatus; Fizxdings of Fac# The site has been designed to provide for emergezxcy vehicle cireula#iozx tlxz-czughout the developzxxen#. Fire lxydrants will be installed at locations detennizxed by 3aekson County Fire District #3. F. Compliance Stith all city ordirxances and r~egulatiorxs, including Section ~G,2f1.t180 pertainirxg to the rnaxirrzum number of single family dutellings or° dwelling units allourable on cul-de-sac streets, and applicable state lai~~s; Findzn~s of Fact A.s shown above, the development cozxxplzes with. all applicable City stazxdards and ordinaz~zces. ~s the developzzxent does not include an}T residential development, ~ectiozx 16.20.080 does not apply. Submittal Narrative Tllart}~ Valle}~ Site Pfau .~ ';"~ City of Central Point ~. ti.J January 2G, 2007 Page 7 o f 8 G, Corn~lianee ~uitlz such architecture and design standards ar to pra~zide aesthetic acceptalaility in relation to the rzeigTzbarhaad arzd the Central Pf~inl area and its er2viratzs. The architecture and design pr`apasals Wray lre rejected bbl the planning carrzrrzi,s,sion if found to be incarn~aatible with the existing architectural ar design character•i.sties of adjacent ~ropertie.s ar uses. Irz additican, the planning earnrrzi.s.siatz reserves the right to establish additi"anal height, setback, buffering, ar• other develaprnent r•eguirements that Wray be necessary to ensure land use corr1ltatiltility and ensure the health, safety, and ~~rivaey of Central Paint residents. Findiz~s off` Fact The architectural design of the development n'teets all requirements of the City. The architecture of the con-tmercial buildil~gs is designed to be conzl~atible with the in~znediate neighborhood, and the Central Point area, Conclusion of Law As shown on the sub~x~itted Plays and discussed iza the above findings, the application is consistent with tl~e General bite Plan Approval Standards of section l'ir.72.~40. x. vLT~IV~~Tr, col~lc~,c~s~ol~l Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusiozls of Law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application foI- site plan approval of six development scenarios is consistent with the relevant decisional critez-ia of Central Point's Municipal Code. Respectively Submitted, Maize & ssociates, inc. zn~ aize agent for applicant, Excelsior ~twestn~ent Company Scihst~ittal Narrative f; iVortl~ Val9ey Site I']ai~ City of Cen€raI Point 3anuary 26, 2t}o~7 Pale 8 of 8 CATALOG NO. TYPE NC7. JQB NAME JCL Series tedium Gufoff roadway Lumir~aire {Type 111 Dis~ributior~} tIRDERING INFORMAT[ON Catalog ~t~trtbet': Pxampie: MGL34CIOMATLRIPC°8 MCA 3 FEXTtFRE WATTAGE MCL- 150-150W Mediu€n pISTR18ffTION 175-175W Cutaft RoadUray 3-Type 111 250-250W Luminaire 320-320W 354-350W 440-4QflW AGC~ssoRC~s MCLVS-MCL Vandal Shield {LeXan). MCLGS-MCL Glare Shield. MCL652-Replacement Lens Kit. EwAN1P SOURCE MA-iVtetal Nalicfe t.X-High PresSEare Sodiut>~ PMA•5uper canstant,~rattage auto regulated puls8 slarl iv#etai Halir;e MOUNTING ACGESSOFiIES MC1.TA25R-two aQ 9{}a MCL.TA35R-three ~ 120° MGLRPA4-MCL 4" Round Pole Adapter MCLTA't OR-MCL Tenon Adapter {2 318 ©D} drilled far one MCLTA20R-MCL. Tenon Adapter {2 318 OD} drilled for two Ca? 180° MCL.TA30R»MCL Tenon Adapter {2 S/8 OD} drilled far three MCL.TA40R-MCL Tenon Adapter {2 318 flD} drilled for four MCLTA25S-two G 90° MGL.1'A1 OS-MCL Tenon Adapter {2 3/8 QD} drilled far one Sfl MCLTA20S-MCL Tenon Adapter (2 3/8 OD} drilled for two G~ 180° SQ MCLTA308-MCL Tenon Adapter (2 318 OD) drilled for tht~ee SQ MCL'TA4QS-MCL. Tenon Adapter {2 3J8 OD3 drilled for four SQ MC'i 0-MCL 5" SQ Wai1 Mounting Plate 206WBR-MCL 6" SQ Thru Wire Box MCL11A-MCL 11"Arm MCLARMTLRSC-MCL 6" area with Twist Lock F'hotacontroi and Shorting Cap MGI.HSS-1-souse Side Shie3c( See page 3-A for mounting accessories OPTIONS A-Adjustable 8rrra 15° naax. VOLTAGE F-Single fusing 1.120V 120V, 2~7V FFS-C}oubie fusing 2-208V 208V. 244V. 3-240V 4$OV 4.277V TLRlPC•Tlraist lack 5-48flV plaottscontr©I &120V PC8•Button type 20&V ptaotoeontrol 24pV (not available 277V with "A" optifln) PRODUCT ~P~CIFICATIONS + Mt;i_ Cutoff Luminaire is ideal for any outdoor appl`€cation where tight light control is need£'d to prevent glare and light trespass. Per€ect far roadways and parking lots. • One piece die-cast aluminum housing is finished in Duraplex ii bronze polyester. • Lens frame assembly is fully gasketed with silicone to prevent dust and bug entry. * Heat and shock resistant tempered glass lens. • Qne piece hydro€onned reflector. • Tooi-less entry for relemping. Lens frame opens by releasing a stainless steel latch. • All internal electrical eon~ponents are installed an a ballast tray that swings down for easy access and replacei'nent. • 6" d'€e-cast aiu~rainum arm, factory installed, with integral wiring compartment. Side access cover al(avvs wiring connections to foe made ~n arm. * Key slot design allows fear single person hook and placement of fixture leaving hands free for wiring. T~CHNICA~, INFORMATIQN High Pressure Sodium Meta( HaEide 150VV ED-23 1751N ED-28 250W ED-18 250W ED-28 400VV ED-18 400W ED-37 ~~~~~r~ y.......~.,.~, ;7"rG~ I~~,19 I~gil 'I P. I p ~~ *oraFrr~,s 2 3(d` arts' 518. "'~`.., t.~ ~+^. 7rt5.~ ,r~~ ---- -~ 2- ;:t --r ~`- ~- P s° ~ t/2° f s- ---- ~_. ~__. -.~ 6 t12" "t»--- 19" -----~-.i il~-......-:::.-~ -3 i ;', i ~~ ;, 3". ':l i~ 343+4' I, UL ~~. Y'tiB2 1.OC3t30n ~.lS~eCf. ~ OE File t~tJ(?lt?Er. r £i5fl2i 71flr ~'~ Shawn With adjustable aura option . crmx cen.Y 2345 Vauxhall Rd. • t~nlon. t~yJ Ei7flF33 •908-98-+-i480 ~ounti~ng Accessories 3~-A Far MGL. Series pup to 40C3W} Shaebax Fixtures zasw~R MC10 ple-CaS# aluminuCn adapter mounting plate WEth hF'CSr1Ze paWder #ir~ish. Fixture arm r»aun#s to MC10 and can be ,~~ :.;.} ~ _•' surface mounted via ~ lag bolts. F ~ ~,f,. ~ ~ ,~ pie-cast aluminum J-Box for MG1C3. 1-ias tour 3I~+" threaded _. __ ,~..~; hales. Finished in bronze powder. MC1 p MGIr Template 7/16" ->O ~,~ St8" ~- 1" 7116" MCL.TAIQR and MC~TAit}S MCLTA'tOR Sand-cast aluminum Tenon adapters. Allows 1 #0 4 fixtures ,,,,,,~,,, #o be mounted to a square or round pole with a 2 3t8" tenon. r ~ Number Round Square t?'. `; ., of Fixtures Pole Adapters Pate Adapters 1 MCtTAi(lR` MGI~TA14~ j ~=,. 2 MGI~TA2{}R' NIGLTA2DG ~~. 3 IViGLTA3C]R" ~t1GGTA30S ~,,~~ 4 IUiGtTA44R" INGCTA40S MCLTAI~S 'iequires one MCLr~PA4 round pose adapter per fixture. Far ~C~ Series ~1 Q4C-W} Shaebax Fixtures ~';e ;,~ > • RL~00 r. ~x7j~k ~ • 1 ~~,Y 4 r -- ~~ ~ '~r ~ w.r~'~2 s ~ c i RM2CA 77fla ~+-...~. 39112" I _~ d^ 5 2'i2" I.U. ~ .1 ~ ~ 3'Tz. 1 F!« I # 1 ~ 4" ,.~.. -..f 3- ~.- per ~s ~y f } [il ~r~rLr~rl~/L~L~i ~~i~ .~.~., 2345 Ua~xtsa33 Rd. ~ U~=.on. i~.I 0?flS3 * 908~96L~7C7;7fl QUANTITY ~. SHAFTS ARE ONE SECTION DESIGN FABRIGATED FROM A WELDABLE GRADE GARBON CATALOG NO. STEEL STRUCTURAL TUPING W[TH A UNIFORM WALL THICKNESS. MATERIAL SHALL POLE POLE HEIGHT 25' CONFORM TO ASTM A-5Q0 GRADE B WITH A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 46,Q00 P.S.I, TOP DIA. _4" 2. BASE PLATES ARE CONSTRUCTED OF A STRUCTURAL QUALITY HOT ROLLED CARBON B~}TTOM DIA. 4" STE1=L PLATE W]TH A GUARANTEED MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 36,QOC} P.S.I. - GAGE 11 GA 3. ANCHOR BOLTS ARE "L" BENT BARS HAVING A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 55,aC}0 P.S. - MOUNTING HT. 25` FURNISHED COMPLETE WITH NUTS AND WASHERS.. 4. POLES ARE POLYESTER POWDERCOATED BRONZE. 2~4" ARM LENGTH N/A 2 318" X 4" LONG TENON EMBEDDED DEPTH NA ~, OR DRILLED TO MATCH FIXTURE BASE "S" 10" AS REQUIRED. PLATE BOLT CIRCLE 9 - ~0° BOLE HOLE DIA. ~ +~ ~~ ~ 2,. ~- ~" ~ PLATE THK "T" .7~ .~ " ~. ~ 1 ANCHOR BOLT ANCHOR DIA. .75" _~ ' Q ' ~ ~~~ BOLTS LENGTH 28" E 1 `r' ,_,~~ ~',. ,~,,.-~.. *INCLUDES FULL BASE COVER ~; e...< MOUNT1Nt~ HGT EXTRUDED HAND HOLE HANDHOLE 14" _._. _._ ._._._ GROUND LINE _"~ . .., EMBEDDED BASE PLATE WELD BYTE PQLES Ii~iCE7RPQRATED 2" WIRE ACCESS ~.o. eax 340 HOLE ~ C~ EASTPC)1NTE, M1 A8Q2i -~ 4`~ 8CA€.E: NONE APPROVED SY: DRAWN BY: RGW ~•rt--- R -}'~ DATE: tviAY l1, 2403 REVISED: _____~- ~ PROJECT: JOB NO, DRAWENG NEJMBER BASE PLATT= SSS-42~-11 Public W©rks C~epartment P~IB~IC TrYD.~KSSTAFF.I~~'PC~.I~T March 27, 2047 AGENDA ITEM. Bab Pierce, Clirector Matt Samifore, Dev. Services Coord. Five Lot Commercial Site Plan for 37-2W-01C, Tax Lots 802 Applicant: Robert Excelsior Investment Co., 6'75 N. 5t~' 97530 Zoning: C-4, Tourist and dffice Professional Zoning Traffic: The City of Central Point is cun~ently in the process of updating its Transportation System Plan {TSP}. As a part of this effort the City has received preliminary analysis identifying the current level of service for most of the City's major intersections. The analysis was completed by .TRH Engineering. What the updated analysis has concluded is that currently the intersection of the Meadowbrook/E. Pine Street is currently operating at a level of service E, Level of Service {LC~S) is a way of measuring how long a wait someone will have to occur at an intersection. Level A thrcz D is considered adequate, LC}S of E or P is not acceptable. Because the analysis is preliminary azad does not address mitigation alternatives, it is the Public Works Department's recommendation that prior to approval of the final plat the applicant shall complete a Traffic Impact Analysis {TlA) in accordance with Section 1'1.05.900 of the CPMC, and that the applicant comply with all recommended mitigation measures as stated in the approved TIA prior to approval of the final plat. Required improvements to the City's Arterial and collector street system will be SDC eligible anal the developer will receive full credit for any required improvements. These issues are sum~~arized as conditions of approval for this application. Existing Infrastructure: All City utilities exist in front afor adjacent to the proposed development. Engineering and Developzner~t Plans and Permits: The Central Paint Public Works Department is charged with management of the City's infrastructure, including; streets, waterworks, and stone water drainage facilities. In general, the Department's "Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Warks Construction" shall govern haw public facilities are to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to attain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Warks Department In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and profile for streets, water, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, storm drainage calculations, storm. drainage basin map, erosion control plan, utility and. outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a ~4C1 South Third Street ~s Central Poin#, ~?R 97fi(?2 •547.fi64.332~ ~ Fax 541.664.6384 traffic control plan. A Public Narks Permit will only be issued after the Department Director approves the final construction drawings. After approval, the fees associated with the development will be calculated and attached to the public works permit. All fees are required to be paid in full at the time the Public Works Permit is issued. Conditions of Approval. 1. Traffic Impact Analysis -Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall have prepared, in accordance with Section 17.05.90(} of the CP1vIC and approval by the City, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA} evaluating the impact of the project at build-out on the intersections of the private drive, (Meadowbrook} and East PinelBiddle Road. The applicant shall be responsible for mitigation of all identified traffic impacts to a minimum level of service D. ~4t? S©uth Third Strut -Central P©int, ~?R 975t~2 •54~.864.332~ Fax 54'1.&64.6384 ~-, , ~~ ~~ ~ From: Mark Moran Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:59 PM To: `Connie Clone` Subject: North Valley Center comments Connie, As we discussed this morning. I think overall the design option will work with a few conditions. These sand'itions will decrease complaints slang the projects development and after completion. • Prior to Certificate of C}ccupancy issuance the following wilt need to be verified as completed. ~ . An approved safety plan for each Phase of Development is required. The Builder, Public Works, Building Department and Fire Dept will approve the plan prior to construction of each phase. We will review construction site safety, access, worker parking areas. 2. No Parking Fire E,ane, streetllane signage plan to be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings, This can be part of the building phase safety review. 3. Red Curb Paint plan with conditions this will be maintained and who will be responsible for the maintenance. 4. Plans shall be submitted for review far each building site. Fire Plans examiner will review the plans and submit comments to the commercial inspector for the City. L.et me know if 1 left anything out. Thank You, tlfat~k t~lc~~•t~t: Deputy Fire Marshal Jackson County Fire District #~ 8333 Agate Road White City, 4~r 87503 {541 } 826-7'100 {641 } 826-4666 fax markmo(a7_,jcfd3.com ~~ ._-- ~~~ ~~~ °~ `Y ~~ RQ~E VA~~EY SEWER ~E1~VI~ES __ ~ Locafion: l38 ~,i'est ViEas Road, C'entrai Point, C7R - mailing Aclclress: !}.C7. I3ox 313Q, Ca7fraf Pai~~t, {7R 7502-OgpS _ `Ccl. {541 } fi64~ti304, I~ax (541 ~ 6b4 717 ] t~M1Uw.RVSS.us March 23, 2007 Connie Clune FAX b64-b384 City of Central Point Planning Qepartment 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: North Valley Center Subdivision, Fite #07C?38 {ref file #©7Q30) Dear Connie, The sewer main for which serves the subject property has been constructed but has not been accepted for use by Rogue Valley Sewer Services. No sewer connection is allowed anti! the main line has been accepted. The sewer main will be accepted upon submittal to RVS of as-built drawings and certification of the cost of construction by the project developer. Upon acceptance of this sewer main, service to Dots 4 and 5 will be available. Sewer service to Lots 1-3 will require additional main line construction either from the above-mentioned main line or from the existing main at the intersection of Biddle Road and Meadowbroolc C)rive. The property is within the NPDES Phase 2 Stormwater C~,uality management area and must comply with relevant stormwater quality guidelines. The applicant must submit a stormwater plan demonstrating compliance with these guidelines. Fee! free to call me if you have any questions regarding this project. Sincerely, Carl Tap~p~ert, P.E. District Engineer K..IDATAIAGENCIESICENTPT~PLA~iNG1SUBDIVISI4I~~200"1~0~038 NORTH VALLEY CENTER.DC>C ~-~ lt~arch 23, 2407 Attention. Connie Chine City of Gents] Point Planning X40 SQUth Third Street Cer~tra] Point, OR 97502 RE; Si#e plan review cuff Biddle Road - a county-mair~ta.ined road. Planning File. 4748; North Valley Center Site Flan. bear Connie; T]~ank you far the opport7unity to comment on this application for North Valley Center Site Plan review far commercial development. The develapm+ent site car~sists of five lots south of Past PinelBiddle Road. Roads has the Fallowing comments: ~. The applicant shall submit construe#ian drawings to Jackson County Roads and obtain county permits if regl.~ired, 2. The applicar~f shall obFain a road approach permit from Roads fi4r any new or improved road approaches to Biddle Road. Vt~e recommend na direct driveway approaches to Biddle Road, 3. Please Hate that Biddle Road is a coon#y arterial raa~l and has a variable rigl~t~-of~way with are Average Daily Traffic count of 14,504 as of August 2005, threes-hundredw yards easy of Hamrick Read. 4. Jaoksan County Roads cartcur with the right in c~n[y access oFf Bidc]le Read. Sincerely, l~.r~c Niemeyer, PP Traffiic & Develapmer~t i~rgineer ~;_.=~s :~ 1:1ErrgineeringlDewelap menY~~l?I ~S1CN?C~I..F'?L07g3&.wpd City ©f Central Point, Qregon iA{} So.T€~ird St.,~entra€ Pc~ictt,or 475[}2 541.664.3321 Fax 541.&64.63f34 wvvw.ci.centra €-pc~int.ar. us CENTRAL POINT Building Department t_ois De$enedetti, Buildinr~ Qf~cial 13UI1.,D1NG DEPARTMENT S`I~AFF RE.I'aRT DATE: 03/20107 TO: Planning Department Planning ale: 07038 FR.C~M: Building Department SLiBJECT: North Valley Center Excelsior Inv. f~75 North ~tt~ Street Jackson~rille, ~Jr. ~}7~30 Property Description: 37 2W Ol C TL-802 PL~~P'()SE; The staff report is to provide information to the Planting Commission and the Applicant regarding City Building Department requirements and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed project. This is rt©t a plan review. "This report is preliminary and compiled solely for use by the Central :point Planning C©mrr~ission. 1 -. City caf Central 1'c~inz, C~regorl t4fl Sa.Thirc! St., Centra€ Paint, Or 97542 541.664.3321 Fax 541.554.6384 www.ci.centrai-paini.ar.Us ''w ~- i:,. ~" ~~ ~~~~~~. P~1~'tiT Building Department E~ais t~eE3es~eclctti,f3uilt~in~©#ficial BUILDING DEPARTMENT C(3MMENTS: l . Applicant, agent and contractors must comply with all current State of Oregon adopted codes, and apply for all permits through the Cez~tra[ Point Building Department. 2. if a private storm drain system is proposed it must be reviewed anal a permit issued by the Central Point Plumbing Department. 3. Any private street lighting must be reviewed and permitted by the Central Point .Electrical Department. 4. Provide the building department with a C-eoteclznical report as required by ~7SSC Appendix .~ and chapter 18 of the C)S SC. A written report of the investigation shall include, but need not be limited to, the following information: a. A plot plan showing the location of all test borings andlor excavations. b. Descriptions and classifications ofthe materials encountered. c. Elevations of the water table, if encountered. d. 1Zecoznmendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and sail strength, and the effects of adjacent loads. e. ~tThen expansive soils are present, special provisions shall be provided izz the foundation design and construction to safeguard against damage due to expansiveness. Said design shall be based on geotechnical recommendations. 5. Crz-adinglexcavation permits are required iz'! accordance with. OSSC Appendix J and chapter 18 and regarding any fill material placed on the site. Fills to be used to support the foundation of any building or structure shall be placed iz~ accordance with accepted engineering practices. All private stoz-m draizz worl~ must be permitted and inspected by City Building Dept (prior to backfill). A soil investigation report, and a report of satisfactory placement of fill {including special inspections of placement of fill az~d compaction) acceptable to the Building C}fficial, shall be submitted prior to final of the gradinglexcavation permit. Building permits will not be issued until gradinglexcavation permit is finaled. Exception: l . The upper l.S foot of fill placed outside of public rights-of=way. 2. The uppez• l .~ foot of fill that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parl~ing areas. 2 6, r, ~; ~. City of CentP~a! Paint, ~rcgon ~~ Building Department 74(3 So.Third SC., Central Poir}t,C}r 975112 ~~j'~'~'T~ '''l~'"`1~ GNPs ~7eE3~ar7~detti, Building {3f~ici~1 541.664.3321 Fax 541.6b4.6384 ~' tia.~`~~ f rvw~+.ci.cen[raf-point.ar.us ~. To move or demalzsh any existing; structures located an the property, call the Building Department for permit requirements. '~. Notify the City .Building Department of any existing wells, or septic systems located an the property. 8. Any development zany man-made change} to improved or unimproved real estate located within the flood hazard area of the City of Central Paint shall require a Development Permit as set forth. in the Central faint Municipal Code 8.24.120. 9. Dust control, and track out elimination procedures must be implemented. A comprehensive erasion control plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Department prior to start of wank. 10. Application far building permits will require four sets of complete plans indicating compliance with 4reg;on Structural Specialty Cade (2007},The International Fire Cade {with tl~e State of ~3regan Amendments-2007}, I~FPA 13, (aregan Mech. Spec. Cade X2007}, ~CJniform Plumbing Code with C}regon Blue Pagcs-amendments}. Plan check may take from 3 to 8 weeks, depending on completeness when submitted.......if requested? plan check may be initiated simultaneously with Planning Dept. evaluation (Plan Check Fee must be paid prior to sta~~t of plan check}. 11. Fire District 3 will determine fire hydrant locations, as well as access to buildings. 12. Property lines must be established and pinned by Lic. C3regon Surveyor prior to any building inspections. 13. 1~Io wank is to start until C~radiz~g and Brasion Control Plans are approved and permit issued. Any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by tl~e Applicant, ar Applicant's contractor to the Building Department for approval prior to start of work. If questions, please call Todd Meador.......5b4-3321. ext.228 Attachment "Z" FINDINGS flF FACT AND CQNCLUSIflNS flF LAW File No: 07038 IIti1TRQI7~UCTIQN Iz~ the Matter of a Site Plan review of a cozxzznercial master plan for the developzrzent of off"zce, restaurant or bank and retail buildings to be located oz~ five eozxzzxzercial lots known as North Valley Cezater. The subject property is located izz the C-4, Tourist and CJff`zee Professional zoning district and consists of approxizrzately 4.87 acres. The subject property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's znap as 37S 2W O1 C, Tax Lot 802. The proposed project area is located ozz East Pine Street {Biddle Road} east of Haznriclc Road. Applicant: Excelsior Izlvestz~zent Cozxzpany; Agent: Jizrz Maize. CPMC 1744.010 Purpose: The ~ 4 district is intended to provide for the development of concentrated tourist commercial and entertainmentfaeilities to serve both local residents and floe traveling public, and also for the development o, f co»2patible major professional o, face facilities. ~ 4 development should occur at locations tJiat will fyzaxintize ease of access and visibility from the ,Interstate 5 freeway and major arterial streets and to be convenient to the users of Expo Park, floe airpof°t, and downtouln. CPMC 17.44.020- Per~rrr'tted ~Tses - ~. Professional and~nancial, including: I. Banks and similar financial institutions, 2. Accounting and bookkeeping offices, 3. Real estate offices, 4. 1"nsurance company offices, S. Legal services, ~i, Architecture and engineering services, 7. Professional photo or art studios, 8. Counseling services, 9. Corporate or governmental offices; (`B~. L'ourist and entertainment-related facilities, inclardir2g: Automobile service station (3~, Sit-down restaurant or dinner house (.l ~), Cotaimunity slxopping centers (~5}.zt~lzich may include any t~f tJze permitted uses in this sectirzn rind tnay also include tl2e folloziring uses: a. Supermarkets, b, Department stores, c. Sporting goods, d. Books and stationery, e. Gifts, notions and variety, f 1~lC7YLSt, g. Leather goods and luggage, ~~, Q.F ..~._ Page 2 of J.4 lz. ~'et sales and related supplies, i. Pliotogr°apliic supplies, j. health food, k. Self-ser~~ice laundfy> 1. ~#ntique shop, m. ,~7elicatessen, n. Pastry and confectionery, o. General apparel, p. Shoes and hoots, q. .Specialty apparel, r. Jewelry, s. Clocl~s and ujatches, sales and sertitice, t. Bakery, retail only, u. Bicycle shop, 1~. audio, ~Jideo, electronics sales and ser~sice, w. .Pt°inting, lithography azzd publishing, Finding. As Hated in the Staff Repoz~# dated April 3, 2007, this project site is within the C-4, Tourist and C}f~ce-Professional zone district. The Applicant's narrative and accompanying site plan list the prapased uses to be located in the complex as a restaurant, bank, two {2} office buildings, an automobile ail change and car wash facility, and retail commercial shops. Finding; A car wash is a conditional use as per Section 17.44 030 {11}. Finding: CPMC Section 17.08.010 Definitions, defines Automobile service station as "a building or lot having pumps and storage tanks where fuels, ails, or rental ofnew ar used motor vehicles are dispensed, sold ar offered far sale, and where repair service is secondary" Finding: CPMC Section 17.08.010 Definitions, dunes Professional office as, "offices which deal primarily with professional services and in which goods, wares and general merchandise are not commercially created, sold or exchanged. Such offices commonly include medical, engineering, architecture, law, accounting, bookkeeping, and brokerage offices." Conclusion: The car wash in conjunction with the automobile ail change facility will require a conditional use. The other proposed listed uses are permitted in the C-4 zone district. CPMC 1"7.44.Q40 Height regulations - No building or structure shall exceed sixty feet in height in the C-4 district. Finding: Applicant's Submittal Narrative, page 4, and Site Review provide the conceptual building elevation {Sheet 1 of 1}. The proposed buildings within the development are designed to be 3~ feet or less in height. ~.3,_~ r~,~ l~agf? ~ Of ~~ Conclusion: The proposed buildings in the devctopment aneet the height requirement. CPMC X 7 44x5(? (A}. Znt t4rea, Lc~t area shall be a ~trifiirnutta of free thr~usanrl sriuat•e feet Finding: Each of the proposed tots within the North Valley Center Subdivision exceeds the five thousand square feet tot area required as evidenced by the approved tentative subdivision, City File 037030. Conclusion: The lot area of each lot within the subdivision exceeds the minimum tot area required. CPMC 17,44,050{8} Lnt width. The minimi~tn lcrt ~sfidth shall be~ifty (5f~~ feet. Finding: Each of the, proposed Tots within the North Valley Center Subdivision exceed the fifty {50} feet tot width required as evidenced by the approved tentative subdivision, City Fite 07030. Conclusion: Each lot within the subdivision exceeds the minimum lot width required. CPMC 17.44.050 {C} Lot depth The minimum lot depth shall he e~t2e hundred feet. Finding: Each of the proposed lots within the North Valley Center Subdivision meet or exceed the one hundred {100} feet lot depth required as evidenced by the approved tentative subdivision, City Fite 0)7030. Conclusion: The lot depth of each proposed lot meets or exceeds the minimum tot depth requirement. CPMC 17.44.050 {D} Fr©nt yard. Thy front yard shall be a minimum of ten feet Finding: The six site plan scenarios illustrate the building location on each lot and provide for a front setback often {t0} feet or greater. The landscape plan {sheet L.100} illustrates a perimeter site plant-scope of at least ten {10} feet in width. Sheets L 101 through L 1 l2 provide front yard landscaping with lawn, trees and shrubs for each proposed building. The landscape plans {Applicant Exhibit Sheets L101 through Ll l2} describe the plant varieties and specific planting location. Finding: The landscape plan provides a perimeter planting design for the project site with planting rows ten {10} feet or greater in width as required by Section 1'7.44.060 {D}. Finding: East fine Street / Biddle Road is classified as an arterial road and as C~' - 3 ~:s = ~~ Page 3 of 14 such the street tree provisions of CPMC Section 12.~6.1(JO apply to this application. The landscape plan does provide a sufficient number afstreet trees within the East Pinel Biddle landscape strip. Finding: The designed street landscape raw along E. Dine/Biddle l~aad is approximately thirteen {13) feet to twenty {2~} feet in width. Detailed landscape plan far the five {5} Tats to include individual buildzng landscape, -the parking areas and a plant key have also been submitted, applicant's sheets L.101 - L.112. Conctasion: The proposed buildings exceed the front setback and minimum landscape area required in the C-4 zone district. Street trees have been added to rrkeet street tz•ee requirements of Section 12.36.1fl0. CPMC 17.44.050 {E) Sirle Yarrl. The side yard shall be a nairxitnzrm office feet plzzs cane- half foot for each foot by which the bzzilding height exceeds twenty feet. Finding; The conceptual building elevation, applicant. exhibit, Site Review Sheet 1 of 1, illustrate buildings are designed to be 35 feet or less in height. For a building within the development that exceeds twenty {20) feet in height an additional side yard setback is required. Finding: Specific building heights have not been included with this application, however the individual lot sizes provide ample area for the siting of each building to conform to the setback requirement. Finding: The side yard setback standard will be reviewed for conformity during the building permit process. Conclusion: The side yard setback requirements can be meet. CPMC 17.40.50 {F} Rear Yard, The tear yard shall lac a minirnzzrn of ten feet. .ln eases where the teat property line abuts any residential (R) district or any unincorporated lands, the teat yard shall be increased lay one-ha f f©ot for each foot lay which the structure or building height exceeds twenty feet. Finding: Specific building rear yard setbacks have not been included with this application, however the individual lot sizes provide ample area for the siting of each building to conform to the setback requirement. Finding: The subject site abuts commercial zoned lands. Finding: The rear yard setback standard will be reviewed for conformity during the building permit process, Conclusion: The rear yard setback requirement can be met. ~~y ,: w Page 4 of 14 CPMC 1'7.44.05(} (G} Lt~t cnuerrxge. No Iot co~~er-age requirements, provided the setback and parking and loading requirements ar-e met. Finding: The applicant's narrative states that all applicable setbacks, paa•king and loading requirements will be met by each proposed building {Submittal Narrative page 4}. Conclusion: The proposal complies. CPMC X 7 44.116p Genet'at rec7uiretnents ~'A}. A. uses that are n©rmally permitted in the C'-4 district but that are referred to the plarzrxing commission for further review, per Section 17. X14. f13f1~A~(19}, will be processed according to application procedures for conditional use perrazits. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment or materials shall be used ~vlaicli are found by the planning cornnzission to be harrnfzzl to persons living or• working in the vicinity by reason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, cinders, dirt, re~cse, water-carried waste, noise, vibration, illumination or glare, or° are found to invoh~e any Bazar°d of fire or explosion. Finding: Tl~e proposed uses within tlxe development are permitted in the C_4 gone district. Conclusion: The proposal complies. CPMC I7 44. (16(1 (B) X111 businesses, services and processes shall be conducted entirely ~nfiithir2 a completely enclosed structure, with the exception of off street parking and loading areas, outdoor eating areas, service stations, outdoor recreational facilities, recreational vehicle overnight facilities, and other compatible activities, as approved by the planning commission. Finding: The proposed uses will be conducted entirely within enclosed structures as evidenced by submitted site plans IA through 2C and Submittal Narrative page S. Conclusion: The proposal complies. CPMC .1 T 4~.46d {C,} C)pen storage of'materials related to a permitted use shall be conditionally permitted only within an area surrounded or screened by a solid wall or fence having a height of six feet; provided, that no materials or equipment shall be stored to a height greater than that of the wall. Finding: No open outdoor storage is proposed. Trash containers will be screened with. gated enclosures, as depicted on the site plan. Conclusion: The proposal complies. ~~ ~.~ Page 5 of 14 CPMC 1 ~ 44.(16f1(L?} Front_yard ecreas shall be planted with lawn, trees, slarulas,.flol~Jer°s or other suitalale landscaping materials and shall lac continuoa~esly maintained in good condition arad in an attractive manner. In cases where the br~ildings are set hack to provide for o f street parking in the f °ont yard area, a landscaped strip Having a nzinimutaz width caf ten,feet shall be established and maintained along the front lot line. Finding: The landscape plan, applicant exhibit L l.(lf} -Ll 12, illustrates that each front yard is landscaped with lawn, trees and shrubs. In those instances where ofd street parking is located in the front ya~•d area, a minianurn ten {10) foot wide landscape strip along East Pine/F~icldle Road right-af-way will be installed and maintained by the property owner. Landscape maintenance will be assured by recorded owners' documents. Conclusion. The proposal complies. CPMC 17.44.070 Signs and lighting of pre~~aises ~. No illuminated sign or lighting standards used for the illirnainatiorx of premises shall be so designed and installed that their direct rays are toward or parallel to a put lic street or highway or directed toward any property that lies within a residential (R} district. B. No red, green or am&er lights or illuminated signs naay lac placed in such a locatiota or position that they could lac confused utitli, or may interfere with, any gf~cial traff c- controldevice, traffic signal or directional guide signs. ~` Signs itx the C` 4 district shall be permitted and designed according to provisions of Chapter 15.24 and with Section .17. b(1. l l Zl. Findr'ng: The applicant states that all signs for the development will be submitted to the City for approval before they are installed. A sign permit is required prior to installation of a sign. Finding: The applicant states that signage plans will be submitted in accordance with the provisions of the CPMC Sections 15.2, and 17.~1A•.07(l. Conclusion: The proposal complies. CPMC 17.44.080 (7ff street parking. C?ff street parking and loading space shall be provided as required in Chapter I x.64; CPMC 17,64,020 {)ff-Street Loading (2} 4f~ce buildings, hotels, motels, hospitals, schools, institutions, public buildings, recreational or entertainment facilities, and any similar use which has a gross floor area of tlxirty thousand square feet or more shall provide off-street truck loading or unloading berths in accordance with the following table: Square Feet of Floor .~#rea No. of Berths Required .Less than 311,t111t~ p Finding: Each proposed building is less than 3{},040 square feet. ~•> Page 6 of 14 Conclusion: The proposal complies. CPMC .17.64.040 Off-Street Parking -Number of spaces. ~G) General Commercial: (1). Retail stores, personal services and zzses ether than those listed in subsections ~G}(2) through (G~(7~ laelo~v. Not less than one space per each t aka hundred square feet of net. floor area (excluding storage and other non-,sales ar non-display areas. Finding: The six variations of the pried development provide off-street parking for retail (building "B"} as following: Building Building Retail: 5 Ft Re aired Pra osed S F{ Re aired Pro osed Site Plan 1A Site Plan 2A Lot 2 {B} 1108$ Lat 2 {B} Retail 11688 Retail 45 4S part on Lot 3 65 90 Site Plan 4 B k Site Plan 2B t_o# 2 {B} 11088 Lot 2 {B} Retail 11688 Retail 45 S$ part crn Lot 3 65 440 Site Plan 1C Site Plan 2C Lot 2 {B} 2800 Lot 2 {l3} Retail 3875 Retail 1A 14 part on Lot 3 36 4p Finding: The second version of the applicant's develapment proposal, Site Plans 2A, 2B, and 2C draft the retail building "B" and the parking spaces on both prapased Lots 2 and 3 of the Tentative Subdivision Plan. The applicant recognizes that lot configuration tray need to be adjusted {Submittal Narrative page 4}. Finding: The parking space requirements applicable to the retail building maybe satisfied by the establishment ofrecipracal ar catxtman parking easements subject to approval by the Planning Commission as provided in Section 17.64.Q6U. Conclusion: The required retail parking spaces can be met. (S~. Service or repair shop. Not less than one space per each three hundred square. feet of gross floor area. Finding: A service facility, automobile oil change and car wash is prapased as building "E" concept 1, Site Plans lA. This service facility is vacant from the second design, concept 2, as illustrated in Site Plan 2C. The off street parking for the 4,}00 square ft building oil change facility {building "E"} requires sixteen (16} parking spaces and sixteen (16} have been provided. Conclusion: The required service shop parking spaces can be met. (6~. Eating and drinking estalalishnzents a .~ e Page 7 0~ 1~ Not less Haan one space per each three ,seats, or, per each one luandt°ed sq~raf,e feet of gross floor, ~vhicher>er is greater°, plus one space per each t~~o efnployees on the fszajof• shift. Finding: The four site plan concepts that provide for a restaurant have the required number of parking spaces for the use utilizing a reciprocal or shared parking agreement between Lot 1 and Lot 2. The reciprocal parking, access and ingress/egress easements are a condition of dais site plan review. Finding: Site Plans 1 A and 2A provide for, a 5,950 sq. ft. coffee shop requiring seventy {70} parking spaces. Seventy-six {'Z6) parking spaces have been provided on Lot 1 in both Site Plan designs. Finding: Site Plans IC and 2C provide for an 8,000 sq. ft. restaurant requiring one hundred {100) parking spaces. Sufficient parking is provided utilizing reciprocal parking agreements with adjacetat Lot 2. Site Plan IC provides 123 spaces and 2C provides 129 spaces, Finding: The parking space requirements applicable to the restaurant and retail buildings maybe satisfied by the establishment of common parking easements subject to approval by the Planning Commission as provided in Section 17.64.060. Conclusion: The required spaces for the proposed coffee shop can be met. The restaurant design will require reciprocal parking and cross-access easements agreements between Lot 1 aaad Lot 2 approved by the Planning Commission. H. C?ffice-.Z'rofessianal (1). Banks, other financial institutions, general and pro, fessionaZ offices, go~~ernnzental offices. trot less than one space per each three hundred square feet o, f gross jlocar area or fraction thereof.' In no case shall there be fewer than three spaces provided. Finding: The gross floor area of office building "C" is 12,6000 square feet and a total of 42 parking spaces are required. The proposed site plan and application have provided 44 parking spaces. Finding: The gross floor area of office building "I~" is 16,6{}00 square feet and a total of 55 parking spaces are required. The proposed site plan and application have provided 55 parking spaces. Conclusion: The proposal can meet the office building parking requirements. 1 T 64 Q~4 Cc~ntfston parking rar laadr'ng areas Parking area requirements applicable to two or more separate building sites or uses in any commercial (~~ or manufacturing {M~ district may be satisfied &y the establishment and naainteaaance of conamota parking areas. Such areas shall he subject to approval by the planning commissiota as to size, shape, location and other factors. Such facilities shall . .. Pogo 8 of ~~ be unproved and maintained in the rraanraer pr°ovided in dais chapter. zf the conanzora par°king ar°ea and the buildings or building sites to be served ar°e subject to mot°e than one ownership, per-manent inaprovernent and maintenance of such par°king facilities must be provided for arad szlch facilities shall rant be used. for any other purpose, unless approved substitute parking areas are provided. Finding: As described in the above findings, the parking space requirezxzents applicable to the retail building design of Site Plans 2A, 2B, and 2C maybe satisfied by the establishment of cozxzmon parking easements subject to approval by the Planning Commission as provided iza Section 17.64.464, Finding; The parking space requirements applicable to the restaurant and retail buildings described in Site Plans 1 C and 2C maybe satisfied by the establishment of common or reciprocal parking easements subject to approval by the Planning Commission as provided iz~ Section 1'7.64.464. Finding: The number ofAccessible parking spaces required by the Uniform Building Code is 7 for 241-344 parking spaces. The site plans illustrate the least space are thirteen {13) to as many as eighteen {18) described on Site Plan 2A. C4ncizasiorz; The required spaces for the retail and eating establishments will require reciprocal parking and cross-access easezrzents to be recorded with the Jackson County Clerk. in addition, tho spaces provided exceed the numbor required for Accessible {AI~A~ parking, meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. CPMC X 1.72. QI4 (A) Putprrse. The purpose of site plan, landscaping and construction plan approval is to review the site and landscaping plans of the proposed use, structure or building to deterrraine compliance with this title and the building code, and to promote the orderly and harmonious development of the city, the stability of land values and investments, and the general welfare, and to promote aesthetic considerations, and to help prevent impairment or depreciation of land values and development by the erection of structures or additions or alterations thereto without proper attention to site planning, landscaping and the aesthetic acceptability in relation to the development of neighboring properties. CPMC I7.72: (12fX Site plan approval reyuirted: {A} ~ site plan application conforming to the requirements of Section .17.72. ~3(~ shall be made: 1. For all construction requiring issuance of a building permit; or .Z. Upon a change of use. (.l3) Except for the C` 3 zoning district, the requirement for a site plan application upon a change of zrse may lac waived by city staff if staff determines that no modifications are necessary to the existing access, parking, driveway, or any other facilities on the site. ~.; ~...w Page 9 of ~4 Finding: The appiicatioza azaci supporting; doeuzalents provide tine izaforzaaation necessary for review of the proposed eomzaaercial developmczat of five tentative approved lots l~nown as Nozfih Vaiiey Center. Each proposed buildizag viii require issuance of a buiidzng pez•zalit. Finding: The Site Plaza application. requests review by the Planzaing Commission for the future development of the site. Tlae applicant submitted six designs with variations consistent with zaaizaor modifications as defzned in Section 17.09.40{x. The proposed access from East PineJBiddle Road and the access from the private street located on the south property line will z•eznain the sazaae for each scezaario of the Site Plan. Finding: The subject propezfiy is vacazat of any stz-uctures. Conclusion: A Site Plaza Review foz• the proposed structure is necessary and the submitted application complies. CPMC" ~ T ~~. tJ3t1 {A) -- {E) .~nf©t•friatic~~z Reyuit•er7. This section of the cede addresses all of the necessary inf©rmation try make a decisian.for apprQVal or denial of the site plan application. Finding:.The applicant has provided the necessary information as outlined in the above referenced code. Conclusion: Tine proposal complies. GPMC 17. X2.113(1 {F~ ~n the discretion of the city, a traffic study performed by a licensed professional engineer,- Finding: Tine subject property was included in the East Pine Street Transportation Plan, dated C}ctober 200~i. A subsequent analysis was performed by JRI1 Transportation Engineering as part of the Transportation System Plan, (TSP}, Finding: The City of Central Point Public Works finds that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA} is necessary for this proposed development. A Traffic Impact Analysis is required prior to final subdivision plat approval. Conclusion: A Traffic Izxzpact Analysis is a condition of dais review and to be completed prior to final subdivision plat approval. e`PMC 27.72. (14(1 S'tandat•rls. In approving, conditionally approving, or denying the plans submitted, the city shall base their decision on the follov>ing standards; CPMC' I T 7,2.11411 {A). ~,andscaping and fencing and the construction of uralls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere -with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such a manner as to use the same to screen such ~s ~~ Pago 10 of 14 activities and sigl2ts as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. 7'lie Planning Commission may f°er~uire tlxe maintaining cif existing tr°ees.for screening put poses and fof• sound and sight r.'sxsaclatiox2 from existing neighborhood use, Finding: Applicant landscape exhibit Sheet Ll.t7fl through and L 112 illustrates the landscape play for this proposal. The landscape design provides a perimeter planting row and a frame of trees, shz~bs and other plant varieties. Each lot within the development has a specific landscape plan designed for the proposed building. Front yard areas have been designed to meet the requirements of Section 17.44.fl6fl {D}. The specific tree species, variety and size are listed on Sheets Llfll -L 112. The plan also provides for plantings adjacent to the building and at strategic pedestrian and parking locations. Finding: Along the south or rear property line is an existing concrete block wall that is currently landscaped. This area has been incorporated in the rear vegetation buffer plan. The applicant states that the CMU wall will be retained. Finding: East PinelBiddle Road is classified as a Major Arterial Street and as such the street tree provisions of CPMC Section 12.36.1 fl0 apply to this application. The landscape plan does provide a sufficient number of street trees within the street planting row. Conclusion: The necessary landscape provisions and street tree standards of CPMC Section 12.36.1 C}fl have been met and are shown on the landscape plans Applicant exhibit sheet L1.Ofl through L112. ~'PM+v' 17.72.444 (B} I?esign, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flort% on public streets; Finding: There is one right-in only direct access point from East PineBiddle Road. Two access points from the private road along the south property line will provide additional ingress and egress. Finding: The City of Central Point Public Works finds that a Traffic Impact Analysis {TIA) is necessary for this proposed develaprrzent. A Traffic Impact Analysis is required prior to final subdivision plat approval. Conclusion: A Traffic Impact Analysis is a condition of this review and to be completed prior to final subdivision plat approval. CFMC 17 72.440 (~} To provide off-street parking 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,• e Page 1~. of 24 Finding: The parking requirements of CPMC Section 17.64.040 G{ 1 }{5}{6} and 1-1{1 }have been analyzed with the submitted parking proposed for each design. The application provides a site diagram for each of six scenarios with allotted parking for each proposed cotntnercial buildit•tg. Finding: As described in the above findings, the parking space requirements applicable to the retail building design of Site Plans 2A, 2B, and 2C tnay be satisfied by the establishment of common parking easements subject to approval by the Planning Commission as provided in Section 17.64.060. Finding: The parking space requirements applicable to the restaurant and retail buildings described in Site Plans 1 C and 2C may be satisfied by the establishment of eomtnon parking easements subject to approval by the Planning Commission as provided in Section 17.64.06(}. Finding: The development is a mix of eotntnercial buildings and uses. The main entrance is oriented toward East Pine/Biddle Road with a pedestrian zone along the existing sidewalk. Pedestrian zones are provided in front of and around each building and include marked crosswalk differentiated froth the general circulation and parking areas. Finding: The required spaces for the retail and eating establishments will require a reciprocal parking and cross-access easement agreement. Conclusion: The proposal will require reciprocal parking and cross-access easement agreements. These easements are to be shown on the fitlal subdivision plat snap. CPMC 17.72. a44 (I)) Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traffic control signs or devices and that they are compatible with the design of their Zuildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract ,from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; Finding: The site plan submitted for this proposal does not identify signs or sign locations. The accompanying applicant Submittal narrative states that sighs for the development will be submitted to the City for approval. A sign permit is required prior to any sign installation. Finding: Sign standards and permit requirements are found in Section 15.24 of the CPMC. The sigh. requirements in Chapters 15.24 and 17.44.0`70 shall .govern. Conclusion: Compliance with CPMC 17.72.040 {I~}; CPMC 15.24 Sign Code and CPMC 17.44.070 will be monitored during the building pet~nit process. CI"~C 17.72.444 (.L~} ~4ccessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide, for the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but ~~s: Page 12 of 14 not limited to, s~citalale gates, access toads and,fire latzes so that all buildings otz the premises are accessible to,fire apparatLrs; Finding: Fire District Na. 3 reviewed the application and each proposal. The District has provided written comments dated March 14, 2(}0'7. The review az~d cazr~zxzents, are attached as Attaehanent "H" of the Pla~~ning Depaz-t~~e:7t staffrepart dated April 3, 2007. Finding: The access and internal or on-site circulation have been designed to provide the width necessary to aceamtnadate fzre vehicles with attention to the turning radius of such equipment as evidenced by site diagrams, (Applicant's exhibit Site Pions 1 A, 1 B, 1 C, 2A, 2B, and 2C}. Finding: The applicant has agreed to install fire hydrant at locations determined by Fire District #3. Conclusiol~: Fire 1=}istrict 3's review and ca~nrr~ents can be addressed by the applicant. In addition, Fire District 3's requirements car: be znanitared in the building permit review process. CPMC.I7 ~~.ll4fl {F} Compliance ~Fith all city ordinatzces and regz.~Ialiotzs, including Section l b.2(Z.1180 pertaining to the maximum number of single family dwellings or dwelling knits allowable on cul-de-sac streets, and applicable state lads; Finding: Na single-family dwellings are proposed with this application. Conclusion: Not applicable C'PNIC I7. ~2,C~~(1 {G) Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and its environs. The architecture and design proposals may be rejected by the Planning Commission if found to lac incompatible with the existing architectural car design characteristics of adjacent properties or uses. In addition, the Planning Commission reserues the right to establish additional height, setback, buffering, or other development requirements that may be necessary to ensure land 2cse compatibility and ensure the health, safety, and privacy of Central Poirzt residents. Finding: Applicant exhibit, "Conceptual Elevation," illustrates the proposed design theme of the buildings. The architecture is described by the applicant as "Contemporary Arts and Craft," a design that combines stacl£ stone and stucco materials in earth tapes. The window design is described as an aluminumtglass storefront system with brushed silver frames. Page T3 of 14 Finding: Tl~e pr4p4secl structuz•e. is similar in dcsigtx t4 shopping facilities recently constructed in the area and can provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the nerghbo~'h44d. Conclusion: The proposal complies. '~: Pale 24 of 14 ~~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING CC}MMISSION RESflLUTI4N N(3. A RESt~LUTIC7N TC} APPRdVE A SITE PLAN Ft)R A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL SH{)PPING FACILIT`1' t7N FIVE ~S} PRf~PQSED LC?TS I<:NflWN AS THE NORTH VALLEY CENTER. FILE NO.O'7038 Applicant: Excelsior Investment Company, Agent: Jim Maize 37 2W O1 C, Tax Lot 802, East Pine/Biddle Road WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an applicatio~a for a master Site Plan for shopping facility on a 4.87 acre, ftve {5} lots proposed subdivision identified on Jackson County Assessor's as map 37 2W O1C, Tax Lot 802, in the City of Central Point, Oregon; and 'WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned as C-4, Tourist and Office Professional and the application is consistent with the permitted uses set forth in Title 17, Section 17.44.20 and Site Plan criteria of Section 17.72; WHEREAS, on April 3, 2047, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point Planning Commission considered the Applicant's request for a Site Plan review; and WHEREAS, after duly considering the Applicant's request, it is the Planning Comrnission's determination that the Application does comply with the applicable standards, criteria and subject to compliance with conditions as set forth in the Planning Department Staff Report {Exhibit "A"} dated April 3, 2447; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission for the City of Central Point, Oregon, by this Resolution Na. hereby approves the Application based on the findings and conditions of approval as stated in Exhibit "A", the Planning Department Staff Report elated April 3, 2407 which includes attachments, attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this day of April, 2047. Planning Commission Chair [~. ~,~ Planning Commission Resolution No. (4/3/2047} ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this day of April, Z{~07 Punning Commission Chair ~~: Punning Commission Resolution No. (4/3l2{~0'7} ~~AL,~T ~NT~FiPRi~~ L~~~It~L.~~T~C~N I I i r~J t.1 (1~ - I i'oi ~ ~i~ 91 .., ~ it i;t are. >;;4 =~ f~t"t1r~u~rii;y i; ~,J;rr~ i ! nri f;< ~r; _.4, ii,~ s,, ~.. ~~.~.._aa. ~~~ __~ w~ __ ._.__ a t,,,,~1..r~lel~~t70J7 of ~! 1)~;~ ulJt IOT' th (1t-17~Ol1tJUIl oI f< J'CStt`~L/Clll~!' (lllllCil17k7 C?i LllJtlIIC.ltlle7lle(l }1151C~7IC il;'tC°I~~S~`, ~.I~IIe ~u~jeci i~r~~}~~~-1~, i~ k>e~at.c°d ia~ tk~~: l~OL)-I]i1~I';, ~I~~i~ttsiY (3~t~ie~~tc~cl 1~3e~~,i~~~t~~rJ~e71t-}Iir,lt ~,~~iix RcsicleJ~ti<~l`C'oinJ~~eJ•ei«1 zoilJJ~`~ clistriet.. i he s~Jl~ject l~J~t>I~~~riy iti icleniii~cl a~~.il~c J~~~.:~~,oJJ t:ui~JJt` A~s~s~or'"s ~»t~l~ tzs ~> l~ :Z~~' I 1 I31'', Tai Lot 7U0, T;'tJe pi•i~t?o~st'cI rojt.~c;t ~~t~ea. i5 loc~<:jte~~ Get ill (7~Ji~Y "°tJ-eet (MJ~,lot I;~~tuz°l~ti~e~..~~i?I~li~<~t~t). l:li~l ~'1C?1'fs£1.i7. )~lillli1J11,<<~ TeC:l1J7Ji;1~111 t'~~.'. ~~~~ ~~~3 ~J~ ;i~ . _.. __w ~... ._ __ _. ~_.._. ~...w.w.. ~W.-...... ~.~,. TI~u aphlica~~ i, ~egt~~5ti~~~~ ih17J•o~~~l o~ ~z ~~ ,~e~•Jr1ii io clei~lolisl~ ~~ r~-siclenii~~l hcziidi~~~7 li~;t~: -.._ ~ ~ _. ~r tlz~ C"itti~'s I~~~t;t2to~,~~ of llis~tc.~J•ieal 13c~iildita,Y. ~ l«ut•e 1 ~~31c1~]tP.S {It~~ti~lh?I'V) cl`:t~Y3 Li g1CloClill~eCite~'1 btJildi~~L, of Il;s;oX~ic~i~a~ct~esi {I'i~uJ-e 1 )J. ~I~1~e ~~~•oi~e~~t~~ is c~~rt~e~li1~ iorle-d "f {)I)-I I~,~~R. The ~ _~~ ,~ h~zjlx~5c of tllc Jc~l~tc:~1 t~~ dLtno]ish J, ~t~~ lc~w ` •' ~ .. _ r ;;«J tli~; t•~~le~elohrllc~~i ofth.e lot ~~xid tl~c t ~idjc~itlixt}, lut Cc~ Chi i;~~,t t(? t~dc~,'elop tl~e ~ ~ r ~7r~~pet~t~~ t~~~ ~l~e St~t13d~~rcls of the ~I OI3--i-I:~f~, .~.-- • , , t 15t1']C1. i ~~ a J 1 ~ ~, The '7~t313 cli~trict t~ouJ~cla~•y >•cr~t~s atot~~ the ~~a5t'~v~,est ~LJcv oti t'tie sot~tl~J ~icle o~t11e proi~eJ~t~~. L,atl~ls to tl~Je ;<~izth tyre ~ZOt w'ithiJ,: the --___.~~ m_...._ , "[ C)13 district. a;lti 1?1~~~.r3ec~ <~.nc~ zi~tted I`~r R-3 ", J (I,'i~~z~'e ~ ~ ,.,,:, ~i e~11iSU 11~~~ ~°e~:icler~tial l~uilclii~~? iti I3ste~~ the 1n~,~e~Itorti it is cot~siclered to be oi' historiettl ~~ c intc~~eyt or si~~iaifie~~~lce G~~ac{ s~~l~j~~et to ih~, ~ I _ ~ o~etjt.. of fle (.'Jt~ s I Iisti~ric "1'~~._at•~aiio~~ (hea'1a~ lor~c (~9€°etior~ 1'7.'IQ ~ ~ ~ '~~ ~' ~ ~~ity o~l~Co~rtral {~oii~i Coi~~;~ret~eiisive }'lar , Flitiu~r~• p~t;e1~[r~2i I'c~Int ~ section 1?.~'tl.~3x0 llc~i~_;~atioat ~f l li~icn~ic t3uilclin.t;~ nr ~ztes Section 17,70,064 establishes the pracedures and criteria far cansideratian of requests to demolish historic buildings. Demalition requests are subject to review by the Planning Commission at a public hearing, after which, the Planning Commission will tasks a determination based on specified criteria. The Planning Commission's decision will then be farwarded to the City Cauncil for a final dete ination. ~,,, ~. l~"igkar~ ~, W ,~ d F rv~,;~K',„ ~ i~ ~, .,,, ~ ~r ~, ~ ~ .:.. ~{ The Building Dep anent classifies the building as pre- existing, and unless a violation is reparted they will not require compliance with current building codes. X n ..n ~^'wm:v.~. ,. W , ~'. A The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property encourages redevelopment to a cansiderably higher use {TC?D-I~l2), cansistent to what the applicant prapases. ~~P, w~, ,N ~ ~, .~~; ~~ ~, ~ ~ti .,. ~~, a ~' , ~. ~ bs' ~ ~ ~, i'1S~I 111VA? The Planning Commission's consideratian of a request to demolish a historic building shall be based an the fallowing criteria as set Earth in Section 17,70,060(+0: A., The Present state of repair of the building and reasonableness of estimated restaration costs. ~,, ~s : ; ~ ~ JJ w yv ~~~:~ ~d ~. , _: x ~ ~ . ~ ~~~ M1 S. _~__ ..., ,9 w S i t ~ . ~ I i .1_. `~ >~,.,-~'~~ ''' '°,. :.~~ ; ' Finding 17> 7Q. C)60(A); As illustrated in the y ;,.. ~~ tx: ~ R u ,, ~ : { j , ? applicant's photos (Attachment "A ,") the building is in ,,, r ~ ^ R 4, 4 ti ? ~~ ~, ~,~.~ ,4 w, ~~d '',,.,.' ~J~ very poor condition and would require considerjable investment tv bring it into compliance with taday :s codes, It is expected that the cast of renovation would not be supported based vn a cansideration of the return on investment as rental property. Informatian on the actual cost ~f rencavatian was not provided by the applicant. Conclusion 17, 7D.060 (.~): The present state cif repair is extr°emely pvr~r and the cost of restr~ration considered unreas~+nable. B, The character of the neighborhood in which the structure is located and its influence on, ar importance ta, other histarical structures. Finding 17.70.461) (); The character of the neighborhood is transitianal with a str~rng emphasis by the City tQ encourage redevelopment as noted by such projects as City Hall, and Libr°ary, and the Fvur Oaks Project. The City's G'omprehensive plan and Zoning Map encour°age mixed-use high density redevelopment of the general area. 3 ~~CttOll ~7.7~.Q~d~~} The northerly half of the block is planned and zoned for TC?L)-H~1fIR and is currently occupied by the subject building, asingle-family residence, and a new office building. The southerly half of the block is planned and zoned for R-3 and is occupied by older, but non-historic, single family residences. In the context of the general neighborhood the subject building is the only historically inventoried building. Zf preserved it would be out of cantext with the long-term redevelopment objectives of the neighborhood. Conclusion 17.7t1.l1Stt (Ti}: LL~emolition of the subject building will not adversely affect the character of the general neighborhood. C. The City's Comprehensive Plan fc~r the area and the importance to the community of other planned land uses, .Finding I T TfJ fl6(l(C}: The Comprehensive Plan Land Llse designation for the property is T417-HMR, which encourages transit oriented mixed-use high density development. In its current condition the Property is no consistent with the ultimate land use objectives for the general neighborhood. Through the TQL7-HMR land use and zoning classijication it is the City's strategy to encourage redevelopment of the downtown core area. .both the TC7I?-I~MR and the abutting R-3 will allow for the necessary long-term intensification of land use and development needed to support transit and commercial uses in the downtown. Conclusion 17.7(1.1J6(? (C}: The proposed demolition and planned redevelopment of the Property is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. D, Alternatives to demolition including preservation and relocation. Finding 17 74 t164 (C}: ~1s noted in the applicant's frndings the cost of renovation exceeds what would be supported on a reasonable return on investment test. Relocation o, f the subject Z~uilding would only add to the ultimate expense of renovation, assuming the subject building could survive a relocation. Conclusion 17.7(J l1Gfl ~'C}: t~lternatives demolition can not be reasonably supported due to the current condition of the building. ISSUES It is important to note that the building is inventoried as an undocumented building of historic interest. The most significant aspect of the historic nature of the building is that it is old. In the cantext of the general neighborhood the building, if preserved, is not supported by other historic buildings, "When historic buildings are clustered at a neighborhood level, there is a higher probability that the integrity of the historic neighborhood will be sustained. ATTACHMENTS Attachment "A" -Applicant's Submittals per Section 17.~4.060(A} Attachment "B" -Applicant's Proposed Site Plan AcT]raN Consideration of request to demolish a historically significant residential l.~uilding of undocumented historic interest. RECUMMENDATI(3N Forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council per Section 17.7UA40~B}(3). .~ :%~~~j .. , ~i1~!L1~13E F:~~ff~ lll~ ~'~ ~ :t4 i1? E.?f[?i~ s t~ GIC~r f ;S y7 I __ .t i. t~ II II •.1= I11~ ~I t' :~ .:i•: ~~~l.~£.~1 ~. til_IG~t.~~'C __ `.!`. .~~ ~'~ -i, ~ ~ ., ,{~ r~i il~ ,~!s~ Iiti ~U„ i-i!ti~ ,,i. ~!;I~?:_'i ~tali~l~), i; I~ ~ -!III ill_,~ l(~ Iii{[ I~ ~ 1 ~~ii: i ~ it ,,U ;I~. ~i i~~ !"1t~~ (1'7c's(~Pc,~. i:ll~l'C~l"ili `~i~ ,, i ;,; ~i,~, ;~ '~- i i ~ t ,:ilt i~~ pit'. :~~!'"~tClhai('. '~ ,~tlt~~1~C~ `_ _ ~ II ~;`il1~E'. I 1~,~; ~~~~ ~ L' -i!;~ ~ I ~ ~i li; 1 { it i~ I '! I (2'~ ~.'.GiE1. '~ d ~"., 1 n u a ',~ ~ x ~ ' w W "~ ~ ~ , ins ~h „ „„ .. a ~;q„qu s .~ . ~„ .. a ~ '~ Mr w~ ~..„w ~. '"' `' p_ " rm ,~ ^,~,w ., _, n, . .. ~ ..~.,, ~,. P' ' .,mr .i ~, e~'~ , , .. . ~:.'u 4 ~' ~ ur w „y '~' d +^ ,, ~~ ~ ",-' N. ,. ~'~ii,, w d~~W kt ~~ Z~~i ~~b'"' u ~; 1 „~~,. '.C r Jmw k M~ y ~ ,~. air a ~, ~., ..m. ~~@.. ..,.! .., .',. ~., ,a ..,~.~„ ~ + m~~v ~ ~ a..,W ~ w so : . ~ „~~ ' .... u; 'Y ~x`~. ,, l ~'vu , m.v. ~ ~. x/z~tzao7 312 t~k t pf tuytn~ 312 3.ti~F m ~ .. ~ xi"w ,., .,, ..~..~ . ~,.... M ,.+ ~ .~ ~ J ~~ ~ , .. ~.~ ~~" , ~ q k ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ .~ d ~ y 9n ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~~W~ , ' 4 ~iN ~ _ . 4 ~' tl ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ % M1 e, ,r ~ ~"f X N w Y . ~" ~~ a ~ s A" ~ aM N x ,; h ., g, u .," F; ~ ~ , t u m, x~ ' "' ~+ :w. ~` Y~ y ~ ~ ,' ~~~ ~ .. „~ ' '~ ~ w ~ ~, ~ ~ gam„ '{ N ryJry {~{yy }^+y~.,tt8",y'e pJ},. iq P4.y g~~ (~I P7~~~. JdG 4~JdR. 3tt B~tA ~t Fti`. h ~.. ..& ,;~ w ~:. ,. ~ ,,m ~~ ~ ~ ~„ y~,~~w 1 A' ; s w,, ~ ~ a .... ~ .,: ~ . . ,~ Wed ° „ „~ .,.. ~~ Y N 4~~ M y ~, ~ ~ ~... ;" r ry,. ~~ w.. .." -r,..~ ~, " ~. ~~. ,~ w .~ ~ d, , „ , x ~, ~y i~W e d..' 6 k ~ "~N ~ k ~. ~ ~ '.~, e ~ m d p~ h ~ im: d k. ~.u ~..Y i v wWwd~aot;:~ ~Y ... .. A....... _ ...~- W •'~s~ 7 ~1 1~x ~ ., _ fi, ~ ~J k n "d ~ wM r ~ MV ~ur s ~¢:~' ~ ~„ „ ~'~ ',. ,, .t flu rv~~~p+~~ ~~ ., q V ~ I ~ Iwo ~k ~~ ~~~y U m~~0.d 'lay L ~M, ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ' _. r 8 ~, ~r ~ y~ ~ ~,~ P Yk ICY~j ~o .:m 312 +Dek Str Side of Home {lefk) 31.2 k Str t1~05,tiff k~C v. cam, , i ~. . ~.~ ~. ~~-~, -- ., f 3 at [ ..-_-_ _. _ w... e ~ ~ -... i iy cif n~ ointg r,~cara t~{~ So.T#,irc~ St., Central l~alrtt. Car J7S02 541,64,3321 Fax 54t.654.6384 www.ci.c~t~tral-point.or.tas q M I ,~ ,! b i~ April 3, 207 r~r~ir~ art t ~`on~ Nurr~pi~r~y, AiCFa Corr~munity t3evelomnt Clirectorl Assistant City Administrator I NC): 0'7109 Tree emoval Consideration of a permit far removal of a tree located on Lot No. 1 of Lone Redwood Subdivisiotl. {Roy Pa enter, Applicant), STAFF SOU CE Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician l ,:, ~r>, °w~;~ ,i ~~, ~,. 1. Within the root zone loosen the soil through use of compressed air, Pruning of damaged roots; 3. Placement of mulch within the root zone; 4. Placement of an organic trench around the root zone to enhance watering; and S. Turing construction fence-off the root zone, The arborist further stated that even with the implementation of the above recommendations there is no guarantee that there will be a reversal of the damage already done, and that the tree could continue to decline. Based on the trees condition, and taking into eansideratian the arborist's report, the applicant is requesting removal of the tree. As a Significant Tree it is required by Section 12.36.040(A} that the Planning Commission review and approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for removal. FINDINGS As set forth in Section 12.36.{}50 a decision to approve a permit for tree removal shall be granted if a~ of the following criteria are met: A. The tree is unsafe, dead, or diseased as determined lay a certified arbarist. Verification of tree health may be required, at the expense of the applicant, by a certified arborist acceptable to the city; Finding 12.36.11511{A): As a result o, f the damage sustained by the tree it was the determination of the applicant's arborist that the short-term health cif the tree is questionable. However, the arbarist recommended measures that may stabilize and imprrove the health of the tree {.Exhibit "A'). Cvnclusivn .1.2.36.11511{A): A certified arbcarist has not defnitively made a determination that the tree is dead, diseased, or unsafe. B. The tree is in conflict with public improvements. Finding 12.36:1151J(B): Through the tree trunk location is not in cr~nflict with any public improvements, there has been a new sewer line installed approximately l (1 'from the trunk of the tree. Cvnclusivn .12.36.(15(1{~): The arbarist analysis {Attachment `A }states that this is one of many factors that ccantributed to the decline in health of the tree. C. The proposed removal or pruning is part of an approved development project, a public improvement project where no alternative is available, or is part of a street improvement program. Finding 12.36.1151?{C): The tree is part rof a four {4) lrat subdivision {.File Nrx. 11611 T l~. As a condition of approval of the subdivision, the Planning Commission required that the applicant agree tc~ include the tree can the City's Histraric and ,Significant Tree Inventory in an attempt to preserve the tree. The intent of this listing was tv protect the tree during the development process. Conclusion .12.36.(tS(1(C}: The tree is part of a development prooject, but as a part ~rf the development project it was intended that the tree lre preserved. ISSUES The tree, by definition, is a Significant Tree. Presently, the tree's health has been compromised to the extent that suggested mitigation measures may, or may not, save the tree. The arborist's report sloes not indicate that the tree is unsafe at this time. The Public Works L?epartment is recommending that the tree be removed. The tree has continued to decline. Staff is recommending that once the lots are developed that the subject tree be replaced with trees that wi11 thrive in their new environment. {See Attachment `B'). ATTACHMENTS Attachment "A" -Letter from Southern Qregon Tree Care, LLC Attachment "B" - Public Works Memo from ISA Certified Arborist Staff Member ACTION Consideration of Tree Removal Permit RECUMMENDATI4N Approve Tree Removal Permit Prepared by; ~~~ /~~~~ PLC ~~. I3c7x ~ ~ ~c~ Central Point, C)a~c~;o1~ 975[}2 {54 i } 772-f~4{)4 1I11illie Gingg Southern ©regan Tree Care, I..L,C ISA Certified Arborist # PN - 5564A Pct Box 5`140 Central Point, C}R 97502 {541 } 772-0404 Re; Evaluate Redwood for Permission to Remove Ray Parmenter contacted me regarding a Giant Sequoia {Sequoiadendron giganteum~ approxirna#ely 36 " C}BH and approximately 60 feet tall on his property at 962 Crest Qrive in Central Point, Oregon. He is concerned that the tree will die or fail after the lot is developed, causing damage to the property, injury to tenants or high cost of removal due to the future development underneath the tree. Qn February 8, 2007 1 perFarmed a visual inspection of the tree in question. There has been severe soil compaction throughout the entire root zone of the Giant Sequoia. I have been informed that a new sewer line was installed approximately 10 feet from the trunk of the tree. It appears there has been other excavation within the critical root zone as defined by the City of Central Point. {12.36,040 Tree Removal 1 replacement}. Aerial photos {Jackson County Unlined of this property show the previous dwelling was located within the critical root zone of this Giant Sequoia. I was also informed that the previous dwelling burned and firefighters removed several limbs from the tree that were scorched. All of these factors have contributed to the tree's decline which is evident by the wilting and browning of the foliage throughout the canopy. This Giant Sequoia's root zone would need 'immediate work to try and reverse the damage done. Steps that could be taken include fencing to Keep construction activities out, loosening of soil with compressed air, pruning of Page 1 of 2 ~ FREEF-,SI'INC~:IE.; ~ Tic~erzzza'`,5tttnzj~ Re~tzozFal ~ Ctrl~LitzgrztzcLl~r-rccizzg ~J E.rper-tPa-zsszizzgrtzttL'Ttee~z~rzLzzrrtiaaz TI~~I~ ~A~~~ ~~c T'.C?. F3ox 5140 Central 1'oinr, C~rcgax~ 07502 (54 l) 772-()4~4 damaged mats, mulch placed in coat zone, an organic soil drench and adequate water. F'ollawing through on any of the suggestions offered will not guarantee the reversal a€ damage already lane. The Giant Sequoia could continue to decline aver the next €ew years regardless of steps taken. 2 Page 2 of ~ FR~'E ESTIr1~A7`F.S ~' Tr•ee rrrtx~l ,Strsrnlr Rerttourtl 1~ CnGLin~ rtrrcl Brczcirtg ~ F.xpet•t Frrcnirag crrtd ~~ee Evr~lrtrztirrn Y 6~~~F4~~~~ ~~ lI March 27, 2007 Lisa Morgan Re: Lone Redwood site, North 10th Street Lisa, per our telephone conversation today, i went back to the site to make sure nothing has changed. Despite the fact it is Spring, and the tree is making an effort at new growth, and the canopy is greener in color than it was the last #ime l viewed it, l still recommend it be removed. This opinion comes because of the construction damage at the root. Despite my recommendations, and those of another arborist, nothing has been done to try to save this tree. Now, even if the developer applied all the recommendations, acase could not be made for the tree's survival. Since the contras#or cannot be held liable far the tree's removal in the future, the City should require it be removed now, before a homeowner assumes that liability. Pat Randall Central Point Public Works lSA Certified Arboris# City of Cenral mint, tJrr~n t~t0 Sa.Third 5t., Central Paint, ~r 97502 S41.GG4,3321 Fax 511.664,6384 www.ei.central-paint,ar.us r STAFF T .April 3, 2(107 I~nrting parm~r~ Tom i°itomphrey, AIC:(~ Community C7eveloprnent DirectarJ Assistar7t City Arlmia7i~trator ITE NO. 07l 10 Tree Renac~val Consideration of a permit for removal of a White Oak tree located at 312 C)ak Street, {Malot Enterprises, LLC, Applicant). STA SOURCE Lisa Morgan, Planning 'Technician ACGC?UNTJ- The Applicant is requesting approval of a permit to remove a lame White Oak tree in preparation for a mixed use redevelopment project. The subject tree has been inventoried on the City's Significant Tree list. ', ~ ~.~~ ,, ~;" %° ~ Ali; ~~ „~ ,, ;' .,~ r .. y..~,.wa~ .,''', ,.W . , •~~ "~, ~,'r~. 1t is the arborist's conclusion that an canstruction or even City improvements such as sidewalks would compromise the health of the tree, if the upcoming Site Plan application is approved, the zoning (TOD-HMP.) requires that a minimum 2 5°r`o of the project site be landscaped. As a Significant Tree it is required by Section 12.36.040(A) that the Planning Commission review and approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for removal. FINDINGS As set forth i Section I~.36.C}5{} a decision to approve a permit far trey removal sha11 be granted if anv of the fallowing criteria are met: A. The tree is unsafe, dead, or diseased as determined by a certified arborist. Verification of tree health may be required, at the expense of the applicant, by a certified arborist acceptable to the city; Finding 12.36.454{A): The tree at this time is not unsafe, dead or• diseased. However, with the extensive root system, any improvements made would cause damage to the root system. Cvnclrrsion 12.36.454{A}: ,~ certified arbr~rist has stated that currently there is not any health related reason to remove the tree, B. The trey is in conflict with public improvements. Finding 12.36.4501{.$): The Zocation of the tree is not in conflict with "public" improvements. Improvinglredeveloping the property would require public improvements such as curb and sidewalk. Cvnclusivn .12.36.454{&): I'he arborist's report (.fltlachment `A }states that the extensive root system would definitely become damaged with almost any type of construction or improvement activity on or near this tax lot. C. The proposed remavai or pruning is part of an approved development project, a public improvement project where na alternative is available, ar is part of a street improvement program. .Finding 12.36.454{C): Approval of an upcoming Site Plan application has not been granted by the Planning Commission yet. Removal of the tree is conditioned upon successfully receiving approval for redevelopment. Part of the Site Plan application will also include street improvement requirements. Cvnclusian 12.35:454{C): Removal of the YYhite Oak tree has been conditioned to receive Site Plan application approval. ISSUES The tree, by definition, is a Significant Tree. Currently the tree is healthy, however when the property redevelops or any publz'c improvements are made on ar near this lot, it will compromise the health of the tree. C4ND~TI©NS f)F APPROVAL The removal of the White Oak tree would be contingent upon approval of an upcoming Site Plan application for redevelopment. ATTACHMENTS Attachment "A" _ Beaver Tree Service, inc. Tree Report Attachment `B" -Site Plan of lot as it currently exists ACTIUN Consideration of Tree Removal Permit RECOMMENDATION Conditionally Approve Tree Removal Permit Tree Service ~r~~. 270 Wilson Rd. C.C.B. 173614 Central Paint, (?R 9"75(12 Tax 1D ~#: 20-5639553 (541) 664-1614 Tree Report for Properties at 336, 324 and 312 C}ak ~~. Central Paint 'T'his report is made for the purpose of developing the afarenrientianed lots. A description the trees on the properties and my recai~ramendations as a certified arborist for these trees follows. A. 335 C}ak ~~. 1. C)ak tree in front of lat. This tree has been previously topped and is not in goad shape. It is unhealthy and unsightly; it should be removed. $. 324 dak St. 2 Blau. locust trees in front of lat. Black locust is an invasive species in (3regon and not a very highly valued tree. In addition, these particular trees have been previously topped and have corresponding problems such. as weak connections between the new branches and the old. The western tree is in particularly bad shape with bark falling off the lower part of the trunk. Bath of these trees should be removed. B. 312 Oak St. 1. Four small fi-aitless mulberries, three along 4~ak St. and one an the 3rd St. side of the property. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these trees but none of them. are significant trees. They are all fairly small and since fruitless mulberries grow quickly, they can readily be removed and replaced with new trees. 2. English walnut along 3rd St. This tree is in poor condition and can be removed. It has numerous brakeri limbs and shows signs of decay. 3. White oak behind the house. This is the only significant tree an arty of the lots in this report. It is approximately 45 feet tall with a 3 fact diaixaeter at its base. It is a mature tree that tapes up a large portion of the lat. `T'he root zone extends north under the house which is built an columns rather thaw an a concrete pad, south. ~3eaver 'Free Servxee ~~,~. 270 Wilson Rd. Central Point, {~R 97502 (541 } 664-1614 C.C.8.173614 Tax lD #: 20-5639553 almost to the alleyway, west to the street and east into the next lot. Although there is no tree-health or aesthetic reason to remove or replace this tree, iF any construction is to be done in this area, it may be prudent to take the tree dawn. prior to construction. Tl~e following should be considered when deciding whether or not to keep the tree: +~ Construction in and around the root zone will have an adverse effect on this mature tree. lf, for example, a new Foundation is poured where the existing home is, a significant amount of roots will have to be cut and this could lead to the quick demise of the tree. The same is possible of planned city improvements, such as installing a sidewalk. Even if the roots are not cut, driving heavy equipment in. the root zone below the tree will compact the soil and cause root damage which in turn could lead to the death of the tree. + If the tree is not cut down before construction but then damaged during construction, the cost of taking it down will be significantly higher after the fact. It may also be more Jiff cult to replant an area that is already landscaped. • If the tree is cut down prior to construction and replaced with a one or more new trees, these trees will have a head start on any tree which would be planted after the existing tree has died. That is to say, that over say a four year post-construction period, it is better to have healthy young trees integrated into a planned landscape than a large sickly and dying tree, nothing and then finally one or more seedlings in its place. And again the latter option is markedly more expensive. In short, it is likely that any future construction on the lot, possibly, including sidewalk construction, will adversely effect the tree, since the root zone of the tree takes up such a large portion of the lat. if much construction is done, the question of the oak tree likely changes from whether to take the tree down to when to take the tree down. In such case, it would be prudent from a cost point of view and tree health point oFview to remove the tree prior to construction and replace it with new, healthy trees in a planned landscape. For a case study on killzng trees during construction rather than removing them and replacing them, one only need go to the Ponderosa Echo development near the golf course in Eagle Point. There the developer left a number of large trees, but damaged their roots during construction. People then paid a premium for new homes with mature trees only to have them die shortly thereafter. They then had to pay significant sums to have these trees removed. The end result is a subdivision with fewer trees no~v than it would have, iFthe trees had been removed prior to ^3 ~ % ~ k ' ! ~ ~ ~~ L~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i .... YJ 4...! 7ti v.1 0 'L ./ J. t %. ~ 5 . . Y. ~. o pp j~ [[`` }} {- ,5 { [ '( yy~~ ~ E ' ( } } ./ C..ASo 3 ~ ii ~~ ~~ U+f4 !ll-~E SV€t1.. ~:j t~' rr GG t ~ j ,i ~.~?br€~ ttV~r-:f.`?~ ~~~"1~~~jL"~1u7'r 1{7X j~ [~~-}} l.. ~ ~ ~ ~ G _____ ..._._--.-._.-.-.-.--.-..-. _._~___...._.._,.__..,__ ~ 3 ll~iVE ~3~_I l~llEV ~L.t~ ~~:? r~E SEE RE~,~u~lA~ I~~~I~ S~.OC}' f~RC~~~_~..€`( ~_l`€€~~ ~_____----- ~ TAX ~i3T 7J0 31? ~A~C Sl'f~~~T CENTRAL ~'GIi~T C?A7E: C3-19-07 LO1" SITE 7:~~0 SC~F~T ~-____. by ~~E~ °-,,. Grip Eine ~., ~~\\\1 1 TREE { ~W~ ~~ ~--' I _ t ~~"" ~ ~3 ~ €.~_! ~~ ~ / ei ~- V t 3,~f~j^'}}(( ~ i ~\.1V S~ `~' I ~"" ~~. iftE£ CgA~RED ::~Oi2Cs; ~ ~ TR££ TREE 'tFt<".c'. tvnre~z ~Ir~ Of2I5tE5'tAY _ .............. ..~ _.._ .._._......___..__..____..___._ ~......_. _...~ f ~ } ~f ~. '~J ___ 4 ~~t I~ >s .__ _. ~ _._.. _ _._ . _ ._ ._ ..._W .. _ IX~ ~~, _._ ..__ ~ _.. _... i€ -...__ ..._ ..... .. ......... ~ _..v_ , _.__. , _,._.... .. . -. __ ._ .....__ I i __.._.. .r.f .... ... .. ... ~ t t '~'~ ~ ~ i 4 ~ n .. 7 9 2 ! ~1~ x.1..1 { ~ I I :,.. ~ ~a I F ~_ _ f n~ I" ~' '~ _~~, ~. ~ ~ , ~~ „ ~. ___. ~ D t.Y ~za.~cr ~r,~ot~ ,..~; oc~ ~ as r s / Yr.+FC•fyicw. C'ix~CC +4x t}'A Y: \\\\\ P~a.Yl4iki aek.cnvo ~E~uw. ~::ts ~;ec^:ee nror .nr!m.a :o:~sa r 61441: MKS M.~o~Q yxkemm Z ~ ~ t ~ i ~ ! 4HIf ~r'4C~~FhX ~ ` x'.~sl}~to~Cb.Gn cntx; rY.xvv. C~~~:F ~`.* x N~ r.a,... r~ t -. >Cr~. t ^t t.J . J . . u :_41'z~u P:: . .w~r..e.t ~,vi ,w ..~.~1-rnt .< < ~ .. n: ,..art ~ ~ ~~ r~ . .. .. »~r.., , PAFltAiG ..~ t .• - ~ ii r .u.lr.s ~.f ~ 4:.y'GeS. ~ l .x.[.vrt o~ a. inCCP! (4} L T ` `.1 ~ ca ~ L~ 4 ~ - ~. _ . n - ~ ~ l l.l ~ w ,, z J'~ Q ~..1 V i {1]~.j~ 141 w.~. ~ v ~~-r~ ~~.a~ rya. ~c ---~---.~ _ --_._,. ,r ,.~~ __ _ l ._... ___. _ _ . _ _. _ _ __._ _ .___ _ _._ _ .___.. _ .~ _ . a R .~ ~ ~, A~ `emu . ~..~' ,.`~" , . .~: __._ , - ..__. 'e _ _ _ PPF.Kt1~+ I I ~ -.__~..-_ { Y.,, ~~('~r~aAa*a,:n aa.,e,i~u v r c . , mxvr~ . xb ~r ~: i t~ti + r . - :.}K> .: r r IYS;tY..A ~ ~1 rt.aw~>ar1..x.XY,ff. ' a2 ~s~.x'Cn ~Ltrva ra irr . x +ry,G : k.1? "sx. r (arty y .r.v.~. "fl~`x.'C~ AARY;tFty PRWIl7ID .vw`C. ff 1 . ^~.:u:rrsfLL~ L -? ..1 . ~ _~;+ 1`Lv`'1? nJ '~ Q ~~ ~~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ ~, ~~ >~ ~, ~o o~ ~ ~ x 'I.'S1t x~ ~ ~_ '}~ 1.A.3 ' R~ R U f~ V 8 a ~~ O 2 O a C3 a 0 S1T~ E~~~/lY~! ! C~~;T~-f Vt~~3..Y G~~TEF~ ~ ;, ~~ ~~ ~~n m~~ i ~XG~L~3DR I~lV~S~"M~NT GdMPr~,~Y ; ~ ,~ ~.~ ~° _ ~~, l ~ ~ ~ i'it./~Jnlc~'alf' .i.,!\~tJC; ~s~JC~."! ~.11~t1 ~.. rF.,,..i.;n-~;;~,:;.-. Y. ~ ..- ?' 1YNOSflIAOt[d NOttx[t lAY34(INYi '~ ~,~ 3^ Gi~aHUt •r ~~Yw .: r. ~, _ i„ "yt 4?.F i~ .FI j..;,., .~ -t..., .'9a~~._,.C~.kS,:.~.f~9. t~#53~,-.' a ~ fi'r' \ t t ~ ~ ~ ~~~I~ 1 T~~' t~ ,. .N ~ !. t ..:: , :. ~} ~cat3 . _ .......-.._~ II 'r' N 7 I '4, t ~ ~ I ~ ~~ a~ . T T ~ >r € 3~ ...~, ty.. -" j 1 i 5'. ~~ ~ I ' 3 ~~j i ~• _~___~•S n i ~ ~ ~~` err E ~ X43. .~ ~; µ..-;~. .,' t~3 ~ ~ .~.. ~ ~~~~ Y f i(II ~ .s ~~ 3 I I .. .-.I..E ~~ 'J f :` ,~ fr -~: ~d~, ~~ ~>,~ ~ i- g kk i. ~4.' ~ ~~~~ ~rPt?~ € { - E `~ ~ _ y yam, i k.._.