The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Commission Packet - November 2, 1999~,A f,`I . ~• ~ _.il CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 2, 1999, - 7:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 466 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL City Planning Chuck Piland -Candy Fish, Don Foster, Karolyne Johnson, John LeGros, Paul Lunte and Wayne Riggs III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of October 5, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VL BUSINESS Page 1 - 17 A. Continuation of a public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by Tom and John Hamlin to add approximately 840square feet to an existing restaurant building at 507 Front Street. The subject property is located in the C-5 Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. 18 - 38 B. Public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by Dr. Curtis L. Tyerman P.C. to construct a 2250 square foot dental office building and vary from off- street parking requirements at 348 Oak Street. The subject property is located in the C-2 Commercial Professional zoning district. 39 - 47 C. Public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by the Independent Baptist Church to add approximately 645 square feet to an existing church building qt 320 West Pine Street. The subject property is located in the R-1-8 Residential Single- Family zoning district. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT , •'~ a.A October ~, 1999 Page 1 Cl1'Y OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MIND"fES October 5, 1999 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, John LeGros, Paul Lunte, Don Foster, and Wayne Riggs were present. Commissioner Karolyne Johnson was absent. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; Ken Gerschler, Community Planner; Matt Samitore, Planning Technician; and Lee Brennan, Public Works Director. III. CORRESPONDENCE There were two pieces of correspondence that were received and subsequently added to item number two of the agenda. The first was from Eric Neimeyer, Traffic Engineer from the Jackson County Roads Department, and the second was fiom Thomas Melville, an attorney representing five land owners North of the proposed Naumes commercial subdivision. V. MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes for the September 21, 1999 meeting as presented. Commissioner LeGros seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; LeGros, yes; Lunte, yes; Foster, yes; Commissioner Riggs abstained. VI. BUSINESS A. A continuation of a public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by Tom and John Hamlin to add about 840 square feet to an existing restaurant building at 507 Front Street The subject property is located in the C-5 Thoroughfare Commercial Zonine District Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. Mr. Humphrey explained to the Commission that one of the two applicants had been out of town and that both of them would like to sit down with City staff to see if any sort of agreements can be met. Mr. Humphrey asked the Commission to again continue this until the next meeting in November. Commissioner Fish made a motion to continue the site plan review submitted bx Tom and John Hamlin to add 840 square feet to an existing building in a C-5 Thoroughfare Commercial District, to the next regular meeting. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion nassed unanimously B. A public hearine to consider a commercial subdivision application introduced by Naumes. Inc. to create 16 new tax lots from a 21.6 acre parcel of land on the northwest comer of East Pine Street and Flamrick Road. The subject 12ropelly is located in the C-4 Tourist and Office- , „h October 5, 1999 Page 2 Professional zoning, district. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The applicant has submitted a development proposal to subdivide 21.6 acres of land into 16 conunercial lots. The plan depicts property divisions that would allow for individual lot development or the consolidation of lots to accommodate larger anchor tenants. A traffic study has been completed for this development and the city concurs with all the reconnnendations ofthat report. An environmental consultant has also completed a cleanup of the site. There were concerns by property owners that their quality of life would be derogated by this development and they are requesting a wall to be built to help protect their properties and a hydrology study to be completed. Each of the lots meets the requirements of the City's subdivision and zoning codes for commercial lots as well as specific requirements of the C-4 zone. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director presented the Public Works Staff Report. Mr. Brennan informed the commission that this development will have more recommendations than usual because it hasn't been master plamred. The Public Works Department special recommendations involved connections to existing infrastructure, master planning the site, easements for the properties and for Hamrick Road and E. Pine Street, a traffic circulation plan for the site itself, maintaining clear vision areas/triangles, and recommending approval of the findings and conclusions of the traffic study. The Traffic study includes development of a signal in-between Hamrick Rd. and the 1-5 interchange that would be installed by the developer, but the cost would be shared proportionally with adjacent land owners. The traffic signal will be installed when 50% of the property is developed or when an anchor tenant starts construction. The developer would also be required to do half street improvements on E. Pine Street and Hamrick Road. A deferred improvement agreement, with a 15 year "sunset" would be required for an additional light on Hamrick road if it is needed in the future. Other special recommendations include landscape buffers, meandering sidewalks, a city utility strip, an erosion control plan, a storm drainage system, water distribution system and fire protection, above ground utilities, and a recommended hydrology study to be conducted on the site. Gregg Anderson, Chief Financial Officer for Naumes, Inc. explained the future of the multi-use facility. Curt Burill, of Burill Real Estate 300 Crater Lake Ave., is the agent for the applicant. Mr. Burill explained that the traffic study addresses all of the issues that were raised by ODOT, Jackson County Roads, and the City of Central Point and a traffic signal is warranted and should operate efficiently as the proposed location. He also asked that the deferred improvement agreement, for a second signal, be shortened from 15 to 10 years. He also asked that be the scope of the hydrology study be better defined. Marty Mingus, 511 Beebe Road, spoke in opposition of this development. Mr. Mingus stated that he believed this development would have a negative impact on his quality of life and asked for additional requirements be added to this development in order to minimize impacts on his property. These included constructing an 8 foot wall with landscaping, completing a new traffic study, performing a water study, completing an additional environmental study, involving BCVSA in getting the sewer line completed, and informing citizens about changes more than what they know cun•ently. ..~, ,~" October 5, 1999 Page 3 Gus Picollo, 628 Beebe Road, spoke in opposition of this development. Mr. Picollo asked that a barrier be built in order to protect the orchard he manages. Eric Niemeyer, Jackson County Traftic Engineer, spoke as a neutral party. Mr. Niemeyer asked the commission to condition approval of this project upon the completion of more thorough progression analysis and a more thorough queuing analysis. Dave Gilmour, 445 Manzanita Street, spoke as a neutral party. Mr. Gilmour asked if a ditch constructed on the back of the property would help with water problems for the adjacent property owners. He also asked how the traffic circle, depicted in the master plan, would function properly. Jim May, of BCVSA, spoke as a neutral party. Mr. May informed the commission that the easiest way to get sewer to the site would be through the Picollo property. Also, there is no sewer on E. Pine Street as depicted on the subdivision map. Curt Burill, responded to the opposition and neutral parties. Mr. Burin stated that the traffic study was done to specifications of ODOT, the county, and the city and all requirements were met. The study concludes a h•affic signal is warranted. He also stated that an environmental study has already been completed and implemented, an 8 feet high wall is acceptable, and they will work with BCVSA to get sewer to the site. Lee Brennan, responded to the questions about the hydrology study and stated that only a professional hydrologist could determine know the scope of the study. If it did include a wide geographic area the applicant would share the costs of the study with affected property owners. Commissioner Fish made a motion to pass Resolution Number 463 approving the tentative subdivision, of 21.6 acres into 16 tax lots located in the C-4 Tourist and Office Professional District, subject to the recommended conditions of approval from the planning and public works denartments. A traffic signal will be built when 50 % of the land is developed or when an anchor tenant starts construction. The deferred improvement agreement will be shortened from 15 years to 10 years. The interior traffic circulation plan will be brought before the planning commission. A 6 foot high wall will be built on the northern property line with a 2 foot berm underneath brin_gine it to an to a 8 foot high structure. A hvdrology study will be conducted on the site prior to construction. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. C. A Public Hearing to consider a site nlan introduced by Valley of the Rogue Bank to construct two new commercial buildings totaling 18 215 square feet on the south side of East Pine Street. The subject prope~y is located in the C-4 Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the Planning Department staff report. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review for the construction of two new bank buildings; a 3215 square foot branch office and a 15,000 square foot data center. The branch office is proposed. to be expanded by an additional 2500 square feet in the future. The applicant's property is located south of East Pine Street and a portion of it aligns with a new traffic signal that has been recommended as part of the Naumes Pear -, October 5, 1999 Page 4 Blossom Center. The Bank is requesting two driveways at this time that will serve the branch bank. When the traftc signal is constructed the two driveways will be abandoned. A temporary building is envisioned for the site while the branch buildings is under construction. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, presented the Public Works Staff Report. Mr. Brennan stated that the recommendations for the Naumes Development would also apply to the Valley of the Rogue Bank construction. The site needs to be master planned for future development to the west and east of the site. A Traffic circulation plan needs to be completed and cross access agreements will have to be obtained with adjoining property owners for joint use of the signal and other points of access. If the applicants build a temporary storm water detention pond, it needs to be able to hold water from a 10 year event. When the Data Center is constructed, an internal storm water plan would have to be constructed. Peter Guting, of Abeloe and Associates, is the agent for the applicant. Mr. Guting stated that the branch bank would start construction immediately and that the recommendations fiom the Public Works department would be done. Jim May, of BCVSA, stated that there is a sewer service already that would work for the branch bank, but when the data center is constructed a new service line. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to pass Resolution Number 464 approving the Site Plan for the construction of a 3215 squar foot branch office and a 15,000 square foot data center in the C-4 tourist and office professional district, subject to the recommended conditions of a approval from the Planning and Public Works Staff report. It will also be subject to abandoning the primary driveway access off of Pine Street when a traffic signal is developed and the secondary access will be abandoned when the property to the east is developed. If a detention pond is built, it will have to be able to hold a 10 year event. Commissioner LeGros seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimouslX D. Public hearing to consider a request by the Central Point Public Works Department to modify a previousl~apnroved variance and site plan b adding a second story to a utili building_The subject prop~y is located in the R-1-6 Residential Single-Family zoning, district. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. Last year, the Public Works Department requested and received approval to construct an additional building at the City's utility yard an have since identified the need for a second story. The second floor would be for archives only to consolidate all the archives into one location. The Planning Department would also like to have the driveway apron improved when construction begins. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director and Applicant, stated the requirements would be met. Commissioner Foster made a motion to pass Resolution number 465 approving the proposed modification to the Site Plan and Variance subject to the recommended conditions of approval from the Planning and Public Works Departments and improving the driveway apron for the site. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. VI Adjournment PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: September 2l, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP; Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing-Site PlanReviewof372W1iBC,TaxLot4700-El Albinil Restaurant Addition Owner/ Tom and JohrrHamlin Applicant: P.O. Box 43 Medford, Oregon 97501 Aeent: Vitus Construction Ino, P.O. Box 1097 Gold Hill, Oregon 97525 Property _ Description/ 37 2W 11BC, Tax Lot 4700 - 2.26 acres Zoning: C-5, Commercial Thoroughfare District Summary The applicant has requested a Site Plan Review for a commercial additionat the El Albinil Restaurant. The facility is located at 507 South Front Street and shares a common tax lot with the 98 cent store and other businesses. Applicable Law CPMC 17:46.010 et seq. - C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial District CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. -Off Street Parking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval Discussion The restaurant and subsequent 840 square foot addition are permitted inthe C-5 zoning district and meeb the area, width and yard requirements ofthe municipal code; The new single story construction would add more kitchen and guest seating area! T-11 t siding wil I be applied as shown on the applicant's elevations: An addition to the El Albinil restaurant will increase the need for off-street parking spaces. CPMC 17.64.040(G-6)requireseatingand drinking establishments provide "not lessthan'onespacepereach three seats, or per one hundred square feet ofgross floor area, whichever is greater; plus one space /~_ 1 pc~r each hvo employees on the ntnjor shill " City shtffcalculated that 32 spaces are required for this project and the applicant has provided 35. Regarding on and othsite improvements, the Public Works Depatvnent has stated concenrwith the existing width ofBush Street and it's ability to serve additional traffic demand. Although the restaurant addition may not directly intluence a large increase in vehicular h~attic, the City may wish to address the Issue ofobtaining a wider right of way at this time. Public Works is preparing a reconunendation for on and offsite improvements which are believed to be reasonably related to the proposed development (see Attachment D). These include, but are not limited to; driveway aprons, sidewalk improvements; site grading and drainage; on-site lighting; paving and utility (water, sewer and storm drain) connections. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, Jackson County Fire District Number 3, and US West Communications have submitted comments that relate to the project (, Attaclunent "C" ). Bindings of Fact & Conclusions of Law In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 17.72.040:; A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction ofwal Is on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme ofthe neighborhood, and in such a mannerto use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the maintenance ofexistng plants orthe installation ofnew ones for purposes of screening .adjoining property. ^ The applicant has submitted a landscape plan f'or consideration by the Commission. The plan shows a mix of existing/proposed shrubs and trees. B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ Access is proposed from common shared driveway access within the shopping complex from Bush and rront Streets. C. To proyjdeoff-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilhiesin 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 t9 improve and;avoid interference with the traffic flow on publio streets; ^ The35parkingspacesprovidedbytbeapplicantmeettheoff-street parking requirements, of the municipal code. ., 2 i ....U 1 D. 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 oftheir buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ No signage has been proposed at this time however the applicant will be required to apply for a sign permit and submit his plans to the City prior to any sign installation. E. Accessibility and suff ciency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety of life, limb ahdproperty, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; ^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any requirements ofJackson County Fire District 3. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The proposed construction will meet the minimum setback requirements for the C-5, Commercial Thoroughfare District. G: Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation, to the neighborhood and the Ceritral Point area and it's environs. ^ ': The proposed structµre-s similar in architecture to other structures located within the C- S; Commercial Thoroughfare District. Recommendation ;.Staff recommend that the Tanning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Site Plan subjectto the recommended conditions ofapproval (Attachment D); or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or 3..Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Application and Exhibits B. Notice of Public Hearing C.! Correspondence D. Planning and Public Works Department Recommended Conditions of Approval E. Pob1w tJecK~ S~4C~ ~ePoPk ., y 3 -.. ~• ~~~ -B ~-sry- _STR~ t ;~~1 F ~.1.5,.~_.. 1b.0~ ~ ~ . -.~: . ; T ~1R ~'~ `"'~1 _,.~ ~ '1 ~~~ G iq:5PAG5?_ t3IIFLG"._ i ~ 1 ~~ :d. ~ ~~~ P ,, +~' rt q~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~r ,~ ~ ~ ~ iy-- - - -- ~~ 7 ~ ~ V,G ~j~ t y: ~\ ~-~ pp ^y ~' 7y~ ~ A I~ d ~ i ~ U r iA.t m' brae ~~ ~ i ~r~ IM -~' - '`- N ~ ~ ij ~r e' WALK I h 1 1 I F :~ , ~-~. ~ _ ~ ~ ~, ~ ,; ~ . --- ---- + ~~~ Y~ '1 City of Central Point .~~:xxrxxx~r ~,A tt Planning Department _ q C ~~ ~ ~' II 1 g..a y~.. t~ P~ ,~~ ~. I~. I '~ z r m .~,_ .-. 0 f r .ti ~_ -~ O' a' ~' ~~ 1' r, ~~ . ~, , 1MEt~ N 'Cb P. CKO0.D K1A"LC.H EX13T\,~+cr, a Taw. ._. FAC\/~ L'e~tCa ~~ T/CNT /J _~_.~ i , ~- -- ~~ ~I I. ~,_ _ ~~ .. ; ~.~, ...n;.,,. '~ ~„ rrri ti~~ a. -~xy ,' n~. } +~- ~~ Q i G O t~ti. .8.. -o..~ , r, ~ .'$".. "fie =v._. ~ ~ °~ .~ . ~c- ~p :,.. r ,i . ... c ' -F .... 4'ZC"oGZ---P -\5 ~ I coo , ` ~ .,. ~. -rt=1~ _F1KES•_ - - - _ '~ ct 2' ~`4 c.ot+To.. 4 ~oM1t_ ~ P ~SG AA~(:_T .~J -~ ~. ^ ~ Ieu CpM P~; CT ~.D S1.1PL~ d b .a? 0 \ ~ OAGO Y _ 7 ~ Q -- ~y -~1"I:mphMRERY.-_-_ 1; - ~ 1~ / 11N0\ST\?- OCt ~'D SO\L ( ~ 'b ^ G~ C... -_ 111.E l~-O° .. - City of Central Point Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: June 15, 1999 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING Tom Humphrey, AICP CYty of central Point E~:IiII~I'T ttB tr Planning Department ['fanning Director ICen Gerschler Community Planner Matt Samitore Planning Technician September 21, 1999 7:00 p.m. (Approximate). Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Site Plan that would allow a commercial addition to the EI Albinil Restaurant at 507 Front Street. The proposed addition would allow additional seating for restaurant patrons. The parcel is located in a C-5, Commercial Thoroughfare Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W11BC, Tax Lot 4700. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Site Plan Review. are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance with the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 21, 1999. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. ~., w J :: '~ '~ 155 South Second Street • Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal shall be raised prior to the expiration of the r comment period noted above. Any testimony or written comments about the decisions described above wilCheed to be related directly to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the,Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5: For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deriy the Site Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council b'e informed' about all Planning Commission decisions. ~~~ O ~~~ O ~~~ OPT G~`/~ r{~j Pti SUBJECT AREA g \\ 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax• (541) 664-6384 BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY 7916 SOUTH PACIFIC NYlY. • MEDFORD, OREOON 97691.9999 • (611)779.1111 • FA%(611) 675.62'79 August 25, 1999 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Departrnent 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: 99060 SP - EI Albinal Addition Dear Ken; aty o r cenaal t~utac Planning Department We have reviewed the proposal with regard to providing sanitary sewer service. Our records indicate there is an existing 8 inch sanitary sewer in First Street and an 8 inch PVC sewer in the property on the North side of Bush Street. The service line records in this area aze not complete, we therefore can not accurately identify where and how the existing stnrcture is connected. Have the applicant contact BCVSA for connection and permitting information. If you need additional information, please call me at 779-4144. Since , r. P. James May, J District Engineer 9 " n REVISED CITY OF CENTRAL POINT BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT APPLICANT: Name: EL ALBINIL' (VITUS CONSTRUCTION) , Address: P. o. sox 1097 City: GOLD HILL State: ~R Zip code: 97525 AGENT: Name: SAME Address: City: State: Zip code: OWNER OF RECORD: Name: TOM & JOHN HAMLIN Address: P.O. BOX 43 City: MEDFORD State; OR Zip code: 97501 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RESTAURANT ADDITION (840 SQ. FT.) BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: * 1. APPLICANT MUST VERIFY REMOVAL OF, OR PROPER ABANDONMENT OF UNDERGROUND TANKS LOCATED ON SITE (PREVIOUS GAS STATION SITE). * 2. DECOMMISSION HEATING OIL TANK IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEQ REQUIREMENTS. 3. MINIMUM PLUMBING FIXTURES AS PER (UBC CH. 29) 4. BATHROOMS AS PER (UBC CH. 11) 5. PROVIDE 3 SETS OF BUILDING PLANS. * CONTACT ERIC CLOUGH, DEQ 776-6010 EXT. 249 CENTRAL POINT BUILDING DEPARTMENT BY~ Dated: 6-20-99 DE BENEDETTI STAFF REPORT.wpdC:\Corel\SuiteB\TemplatelCuslom WP Templates\Business FormsISTAFF REPORT.wpd O .~98/31G1999, 09:27 0264566 JCFD3 BUS OFC SIRE DISTRICT" No. 3 ,JACKSON COUNTY 8333 AGATE ROAO, WFtti'E CITY, OREGON 9 75 0 3-10 75 (541) 826-7300 FAX (54v 826-4566 August 31, 1999 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point PAGE 02/02 Re: 99060-SP Fire Dist 3 reviewed a set of plans from the city building department on 7-28-99. This review was sent to the building department. If you need any other review from use please Iet me know. ~~~sz~- Neil Shaw Deputy Fire Mazshal ~~ ATTACHMENT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on September 21, 2000 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public hearing within 30 days of Planning Commission approval. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations 3. The project must meet the off-street parking requirements for professional offices, and the parking, access and maneuvering areas shall be paved with durable materials for all-weather use-and approved by the Public Works Department. 1 2 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for EI Albinil Commercial Facility Expansion Site Plan PW#99060 Date: Applicant: Property Owner: Agent: Project: Location: Legal:' Zoning:' Acreage: Plans: Report By: Purpose September 19, 1999 Vitus Construction, Inca, P.O. Box 1097, Gold HII, OR 97525 Tom and John Hamlin, P.O. Box 43, Medford, OR 97501 none' restaurant (EI Albinil) 507 S. Front Street (SW Corner of Bush and Front Streets) T37S, R2W, Section 11 BC, Tax Lot 4700 C-5 226'ac Attachment E Site'Plan w/building elevations prepared by Breeden Design, dated 6/21/99 Lee N. Brennan Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding Public Works standards and additional standards and requirements to be included in the design.. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding proposed development. Special Requirements 'Bush Streef Improvements: Right-of-Way: The right of way width varies from approximately 45 feet to 60 feet along the frontage of the subject development with Bush Street. Bush Street is being identified as a collector street to address the northbound traffic from Hopkins/Fourth Street traveling to Front Street (Highway g9). 'The property's proximity to the intersection will likely require development of a three lane section of the intersection that would require a minimum right-of-way width of 68 feet when developed. A major portion of the existing/proposed landscaping and parking lot along Bush Street will likely be acquired by the City when this intersection is improved. Right- of-way dedication normally would be required as part of the proposed development of the property. Typically, the total right-of-way width is acquired from both sides of the street; splitting the total right-of-way width required in half and applying it equally to each side. However, due to the odd configuration of this intersection, it is more likelythatthe right-of-way needed will be acquired from the south side only rather than from both sides equally, to better align Bush Street to Front Street. Since the actual right-of-way width required is not known at this time, and the right-of-way centerline is not adequately defined at this time, the exact amount of right-of-way dedication cannot be determined at this time. However, it is recommended that the approval of the proposed development be conditioned to dedicate a minimum of 12-feet (approximately'/ of the'total additional right-of-way dedication neede and that only limited development (i.e 'parking and landscaping) be allowed in the area hich lies approximately 25 feet to the south of the existing northern property line, and that the building addition would be set back far enough to allow an adequate sight.triangle whenthe intersection is redeveloped. It appears that the proposed plan for the building addition could meet this proposed setback condition. 13 E!Albieil. PWD SmJjRepor( September l9, 1999 Page 1 Sidewalks: It is recommended that the Developer be required to construct new 6-foot wide curbside sidewalks and wheel chair ramps meeting City PWD standards along the Bush Street frontage. Since the development of these sidewalks should be coordinated with the redevelopment of the Bush/Front Street intersection, it is further recommended, that the Developer be required to defer the required improvements along Bush. Street until a later date.. If any or all of the improvements are to be deferred to a later date, then the Developer will be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement with the City for the required improvements (i.e. sidewalks,-driveway aprons, and wheelchair ramps along the development's frontage with Bush Street. 2. South Front Street (Highway 99) Improvements and Right-of-Way Dedication: The City is planning to install a suitable 6-foot wide sidewalk along portions of Front Street. To facilitate sidewalk installation, and to avoid existing utility poles, the City will require an additional 10 feet of right-of-way or easement dedication along. South Front Street. The City PWD is suggesting that as part of this development, that the Developer be required to dedicate a 10-foot wide section for right-of-way along the property's frontage with South Front Street. 3 Site Drainage/Storm Drain Plan: It is recommended that the developer design and implement a site drainage/storm drain plan that corrects and enhances existing site drainage for the entire area noted on the site plan. This will likely require site drainage improvements to the entire tax lot. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. However, it is recommended that the requirement for site drainage corrections be deferred until the sidewalk improvements are completed on Bush and Front Streets. The storm drainage infrastructure would be privately operated and maintained. A suitable system will need to be designed for a minimum 10-year storm event. The discharge point and potential retention of storm water run-off shall be coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide an aesthetically, pleasing, efficient, .and low maintenance facility. The storm water retention facilities shall be designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and hydrocarbon deposition, and to mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these facilities. The developer shall also secure written permission to connect/discharge into adjoining City/ODOT storm water conveyance facilities. Catch basins, curb inlets, orifice boxes and area drains shall be designed for sediment and petroleum hydrocarbon retention. The PWD will require a copy of the engineers hydrology and hydraulic computations. 4. Driveways, Access Roads, and Parklng Areas: The site plan does not illustrate the second ,-driveway located just north of the one driveway on Front Street. Is the Developer proposing to eliminate this second existing driveway? It is recommended that the driveways, access roads, and parking and turning areas on the proposed development be designed and positioned in a manner that accommodate the turning movements and access of ahAASFiTO single unit truck and the Fire, District's requirements. All driveways, access roads, and parking areas should either have asphalt or cement concrete surfaces. 5. Exisfing Infrasfrucfure: The Developer shall provide suitable engineering certification arid justificatign (i.e. calculations, analyses, plots, etc.,) that all connections to existing infrastructure {i.e. street;. water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide for the significant degradation (in the-opinion of the. Public Works Director).of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the 14 .Ef AlbiniP PWD Stafj:Report September l9. 1999 Pnge 3 flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure; or the existing facilities will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands while maintaining or improving the existing effective level of service of the affected facility. Utility Easements: A 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) will be requjred along the property's frontage with Bush and Front Streets. General Development Plans: Developer shall submit to the City's PWD for review and approval, engineered-plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or modifications within the City or public rights-of-way and easements, or for connections to City infrastructure. Plans shall show all existing utilities and City facilities, existing contours, property lines, benchmarks and other physical site information needed for review. All plans submitted for PWD review shall be presented in a common engineering scale sized to fit on 24-inch by 36-inch, D size drawing sheets. PWD requires 3 sets of plans for review purposes. Public improvements include,: but are not limited to, streets (including sidewalks, curbs and gutters and landscape buffers); alleys; storm drainage and sanitary sewer collection and conveyance systems; water distribution system (up to the service meter and including fire. protection);. street lighting; and traffic control devices, street signs, and delineation. Alf ' construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to installation. 2. Approvals: Fire District No. 3 (fire hydrant placement, waterline sizing, and emergency vehicle access), Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA, for sanitary sewers), and City of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (commercial/industrial wastewater discharge permit) written approval of construction plans shall be submitted to the City PWD prior to final construction plan review 2nd approval by City PWD. 3. As-Bui/ts: Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with. "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form (produced on Myla~) and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD®, or other form as approved by the City PWD. qs-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot eleva(ions identified orr drawings; water. lines, valves,. and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet;. street light locations; other below grade utility lines;, etc. Provide a "red-line".hard copy (on Mylar°), or an approved alternative format, of construction. drawings, and if feasible,. an acceptable AutoCAD® compatible drawing 15 ElAlbini! ~ , PWD S(af/~Report September l9, (999 Page 4 electronic file. to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public infrastnacture facilities completed as`part of the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. Elevations: All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. 5. Existing Infrastructure: As applicable, field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed development will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submittal for final approval. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easemehtswith these facilities, shall:be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) on the construction plans. 6. Fill Placement All fill placed in the development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in accordance with .City PN/D and Building Department standards, except for the upper 1.5-feet of fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does not underlie building, structures, or traveled vehicularaccess ways or parking areas. 7. Road/Driveway/Parking Areas: The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the access road, parking, and driveway section designs to handle the expected oads (including fire equipment) to be traveled on these private driveways, access roads; and parking areas. Needto providesection'forrcview: The driveways, access roads, and truck parking and turning areas on the proposed development must be designed and positioned in a manner thatwill accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO Single Unit Truck without crossing' into arropposing lane oradditional travel lane of traffic. 8. Utility Plans: We did not receive any utility plans for the proposed development. The utility plans shalt be drawn to scale with accurate horizontal and vertical depiction of utility lines and appurtenances (transformers, valves, etc.). As built drawings shall reflect all utility locations; located both above and below ground.. 9. Area Llahtinq P/an: Provide and implement an adequate area lighting plan for parking and public access areas, including the driveway entrances. Plans should include the mast height, luminosity and effective light spread at ground level. Lighting shall be designed so as not to interfere with vehicle traffic on city streets, or direct light to neighboring properties. 10. Public Utility Easements: A minimum 10-foot wide public utilities easement (PUE) shall be dedicated on the proposed development for the installation of public utilities and shall be located outside the public rights-of-way. At a minimum, the PUE should be aligned along the exterior boundaries of the property thaYborder Bush'ahd Front Streets, if a PUE is not currently present in this area. 11: C/ear Vision Areas: The site plan indicates that the proposed building addition is outside the sight-vision triangle necessary for''the intersection of Bush and Front Streets (including the consideration of likely redevelopment of the subject intersection). A 55-foot minimum Sight visioh triangle shall be maintained at the property's corker withe the subject intersection. 16 E! Albinrl pWD StaJf'Reporr S`eprember !9, l999 Page S 12. Fire Hvdrants: Provide locations of existing and any new required fire hydrants. Fire Hydrants need to be connected to S-inch-diameter and larger lines. If applicable, steamer ports at hydrants located near the building shall face the buildings. Fire hydrants shall be suitably protected from potential vehicle damage and encroachment. 13. Water System Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for cross connection control. Building service will likely require a backflow prevention assembly to be installed directly behind the City's meter. 14. Water System: Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and location of all water mains, hydrants, valves, service connection, meter, service laterals, and other appurtenance details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD. 15. Sanitary Sewer Industrial Discharge Perm/f: If applicable, obtain an updated industrial discharge permit from City of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (Medford RWRF). Obtain Medford RWRF's written approval. Copy of the application form can be obtained from City PWD. 16. Roof/Area Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the public storm drain system. 17. Grading Plans: Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade _ contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. ~, ~ Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. 18. Storm Drain System Design: The Developer's engineer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrology and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the site storm drain system. The engineer shall use the rainfall/intensity curve obtained from the City PWD for hydrology calculations, and the negotiated run-off parameters. ~7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: November 2, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT:. Public Hearing- Site Plan Review and variance for 37 2W 11 BB, Tax Lot 400 - Tyerman Dental Clinic Building: Owner/ Curtis L. Tyerman P.C.- Anulicant: 57 North Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Aeent: Steven G. Sherbourne . 29 South Grape Streeh Medford, Oregon 97501 Property Description/ 37 2W 11BB, Tax Lot 400 - 0.18 acres Zonin C-2, Commercial Professional District Summary: Theapplicanthasrequested aSite Plan Review forthe construction ofa 2250 square foot dental building to be constructed at the southwest corner ofOak and Fourth Streets. The site originally housed an older dwelling but is now vacant with the exception ofseveral mature trees in the area (referto site plan). The Planning Commission tabled this issue from September 21~` to allow the applicantto pursue a variance from parking and maneuvering requirements. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Site Plan and Variance. Notice ofthe Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Annlicable Law: CPMC 17.36.010 et seq. - C-2, Commercial-Professional District CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. -Off Street Parking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 etseq. -Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval CPMC 17.80.010 et seq. -Variances ~~~ ss Discussion: "I-he site plan Mr Sherbourne has submitted depicts the placement of a 2250 square foot single story stricture onto a 140' by 55' corner lot. The plan shows tour parkingspaces Tong Oak Street (one ofthe spaces is ADA accessible). An additional five spaces would he accessed ti-om the alley alongthe rear property line. CPMC 17.G4.OA0 requires that medical aad dental offices provide not less than three spaces per practitioner; plus one space per two employees, Drone space pereach two hundred square feetofFloor area, whichever is greater. Given this requirement, the project needs to provide I 1 spaces in order to comply with the ordinance. Planning and Public Works personnel havemetwiththeapplicant'sagentto discuss solutions to parking on-site and the applicant has elected to pursue a variance. The proposed use is permitted inthe C-2 zoning district but must meet various criteria. The parcel in question has adequate area given the size oftlte proposed building. The C-2 zone requires a 5 foot front and side yard setback for the express purpose of landscaping with lawn, trees, shrubs, and other materials determined to be suitable by the Planning Commission. According to the code, landscaping must be maintained in good condition. T'he Publ is Works Department has prepared recommendations for on and offsite improvements which are believed to be reasonably related to the proposed development. These include, but are not limited to; driveway aprons, sidewalk improvements; site grading and drainage; on-site lighting; paving and utility (water, sewer and storm drain) connections. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, Jackson County Fire District Number 3, and US West Communications have submitted comments that relate to the project (Attachment"C" ). Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law: Site Plan Review In approving, conditiona]ly approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 17.72.040: A. Landscaping and fencing and the constnrction ofwalls on the site insuch a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme ofthe neighborhood, and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the maintenance ofexisting plants or the installation of new ones for purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ The applicant Iris submitted a landscape-plan for consideration by the Commission. \\CI'I'DI'DC\City Widc\I'lanning\990536.WI'U 19 Existing oak and elnr trees will likely remain in the public right of way as the project develops. Various shrubs are proposed along the perimeterofthepropertyandaround the building. B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ One new access is proposed from Oak Street, there is curb side pedestrian access from Fourth Street and there is also drive able access from an existing alley at the rear of the :property. C. 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 ofuse, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ . Nine (9) parking spaces have been proposed for this project. The code requires 1f spaces for;dental and medical offices when,the greater of the two standards is used. Parking .,spaces off of the alley are proposed for employees and wiltbe occupied throughout the .day. Patient parking will be accessed from Oak Street and this is where the greater vehicle activity will take place. Oak Street is a local road and the introduction of additional vehicles from the dental office over an eight hour period will not be significant. D. 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 oftheir buildings oruses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ No signage has been proposed at this time however the applicant will be required to apply for a sign permit and submit his plans to the City prior to any sign installation. E. Accessibility and sufficiency offire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety oflife, limb and property, including, butnot limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus, ^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any requirements ofJackson County Fire District3. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The proposed construction will meet the minimum setback requirements for the C-2, Commercial Professional District. The stricter parking requirements cannot be met at this time and,that is why the applicant is pursuing a variance. \\CPPDPDC\City Wide\Planning\990536.WPD ~~ 20 G: Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ^ The proposed structure is similar in architecture to other structures located within the C-2, Commercial Professional District including both residential and commercial buildings. Variance A variance may be granted if findings are made that the following considerations will either result from a granting of the variance or the following considerations do not apply to the requested application. 1; The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the city, such as beautification or safety;;,, ^ The applicants have stated that they believe the development will enhance the overall characteristics oftheneighborhood. This is an infill project and the constructionofa new building redevelops land that has been designated for commerciaPuse for the past 20 years. Infrastructure improvements resulting from project approval will enhance the neighborhood. 2. The variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; ^ Varying from the maneuveringrequirements for parking from an alley will not have any significant adverse impacts given the infrequency ofemployee use and provided the alley is partially improved. Fewer parking spaces for clients will probably result in some on- streetparking along Fourth Street however this should not pose a problem as there is no competition for parking spaces in the area now. 3: The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district; ^ The variance is being requested inorder todevelop acommercial-professional use on a' fairly small tax lot. 4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same zoning district; ^ The applicant has stated that the nature of the site offers some inherent difficulties .. . is adjoined on three sides by traffic areas. The required setbacks Include vision clear areas on a corner of I'onrth and Oak Streets. It should be noted that clear vision requirements also apply to the alley where it intersects with Fourth Street. The lot is a \\CI'1'UI'UC\City Wide\Planning\990536.WPD .,~. 21 corner lot. is small ($5' by 1~J0') and Was previously occupied by an older home before being rezoned to a commercial use. There will be similar difficulties with any nets development in the C-2 zoning dish•ict given the historically small lots and their proximity to older residential uses. 5. 'I'heconditionsforwhichthevarianceisrequcstedwerenotself-imposed through the applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. ^ City staff discussedalfernative parking plans and building layouts with the:p~tlicant's agent but a number of issues discouraged plans that met both the square footage requirement and City regulations. Among the issues were I) the interior7oom layout, inhroduction ofnatm•al outside light and operational efficiency; 2) separation ofcmployee and client vehicles; 3) m•ientation of the building to Oak and G'om•th Streets (for appearance sake); and 4) the importance of preserving landscaped areas and mature trees. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: I .Adopt Resolution No., approving the Variance and Site Plan subject tothe reconuhended conditions of approval; or 2:, Deny the proposed Variance and Site Plan; or 3. Continue the review of the Variance and Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Application and Exhibits B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Planning Department Conditions D. Correspondence G. Publie Works Staff Report UCPPUPUCACily WiJcAVlanningA99163h.WNU ~~. 22 /~.;TRq` til"l~lr; PLAN ItF,VII?~1' Al'I'LICA"PION .,~, q City or Central Point Planninrt Denartmant . . -~ .~-. o .~,~ ~> =~ ~ aty ~rc~ttnu Point OREGON Planning Department APPLICANT INPORMAl10N Namc: l//~1~1 ~ . ` rY~N/~Sa/ ~/._ ~1 <<~ ~~i; <i ~ ~V]~'~s JUN 3 0 1999 UPPICIi USL ONL,' City: ~-~ 776 State:_ ~~.. Zip Code:~~Y~~'~. __ "I~clephone; Bustness:--~~ - z/Q _ Residence: 2 AGLN"f INPORMA"PION Name: ~~,/~ ~--_~~~rj~'~~lPi~/ Address: ~9 s. ~~~ City: /YJ~j=p~~ .State: D~ Zip Code: Telephone: Business: Z~~ - ~~~iG~ Residence: 3. OWNER OP RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet [f More Than One) Name: ~~~~ ~~~~J G- - Address: City: / ~7/~/~ State: Dj~. Zip Code: ~7rjQ'f, Telephone: Business; ~ (~ Z~jD Residence: 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Type of Development: ~ ~ G~ D/ Township: Range:~~L Section: _~1~~ Tax Lot(s): Ll'oo Address3~~i D~~ Zoning District: ~' G - a. Project Acreage: . /~ Number of Dwelling Units: /yfJ. Non-Sale Area Sq. Footage Sale Area Sq. Footage =Gross Floor Area?~30D' Number of Parking Spaces: 9' 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS / This Application Form. ~ egal Description. Application Fee ($255.00). ttt" Letter. of Project Descriptioti. Site Plan Drawn to Scale (10 copies). Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process. Reduced Copies (8'/z x 11) ofthe Site Plan, Building Elevations and Landscape Plans (1 copy Ea.). ~~ Landscape and Irrigation ['Ian (3 copies). 6. [IiEREBYS"fATETHA"I'"fIiEFAC"I~SRELA"CLDIN"CHEABOVEAPPLICA"fIONANDT[-IEPLANS AND DOCUMlN"CS SUBMI"(TED FIEREWCCH ARI"I'RIIE, CORIZLCT, AND ACCURA"1'ETO "[7 R; BBS"f OP MY KNOWLEDGE. - [ certify that I am the : ~ Property Owner or ~ Authorized Agcnt oC the Owner ~ ~j, ~ nr ne~roposed project site. s ~/ h1' O F G ENTrt~L f ?~If~l- "TNE ~~~~ `f'fEFMAN a~FIGe ~UI-.DI aF ~," ~r ~F ~ PENTf~L . a~~I~E, ~ -!~1(~o~Pl = IiON~I~Tr~I~ W ITH GI'iY ~ _ _ I.1TI L fl•I E~ ~E P~~i1=1dT' IN- f~- .-- Of'`~ inl e ~ P~r~ `ro ~.IN I ~i TN E !3 U ILPII`~ ~ - PL~T>/ ~- ~- M ~'AL ~~R G~N51~ W~ W L ILL ~-~'11~E ~U I =t;M ~N~ ~+ ~~~T, (/ ~ ' , - -~~•~EN ~. ~1~1 ~~~uFE~IE ,a., f . ~,P = --- ~. 24 ~:soce ao ~cxloa JYaiaaJ uaacs aro a annanY nl. aJIJJO JY1 V3U VYXtl3A1 JIaa3U A allanJ z ~ .. m o z m ~ o a r m N Y J n ~ 4 4, ~ J J N N Y _ I7Ja1S Ntl0 Z NN N ^ ^ N, N a W m N _ o .~ n N .J 1`1 N P ~ Z rry ~ ~Z Z '! m J y O O ' y u v rc J 4w .~ 3 ~. n x ¢ ., ? i ° t- N ~rc x w n u w ~+ Q ~ _ ~ ~' as `a o o w o u " N u~ m i i £ v r a Z '° ~ s H F w n ~ ~ ~ ~ I S ~ Z o ¢ ~ J ~' W m I- W ~~ 25 r n i~ { r. r n a 0 Z i 0 c ~Z r. r1 D 0 e z D iL m 1111 '~. ~ ~~ ~ a ~ A" E ;.~ ..,. .~ IN' ;~I n a F~ .~ r m a 0 z A 5 N rt Z A ti • S m r m a ti C1 0 x N rt CURTL9 k DEBOIE TYERYAN oexru, omce STN AVENUE k OAK STREET CERTR.U, PoINT. OR 07602 ... 2 R INII:RIURS LIVERY STRBL lEL:503 '2-Og26 Llct 12 99 5:1-1 No.0~10 F.,,qz APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE. City of Central Point Planning Department I~ATIi 57 AMP 2- 3 4 T'hts Applrcatton Form. ~ Application Fee ($200.00). ~ Site Plan .and Elevations Drawn to Scale (10 Scts). rl Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process. ~ One copy,of a reduced Site Plan aad Elevations (8 %, x 1 1). ^ ~al Description of the Property. FmdinL*s (Addressing Criteria in Section 17.80 of the Central Point Municipal Code). ~ Letter of project description. 6. I HER.EIIY STATE THATTHE FACTS RELATED iA] THL•' ABOVE nPPI_ICA'I'lON nND THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED I-IEREWITH ARE TRLJF., C RRECT, AND At ~Cl.;1tATE TO 'rH F-: BEST' OP NIX KNOWLEDGE. [ certify that I am the : ^ Property Owner or Authorized Agent of [hr. <)wncr of the proposed project si[e. Signa[ure _ Date _ ~~ ~~ If any wetlau s ex' t on the site, it is the applicant's responsihility to apply for a permit to Division of ~ Cint' r T n~rl~~ hrfn~r anv cifn a..n~li l~n~ino APPLICANT' INFORMATION I,f rlc~ usE orlw Natne:- Gl L.. ~y~Irf ~ ~G . Address: _ ~/ --- _ City: Telephone: Business: O/ State; - ~ZipCode: °f-- Q ~~-- Residence: _ _ AGLN'I' INFORMATION Name: ~~y / ~r" f~jA~ ` Address: ._ ~~~ ~~ ~- - ty~ T l ' State:~~. Zip Code: . ~f "7 d ~ e ephone: Business: 77 ~ ~l " Residence: - ----- - - ` OWNL`•R OF RECORD (Attach Sepazate Sheet If More Than One) Natnc: (/ Address.: NO .. .. ...... _... City; State: Zip Code: ~- ~ p ~~~~-- Telephone: Business: . Residence: _ PROJIC'I' llESCRIPTION Township: ~_` Ra~n ' :~ 1~ Section: ~BJpjTax Lot(s): ~g~ q oa Coning District: f~~ _-- ~ .. ~, - 'fotalAcreage: ' --~°- -- General escript on of Variance: ~t~j/ft,/y~~~--- ~~ _. - - ~ 5. REQUIRED~SkJIIMiTTALS INTERIORS LIVERY STREL TEL :503 72-0426 Oct 12 99 ~~ PACIFIC PIONEER DE516N GRDUP PROFESSIONAL BUILDING OESIQN LAND PLANNIND Tuesday, October 12, 1999 City of Central Point 155 S.2nd Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 ATTTI: Tom Humphrey RE: FINDINGS OF FACT 8:13 No.010 P.O1 The project in question is an 2250 s.f. dental office. The nature of the site offers some inherent difficulties. the proposed development is adjoined on three sides by traffic areas. The required setbacks include. vision clear areas on the corner oP Fourth and Oak Streets. Due to these limitations we propose to use the alley way as a•vehiCle mattuvering area and request a variance to section 17.64.7.OU. ' We fee]. this will have no adverse impact on the svrrounding properties do to its proximity to Fourth Street. Municipal code. 17.64.040. states not less than three spaces per practitioner; plus one space par each two employees. Tho type of practice for Dr. Tyerman is himself, an assistant and one office position. We feel providing nine parking Spaces will conform to the miniiaum code requirements and request a variance to the more stringent .interpretation of this section. In conclusion, We believe this development will inhance the overall characteristics of the neighbourhood_ Since ' ly, e en G. Sherbourne A.I.B.D. - Pacific Pioneer. Design, Group 28 City of CentYal Point Attaehtrient B ~~. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Matt Sami[ore Planning Technician Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: October 10, 1999 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING November 2, 1999 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Variance from the minimum off street parking'requirements for a proposed 2300 square foot commercial building at 348 Oak Street. The parcel is located in a C-2 Commercial ProfessionaCZoningDistrict on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372WI1BB, Tax Lot 400. The Central Point Planning Commission will review the Vaziance application to determine that all applicable provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met and may render or postpone a decision concerning the matter. CRITERIA. FOR DECISION The requirements for variances are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 2, 1999. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. I55 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 " " •- Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated cleazly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Please ask for file number 99053. Copies of the same aze available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 291. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and heaz arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the vaziance. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ~~~v- ~~"~.~ ~ ~~~~~~o ~~~~~~ ~~ 'm~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~o~~~~~ ~~~ 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 on 3. J! ATTACHMENT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The approval ofthe Site Plan shall expire in one year on November 2, 2000 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public hearing within 30 days of Planning Commission approval. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations . 3. The projectmustmeettheoff-streetparkingrequirementsforprofessionaioffices,andtheparking, access and maneuvering areas shall be paved with durable materials for all-weather use and approved by'the Public Works Department: \\CPPDPDC\City WiAc\Planning\990536.WPD ~~ 31 Attachment D BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY. 3916 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFOHD, OREGON 97601-9099 • (611)779.4114 • FAX (641) 636.6778 August 4, 1999 I Ken Gerschler ;City of Central Point Planning Department I55 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: 99053 SPR - Tyem)azi Building Dear Ken, We have reviewed the proposal with regard to providing sanitary sewer service. There is an existing 8 inch HDPE sanitary sewer in Oak and a 15 inch PVC sewer in 4`h Street. A 6 inch service line is stubbed near the Westerly property line on Oak Street. The service connection to the proposed building should be located and routed around the existing tree at that lot corner. Have the applicant contact BCVSA for connection and permitting information. If you need additional information, please call me at 779-4144. Sin e James May, Jr. P. District Engineer 32 „ ° ', U~~IVEST" COMMUNICATIONS ~pfsC~~Uf]~_ AUG~,01999 D Tuesday, August 24, 1999 By-. City of Central Point 153 S, 2"d Street - Central Point, Oregon 97502. ATTN: Ken Gerschler RE: Planning Commission meeting on September 7,.1999; U S West does not have a problem with the Tyerman building or the Mountain View Plaza Land Partition as long as a 10 foot P.U.E. is attained for all street frontages for the Tyerman project. We would like to see a 15-foot P.U.E. along alt street frontages for Mountain View Plaza Land Partition. Any questions can be referred to myself at 132 W. 4~' St. Medford, Oregon 97501, Tel # 541-776-82,65. Yours truly, Mike Shannon .- 33 l:l I 1 l)I to-N 1 IL\l I'~11N I (.)L-f'AR 1 MEN F Of= PUBLIC WC)Kh STAFF REPORT for Attachment E Tyerman Dental Clinic 348 Oak Street Commercial Facility Site Plan PW#99053 Date: Applicant: Property Owner: Agent: Project: Location: Legal Zoning: Plans: Report By: September 14, .1999 Curtis L. Tyerman, P.C:, 57 North 2n° Street, Central Point, bR 97502 Same as Applicant Steven G. Sherbourne,29 South Grape Street, Medford, OR 97501 Dental Clinic Building 348 Oak Street (SW comer of Oak and 4" Streets) T37S, R2W, Section 1166, Tax tot 400 G2 , Site Plan w/ building elevations submitted byPacific Pioneer Design Group, dated 6/28/99 Paul W. Worth, Public Works Technician Pur ose Provide information fo the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding Public Works standards and additional standards and requirements to be included in the design. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding proposed development. Special Requirements 1.- Oak Street and Fourth Street Improvements: Sidewalks: It is recowheel chaff hratmps and dripeway apronsdmeet ng City PWD standards curbside sidewalks, alorig the Oak Street frontage. Developer should also be required to remove and. replace the existing sidewalk on the 4"' Street frontage with a new 5-foot wide sidewalk, separated by the existing landscape strip between the curb and sidewalk. The landscaped strip on 4"' Street and the Right-of-Way (ROW) behind the Oak Street sidewalk shall be planted arid maintained in compliance with City Ordinances and PWD standards. AlleyAlley /____-?r~rOVen?ents: The alley along the southern boundary of the property is unimproved. The plans indicate that there will be parking movements that will take access off the alley, which will result in backing and turning movements in the alley. This is prohibited in the City's Municipal Code under Secfion 17.64.100 (E) (3). If access will betaken from the alley to the property, then it is recommended that the Developer be required to improve the alley to current PWD standards. Typically this requires a minimum of a 3-inch thickness of Class B asphalt over li-inches of 3/4-inch-minus base rock and 8-inches of 4-inch-minus sub-base rock. Woven geotextile fabric is required to be placed ' overlaying the subgrade. The broken concrete alley apron and idewalk will also require. removal and replacement to current PWD standards. Construction of the alley apron to current standards will require thatthe existing catch basinfinlet be relocated to the north. :~ Q ~•,,,~, . Storm wafer collection and conveyance facilities shall also be constructed or reconstructed to provide for storm water conveyance from surface drainage of the alley and ad' area, so that the surface drainage does not sheet flow across the sidewalWdrivewa t alley entrance. parking y at the 3 Site Drainape/Storm Drain P/an: It is recommended that the developer desi n implement a sde draina a/storm drain tan that corrects and enhances exis~i 8 and for the entire area noted on the site pla~. Sheet flow surface drainage from the the public rights-of-wa 9 site drainage y (including the alley) df onto neighborin property onto The storm drainage infrastructure will be privately operated and ma stained s A suitable system will need to be designed fora minimum 10-year storm event. The discharge point and potential retention of storm water run-off shall 6e coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide an aesthetically pleasing, efficient, and low maintenance facility. The storm water retention facilities shall be designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and hydrocarbon deposition, and to mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these facilities. The developer shall also secure written permission to connecUdischarge into adjoining City storm water conveyance facilities. Catch basins, curb inlets, orifice boxes and area drains shall be designed for sediment and petroleum hydrocarbon retention. The PWD will require a copy o(the engineers hydrology and hydraulic computations. 4. Orivewa s Access Roads -and Parkin Areas: If is recommended that the driveways, access roads, and parking and turning areas on the proposed development be designed and positioned in a manner that accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO single unit truck and the Fire District's requirements. All driveways, access roads, and parking areas should either have asphalt or cement concrete surfaces. The driveway entrance "throat"off of Oak Street needs to be moved a minimum of 6 feet to the west to meet the minimum setback of 30 feet from the property lines at the intersection of Oak and Fourth .Streets. Driveway throat is narrow for two way driving. 5. ~ Existing /nfrastructure: The Developer shall provide suitable engineering certification and fustification (i.e. calculations,, analyses, plots, etc.,) that ail connections to existing , - infrastructure (i.e. street; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide for the significant degradation (in the opinion of the Public Works Director) of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result. of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure; or the existing facilities will be .improved by-and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands while maintaining or improving the existing effective level of service of the affected facility. 6. Uti/itv E__, aseme~ts: A 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) will be required along the .property's frontage with Oak and 4" Streets. 7, lNaterServtce: The City has no record of water service to this tax lot. It is not known if a tap to the water main in Oak street exists.' If no existing service exists then all SDCs and associated fees for connection will be required. The Developer shall determine with the Building Department what size service' line and meter will be required to service the proposed.. development ~~ 35 .,~ •u,:., .. ... f'll (1,\'/,i/1 Art •.~n r,r„• i General 1. Development P/ans: Developer shall submit to the City's PWD (or review and approval, engineered plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or modifications within the City or public rights-of-way and easements or for connections to City infrastructure. Plans shall show all existing utilities and City facilities, existing contours, property lines, benchmarks and other physical site information needed for review. All plans submitted for PWD review shall be presented in a common engineering scale sized to fit on 24- by 36-inch, D size drawing sheets. PWD requires 3 sets of plans for review purposes. Public improvements include, but are not limited to, streets (including sidewalks, curbs and gutters and landscape buffers); alleys; storm drainage and sanitary sewer collection ahd conveyance systems; water distribution system (up to the service meter and including fire protection); street lighting; and traffic control devices, street signs, and delineation. All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special' specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as maybe approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by thebeveloper's engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to installation. 2. Approvals: Fire District No. 3 (fire hydrant placement, waterline sizing, and emergency vehicle access), Bear Creek Valley SanitaryAuthority (BCVSA, for sanitary sewers), and City of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (commercial/industrial wastewater discharge permit) written approval of construction plans shall be submitted to the City PWD priorto final construction plan review and approval by City PWD. 3. As-Bu/Ifs: Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form (produced on Mylar®) and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD®, or other form as approved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved: construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations (as appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited. to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet; street light locations; other <below grade utility lines; etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on Mylar®), or an approved alternative. format, of constructlon drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD® compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by he City Administrator or his designee. 4. Elevations: Ali elevations used on the construction plans; on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. 36 ,•.;,. Existing /n/restructure As applicable, field venfy all existing uifras(ruchrre elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, street elevations, etc.), to which Uie proposed development will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submittal for final approval.. The accurate locations of any ezisling underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) on the construction plans... FHI P/acemenY. All fill placed in .the development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in accordance with City PWD and Building Department standards, except for the upper 1.5-feet of fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does not underlie ..building, structures,. or traveled vehicular access ways or parking areas. Road/Orivewav/Parkina Areas: The Developer shalt evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the access road, parking, and driveway section designs'to handle the expected loads (including fire equipment) to be t~ayeled on these private driveways, access roads, and parking areas. Need to provide section for review. The driveways, access roads, and truck parking and turning areas on the proposed developmenf must be designed and positioned in a manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO Single Unit Truck without crossing into an, opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic' 8. Utility Plans: We did not receive any utility plans for the proposed development: The utility plans shall be. drawn to scale with accurate horizontal and vertical depiction of utility lines and appurtenances (transformers, valves, etc.). As built drawings shall reflect all utility locations; located both above and below ground. 9. Area Lighting Plan: Provide and implement an adequate area lighting plan for.parking and public access areas, including the driveway entrance from 4'" Street, and if applicable, the alley as may be required by the City PWD. Plans should include the mast height, luminosity and effective light spread at ground level. Lighting shall be designed so as not to interfere with vehicle traffic on city streets. 10. Public Uti/fty Easements: A minimum 10-foot wide public utilities easement (PUE) shall be dedicated on the proposed development for the installation of public utilities and shall be located outside the public rights-of-way. AYa minimum; the PUE should be aligned along the exterior boundaries of the property that border4"' and Oak streets, if a PUE is not currently present in this area. 11. Clear Vision Areas: The site plan indicates that the proposed building is outside the sight- vision triangle necessary for the alley connection to Oak Street. A 55=foot minimum sight vision triangle shall be maintained at the property's corner of Fourth and Oak Sheets: 12. Fire Nvdran[s: Provide locatidns of existing and any new required fire hydrants. Fire Hydrants need to be connected to 8-inch-diameter and larger lines. If applicable, steamer ports at hydrants located near the building shall face the buildings. Fire hydrants shall be suitably protected from potential vehicle damage and encroachment. 37 ~ .,. _ . (•.~~•.. 13 Water System Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for cross connection control. Need to know projected activities and water uses for existing and new commercial buildings to determine requirements for cross connection control and fire protection. Building service will likely require a backflow prevention assembly to be installed directly behind the City's meter. 14. Water System: Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and location of all water mains, hydrants, valves, service connection, meter, service laterals, and other appurtenance details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD. 15. Sanitary Sewer Industrial Discharge Permit. If applicable, obtain industrial discharge permit from City of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (Medford RWRF). Obtain Medford RWRF's written approval to connect to the sanitary sewer system. Copy of application can be obtained from City PWD. 16. Roof/Area Drains: All structures shall have roo(drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the public storm drain system. 17. Grading Plans: Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width ~.: ,. and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. 18. Overhead Power Lines: If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US West, and TCI Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities within or adjoining the proposed development to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer. 19. Storm Drain Sys[em Design: Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this development plan, the Developer's engineer shall prdvide the-City PWD with a complete set of hydrology and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the site storm drain system. The engineer shall use the rainfallCntensity curve obtained from the City PWD for hydrology calculations, and the negotiated run-off parameters. 38 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT - HEARING DATE: November 2, I999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing-,Site Plan Review of 37 2W l OAB, Tax Lot5300 -Building Addition at the Independent Baptist Church. The parcel is zoned R-1-8, Residential Single- Family. Owner/ ' Independent Baptist,Church. Annlicant: ^~ 320 West Pine Street - Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Fred Brown 101 East Valley View Road Ashland, Oregon 97520: Pro er Description/ 37 2W IOAB, Tax Lot 5300 - 0.54 acres Zonin R-I-8, Residential Single Family District Summary The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review that would allow the addition of 756 square feet to the building owned by the Independent Baptist Church. Aonlicable Law CPMC 17.36.010 et seq. - R-1-8, Residential Single Family District CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. -Off Street Parking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval Discussion Mr. Fred Brown, a representative of the Independent Baptist Church has requested that the Planning Commission review a Site Plan that would allow the existing 793 square foot building at 320 West Pine Street to be expanded by756 square feet. The proposed expansion is intended to replace a portion of the original building removed for safety reasons just recently. This addition would be larger than the previously removed portion and would add three classrooms, restroom facilities and a foyer to the existing sanctuary facility. 39 One potential problem with the proposed addition is related to the City'stlood ordinance as portions of the existing and proposed buildig ai~e located in a FEMA itlenfitied flood way along Griftin Creek. "fhe municipal code prohibits development in the Hood way to reduce the potential damage to persons and property that could be expected fi•ont Flood water velocity' and debris blockage. Restricted stream channels have typically been known to divert excess water onto surrounding properties resulting in additional indirect flood damage. To facilitate a solution to theflood way dilenmia;the Commwrity Baptist Church could exercise one of two options: a) The church could reconstruct the portion of the building that was removed recently as long as the building footprint was not increased in square footage and only if the remodeled area were constructed to current construction standards for flood proofing. b) The church could add-onto the existing building only if the addition could be located out of the flood way and engineered to provide no rise in the flood way elevation. If the building were to be increased in size, the City's Publid Works Department would reserve the right to assign reasonable improvement requirements to the facility's access outo West Pine Street. CPMC 17.64.010 requires that churches and chapels provide" not less than one space per each four seats• or eight square feet plus one space for every ffty square feet of area available for portable seating, secondary assembly or classroom purposes". Based upon available seating (11 pews) and classroom areas (360 square feet ), the site would need to provide at least 17 spaces. The church does not currently have marked parking stalls but does appear to have adequate room to meet the off- street requirement. No additional fill including gravel, can be applied to the:parking area unless an engineer can demonstrate that the fill will not increase the flood elevation.' Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 17.72.040: A. 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 scheme of the neighborhood, and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the maintenance of existing plants or the installation of new ones for purposes of screening.: adjoining property. ^ There is no additional landscaping associated with this project. ~~. 40 9 ` B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The church access is taken from a driveway on West Pine Street. The Public Works staff report may require additionalimprovements to thedriveway if the building were to be enlarged beyond the original footprint. C. 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; ^ The project area is large enough to provide for the 17 required off-street parking spaces. D. 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 buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ There is no new signage associated with this application. Any changes would require permits and staff approval. - E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the - reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; ^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any requirements ofJackson County Fire District 3. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ With the exception of the flood way encroachment, the building addition meets all requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code. G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ^ The architecture of the proposed structure is similar to homes in the surrounding neighborhood. Churches are permitted uses in residential zones. 41 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. ,approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the.proposed Site Plan; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments , I - A. Site Plan B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval 42 ~„ .,,:. . aty or central Point E~:HIl3IT t'A't Planning Depurtmen't ~-- -- 131.44 I i ~V~ N J ~ `. ~ ~. I .. ~ ~i.FLOOD WAY I X5'0" ExIaG '- hEWEf;'..... I ~ I I P~~~p~ ~ I W ` v+ I .,~4. ~ ~ ~ 12'-9k VERIFY ~ , NEw }:4"'SEwE~ I' _ _ a i ~~ ~- ~ ~,. p.P.~ - 7` ... ~" /~~ ,, .~/. i ~'", to ~; ,, ~\ ~, ' Q ~ ;' ' ~..~ ~ ~• ~ ~. . ~~,'' ~ - 99 2W IOA6 • 5900 aiTE PI.ArI 43 A ~' ~ i~ 4 N Driveway Access 44 City of Central Point P.GANNING DEPARTMENT City o f central Point EXHTff~IT ~tB t~ Planning Department Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: October 11, 1999 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING November 2, 1999 -7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon om Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen Gerscliler Community Planner Matt Samitore 'lanning Technician Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a site plan that would allow a building addition to the Independent Baptist Church at 320 West Pine Street. The parcel is located in a R-1-8, Residential Single-Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W10AB, Tax Lot 5300. The Central Point Planning Commission will review the site plan application to determine that all applicable provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for site plan review are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscapirig and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Any person interested in commenting onthe above-mentioned land use decisioh may submit written comments up until the close, of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 2, 1999. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. I55 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax` 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will heed fo be related to dre proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied uponby the applicant are available for public review at City Hall; 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 291. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the variance. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point; OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ATTACHMENT C RECOMMENllED PLANNING llEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on November 2, 2000 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public hearing within 60 days of Planning Commission approval. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations . 3. The project must meet the off-street parking requirements for churches, and the parking, access and maneuvering areas shall be paved with durable materials for all-weather use and approved by the Public Works Department. The applicant/property owner shall submit final parking, landscaping, lighting and sign plans to the Planning, Public Works and Building Departments for approval prior to obtaining any building permits.. -. 4`7