Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 825 - White Hawk Master PlanPLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 825 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MASTER PLAN FOR THE WHITE HAWK TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (FILE NO. 14004) WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application for approval of the White Hawk Transit Oriented Development Master Plan, a residential development within the City's Eastside Transit Oriented District; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2015, the City of Central Point Planning Commission conducted its third duly - noticed public hearings on the application, at which time it reviewed the Staff Report and heard testimony and comments on the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to master plans and development standards within the TOD districts in accordance with Section 17.65 through 17.67 of the Central Point Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, after duly considering the proposed master plan, it is the Planning Commission's determination that, subject to compliance with conditions as set forth in the Revised Staff Report (Exhibit "A ") dated October 6, 2015, the application does comply with applicable standards and criteria for approval of a master plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by a duly seconded motion granted master plan approval per the conditions as set forth in the Revised Staff Report dated October 6, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Exhibit `B ") in support of the decision made at the October 6, 2015 meeting for review at the November 3, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. 825, does hereby approve the Master Plan for the White Hawk TOD application. This approval is based on the findings and conditions of approval as set forth on Exhibit "A ", the Planning Department Staff Report dated October 6, 2015 and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as set forth in Exhibit `B, " including attachments incorporated herein by reference. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 3rd day of November, 2015. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: x City representative Planning Commission Resolution No. 825 (11/3/2015) City of Central Point, Oregon 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www.centralpointoregon.gov REVISED STAFF REPORT October 6, 2015 AGENDA ITEMs: File No. 14004 EXHIBIT" =�" Community Develop_ ment Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director Consideration of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) master plan on 18.91 acres in the Eastside TOD district. The project site is located east of Gebhard Road and north of Beebe Road, and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 02 Tax Lots 2700 and 2701. The project site is within the LMR —Low Mix Residential (2.69 acres) and MMR— Medium Mix Residential (16.22 acres) zoning districts. Applicant: People's Bank of Commerce; Agent: Tony Weller, CESINW. STAFF SOURCE: Don Burt, AICP, Planning Manager Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner II BACKGROUND: The proposed White Hawk Master Plan ( "Master Plan) establishes a framework for a residential development on 18.91 acres within the Eastside Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) district (Attachment `B "). It is the applicant's objective to obtain master plan approval to facilitate marketing and sale of the property to a developer who will implement the plan. The Master Plan serves as a blueprint to instruct future development of the site. Implementation of the plan will occur through the land use process as follows: 1) Land division— To create new legal lots, it will be necessary to partition and /or subdivide the site per the Master Plan, which requires a tentative plat and final plat application. A tentative plat presents the land division proposal, which is often modified as necessary to comply with all applicable review criteria (i.e. approved master plan, subdivision regulations, zoning standards, etc.) A final plat is the final map and text that result in the creation of new lots upon being approved by the City and recorded by the County. Public improvements (i.e. streets and utilities) are installed before the City grants final plat approval. At this time, the applicant has submitted an application for a three (3) lot tentative plat (File No. 14016), which is being reviewed concurrently with the Master Plan application. 2) Site Plan & Architectural Review —Site Plan and Architectural Review is conducted to assess the proposed private development improvements (i.e. layout and architecture for buildings, parking areas, landscaping, signage, etc.). For the project it will be necessary that Site Plan and Architectural Review applications comply with the Master Plan and all applicable design standards. Upon completion of Site Plan and Architectural Review, the applicant may apply for building permits to commence construction. To date there have been no application submittals for a Site Plan and Architectural review for the project site. The Master Plan was considered at the July 7, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. At that time staff provided an evaluation of the Master Plan relative to its compliance with the land use and dimensional requirements and design standards for TOD districts and corridors. The Master Plan was found to be generally consistent with the applicable review criteria; however, staff identified three (3) major issues and three (3) minor issues relative to the environment and transportation. The public hearing was continued to September 1, 2015 for the applicant to make the recommended amendments to the Master Plan Exhibits. Revised submittals were received from the applicant on August 24, 2015 addressing the major issues as follows: • The Environmental Plan (Attachment `B ") was amended to establish the process for soil remediation through the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Voluntary Clean -up Program (VCP). Through this pathway, DEQ will assign a project manager who will be involved in the clean -up remedy selection and implementation to assure remedial actions protect public health and safety over the short- and long -term. • The Transportation and Circulation Plan (Attachment `B" Exhibit "7) was amended to provide additional right -of -way as necessary to accommodate the future extension of Gebhard Road south to East Pine Street per the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the Gebhard Road Alignment Study. • The Environmental Plan (Attachment "B ") was updated to incorporate a report by APEX (Attachment "D" Appendix "B ") addressing groundwater and shallow well mitigation measures, as well as future actions required to complete the inventory of undocumented wells and ground water evaluation within the ETOD. • A development phasing plan was added to the Master Plan, which identifies up to three phases of development (Attachment "B" Exhibit "4 "). The September 1, 2015 public hearing was continued to accommodate re- evaluation of these materials by affected agencies and City staff. Final action by the Planning Commission is required at this meeting to comply with the statutory limit' for land use decisions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The revised Master Plan proposal is for a 310 unit residential development consisting of apartments, townhouses, duplexes and a 4.12 acre public park. The current proposal represents a reduction in the total number of dwelling units as illustrated in Table 1. The proposal remains within the range of minimum and maximum density allowed on the site (202 units to 457 units). ' ORS 227.178 Table 1. Housing Comparison Original Proposal Revised Proposal Housing No Net Net No. Net Net Difference Type Units Acres Density Units Acres Density (Units) Duplexes 16 1.09 - 16 1.05 - 0 Townhouses 20 1.22 - 18 1.15 - ( -2) Apartments 288 9.45 - 276 9.27 - (42) Public Park 0 4.22 - 0 4.12 - 0 TOTAL 1 324 15.98 20.28 1 310 15.59 19.89 1 (44) ' ORS 227.178 Aside from slight adjustments in the net acreage to accommodate the Gebhard Road alignment, the proposal remains consistent with the original transportation and circulation layout, as well as the parks and open space plan. There have been no changes to the Building Design Plan (Attachment "C ", Exhibits "9 -12 "), which proposes an attractive neo- traditional design that is architecturally consistent with the building design standards in the TOD. Proposed parking meets the minimum requirements for the number of spaces provided and dimensional standards. The Master Plan has been evaluated against all applicable review criteria. Based on the evidence submitted, as demonstrated in the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (Attachment "F "), the proposal can comply as conditioned. ISSUES: There are four (4) issues relative to this application that will require specific conditioning as follows: 1. Soil Contamination/Parks Design & Transfer Timing. The Master Plan sets forth the general steps necessary to navigate the DEQ Voluntary Clean -up Program (VCP) requirements to clean -up the soil contamination. To justify acceptance of the park, it is necessary to coordinate the soil remediation strategy through the VCP with design of the park to assure that the post - mitigation grades are the final grades identified in the parks design. An understanding of any long -term monitoring and maintenance requirements must be addressed to assure 1) safety when equipment is replaced or added to the site and 2) financial sustainability for the City in on -going maintenance requirements for soil remediation. Resolution: To assure timely completion of the soil remediation relative to Master Plan implementation (i.e. tentative plat process and /or Site Plan and Architectural Review), staff is recommending the following: a. Prior to final plat approval for any land division and/or Site Plan and Architectural Review application, including the current tentative plat application (File No. 14016), the soil mitigation plan shall be completed, approved by DEQ, and accepted by the City. The mitigation plan shall be coordinated with the parks design such that post - mitigation site grading is equivalent to the finished site grading per the park design. A long -term monitoring and maintenance plan must be provided with the mitigation strategy and include a 20 -year maintenance cost analysis. Based on the above information, the Parks Commission will consider the proposal to transfer the park to the City's ownership and will make a recommendation for action by the City Council. b. Site Plan and Architectural Review application for any phase of development shall be conditioned to withhold Certificate of Occupancy for all building permits until DEQ issues a "No Further Action" letter indicating that the soil contamination has been resolved per the DEQ approved soil mitigation plan. Housing Open Space Housing Type No. Units Net Acres Net Density OS Required OS Proposed Duplexes 16 1.05 - 6,400 0 Townhouses 18 1.15 - 7,200 0 Apartments 276 9.27 - 165,600 86,562 Public Park 0 4.12 - 179,671 TOTAL 310 15.98 19.89 179,200 266,233 Aside from slight adjustments in the net acreage to accommodate the Gebhard Road alignment, the proposal remains consistent with the original transportation and circulation layout, as well as the parks and open space plan. There have been no changes to the Building Design Plan (Attachment "C ", Exhibits "9 -12 "), which proposes an attractive neo- traditional design that is architecturally consistent with the building design standards in the TOD. Proposed parking meets the minimum requirements for the number of spaces provided and dimensional standards. The Master Plan has been evaluated against all applicable review criteria. Based on the evidence submitted, as demonstrated in the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (Attachment "F "), the proposal can comply as conditioned. ISSUES: There are four (4) issues relative to this application that will require specific conditioning as follows: 1. Soil Contamination/Parks Design & Transfer Timing. The Master Plan sets forth the general steps necessary to navigate the DEQ Voluntary Clean -up Program (VCP) requirements to clean -up the soil contamination. To justify acceptance of the park, it is necessary to coordinate the soil remediation strategy through the VCP with design of the park to assure that the post - mitigation grades are the final grades identified in the parks design. An understanding of any long -term monitoring and maintenance requirements must be addressed to assure 1) safety when equipment is replaced or added to the site and 2) financial sustainability for the City in on -going maintenance requirements for soil remediation. Resolution: To assure timely completion of the soil remediation relative to Master Plan implementation (i.e. tentative plat process and /or Site Plan and Architectural Review), staff is recommending the following: a. Prior to final plat approval for any land division and/or Site Plan and Architectural Review application, including the current tentative plat application (File No. 14016), the soil mitigation plan shall be completed, approved by DEQ, and accepted by the City. The mitigation plan shall be coordinated with the parks design such that post - mitigation site grading is equivalent to the finished site grading per the park design. A long -term monitoring and maintenance plan must be provided with the mitigation strategy and include a 20 -year maintenance cost analysis. Based on the above information, the Parks Commission will consider the proposal to transfer the park to the City's ownership and will make a recommendation for action by the City Council. b. Site Plan and Architectural Review application for any phase of development shall be conditioned to withhold Certificate of Occupancy for all building permits until DEQ issues a "No Further Action" letter indicating that the soil contamination has been resolved per the DEQ approved soil mitigation plan. c. Regardless of ownership, the park improvements must be completed prior to certificate of occupancy for any building within Phase 2 and 3. If the Council votes to accept the park as public, the transfer to public ownership shall occur no less than two -years from the date of construction. Landscaping and equipment repairs will be required prior to the transfer, if necessary. d. Prior to final plat approval for Phase 1 the City and Developer shall enter into a disposition and development agreement (DDA) that addresses Developer's obligations for soils mitigation, park design and construction, park maintenance related to soil mitigation, Park SDC reimbursement, and minimum requirements for transfer to, and City's acceptance of, the public park. 2. Hamrick — Beebe Road Signalization. Currently the Beebe Road/Hamrick Road intersection provides an acceptable level of service (LOS D). However, the applicant's Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) shows that the proposed development, at build -out, would generate 2,274 average daily trips (ADT), which would reduce the level of service to unacceptable levels (LOS F) warranting intersection signalization. The TIA notes that upon completion of 38 townhouses /duplexes and 140 apartments, the equivalent of 107 P.M. Peak Hour Trips, the LOS would exceed LOS D, at which point the intersection of Hamrick/Beebe would need to be signalized. Resolution: The imposition of a trip cap would assure the timely installation of a signal at the intersection of Beebe and Hamrick. Sufficient information is provided in the applicant's TIA to identify 107 P.M. Peak Hour trips as the trigger for meeting a signal warrant. Based on the TIA, a trip cap will be applied until such time as the signal is installed. As stated in Condition No. 2(c) the recommended trip cap is 96 P.M. Peak Hour trips, which is equivalent to the P.M. Peak Hour trips generated by Phase I. The trip cap shall automatically be removed upon installation of a signal at the intersection of Beebe and Hamrick Road. Groundwater /Shallow Well Mitigation. Construction of public utilities as part of the development process may impact the water table and shallow wells within the vicinity of the project site. The applicant previously submitted a report prepared by APEX dated August 24, 2015 (Attachment "C" Appendix `B ") addressing the potential impacts and necessary mitigation measures to be used when constructing underground utilities; however, it was brought to staff's attention during the public hearing that not all shallow wells have been identified and sampled. Resolution: To minimize the potential for temporary or permanent impacts to groundwater, staff is recommending the tentative plat application be conditioned such that prior to final plat approval and the start of construction for any improvements: a. The applicant shall meet with the neighborhood stakeholders within the ETOD to identify all shallow wells; b. The mitigation report shall be revised to incorporate baseline data for all identified wells in the ETOD and an updated mitigation strategy (if necessary); and, c. The revised report shall be submitted to the City for evaluation by the City's Engineer and incorporated in final engineering plans. 4. Covered Parking Requirement. In accordance with Section 17.65.050(F)(3)(a), fifty percent of all off - street parking areas shall be covered. The proposed Site Plan (Attachment "B" Exhibit 114 ") does not provide for any covered off - street parking areas. Instead the Master Plan proposes extensive landscaping areas and bioswales with large canopy trees within the parking areas. Although consistent with the code's encouragement of pedestrian oriented landscaping and the use of bioswales, the current proposal does not comply with the covered parking standard. Resolution: At the time of Site Plan and Architectural Review, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the covered parking standard or resolve the conflict by obtaining a Class "C" variance eliminating the covered parking requirement in favor of the proposed landscaping and stormwater management plan. TOD Block Perimeter Standard. The block perimeter for the apartment site (Phase 1 and Phase 2 south of Beebe Park Drive) has a 2,306 -ft block perimeter. The Applicant's findings state that the pedestrian accessway illustrated on the site plan (Attachment "C" Exhibit 4) is proposed to meet the block standards. In accordance with Section 17.67.040(A)(4), major off - street public pathways designed in accordance with Section 17.67.040(A)(9)(a) can be used to meet the block standards. The proposed pathway is designed as a minor pathway and does not meet this standard. Resolution: To meet the block standard for perimeter length, the applicant will be required to design the off - street bicycle and pedestrian pathway near the intersection of Beebe and Gebhard Road as a major pedestrian accessway per CPMC 17.67.040(A)(9)(a). The redesign shall be included as part of the Site Plan and Architectural Review application for Phase 1. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Approval of the master plan shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The site phasing plan set forth in Attachment "B" Exhibit "4" shall be supported by the tentative plat for current and future land division applications. 2. Prior to final plat approval for any land division application and/or final approval of any Site Plan and Architectural Review application, the applicant shall: a. Complete and receive approval of a soil remediation plan from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). i. The DEQ approved soils remediation plan shall be based on and include the City approved park design. ii. For all phases the issuance of certificates of occupancy shall be withheld until a "No Further Action" letter is received from DEQ. The applicant may bond and guarantee the timely receipt of a "No Further Action" letter from DEQ provided the approved remediation plan includes provisions for remediation phasing. iii. Prior to commencement of soils remediation the applicant shall notify all properties within 1/4 mile of the Project site with a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan, mitigation schedule, the DEQ Voluntary Cleanup Program, and the applicant's and City's contact sources and address for further information and submittal of comments. If upon written request by 10 or more persons or by a group having 10 or more members, the applicant shall conduct a public meeting at or near the project site for the purpose of receiving verbal comment regarding the proposed mitigation plan. Contents of the notification shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to mailing. b. Enter into a disposition and development agreement (DDA) addressing the park design, construction, construction timing, remediation timing and requirements, mitigation maintenance requirements and cost, park SDC reimbursements, and transfer of the park to the City. If the City does not accept the park site the applicant shall amend the Master Plan to identify an alternative use of the park site, consistent with the LMR zoning district. c. Based on the applicant's TIA a trip cap of 96 P.M. Peak Hour trips is hereby imposed. Upon installation of signal improvements at the Beebe /Hamrick intersection the trip cap shall be removed and development of the remaining Phases 2 and 3 allowed subject to all conditions of approval and other applicable laws and regulations. d. Prior to final plat approval for Phase I the applicant shall supplement the Apex report dated August 24, 2015 with additional information on the location, and depth to ground water of undocumented wells on all properties within the ETOD and on properties immediately west of, and abutting, the Project's Gebhard Road frontage (Study Area). Preparation of the supplemental report shall include a certified mailing to all Study Area properties explaining the purpose of the mailing and requesting assistance with the identification of undocumented wells and their depth to ground water. Based on the information received the applicant shall complete the inventory of wells (Exhibit 6), and present and discuss findings at a neighborhood meeting, including temporary dewatering mitigation, any changes in engineering solutions proposed in the August 24, 2015 Apex Report. The final report shall be submitted to the City for evaluation and approval by the City's engineer and incorporation into final engineering plans for Phase I. e. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall provide a revised master plan showing White Hawk Way extending to the north of Beebe Park Drive thru the park site as a ROW reservation. 3. The park improvements shall be completed prior to certificate of occupancy for any building within Phase 2 and 3. 4. At the time of Site Plan and Architectural Review, the applicant shall comply with the covered parking requirements per CPMC 17.65.050(F)(3)(a) or submit for a Class "C" variance application to eliminate the covered parking requirement in lieu of the proposed bioswales. 5. At the time of Site Plan and Architectural Review for Phase 1, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the block perimeter standard per CPMC 17.67.040(A)(2) and (4). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" — Site Location Map Attachment "B" — Master Plan (Narrative & Exhibits) Attachment "C" — Applicant's Findings (Revised) Attachment "D" — Public Works Staff Report Attachment "E" — Jackson County Roads Staff Report Attachment "F" — Planning Department Supplemental Findings Attachment "G" — Resolution No. 825 ACTION: Consider the White Hawk Master Plan application and 1) approve; 2) approve with revisions; or 3) deny the application RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 825 approving the White Hawk Master Plan subject to conditions of approval per the Revised Staff Report dated October 6, 2015. EXHIBIT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW File No.: 14004 Before the City of Central Point Planning Commission Consideration of the White Hawk Transit Oriented District Master Plan Applicant: People's Bank of Commerce 750 Biddle Road, Suite 103 Medford, OR 97504 Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law PART 1 INTRODUCTION The applicant submitted the White Hawk Master Plan ( "Master Plan ") for an 18.91 acre residential development, including a 4.12 acre public park, in the Eastside Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) district. The Master Plan proposes a maximum of 310 dwelling units consisting of apartments, townhouses and duplexes to be built in 3 phases over a five year period. The Master Plan is being reviewed as a Type III application. Type III applications are reviewed in accordance with procedures provided in Section 17.05.400, which provides the basis for decisions upon standards and criteria in the development code and the comprehensive plan, when appropriate. Applicable Review Criteria for TOD master plans are set forth in Chapter 17.66, Application Review Process for the TOD District and Corridor and include: 1. CPMC 17.65.040 and 17.65.050 relating to the TOD District 2. CPMC 17.65.060 and 17.65.070 relating to the TOD Corridor 3. CPMC 17.67, Design Standards —TOD District and TOD Corridor; 4. CPMC 17.60, General Regulations unless superseded by Sections 17.65.040 through 17.65.070 5. CPMC 17.65.050, Table 3, TOD District and Corridor Parking Standard, and CPMC 17.64, Off - Street Parking and Loading 6. CPMC 17.70, Historic Preservation Overlay 7. CPMC 17.76, Conditional Use Permits Findings will be presented in three (3) parts addressing the requirements of Section 17.05.300 as provided below. Findings for CPMC 17.67, Design Standards —TOD District and TOD Corridor will include those sections with standards denoted by "shall" or "must" and not recommended standards denoted by "should." 1. Introduction 2. Comprehensive Plan 3. Central Point Zoning Ordinance 4. Summary Conclusion PROPOSAL BACKGROUND The White Hawk Master Plan proposes a medium density residential development, including a public park, in the Eastside TOD on lands zoned Low Mix Residential (LMR) and Medium Mix Residential (MMR). The project site consists of 18.91 acres with frontage on Beebe Road and Gebhard Road. At this time there are no structures on the project site. Aik White Hawk Master Plan C� Figure 1. location Map Legend r' :r: EaSisIrJB7pU File No. 14004 - White Hawk Master Plan I ry r i Created. June 22, 2015 Tali Lots Central Point Community Development Department The proposal is the first Master Plan application within the ETOD and encompasses roughly 23.1 % of the total ETOD land area. As the first proposal in the ETOD, land use and circulation patterns will influence development on surrounding properties. Of regional significance is the proposal's ability to accommodate realignment of Gebhard Road to provide north/south connectivity between Wilson Road and East Pine Street per the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP). The master plan narrative and exhibits incorporate the Preferred Alternative by the neighborhood stakeholders, Citizen's Advisory Committee and Planning Commission. Master Plan Narrative The narrative (Attachment "A ") provides a written summary of the proposed development. These instructions for the eventual site development establish the scope and limits of the proposal, describe site challenges and how these are to be addressed throughout the development process. Future land division and development applications will be required to demonstrate compliance with this document and the exhibits set forth below: Page 2 of 54 Exhibit 1— Title Sheet -u 3Z — -0 m 'r m m 0 > T 0 0 z 0 z -n M > > Z C: X rTI 7 TO co :t > ct) .0 w 1 0 0 O (10 0 Z > 44 m z 0') ;u 0 rp, 0 -n 0 > 0 0 0 0 M m Ln cn to M > m fv <f ra = 0 m z 0 0 > > wU M Z (mmm 0 Z M ry) Z6 >- 81 rm age 3 of 54 Exhibit 2 — Existing Conditions i T l4w MM 3 < 14Aw t V- t ti°_ 7- BBE R�,) EE A(l /r yry 3 fl. X -CESJ NW WHITE HAWK EXISTING CONDITIO" c 4 of 54 Exhibit 3 — Preliminary Partition Plat _ WHITE HAWK C E S 1V W m. V (V PRELIMINARY PARTMON 5 of 54 Exhibit 4 — Site Plan E' I — ------------ - � 3 • i w.. i 2Wa ar E { •x2� sdor _ -t" E I ff Ett i "' UV6 ' z . a1 ._,..., •; }.w o- M� I xi r fm .�L.�.,�.r .� � � -�' � I� j �L" j - - - -- -- r ,. i BEEBE 4 nV �< 3 ?�a 'nx lug ir..: WHITE HAWK .� .a V,J scs N "N ............ ... ... _ ge 6 of 54 Exhibit 5 — Master Utility Plan WHITE HAWK N 1j RASTER UTILRY KAN ,e 7 of 54 Exhibit 6 — Adjacent Land Use /Environmental Plan Exhibit 7 — Transportation & Circulation Plan Page 9 of 54 Exhibit 8 — Recreation & Open Space Plan Page 10 of 54 MORIw CtiFiy — _ —�. ...... ...e. _... __ .__._ aj} f ij " : 1" f z 4 t t ' c j 3 3 d k a m. ._5 , t _� ME. PARK DRIVE j _ ....._._ k j _ tt 1 7... r � m 7 tiS i E "t E t it it 11 t Page 10 of 54 Exhibit 9 — Building Design Plan A. Apartments "I I If N11, It, I If I Il I k W 1K PI kNNI,11,; 1 1,( geleL XI,91,v& �-OwFtlr-v PD��4 r—FEAF ,, e;fj,!4zmt,10 "ASS Te, f,-F,t,f VAR% F-jVFfS AFMAF. ^5 WAFAT� Jn�xv ty �VfFAV FFKF78WAY r. o— vTyrf'_ ciiwcrp-rz, RALPH G. TAHRAN PORTLMID, OREGON 2399 "'SO F 6iS sipF ��-rrFr-r Ff o-roTYrf- ArAKHF.Hr U z Z U i n Page 11 of 54 ° _ � � RALPH G. 7AHRAN °GR7LAND, OREGON 1, 2399 �' - •• YX7oMy�eur[avc 9TH OF OR�G - � �S. 28R 3a r -- _ .. _ vAna IT /8 oe /RESS /acNsviry 3 • �vir� N�rrve P6A.�rs _� s -- S ORn[.v v6 a 6io JYV� 11 1N. 115,IXI AAF,4 &R f• iMb ¢rA — — AiAr�TMEIHT K I�Oi ©TYf f z % f / 3•ER I °= 20-0° _� 3dR MIA 0 4 $ o — rt r t B. Row houses a RALPH G. TAHRAN n � MENEM, OREGON �' 239 O 9 F0 �z Z� zv G4: -P,- {A;\[% P.cA� �� -r VArioNs f� OV✓NOUSrS Page 12 of 54 f �$v A,?o RALPH G TAHRAN POR7L AND, OREGON 2399 Q� 4OF 00 AL,LFY ACCP55 F-IFVATIONS r0W4(9u5F-5 D ARO� RALPH G. TAFRAN p,PORTLWOREGON ' 1 1110 OF Z zc- Ei z C5 z z J �4 C - o z ii Page 13 of 54 C. Duplexes C RALPH G. DAHRAN PORTIAM. OREGON 2399 OFO f'Ar,r- FLEVikTIONS zs- zs= < E RALPH G. TAHRAN ,p PORTLAND OREG;,, 23�9 4OF OV ALLEY ACCESS ELEVATIONS put'LFXES z Qn Page 14 of 54 D. Community Building Prototype t I) ARC Mll & IAHRAN OF OV'Z�)4 I 'C5 7 / \\ A Pagel 0 5 PART 2 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the White Hawk Master Plan area as Eastside Transit Oriented District (ETOD) Low Mix Residential (LMR) (2.69 acres) and Medium Density Residential (15.22 acres). The TOD land use designation allows for mixed -use transit oriented development. Development within this land use classification. Finding: The Master Plan proposes a mix of housing types (i.e. apartments, townhouses and duplexes) at densities that are consistent with the Eastside TOD Low Mix and Medium Mix designations. Conclusion: Consistent PART 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Section 17.05.900 of the Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) establishes which road authorities participate in land use decision and implements Section 660 - 012- 0045(2)(e) of the State Planning Transportation Rule. This rule requires the City to adopt a process to apply conditions to development proposals in order to minimize impacts and protect transportation facilities. CPMC 17.05.900(A), When a Traffic Impact Analysis is Required A. The City shall require a traffic impact analysis (TIA) as part of an application for development, a change in use, or a change in access in the following situations: 1. If the application includes a residential development, a TIA shall be required when the development application involves one or more of the following actions: a. A change in zoning or plan amendment; b. An increase in site traffic volume generation by two hundred fifty average daily trips or more; c. An increase in peak hour volume of a particular movement to and from the state highway by twenty percent or more; or, d. An increase in use of adjacent streets by vehicles exceeding the twenty thousand pounds gross vehicle weights by ten vehicles or more per day. Finding I7.05.900(A)(1): The White Hawk Master Plan is for a 310 -unit residential development, including a 4.12 acre public park. Specifically, the Master Plan would result in 276 new apartment units, 16 duplex units and 18 townhouse units. The proposal would generate more than 250 average daily trips and as such requires a TIA. The applicant prepared a TIA in July 2014, which was submitted with the application package. The TIA evaluates the impacts of the proposed residential development on three intersections as follows: 1) Beebe /Hamrick Road; 2) Gebhard /Wilson Road; and 3) Hamrick /East Pine Street. Per the TIA, the development will generate 2,274 average daily trips (ADT), which would cause the Beebe /Hamrick intersection to degrade from a Level of Service (LOS) D (i.e. acceptable) to LOS F (i.e. unacceptable). The TIA notes that upon completion of 38 townhouses /duplexes and 140 apartments, the equivalent of 107 P.M. Peak Hour Trips, the LOS would exceed LOS D, at which point the intersection of Hamrick /Beebe would need to be signalized. As conditioned, the Master Plan imposes a Trip Cap of 96 PM Peak Hour Trips, equivalent to the P.M. Peak Hour Trips generated by Phase I (Exhibit 4) to assure timely installation of the signal at Beebe /Hamrick. Upon installation of the signal, the trip cap will be removed. Page 16 of 54 Conclusion 17.05.900(A)(1): Consistent. 2. If the application does not include residential development, a TIA shall be required when a land use application involves one or more of the following actions: a. A change in zoning or a plan amendment designation; b. Any proposed development or land use action that a road authority, including the city, Jackson County or ODOT, states may have operational or safety concerns along its facility(ies); c. An increase in site traffic volume generation by two hundred fifty average daily trips (ADT) or more; d. An increase in peak hour volume of a particular movement to and from the state highway by twenty percent or more; e. An increase in use of adjacent streets by vehicles exceeding twenty thousand pounds gross vehicle weight by ten vehicles or more per day; f. The location of the access driveway does not meet minimum sight distance requirements, as determined by the city engineer, or is located where vehicles entering or leaving the property are restricted, or such vehicles queue or hesitate on the state highway, creating a safety hazard in the discretion of the community development director; or g. A change in internal traffic patterns that, in the discretion of the community development director, may cause safety problems, such as backup onto a street or greater potential for traffic accidents. Finding 17.05.900(A)(2): The White Hawk Master Plan is for a 310 -unit residential development, including a 4.12 acre public park. Conclusion 17.05.900(A)(2): Not applicable. B. Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation. A traffic impact analysis shall be prepared by a traffic engineer or civil engineer licensed to practice in the state of Oregon with special training and experience in traffic engineering. The TIA shall be prepared in accordance with the public works department's document entitled "Traffic Impact Analysis." If the road authority is the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), consult ODOT's regional development review planner and OAR 734 -051 -180. Finding 17.05.900(B): The applicant's TIA was prepared by Kimberly Parducci, an Oregon registered Professional Engineer, with Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, Inc. The TIA was coordinated with the Public Works Department and prepared in accordance with the Traffic Impact Analysis requirements set forth in Section 320.10.02 through 320.10.04 of the Public Works Standard Specifications. Conclusion 17.05.900(B): Consistent. PART 4 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT ZONING ORDINANCE Section 17.05.100, Table 17.05.01 of the Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) establishes application review procedures for TOD District Master Plan applications. TOD District and Corridor Master Plan approval criteria are set forth in Chapter 17.66. Chapter 17.66 — Application Review Process for the TOD District and Corridor Four application types in the TOD District and Corridor are subject to review procedures and approval criteria established in Chapter 17.66. TOD District or Corridor Master Plans ( "Master Plan "), are one of these Page 17 of 54 application types. Master Plan approval is required for development projects or land divisions involving two or more acres or when a modification to an approved Master Plan involves one of four specific changes as specified in Section 17.66.030(A)(1)(b). CPMC 17.66.030(A), Application and Review A. Application Types. There are four types of applications which are subject to review within the Central Point TOD district and corridor. 1. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan a. Development or land division applications which involve two or more acres of land; or b. Modifications to a valid master plan approval which involve one or more of the following: i. An increase in dwelling unit density which exceeds five percent of approved density; ii. An increase in commercial gross floor area of ten percent or two thousand square feet, whichever is greater; iii. A change in the type and location of streets, accessways, and parking areas where off -site traffic would be affected; or iv. A modification of a condition imposed as part of the master plan approval. Finding 17.66.030(A)(1): The White Hawk Master Plan is for a residential development consisting of 18.91 acres. The current application is to satisfy the masterplan requirement for development and land division proposals greater on two or more acres. Conclusion 17.66.030(A)(1): Consistent. 2. Site Plan and Architectural Review. The provisions of Chapter 17.72, Site Plan and Architectural Review, shall apply to permitted and limited uses within the TOD district and corridor. For site plan and architectural review applications involving two or more acres of land, a master plan approval, as provided in this chapter, shall be approved prior to, or concurrently with, a site plan and architectural review application. Finding 17.66.030(A)(2): At this time, the applicant is requesting approval of a TOD District Master Plan, Conclusion 17.66.030(A)(2): Not applicable. 3. Land Division. Partitions and subdivisions shall be reviewed as provided in Title 16, Subdivisions. For a land division application involving two or more acres of land, a master plan approval, as provided in this chapter, shall be approved prior to, or concurrently with, a land division application. Finding 17.66.030(A)(3): The applicant is requesting approval of a TOD District Master Plan. A tentative three (3) lot partition is the subject of File No. 14016, which is being reviewed concurrently. Conclusion 17.66.030(A)(3): Not applicable. 4. Conditional Use. Conditional uses shall be reviewed as provided in Chapter 17.76, Conditional Use Permits. Finding 17.66.030(A)(4): The proposed park and residential land uses associated with the White Hawk Master Plan are Permitted Uses in accordance with the TOD District zoning regulations (CPMC 17.65.050). Since conditional uses are not proposed, they will not be discussed any further in the findings. Conclusion 17.66.030(A)(4): Not Applicable. Page 18 of 54 CPMC 17.66.030(B), Submittal Requirements A master plan shall include the following elements: 1. Introduction. A written narrative describing: a. Duration of the master plan; b. Site location map; c. Land use and minimum and maximum residential densities proposed; d. Identification of other approved master plans within the project area (one hundred feet). Finding 17.66.030(B)(1): The Master Plan narrative is entitled "White Hawk Master Plan Design Guidelines" (Attachment "A') and includes the required information as outlined below: Master Plan Duration. The Master Plan duration is for a maximum duration of 5-years. Site Location Map. The site location map is illustrated in Exhibit 1. Densi . The Master Plan proposes a residential density that is mixed across the project site (Table 1). All units are within the MMR zoning district, which requires 14 units /acre minimum and 32 units/acre maximum. The proposed net density of 19.86 units /acre is within the range for minimum and maximum density in the MMR zone. Other Approved Master Plans. Since this is the first master plan in the ETOD, there are no approved master plans in the vicinity of the project site. Conclusion 17.66.030 (B)(1): Consistent. 2. Site Analysis Map. A map and written narrative of the project area addressing site amenities and challenges on the project site and adjacent lands within one hundred feet of the project site. Finding 17.66.030(B)(2): The Master Plan presents a site analysis in Attachment "A, " and is illustrated in Exhibit 2. Although the site is generally flat, vacant and zoned for the proposed uses, the Master Plan identifies two site challenges as follows: 1) Soil Contamination and 2) Potential Groundwater /Shallow Well Impacts. Evaluation and mitigation actions to address these challenges are provided in the Environmental Plan section of the Master Plan, which includes an updated report dated August 24, 2015 prepared by the applicant's environmental consultant, APEX. Conclusion 17.66.030(B)(2): Consistent. a. Master Utility Plan. A plan and narrative addressing existing and proposed utilities and utility extensions for water, sanitary sewer, storm water, gas, electricity, and agricultural irrigation. Page 19 of 54 Table Density & Open Housing Space Open Space Housing Type No. Units Net Acres Net Density OS Required OS Proposed Duplexes Townhouses Apartments Public Park 16 18 276 0 1.05 1.15 9.28 4.13 - - - - 6,400 7,200 165,600 0 0 86,562 179,690 TOTAL 310 15.61 19.86 179,200 266,252 All units are within the MMR zoning district, which requires 14 units /acre minimum and 32 units/acre maximum. The proposed net density of 19.86 units /acre is within the range for minimum and maximum density in the MMR zone. Other Approved Master Plans. Since this is the first master plan in the ETOD, there are no approved master plans in the vicinity of the project site. Conclusion 17.66.030 (B)(1): Consistent. 2. Site Analysis Map. A map and written narrative of the project area addressing site amenities and challenges on the project site and adjacent lands within one hundred feet of the project site. Finding 17.66.030(B)(2): The Master Plan presents a site analysis in Attachment "A, " and is illustrated in Exhibit 2. Although the site is generally flat, vacant and zoned for the proposed uses, the Master Plan identifies two site challenges as follows: 1) Soil Contamination and 2) Potential Groundwater /Shallow Well Impacts. Evaluation and mitigation actions to address these challenges are provided in the Environmental Plan section of the Master Plan, which includes an updated report dated August 24, 2015 prepared by the applicant's environmental consultant, APEX. Conclusion 17.66.030(B)(2): Consistent. a. Master Utility Plan. A plan and narrative addressing existing and proposed utilities and utility extensions for water, sanitary sewer, storm water, gas, electricity, and agricultural irrigation. Page 19 of 54 Finding ]7.66.030(B)(2) (a): The Master Utility Plan is illustrated in Exhibit 5 and discussed on page 2 of the Master Plan narrative (Attachment "A'). The Master Utility Plan identifies existing and proposed utilities for the project site. A Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan was also submitted addressing the water quantity and quality management approaches for the site. Conclusion 17.66.030(B)(2)(a): Consistent. b. Adjacent Land Use Plan Map. A map identifying adjacent land uses and structures within one hundred feet of the project perimeter and remedies for preservation of livability of adjacent land uses. Finding 17.66.030(B)(2)(b): The Adjacent Land Use Map is presented in Exhibit 6, which identifies residential, civic and agriculture related uses within 100 feet of the project site. Zoning designations are provided in Exhibits I and 7. The Master Plan narrative (Attachment "A') states that livability preservation is to be achieved through street frontage and landscaping improvements, which will buffer the proposed residential uses from adjacent land uses and structures. The proposed park will provide an additional open space buffer to preserve livability on the adjoining residences and agricultural operations on properties immediately north and east of the project site. Conclusion 17.66.030(B)(2)(b): Consistent. 3. Transportation and Circulation Plan. A transportation impact analysis (TIA) identifying planned transportation facilities, services and networks to be provided concurrently with the development of the master plan and addressing Section 17.67.040, Circulation and Access Standards. Finding I 7.66.030(B) (3): The applicant submitted a TIA prepared by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineers in July 2014. The TIA identifies planned transportation facilities, services and street networks within the White Hawk Master Plan area, as well as the impacts and necessary mitigation of the proposed development on the existing transportation system. The proposed transportation layout is illustrated in Exhibit 7 and discussed in the Master Plan Narrative. See Findings 17.67.040(A -B). Conclusion 17.66.030(B)(3): Consistent. 4. Site Plan. A plan and narrative addressing Section 17.67.050 Site Design Standards. Finding I7.66.030(B)(4): The site plan (Exhibit 4) illustrates the proposed site layout and development phasing. The site design standards are addressed in the Master Plan narrative (Attachment "A'). See Findings 17.67.050(A -M). Conclusion 17.66.030(B)(4): Consistent. 5. Recreation and Open Space Plan. A plan and narrative addressing Section 17.67.060, Public Parks and Open Space Design Standards. Finding 17.66.030(B)(5): Exhibit 8 presents the Recreation and Open Space Plan as described on page 7 of the Master Plan narrative (Attachment "A'). The proposal is consistent with the area and design requirements for parks and open space (See findings for 17.67.060(A -D)). Conclusion I7.66.030(B)(S):Consistent. 6. Building Design Plan. A written narrative and illustrations addressing Section 17.67.070, Building Design Standards. Page 20 of 54 Finding I7.66.030(B)(6): The Building Design Plan is presented in Exhibit 9. The plan identifies a neo- traditional architectural character to be used throughout all housing types within the Master Plan area. The designs are consistent with the building design standards in the TOD (See Findings 17.67.070)(A -H)). Conclusion 17.66.030(B)(6): Consistent. 7. Transit Plan. A plan identifying proposed, or future, transit facilities (if any). Finding I 7.66.030(B) (7): The Master Plan narrative (page 11) includes a Transit Plan section. At this time there is no transit plan for the ETOD, nor is a transit stop envisioned for this site. Conclusion 17.66.030(B)(7): Consistent. 8. Environmental Plan. A plan identifying environmental conditions such as wetlands, flood hazard areas, groundwater conditions, and hazardous sites on and adjacent to the project site. Finding I 7.66.030(B) (8): The Environmental Plan is provided on page 11 of Attachment "A" and illustrated in Exhibit 6 The Environmental Plan identifies soil contamination and potential groundwater /shallow well impacts as environmental concerns. The Master Plan sets forth actions necessary to resolve soil contamination and groundwater /shallow well concerns, as follows: Soil Contamination — The applicant will resolve soil contamination through the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Voluntary Clean -up Program (VCP). The VCP provides DEQ oversight throughout the soil remediation process from remedy selection through completion. At the end of the process, DEQ will issue a "No Further Action " letter indicating that the site clean -up has been completed per state standards. Groundwater /Shallow -Wells — The applicant's environmental consultant conducted an evaluation of potential shallow well impacts resultingfrom underground utility construction. A supplemental letter dated August 24, 2015 outlines the potential impacts, mitigation measures and actions necessary to expand the report to include undocumented shallow wells in the project vicinity. Per the APEX letter, shallow well impacts can be successfully mitigated. As conditioned, the Master Plan establishes timing requirements to assure timely completion of these actions relative to Master Plan implementation (i.e. the land development process). Conclusion 17.66.030(B)(8): Consistent. CPMC 17.66.040, Parks and Open Spaces This section establishes the requirement for common park and open space to be provided for all residential development within a TOD District or Corridor in accordance with Section 17.67.060. Finding 17.66.040: See Findings for 17.67.060(A -D). Conclusion] 7.66.040: Consistent. CPMC 17.66.050, Application Approval Criteria A. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan. A master plan shall be approved when the approval authority finds that the following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable: 1. Sections 17.65.040 and 17.65.050 relating to the TOD district; Finding 17.66.050(A)(1): Findings for 17.65.040 and 17.65.050. Page 21 of 54 Conclusion 17.66.050(1): Consistent. 2. Sections 17.65.060 and 17.65.070 relating to the TOD corridor; Finding 17.66.050(A)(2): The Master Plan area is within the ETOD district. Conclusion 17.66.050(2): Not applicable. 3. Chapter 17.67, Design Standards—TOD District and Corridor; Finding 17.66.050(A)(3): See Findings for 17.67.040 through 17.67.070. Conclusion 17.66.050(3): Consistent. 4. Chapter 17.60, General Regulations, unless superseded by Sections 17.65.040 through 17.65.070. Finding 17.66.050(A)(4): Sections 17.65.040 through 17.65.070 supersede Chapter 17.60 General Regulations. Conclusion 17.66.050(4): Not applicable. 5. Section 17.65.050, Table 3, TOD District and Corridor Parking Standards, and Chapter 17.64, Off - Street Parking and Loading; Finding 17.66.050(A)(5): See Findings for 17.65.050, Table 3. Conclusion 17.66.050(5): Consistent. 6. Chapter 17.70, Historic Preservation Overlay Zone; and, Finding 17.66.050(A)(6): The project site is vacant and not identified as a historic site in the Section VI of the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusion 17.66.050(6): Not applicable. 7. Chapter 17.76, Conditional use Permits for any conditional uses proposed as part of the master plan. Finding 17.66.050(A)(7) :All proposed land uses identified in the Master Plan are `permitted" in the LMR Low Mix Residential and MMR Medium Mix Residential zoning district. Conclusion 17.66.050(7): Not applicable. B. Site Plan and Architectural Review. Finding 17.66.050(B): The application is for a TOD District Master Plan approval. Conclusion 17.66.050(B): Not applicable. C. Land Division. Finding 17.66.050(C): The application is for a TOD District Master Plan approval. Page 22 of 54 Conclusion 17.66.050(C): Not applicable. D. Conditional Use. Finding I7.66.050(D): The application is for a TOD District Master Plan approval. Conclusion 17.66.050(D): Consistent. CPMC 17.65.040, Land Use —TOD District Four special zone district categories are applied in the Central Point TOD districts. The characteristics of these zoning districts are summarized in subsections A through D of this section. A. Residential (TOD). 1. LMR - -Low Mix Residential. This is the lowest density residential zone in the district. Single - family detached residences are intended to be the primary housing type; however, attached single - family and lower density multifamily housing types are also allowed and encouraged. 2. MMR -- Medium Mix Residential. This medium density residential zone focuses on higher density forms of residential living. The range of housing types includes higher density single - family and a variety of multifamily residences. Low impact commercial activities may also be allowed. 3. HMR - -High Mix Residential /Commercial. This is the highest density residential zone intended to be near the center of the TOD district. High density forms of multifamily housing are encouraged along with complementary ground floor commercial uses. Low impact commercial activities may also be allowed. Low density residential uses are not permitted. Finding I7.65.040(A): The Master Plan is for an 18.91 acre project site within the LMR and MMR zoning districts. The proposed residential and open space /recreation uses are consistent with use requirements and character definition of the site zoning designations. Conclusion 17.65.040(A): Consistent. B. Employment (TOD). 1. EC -- Employment Commercial. Retail, service, and office uses are primarily intended for this district. Activities which are oriented and complementary to pedestrian travel and transit are encouraged. Development is expected to support pedestrian access and transit use. Automobile oriented activities are generally not included in the list of permitted uses. Residential uses above ground floor commercial uses are also consistent with the purpose of this zone. 2. GC -- General Commercial. Commercial and industrial uses are primarily intended for this district. Activities which are oriented and complementary to pedestrian travel and transit are encouraged. Residential uses above ground floor commercial uses are also consistent with the purpose of this zone. Finding I7.65.040(B): There are no employment zones designated within the Master Plan project site. Conclusion 17.65.040(B): Not applicable. C. C--Civic (TOD). Civic uses such as government offices, schools, and community centers are the primary uses intended in this district. These uses can play an important role in the vitality of the TOD district. Finding I7.65.040(C): There are no Civic zones designated on the project site. Conclusion I7.65.040(C): Not applicable. Page 23 of 54 D. Open Space (TOD). Because the density of development will generally be higher than other areas in the region, providing open space and recreation opportunities for the residents and employees in the TOD district becomes very important. This zone is intended to provide a variety of outdoor and recreation amenities. Finding 17.65.040(D): Although the Master Plan provides for open space and recreation, including a 4.12 acre proposed Public Park, there are no Open Space zones within the project site. Conclusion 17.65.040(D): Not applicable. CPMC 17.65.050, Zoning Regulations —TOD District Regulations are established for each zoning district related to land use, density, dimension standard and development standards. A. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses in Table 1 are shown with a "P." These uses are allowed if they comply with the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the same application and review process as other permitted uses identified in this title. Finding 17.65.050(A): The Master Plan proposes open space /recreation and residential uses, and housing types (i. e. apartments, duplexes and row houses) that are permitted in the LMR and MMR zoning districts per CPMC 17.65.050, Table 1. Conclusion 17.65.050(A): Consistent. B. Limited Uses. Limited uses in Table 1 are shown with an "L." These uses are allowed if they comply with the specific limitations described in this chapter and the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the same application and review process as other permitted uses identified in this title. Finding 17.65.050(B): The Master Plan proposal does not include any Limited Uses listed in CPMC 17.65.050, Table 1. Conclusion 17.65.050(B): Not applicable. C. Conditional Uses. Conditional uses in Table 1 are shown with a "C." These uses are allowed if they comply with the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the same application and review process as other conditional uses identified in this title. Finding 17.65.050(C): The Master Plan proposal does not include any Conditional Uses listed in CPMC 17.65.050, Table 1. Conclusion 17.65.050(C): Not applicable. D. Density. The allowable residential density and employment building floor area are specified in Table 2. Finding 17.65.050(D): The Master Plan proposes 310 residential units within the MMR zone, which is equivalent to a residential density of 19.86 units per acre across the site as illustrated in Table 1. The proposed density is consistent with the range of density allowed within the MMR zoning district per CPMC 17.65.050, Table 2. The Master Plan does not propose any employment buildings. Conclusion 17.65.050(D): Consistent. Page 24 of 54 E. Dimensional Standards. The dimensional standards for lot size, lot dimensions, building setbacks, and building height are specified in Table 2. Finding 17.67.050(E): The Site Plan (Exhibit 4) proposes lots, and building locations in conformance with the minimum lot dimensions, setback requirements and building heights per Table 2. The building design plan proposes three story apartment buildings (33 ft building height) and two -story duplexes (24 ft building height) and row houses (24.5 ft building height), which are within the maximum 45 ft building height requirement per CPMC 17.65.050, Table 2. Conclusion 17.67.050(E): Consistent. F. Development Standards. 1. Housing Mix. The required housing mix for the TOD district is shown in Table 2. Finding 17.67.050(F)(1): Proposals exceeding 40 units are required to provide three housing types per Table 2. The Master Plan provides for a mix of three (3) housing types: 1) apartments (276 units); 2) rowhouses /townhouses (18 units); and 3) duplexes (16 units) consistent with the Table 2 requirement. Conclusion 17.67.050(F)(1): Consistent. 2. Accessory Units. Accessory units are allowed as indicated in Table 1. Accessory units shall meet the following standards: a. A maximum of one accessory unit is permitted per lot; b. The primary residence and/or the accessory unit on the lot must be owner - occupied; c. An accessory unit shall have a maximum floor area of eight hundred square feet; d. The applicable zoning standards in Table 2 shall be satisfied. Finding 17.67.050(F)(2): The Master Plan does not propose any accessory units. Conclusion 17.67.050(F)(2): Not applicable. 3. Parking Standards. The off - street parking and loading requirements in Chapter 17.64 shall apply to the TOD district and TOD corridor, except as modified by the standards in Table 3 of this section. Finding 17.67.050(F)(3): The Master Plan proposes sufficient parking spaces for each housing type proposed as illustrated in Table 2 below. Per the applicant's findings, there are 10 accessible spaces proposed, which is consistent with the requirements of Table 17.64.03, which requires a minimum of 9 accessible spaces for parking lots greater between 401 and 500 spaces. Conclusion 17.67.050(F)(3): Consistent. a. Fifty percent of all residential off - street parking areas shall be covered. Accessory unit parking spaces are not required to be covered. Page 25 of 54 Table 2. Parking Ana�rvis Proposed Units Required S aces/Unit Required No. Spaces Proposed S aces Di erence Apartments 276 1.5 414 475 +61 Rowhouses 16 2 32 32 0 Duplexes 18 2 36 36 0 Conclusion 17.67.050(F)(3): Consistent. a. Fifty percent of all residential off - street parking areas shall be covered. Accessory unit parking spaces are not required to be covered. Page 25 of 54 Finding 17.67.050(F)(3)(a): Off - street parkingfor the rowhouses and duplexes is accommodated by rear - loaded two -car garages and a 20 ft parking pad. The Master Plan does not propose covered parking for the apartments. Per the applicant's findings, coveredparking is deemed to detract from the pedestrian feel and scale of the parking areas; however, the findings further state that the covered parking can be provided if necessary. As a condition, the applicant will be required to amend the site plan at the time of site plan and architectural review to provide the required covered parking or resolve the conflict through approval of a Class "C" Variance. As evidenced in the applicant's findings the proposal can comply. Conclusion 17.67.050(F)(3)(a): Consistent. b. Parking standards may be reduced when transit service is provided in the TOD district and TOD corridor and meets the following conditions: i. Parking standards may be reduced up to twenty -five percent when transit service is provided in the TOD district and TOD corridor. ii. Parking standards may be reduced up to fifty percent when transit service is provided in the TOD district and TOD corridor and when bus service includes fifteen - minute headways during the hours of seven to nine a.m. and four to six p.m. Finding 17.67.050(F)(3)(b): Parking standard reduction is not requested or applicable since transit service is not currently provided in the ETOD. Conclusion 17.67.050(F)(3)(b): Not applicable. c. Bicycle parking standards in Chapter 17.64 shall not be reduced at any time. Finding 17.67.050(F)(3)(c): Table 1664.04 establishes minimum bicycle parking requirements as I space per multi family unit. The applicant's findings state that I bicycle parking space will be provided per unit within the units and guest parking racks outside of the buildings. The location of proposed bicycle racks will be determined as part of the site plan and architectural review process. Conclusion 17.67.050(F)(3)(c): Consistent. d. Shared parking easements or agreements with adjacent property owners are encouraged to satisfy a portion of the parking requirements for a particular use where compatibility is shown. Parking requirements may be reduced by the city when reciprocal agreements of shared parking are recorded by adjacent users. Finding 17.65.050(F)(3)(d): Shared parking easements or agreements are not proposed, as this is the first TOD Master Plan application within the ETOD. Conclusion 17.65.050(F)(3)(d): Not applicable. CPMC 17.65.060, Land Use —TOD Corridor Establishes two special zone district categories in the TOD Corridor and describes the characteristics for each. These categories include: Residential (LMR —Low Mix Residential MMR— Medium Mix Residential), and Employment (EC— Employment Commercial, GC--General Commercial). Finding 17.65.060: The White Hawk Master Plan is within the Eastside TOD district per the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; therefore, the TOD Corridor standards of this section do not apply. Conclusion 17.65.060: Not applicable. Page 26 of 54 CPMC 17.65.070, Zoning Regulations —TOD Corridor Regulations are established for each zoning district related to land use, density, dimension standard and development standards. Finding 17.65.070: The White Hawk Master Plan is within the Eastside TOD district per the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; therefore the TOD Corridor standards of this section do not apply. Conclusion 17.65.070: Not applicable. CPMC 17.67, Design Standards, TOD District and Corridor Design standards address circulation and access, site design, public parks and open spaces, and building design for projects in the TOD District or Corridor as set forth below. 17.67.040, Circulation and Access Standards A. Public Street Standards. 1. Except for specific transportation facilities identified in a TOD district or corridor master plan, the street dimensional standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 300, Street Construction shall apply for all development located within the TOD district and for development within the TOD corridor which is approved according to the provisions in Section 17.65.020 and Chapter 17.66. Finding 17.67.040(A)(1): The Master Plan proposes to retrofit portions of Beebe and Gebhard Road consistent with Public Works Standard Specifications (Details ST21 R and ST20R, respectively). The new street network designs are consistent with the Public Works Standards set forth in Table 3 below: Table 3. White Hawk Internal Street Network STREET NAME Standards STREET STANDARD White Hawk Way Three Lane Collector (ST -21)- Near Beebe Two Lane Collector (ST -20) Beebe Park Drive Two Lane Collector (ST -20) Park Street Minor Local Street (ST -10) North Street Standard Local Street (ST -1 S) Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(1): Consistent. 2. Block perimeters shall not exceed two thousand feet measured along the public street right -of -way. Finding 17.67.040(A)(2): The proposed apartments in Phases I and 2 of the Master Plan are bounded by proposed Beebe Park Drive, White Hawk Way and existing Beebe Road and Gebhard Road (2,306.6 feet). Parking lot driveways and a network ofprivate streets and minor and major accessways establish a series of blocks within the proposed apartment site. On this basis, there are no blocks that exceed 2, 000 feet measured along the public street right -of -way. Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(2): Consistent. 3. Block lengths for public streets shall not exceed six hundred feet between through streets, measured along street right -of -way. Page 27 of 54 Finding 17.67.040(A)(3): See Finding 17.67.040(A)(4). Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(3): Consistent. 4. Public alleys or major off - street bike /pedestrian pathways, designed as provided in this chapter, may be used to meet the block length or perimeter standards of this section. Finding 17.67.040(A)(4): The maximum block length is 669.2 feet measured along the south boundary of White Hawk Way adjacent to the apartment site (Phases I and 2). Due to the combined use ofpedestrian accessways and internal private street network, the block length standard can be met. Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(4): Consistent. 5. The standards for block perimeters and lengths shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary based on findings that strict compliance with the standards is not reasonably practicable or appropriate due to: a. Topographic constraints; b. Existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or accessways; c. Railroads; d. Traffic safety concerns; e. Functional and operational needs to create a large building; or f. Protection of significant natural resources. Finding 17.67.040(A)(5): Modification of the block length standard is not necessary per Finding 16.67.040(A)(4). Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(5): Not applicable. 6. All utility lines shall be underground but utility vault access lids may be located in the sidewalk area. Finding 17.67.040(A)(6): Per the applicant's findings and Exhibit 5, all proposed utilities are to be located underground. Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(6): Consistent. 7. Connections shall be provided between new streets in a TOD district or corridor and existing local and minor collector streets. Finding 17.67.040(A)(7): The proposed street network provides connection to the existing public right -of -way at three intersections, including 1) TT bite Hawk Way /Beebe Road; 2) Beebe Park Drive /Gebhard Road; and 3) North Street /Gebhard Road. Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(7): Consistent. 8. Pedestrian/Bike Accessways within Public Street Right -of -Way. Page 28 of 54 a. Except for specific accessway facilities identified in a TOD district or corridor master plan, the following accessway dimensional standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 300, Street Construction shall apply for any development located within the TOD district and for development within the TOD corridor which is approved according to the provisions in Section17.65.020 and Chapter 17.66. b. In transit station areas, one or more pedestrian- scaled amenities shall be required with every one hundred square feet of the sidewalk area, including but not limited to: Street furniture; ii. Plantings; iii. Distinctive Paving; iv. Drinking fountains; and V. Sculpture. c. Sidewalks adjacent to undeveloped parcels may be temporary. d. Public street, driveway, loading area, and surface parking lot crossings shall be clearly marked with textured accent paving or painted stripes. e. The different zones of a sidewalk should be articulated using special paving or concrete scoring. Finding 17.67.040(A)(8): Sidewalks are proposed along all new street frontages within the Master Plan area. An internal network of minor and major pedestrian accessways connects with the sidewalks in the public right -of -way. Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(8): Consistent. 9. Public Off - Street Accessways. a. Pedestrian accessways and greenways should be provided as needed to supplement pedestrian routes along public streets. Finding 17.67.040(A)(9)(a): As illustrated in Exhibit 4, the Master Plan proposes a series of minor and major pedestrian accessways. Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(9)(a): Consistent. b. Off-street pedestrian accessways shall incorporate all of the following design criteria: i. The applicable standards in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 300, Street Construction; ii. Minimum ten -foot vertical clearance; iii. Minimum twenty -foot horizontal barrier clearance for pathway; Page 29 of 54 iv. Asphalt, concrete, gravel, or wood chip surface as approved by the city, with a compacted subgrade; V. Nonskid boardwalks if wetland construction is necessary; and vi. Minimum one hundred square feet of trailhead area at intersections with other pedestrian improvements. A trail map sign shall be provided at this location. Finding 17 67.040(A)(9)(b): Per the applicant's findings, the pedestrian accessway that connects Gebhard /Beebe Road with the southwest apartments is intended to satisfy the block standard per CPMC 17.67.040(A)(1). Exhibit 4 illustrates the location of the pedestrian accessway, which has sufficient room to accommodate the required design elements, which is required at the time of site plan and architectural review. Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(9)(b): Consistent. c. Minor off - street trails shall be a minimum of five feet wide, have a minimum vertical clearance of eight feet, a minimum two -foot horizontal clearance from edge of pathway and be constructed of gravel or wood chips, with a compacted subgrade. Finding 17.67.040(A)(9)(c): Minor pedestrian accessways shown on Exhibit 4 meet the dimensional requirements of this section. Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(9)(c): Consistent. B. Parking Lot Driveways. 1. Parking lot driveways that link public streets and/or private streets with parking stalls shall be designed as private streets, unless one of the following is met: a. The parking lot driveway is less than one hundred feet long; b. The parking lot driveway serves one or two residential units; or c. The parking lot driveway provides direct access to angled parking stalls. Finding 17.67.040(B)(1): The Master Plan proposes four (4) parking lot driveways as a connection between the public streets and the private internal streets /parking stalls for the apartments. These are designed as private streets. Conclusion 17.67.040(B)(1): Consistent. 2. The number and width of driveways and curb cuts should be minimized and consolidated when possible. Finding 17.67.040(B)(2): The proposed driveways and curb cuts provide access to 9.27 acres designated for apartment development. The driveways are spaced 225 feet apart consistent with the Public Works requirements for driveway spacing per Table 300 -6 in the Public Works Standard Specifications. Conclusion 17.67.040(B)(2): Consistent. 3. Where possible, parking lots for new development shall be designed to provide vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent sites. Page 30 of 54 Finding] 7.67.040(B)(3): The parking lots for the apartment site provide pedestrian and vehicle connections from the site to the public right -of -way. These connections serve to connect apartment residents to the proposed public park site within the Master Plan area. There are no proposed parking lots for the row house or duplex sites. Conclusion 17.67.050(B)(3): Consistent. 4. Large driveways should use distinctive paving patterns. Finding I7.67.040(B)(4): The Master Plan does not propose the use of distinctive paving patterns at each of the driveway locations, as encouraged by this section of the code. Conclusion 17.67.040(B)(4): Not applicable. C. On -Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Attractive access routes for pedestrian travel should be provided by: 1. Reducing distances between destinations or activity areas such as public sidewalks and building entrances. Where appropriate, develop pedestrian routes through sites and buildings to supplement the public right -of -way; Finding 17.67.040(C)(1): A network ofpedestrian routes is provided throughout the apartment site to emulate a city block design consistent with this section. Conclusion 17.67.040(C)(1): Consistent. 2. Providing an attractive, convenient pedestrian accessway to building entrances; Finding I 7.67.040(C) (2): Per the applicant's finding and the Master Plan Narrative (Attachment "A') building entries will have pedestrian oriented building entrances with walkways, landscaping and lighting. Conclusion 17.67.040(C)(2): Consistent. 3. Bridging across barriers and obstacles such as fragmented pathway systems, wide streets, heavy vehicular traffic, and changes in level by connecting pedestrian pathways with clearly marked crossings and inviting sidewalk design; D. Finding 17.67.040(C)(3): Exhibit 4 of the Master Plan illustrates the use of curb extensions and bulb -outs at intersections to reduce travel distances for pedestrians. The proposed pedestrian accessway /sidewalk networks provide connections throughout the proposed phases of development (i.e. apartments, duplexes and townhouses, and park site). Conclusion 17.67.040(C)(3): Consistent, 4. Integrating signage and lighting system which offers interest and safety for pedestrians; Finding 17.67.040(C)(4): Per the Master Plan (Attachment "A'), pedestrian scale, LED lighting will be used throughout the development. Conclusion 17.67.040(C)(4): Consistent. 5. Connecting parking areas and destinations with pedestrian paths identified through use of distinctive paving materials, pavement striping, grade separations, or landscaping. Page 31 of 54 Finding 17.67.040(C)(5): See Finding 17.67.040(C)(3). Conclusion 17.67.040(C)(5): Consistent. 17.67.050 Site design standards. The following standards and criteria shall be addressed in the master plan, land division, and/or site plan review process: A. Adjacent Off -Site Structures and Uses. 1. All off -site structures, including septic systems, drain fields, and domestic wells (within one hundred feet) shall be identified and addressed in the master plan, land division, or site plan process in a manner that preserves and enhances the livability and future development needs of off - site structures and uses consistent with the purpose of the TOD district and as necessary to improve the overall relationship of a development or an individual building to the surrounding context. Finding I7.67.050(A)(1): Exhibit 6 identifies adjacent land uses and off -site structures, including six domestic wells. An engineering analysis prepared by APEX dated August 24, 2015 evaluates the potential for short -term and long -term well impacts, identifies the likelihood of impacts, and recommends mitigation actions. The report indicates that, although adverse impacts are not expected, mitigation actions are recommended considering the area's historic context (i.e. Beebe Road storm drain installation /well impacts /litigation). The report also establishes a process to identify and sample unregistered wells within a '/ mile radius of the project site. As conditioned, this information will be utilized to update the shallow well /groundwater mitigation actions, if necessary, prior to presentation to the neighborhood stakeholders and evaluation by the City's engineer. Conclusion 17.67.050(A)(1): Consistent. 2. Specific infrastructure facilities identified on site in the master plan, land division, and /or site plan shall comply with the underground utility standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 400, Storm Water Sewer System and, more specifically, Section 420.10.02, Ground Water Control Plan, in order to safeguard the water resources of adjacent uses. Finding 17.67.050(A)(2): The Master Utility Plan (Attachment "A" and Exhibit 5) proposes underground utility construction consistent with the Public Works Standard Specifications. As noted in Finding 17.67.050(A)(1), the final engineering plans will reflect any changes to accommodate safeguards for groundwater resources and nearby shallow wells. Conclusion 17.67.050(A)(2): Consistent. B. Natural Features. 1. Buildings should be sited to preserve significant trees. 2. Buildings should be sited to avoid or lessen the impact of development on environmentally critical areas such as steep slopes, wetlands, and stream corridors. 3. Whenever possible, wetlands, groves, and natural areas should be maintained as public preserves and as open space opportunities in neighborhoods. Finding I7.67.050(B): According to the National Wetland Inventory, there are no wetlands mapped on the project site. There are no significant trees, stream corridors, steep slopes, or groves located on the project site. Page 32 of 54 1 Service NWC White Hawk (C TOD Master plan National Wetlands Invantntru Sup 111, 7(115 User Remarks: 9 -30 -2016 Conclusion 17.67.050(B): Consistent. C. Topography. Wetlands M 1. Buildings and other site improvements should reflect, rather than obscure, natural topography. 2. Buildings and parking lots should be designed to fit into hillsides, for instance, reducing the need for grading and filling. 3. Where neighboring buildings have responded to similar topographic conditions on their sites in a consistent and positive way, similar treatment for the new structure should be considered. Finding 17.67.050(C): The project site is generally flat, so none of the proposed parking lots or buildings will occupy hillsides. Conclusion 17.67.050(C): Not applicable. D. Solar Orientation. 1. The building design, massing and orientation should enhance solar exposure for the project, taking advantage of the climate of Central Point for sun - tempered design. 2. Where possible, the main elevation should be facing within twenty -five degrees of due south. 3. In residential developments, the location of rooms should be considered in view of solar exposure, e.g., primary living spaces should be oriented south, but a west facing kitchen should be avoided as it may result in summer overheating. 4. Outdoor spaces should be strategically sited for solar access and the cooling summer winds. 5. Shadow impacts, particularly in winter, on adjacent buildings and outdoor spaces should be avoided. Finding 17.67.050(D): The applicant's findings state that the proposed site layout maximizes solar exposure for the apartment buildings where possible. To comply with the building frontage requirement of CPMC 17.67.070(C)(1)(a), some of the apartments, row houses and duplexes face east /west and cannot maximize solar exposure. Conclusion 17.67.050(D): Consistent. Page 33 of 54 E. Existing Buildings on the Site. 1. Where a new building shares the site with an admirable existing building or is a major addition to such a building, the design of the new building should be compatible with the original. 2. New buildings proposed for existing neighborhoods with a well - defined and desirable character should be compatible with or complement the architectural character and siting pattern of neighboring buildings. Finding I7.67.050(E): There are no existing buildings on the project site. The existing neighborhood is rural; however, the comprehensive plan land use map and regional plan designate the area for future urban uses. As the first master plan in the ETOD, White Hawk proposes an architectural character that should be considered as the area transitions to urban uses. Conclusion 17.60.050(E): Consistent. F. New Prominent Structures. Key public or civic buildings, such as community centers, churches, schools, libraries, post offices, and museums, should be placed in prominent locations, such as fronting on public squares or where pedestrian street vistas terminate, in order to serve as landmarks and to symbolically reinforce their importance. Finding 17.67.050(F): The Master Plan does not propose any public or civic buildings. Conclusion 17.67.050(F): Not applicable. G. Views. The massing of individual buildings should be adjusted to preserve important views while benefiting new and existing occupants and surrounding neighborhoods. Finding 17.67.050(G): The project site is in a low lying area with territorial views. Conclusion 17.67.050(G): Not applicable. H. Adjoining Uses and Adjacent Services. 1. When more intensive uses, such as neighborhood commercial or multifamily dwellings, are within or adjacent to existing single - family neighborhoods, care should be taken to minimize the impact of noise, lighting, and traffic on adjacent dwellings. Finding 17.67.050(H)(1): The siteplan (Exhibit 4) provides for building orientation of all multi family and single - family structures in a manner that directs traffic interior to the site and away from the existing single-family development on Gebhard Road. In addition to the public right -of -way improvements including sidewalks and landscape rows, the Master Plan proposes 10 -1 5-feet of landscape buffer within the front yard setback areas on Beebe and Gebhard Road. Conclusion 17.67.050(H)(1): Consistent. 2. Activity or equipment areas should be strategically located to avoid disturbing adjacent residents. Finding 17.67.050(H)(2): The site plan (Exhibit 4) and the applicant's findings indicate that there are no proposed equipment areas proposed adjacent to existing residents. Conclusion 17.67.050(H)(2): Consistent. Page 34 of 54 3. All on -site service areas, loading zones and outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, transformer and utility vaults, and similar activities shall be located in an area not visible from a street or urban space. Finding 17.67.050(H)(3): On -site service areas, such as loading zones and waste storage and disposal facilities will be located internal to the apartment site. The duplexes and row houses provide rear alley access to accommodate weekly trash pick -up services. Conclusion 17.67.050(H)(3): Consistent. 4. Screening shall be provided for activities, areas and equipment that will create noise, such as loading and vehicle areas, air conditioning units, heat pumps, exhaust fans, and garbage compactors, to avoid disturbing adjacent residents. Finding 17.67.050(H)(4): The applicant's findings state that screening materials for trash collection will include landscaping and building materials that are consistent with the proposed architecture. On -site service areas for trash and mail collection will be internal to the site with exact locations determined at the time of site plan and architectural review. Conclusion 17.67.050(H)(4): Consistent. 5. Group mailboxes are limited to the number of houses on any given block of development. Only those boxes serving the units may be located on the block. Multiple units of mailboxes may be combined within a centrally located building of four walls that meets the design guidelines for materials, entrance, roof form, windows, etc. The structure must have lighting both inside and out. Finding 17.67.050(H)(5): Group mailbox locations will be determined as part of the site plan and architectural review process. There is sufficient area on the project site to meet this standard. Conclusion 17.67.050(H)(5): Consistent. I. Transitions in Density. 1. Higher density, attached dwelling developments shall minimize impact on adjacent existing lower density, single - family dwelling neighborhoods by adjusting height, massing and materials and /or by providing adequate buffer strips with vegetative screens. Finding 17.67.050(1)(1): The surrounding properties to the north and east are within the ETOD. Although rural in character, these areas are planned for urban use and density consistent with the Master Plan site. There are three (3) parcels west of the project site outside of the city limits developed with single family dwellings. The Master Plan proposes landscaping, building setbacks and street frontage improvements to minimize impacts of the higher density residential development on adjoining properties as follows: Landscaping along Gebhard Road and building frontages will provide over twenty feet in buffer area. Massing provides open spaces areas ranging between 25 and 30 feet between buildings. Street Frontage Improvements on Gebhard Road will create an additional landscape and area buffer between existing residences west of Gebhard Road and the master planned development. Conclusion 17.67.050(1)(1): Consistent. Page 35 of 54 2. Adequate buffer strips with vegetative screens shall be placed to mitigate the impact of higher density development on adjacent lower density development. Finding 17.67.050(1)(2): See Finding 17.67.050(1)(1). Conclusion 17.67.050(1) (2): Consistent. New residential buildings within fifty feet of existing low density residential development shall be no higher than thirty -five feet and shall be limited to single - family detached or attached units, duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes. Finding 17.67.050(1)(3): Existing residential development is located west of Gebhard Road and includes three rural tax lots with single family dwellings. The Gebhard Road right -of -way between the project site and rural residential properties west of Gebhard Road ranges between 60 feet near the Beebe Road intersection and 72 feet north of proposed Beebe Park Drive. Although proposed structures are located more than 50 feet from existing residences in the County, the maximum building height proposed does not exceed 35 feet per CPMC 17.05.010. There are also two single family dwellings near the northwest quadrant of the project site. These residences will be separated from proposed development by a 4.12 acre public park. Conclusion 17.67.050(1)(3): Consistent. 4. New commercial buildings within fifty feet of existing low density residential development shall be no higher than forty -five feet. Finding 17.67.050(1)(4): Commercial buildings are not proposed as part of the White Hawk Master Plan. Conclusion 17.67.050(1)(4): Not applicable. 5. Dwelling types in a TOD district or corridor shall be mixed to encourage interaction among people of varying backgrounds and income levels. Finding 17.67.050(1)(5): The Master Plan proposes a mix of three (3) housing types including: 1) apartments; 2) single-family row houses; and 3) duplexes. Conclusion 17.67.050(1)(5): Consistent. J. Parking. 1. Parking Lot Location. a. Off - street surface parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of buildings. Parking at midblock or behind buildings is preferred. Finding 17.67.050(J)(1)(a): Garages for the duplexes and row houses are rear- loaded within an internal alley system away from residential streets and collectors. Parking areas for the apartment buildings are located to the sides and rear of buildings near the public right -of -way and interior to the apartment development as illustrated in Exhibit 4. Conclusion 17.67.050(J)(1)(a): Consistent. b. Off-street surface parking lots shall not be located between a front facade of a building and a public street. Page 36 of 54 Finding 17.67.050(J)(1)(b): The Master Plan does not propose any parking lots between a front fagade of a building and a public street. Conclusion 17.67.050(J)(1)(b): Consistent. c. If a building adjoins streets or accessways on two or more sides, off - street parking shall be allowed between the building and the pedestrian route in the following order of priority: 1 st. Accessways; 2nd. Streets that are non - transit streets; 3rd. Streets that are transit streets. Finding 17.67.050(J)(1)(c): See Finding 17.67.050(J)(1)(a). Conclusion 17.67.050(J)(1)(c): Consistent. 2. Design. a. All perimeter and interior landscaped areas must have protective curbs along the edges. Trees must have adequate protection from car doors and bumpers. b. A portion of the standard parking space may be landscaped instead of paved. The landscaped area may be up to two feet in front of the space as measured from a line parallel to the direction of the bumper of a vehicle using the space. Landscaping must be ground cover plants. The landscaping does not apply towards any perimeter or interior parking lot landscaping requirements, but does count towards any overall site landscaping requirement. c. In order to control dust and mud, all vehicle areas must be paved. d. All parking areas must be striped in conformance with the city of Central Point parking dimension standards. e. Thoughtful siting of parking and vehicle access should be used to minimize the impact of automobiles on the pedestrian environment, adjacent properties, and pedestrian safety. f. Large parking lots should be divided into smaller areas, using, for example, landscaping or special parking patterns. g. Parking should be located in lower or upper building levels or in less visible portions of site. Finding 17.67.050(J)(2): Per the applicant's findings, the apartment parking area will be fully paved with curbs and protected tree wells. Spaces will be striped per City standards in CPMC 17.75.039. Based upon the site plan in Exhibit 4, extensive landscaped areas are proposed to provide a pedestrian oriented environment internal to the apartment site. At the time of site plan and architectural review, the parking lot design will be required to demonstrate compliance with design standards relative to construction and the master plan. Conclusion 17.67.050(J)(2): Consistent. K. Landscaping. Perimeter Screening and Planting. a. Landscaped buffers should be used to achieve sufficient screening while still preserving views to allow areas to be watched and guarded by neighbors. Page 37 of 54 b. Landscaping should be used to screen and buffer unsightly uses and to separate such incompatible uses as parking areas and waste storage and pick -up areas. Finding 17.67.050(K)(1): The Master Plan narrative (Attachment "A') and the applicant's findings state that landscaping will be utilized to buffer the proposed development, including parking and service areas in a manner that softens the appearance of buildings and unsightly areas while preserving views to encourage informal surveillance of the neighborhood. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(1): Consistent. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening. a. Parking areas shall be screened with landscaping, fences, walls or a combination thereof. i. Trees shall be planted on the parking area perimeter and shall be spaced at thirty feet on center. ii. Live shrubs and ground cover plants shall be planted in the landscaped area. iii. Each tree shall be located in a four -foot by four -foot minimum planting area. iv. Shrub and ground cover beds shall be three feet wide minimum. V. Trees and shrubs must be fully protected from potential damage by vehicles. Finding 17.67.050(K)(2)(a): Off - street parking areas provided within the apartment site include 10 foot wide landscape rows between parking areas and sidewalks, and protected tree wells. Further refinement of the site plan (Exhibit 4) relative to landscaping will be accommodated through the site plan and architectural review process. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(2)(a): Consistent. b. Surface parking areas shall provide perimeter parking lot landscaping adjacent to a street that meets one of the following standards: i. A five- foot -wide planting strip between the right -of -way and the parking area. The planting strip may be interrupted by pedestrian- accessible and vehicular accessways. Planting strips shall be planted with an evergreen hedge. Hedges shall be no less than thirty -six inches and no more than forty -eight inches in height at maturity. Hedges and other landscaping shall be planted and maintained to afford adequate sight distance for vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot; ii. A solid decorative wall or fence a minimum of thirty -six inches and a maximum of forty -eight inches in height parallel to and not closer than two feet from the edge of right -of -way. The area between the wall or fence and the pedestrian accessway shall be landscaped. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians and shall be constructed and maintained to afford adequate sight distance as described above for vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot; iii. A transparent screen or grille forty -eight inches in height parallel to the edge of right -of -way. A two -foot minimum planting strip shall be located either inside the screen or between the screen and the edge of right -of -way. The planting strip shall be planted with a hedge or other landscaping. Hedges shall be a minimum thirty - six inches and a maximum of forty inches in height at maturity. Finding 17.67.050(K)(2)(b): Per Exhibit 4, surface parking areas beside proposed apartment buildings provide a minimum 10 foot planting strip between the right -of -way and the parking area, which meets the standard of item Page 38 of 54 b(i). .Further refinement of the site plan (Exhibit 4) relative to landscaping improvements will occur at the time of site plan and architectural review. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(2)(b): Consistent. c. Gaps in a building's frontage on a pedestrian street that are adjacent to off - street parking areas and which exceed sixty -five feet in length shall be reduced to no more than sixty -five feet in length through use of a minimum eight- foot -high screen wall. The screen wall shall be solid, grille, mesh or lattice that obscures at least thirty percent of the interior view (e.g., at least thirty percent solid material to seventy percent transparency). Finding 17.67.050(K)(2)(c): The applicant's findings state that additional screening will be provided along street frontages where building gaps exceed 65 feet. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(2)(c): Consistent. d. Parking Area Interior Landscaping. Amount of Landscaping. All surface parking areas with more than ten spaces must provide interior landscaping complying with one or both of the standards stated below. (A) Standard 1. Interior landscaping must be provided at the rate of twenty square feet per stall. At least one tree must be planted for every two hundred square feet of landscaped area. Ground cover plants must completely cover the remainder of the landscaped area. (B) Standard 2. One tree must be provided for every four parking spaces. If surrounded by cement, the tree planting area must have a minimum dimension of four feet. If surrounded by asphalt, the tree planting area must have a minimum dimension of three feet. Finding 17.67.050(K)(2) (d): Extensive landscape areas are identified in the off - street parking areas for the apartments (Exhibit 4). Further refinement relative to the tree, shrub, and ground cover locations will occur through the site plan and architectural review process. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(2)(d): Consistent. ii. Development Standards for Parking Area Interior Landscaping. (A) All landscaping must comply with applicable standards. Trees and shrubs must be fully protected from potential damage by vehicles. (B) Interior parking area landscaping must be dispersed throughout the parking area. Some trees may be grouped, but the groups must be dispersed. (C) Perimeter landscaping may not substitute for interior landscaping. However, interior landscaping may join perimeter landscaping as long as it extends four feet or more into the parking area from the perimeter landscape line. Page 39 of 54 (D) Parking areas that are thirty feet or less in width may locate their interior landscaping around the edges of the parking area. Interior landscaping placed along an edge is in addition to any required perimeter landscaping. Finding 17.67.050(K)(2)(d)(ii): Landscape areas are identified within the apartment site, including perimeter and interior landscaping areas in conformance with the development standards for interior parking areas. Further refinement of landscape plans will occur as part of site plan and architectural review. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(2)(d)(ii): Consistent. Landscaping Near Buildings. Landscaping shall serve as a screen or buffer to soften the appearance of structures or uses such as parking lots or large blank walls, or to increase the attractiveness of common open spaces. Finding 17.67.050(K)(3): The Master Plan (Attachment "A') and applicant's findings state that landscaping will be provided near buildings. Landscaping will be further refined through the site plan and architectural review process. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(3): Consistent. 4. Service Areas. Service areas, loading zones, waste disposal or storage areas must be fully screened from public view. e. Prohibited screening includes chain -link fencing with or without slats. f. Acceptable screening includes: A six -foot masonry enclosure, decorative metal fence enclosure, a wood enclosure, or other approved materials complementary to adjacent buildings; or ii. A six -foot solid hedge or other plant material screening as approved. Finding 17.67.050(K)(4): See Finding 17.67.070(G). Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(4): Consistent. 5. Street Trees. Street trees shall be required along both sides of all public streets with a spacing of twenty feet to forty feet on center depending on the mature width of the tree crown, and planted a minimum of two feet from the back of curb. Trees in the right -of -way or sidewalk easements shall be approved according to size, quality, and tree well design, if applicable, and irrigation shall be required. Tree species shall be chosen from the city of Central Point approved street tree list. Finding 17.67.050(K)(5): The site plan identifies landscape rows adjacent to public streets that are sufficient to accommodate street trees per the required spacing. Street tree details will be provided on the final construction drawings for the public street improvements as part of the land division process. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(5): Consistent. L. Lighting. 1. Minimum Lighting Levels. Minimum lighting levels shall be provided for public safety in all urban spaces open to public circulation. a. A minimum average light level of one and two - tenths foot - candles is required for urban spaces and sidewalks. Page 40 of 54 b.Metal- halide or lamps with similar color, temperature and efficiency ratings shall be used for general lighting at building exteriors, parking areas, and urban spaces. Sodium -based lamp elements are not allowed. c. Maximum lighting levels should not exceed six foot - candles at intersections or one and one -half foot - candles in parking areas. Finding 17.67.050(L)(1): The Master Plan (Attachment "A') provides for LED lighting not to exceed 6 foot - candles at any intersection or 1. S foot- candles in parking area. Lighting levels proposed are consistent with the lighting requirements of this section. Conclusion 17.67.050(L)(1): Consistent. 2. Fixture Design in Public Rights -of -Way. a. Pedestrian -scale street lighting shall be provided including all pedestrian streets along arterials, major collectors, minor collectors and local streets. b. Pedestrian street lights shall be no taller than twenty feet along arterials and collectors, and sixteen feet along local streets. Finding 17.67.050(L)(2): Per the Master Plan (Attachment "A') pedestrian scale lighting will be provided along all local streets and collectors. The designs for the fixtures will be established at the time of site plan and architectural review. Conclusion 17.67.050(L)(2): Consistent. 3. On -Site Lighting. Lighting shall be incorporated into the design of a project so that it reinforces the pedestrian environment, provides continuity to an area, and enhances the drama and presence of architectural features. Street lighting should be provided along sidewalks and in medians. Selected street light standards should be appropriately scaled to the pedestrian environment. Adequate illumination should be provided for building entries, corners of buildings, courtyards, plazas and walkways. a. Accessways through surface parking lots shall be well lighted with fixtures no taller than twenty feet. b. Locate and design exterior lighting of buildings, signs, walkways, parking lots, and other areas to avoid casting light on nearby properties. c. Fixture height and lighting levels shall be commensurate with their intended use and function and shall assure compatibility with neighboring land uses. Baffles shall be incorporated to minimize glare and to focus lighting on its intended area. d. Additional pedestrian- oriented site lighting including step lights, well lights and bollards shall be provided along all courtyard lanes, alleys and off - street bike and pedestrian pathways. e. In addition to lighting streets, sidewalks, and public spaces, additional project lighting is encouraged to highlight and illuminate building entrances, landscaping, parks, and special features. Finding 17.67.050(L)(3): The Master Plan (Attachment "A') states that on -site lighting will not exceed 20 feet, and will provide cutoff fixtures to avoid casting light on nearby properties. Lighting along pedestrian pathways and near building entries will be provided to accommodate safety. Conclusion 17.67.050(L)(3): Consistent. Page 41 of 54 M. Signs. 1. The provisions of this section are to be used in conjunction with the city sign regulations in the Central Point Sign Code, Chapter 15.24. The sign requirements in Chapter 15.24 shall govern in the TOD district and corridor with the exception of the following: a. The types of signs permitted shall be limited only to those signs described in this chapter. b. All signs in the TOD district and corridor shall comply with the design standards described in this chapter. c. Decorative exterior murals are allowed and are subject to review and criteria by planning commission or architectural review committee appointed by city council. d. Signs that use images and icons to identify store uses and products are encouraged. e. Projecting signs located to address the pedestrian are encouraged. 2. Sign Requirements. 3. Sign Materials. a. The base materials for a freestanding sign shall be natural materials including stone, brick, or aggregate. b. Signs and supporting structural elements shall be constructed of metal or stone with wood or metal informational lettering. No plastics or synthetic material shall be allowed, except for projecting awning signs, which may be canvas or similar fabric. c. Sign lettering shall be limited to sixteen inches maximum in height. d. Sign illumination shall be limited to external illumination to include conventional lighting and neon, if neon is applied to the sign plane area. Internally illuminated signs are prohibited. 4. Prohibited Signs. a. Internally illuminated signs; b.Roof signs; c. Reader boards; d. Sidewalk A -board signs; e. Flashing signs; f. Electronic message /image signs; g. Bench signs; h. Balloons or streamers; i. Temporary commercial banners. Finding 17.67.050(M): The Master Plan proposes monument signs at the main entries located on Beebe and Gebhard Road. These will be composed of stone or masonry consistent with the size and design requirements for signs within the TOD. There are no other signs proposed. Conclusion 17.67.050(M): Consistent. 17.67.060 Public parks and open space design standards. A. General. Parks and open spaces shall be provided in the TOD districts and TOD corridors and shall be designed to accommodate a variety of activities ranging from active play to passive contemplation for all ages and accessibility. Finding 17.67.060(A): The Open Space and Recreation Plan (Exhibit 8) identifies the open space and recreation areas within the Master Plan area, including a 4.12 acre public park and 1.99 acres of courtyard open space area Page 42 of 54 within the apartment site. Recreation amenities include a children's play structure, community building /pool, walking pathways, benches and courtyard landscaping for passive enjoyment. Conclusion 17.67.060(A): Consistent. B. Parks and Open Space Location. 1. Parks and open spaces shall be located within walking distance of all those living, working, and shopping in TOD districts. Finding 17.67.060(B)(1): Per the applicant's findings, the proposed park and open spaces are within a 5 minute (114 mile) walking distance to future residents of the ETOD. Conclusion 17.67.060(B)(1): Consistent. 2. Parks and open spaces shall be easily and safely accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists. Finding 17.67.060(B)(2): Bicycle paths on White Hawk Way and Beebe Park Drive provide bicycle access to the park site. An extensive network ofpublic sidewalks and pedestrian accessways throughout the development also provide connections for proposed development to the park site. Conclusion 17.67.060(B)(2): Consistent. 3. For security purposes, parks and open spaces shall be visible from nearby residences, stores or offices. Finding I7.67.060(B)(3): The proposed park is located at the corner of two public streets (See Exhibit 4) and is visible from the proposed duplexes and apartments. Conclusion 17.67.060(B)(3): Consistent. 4. Parks and open space shall be available for both passive and active use by people of all ages. Finding 17.67.060(B)(4): See Finding 17.67.060(A). Conclusion 17.67.060(B)(4): Consistent. 5. Parks and open space in predominantly residential neighborhoods shall be located so that windows from the living areas (kitchens, family rooms, living rooms but not bedrooms or bathrooms) of a minimum of four residences face onto it. Finding 17.67.060(B)(5): Per the applicant's findings, the duplex units will each have living areas that face onto the park site. Several of the apartments will also have views of the park. Conclusion 17.67.060(B)(5): Consistent. C. Parks and Open Space Amount and Size. 1. Common open spaces will vary in size depending on their function and location. Finding 17.67.060(C)(1): The Master Plan provides for a variety of common open spaces with a range of sizes. In addition to a 4.12 acre public park, the Master Plan includes landscaped courtyards that are roughly 6, 000 square feet in size, as well as a community building and pool. Page 43 of 54 Conclusion 17.67.060(C)(1): Consistent. 2. The total amount of common open space provided in a TOD district or corridor shall be adequate to meet the needs of those projected (at the time of build out) to live, work, shop, and recreate there. Finding 17.67.060(C)(2): The Master Plan provides for 6.11 acres of common open space, including the proposed 4.12 acre public park, which meets the minimum requirements set forth in CPMC 17.67.060(C)(4). Conclusion 17.67.060(C)(2): Consistent. 3. All TOD projects requiring master plans shall be required to reserve, improve and/or establish parks and open space which, excluding schools and civic plazas, meet or exceed the following requirements: a. For single - family detached and attached residences, including duplex units, townhouses and row houses: four hundred square feet for each dwelling. b.For multifamily residences, including multistory apartments, garden apartments, and senior housing: six hundred square feet for each dwelling. c. Nonresidential development: at least ten percent of the development's site area. Finding 17.67.060(C)(3): The Master Plan provides sufficient parks and open space area for the proposed dwelling types as illustrated in Table 4 below. Conclusion 17.67.060(C)(3): Consistent. D. Parks and Open Space Design. 1. Parks and open spaces shall include a combination garbage /recycling bin and a drinking fountain at a frequency of one combination garbage /recycling bin and one drinking fountain per site or one combination garbage /recycling bin and one drinking fountain per two acres, whichever is less, and at least two of the following improvements: a. Benches or a seating wall; b.Public art such as a statue; c. Water feature or decorative fountain; d. Children's play structure including swing and slide; e. Gazebo or picnic shelter; f. Picnic tables with barbecue; g. Open or covered outdoor sports court for one or more of the following: tennis, skateboard, basketball, volleyball, badminton, racquetball, handball/paddleball; h. Open or covered outdoor swimming and/or wading pool or play fountain suitable for children to use; or i. Outdoor athletic fields for one or more of the following: baseball, softball, Little League, soccer. Page 44 of 54 Housing Open Space Housing Type No. Units Net Acres Net Density OS Required OS Proposed Duplexes 16 1.05 - 6,400 0 Townhouses 18 1.15 - 7,200 0 Apartments 276 9.27 - 165,600 86,562 Public Park 0 4.12 - 179,671 TOTAL 310 15.98 19.89 179.200 266.233 Conclusion 17.67.060(C)(3): Consistent. D. Parks and Open Space Design. 1. Parks and open spaces shall include a combination garbage /recycling bin and a drinking fountain at a frequency of one combination garbage /recycling bin and one drinking fountain per site or one combination garbage /recycling bin and one drinking fountain per two acres, whichever is less, and at least two of the following improvements: a. Benches or a seating wall; b.Public art such as a statue; c. Water feature or decorative fountain; d. Children's play structure including swing and slide; e. Gazebo or picnic shelter; f. Picnic tables with barbecue; g. Open or covered outdoor sports court for one or more of the following: tennis, skateboard, basketball, volleyball, badminton, racquetball, handball/paddleball; h. Open or covered outdoor swimming and/or wading pool or play fountain suitable for children to use; or i. Outdoor athletic fields for one or more of the following: baseball, softball, Little League, soccer. Page 44 of 54 Finding ]7.67.060(D)(1): The park site proposes a children's play structure, two benches, a drinking fountain and one garbage /recycling bin. A soccer field is shown on the site plan (Exhibit 4) for illustration purposes only. A community buildinglswimming pool is also proposed as part of the apartment development. The recreation amenities for the master plan area are consistent with minimum design requirements of this section. Conclusion 17.67.060(D)(1): Consistent. 2. All multifamily buildings that exceed twenty -five units and may house children shall provide at least one children's play structure on site. Finding 17.67.060(D)(2): Each apartment buildingproposes up to 24 units. A children's play structure is proposed as part of the park site, which is across the street and within walking distance of the proposed apartment site. Conclusion 17.67.060(D)(2): Consistent. 3. For safety and security purposes, parks and open spaces shall be adequately illuminated. Finding 17.67.060(D)(3): Per the Master Plan (Attachment "A'), park illumination will be provided consistent with the code requirements. This is deemed sufficient to provide adequate illumination. Conclusion 17.67.060(D)(3): Consistent. 17.67.070 Building design standards. Findings for this section will include standards denoted by "shall" or "must" and not recommended standards denoted by "should." A. General Design Requirements. 1. In recognition of the need to use natural resources carefully and with maximum benefit, the use of "sustainable design" practices is strongly encouraged. In consideration of the climate and ecology of the Central Point area, a variety of strategies can be used to effectively conserve energy and resources: a. Natural ventilation; b. Passive heating and cooling; c. Daylighting; d. Sun - shading devices for solar control; e. Water conservation; f. Appropriate use of building mass and materials; and g. Careful integration of landscape and buildings. It is recommended that an accepted industry standard such as the U.S. Green Building Council's LEEDTM program be used to identify the most effective strategies. (Information on the LEEDTM program can be obtained from the U.S. Green Building Council's website, www.us bg corg). Finding 17.67.070(A)(1): As evidenced in the Master Plan narrative (Attachment "A') and the Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9), the Master Plan provides for energy efficient buildings by utilizing many of the strategies listed above. Conclusion 17.67.070(A)(1): Consistent. Page 45 of 54 2. All development along pedestrian routes shall be designed to encourage use by pedestrians by providing a safe, comfortable, and interesting walking environment. Finding 17.67.070(A)(2): Pedestrian routes are designed in accordance with the Public Works Standard Specifications based on street classification andper the pedestrian accessway standards. Landscaping and adjoining architectural character on all proposed building facades (Exhibit 9) are deemed sufficient to create a safe, comfortable and interesting walking environment throughout the Master Plan area. Conclusion 17.67.070(A)(2): Consistent. 3. Convenient, direct and identifiable building access shall be provided to guide pedestrians between pedestrian streets, accessways, transit facilities and adjacent buildings. Finding I Z67.070(A)(3): As illustrated in Exhibit 9, building entries are prominent and will be accessed via pedestrian accessways that connect with the public sidewalk system and /or adjoining minor accessways. There are no proposed transit facilities. Conclusion 17.67.070(A)(3): Consistent. B. Architectural Character. Finding 17.67.070(B): There are no standards presented in this section; only recommended recommendations for architectural character. Conclusion 17.67.070(B): Not applicable. C. Building Entries. 1. General. a. The orientation of building entries shall: i. Orient the primary entrance toward the street rather than the parking lot; ii. Connect the building's main entrance to the sidewalk with a well - defined pedestrian walkway.. Finding 17.67.070(C)(1)(a): Per the applicant's findings and the Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9) and Site Plan (Exhibit 4), the building entries are oriented to street to the maximum extent possible. Where not oriented to the street, building entries are oriented to pedestrian accessways andparking lot driveways, which are designed as private streets. Landscaping defines the pedestrian accessways and building entries. Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(1)(a): Consistent. b. Building facades over two hundred feet in length facing a street shall provide two or more public building entrances off the street. Finding 17.67.070(C)(1)(b): The Master Plan does not propose any building fagade greater than 200 feet. Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(1)(b): Not applicable. c. All entries fronting a pedestrian accessway shall be sheltered with a minimum four -foot overhang or shelter. Page 46 of 54 Finding 17.67. 070(C)(1)(c): As illustrated in the Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9) and stated in the applicant's findings, the Master Plan provides for 4 ft sheltered entries that front a pedestrian accessway. Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(1)(c): Consistent. d. An exception to any part of the requirements of this section shall be allowed upon finding that: The slope of the land between the building and the pedestrian street is greater than 1:12 for more than twenty feet and that a more accessible pedestrian route to the building is available from a different side of the building; or ii. The access is to a courtyard or clustered development and identified pedestrian accessways are provided through a parking lot to directly connect the building complex to the most appropriate major pedestrian route(s). Finding 17.67.070(C)(1)(d): The Master Plan does not require any exception to any part of the general building entry requirements in this section. Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(1)(d): Not applicable. 2. Commercial and High Mix Residential. Finding 17.67.070(C)(2): The Master Plan does not include any commercial development or lands zoned High Mix Residential (HMR). Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(2): Not applicable. 3. Residential. j. The main entrance of each primary structure should face the street the site fronts on, except on corner lots, where the main entrance may face either of the streets or be oriented to the corner. For attached dwellings, duplexes, and multi - dwellings that have more than one main entrance, only one main entrance needs to meet this guideline. Entrances that face a shared landscaped courtyard are exempt. Finding 17.67.070(C)(3)(a): As illustrated in the Site Plan (Exhibit 4) and Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9(A)), the apartments provide building entries along the street frontage as much as possible. Some entries face the pedestrian accessways and parking lot driveways, which are designed as private streets with 90 degree parking. The proposed row houses and duplexes provide main entries on the street frontage with rear loaded garages along internal alleys. Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(3)(a): Consistent. k. Residential buildings fronting on a street shall have an entrance to the building opening on to the street. Single- family detached, attached and row house /townhouse residential units fronting on a pedestrian street shall have separate entries to each dwelling unit directly from the street. ii. Ground floor and upper story dwelling units in a multifamily building fronting a street may share one or more building entries accessible directly from the street, and shall not be accessed through a side yard except for an accessory unit to a single- family detached dwelling. Page 47 of 54 Finding 17.67.070(C)(3)(b): As illustrated in the Site Plan (Exhibit 4) and Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9(A)), the rowhouses and duplexes provide building entries facing the street. The apartments provide building entries along the street frontage as much as possible with second story access being provided from an interior walkway and stairwell. Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(3)(b): Consistent. 1. The main entrances to houses and buildings should be prominent, interesting, and pedestrian - accessible. A porch should be provided to shelter the main entrance and create a transition from outdoor to indoor space. Finding 17.67.070(C)(3)(c): As illustrated in the Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9(A)), proposed building entries for all housing types provide porches and overhangs that are part of the overall neo- traditional architectural design. Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(3)(c): Consistent. D. Building Facades. 1. General. a. All building frontages greater than forty feet in length shall break any flat, monolithic facade by including discernible architectural elements such as, but not limited to: bay windows, recessed entrances and windows, display windows, cornices, bases, pilasters, columns or other architectural details or articulation combined with changes in materials, so as to provide visual interest and a sense of division, in addition to creating community character and pedestrian scale. The overall design shall recognize that the simple relief provided by window cutouts or sills on an otherwise flat facade, in and of itself, does not meet the requirements of this subsection. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(a): The Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9) includes architectural elements for all housing types (i.e. bay windows, porches, enclosed patios, recessed windows) and materials variation (i.e. board and batten, accent shingles, painted accent panels) to break up building frontages. On the basis, the Master Plan does propose any flat facades. Conclusion] 7.67.070(D)(1)(a): Consistent. b. Building designs that result in a street frontage with a uniform and monotonous design style, roofline or facade treatment should be avoided. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(b): The Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9) includes architectural elements for all housing types that avoids a singular roofline and monotonous design. Conclusion17.67.070(D)(1)(b): Consistent. c. To balance horizontal features on longer facades, vertical building elements shall be emphasized. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(c): The Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9) and Master Plan narrative (Attachment "A') provide for vertical elements (i.e. vertically integrated building offsets, painted accent panels) no less than 30 ft high to balance horizontal features. Page 48 of 54 Conclusion] 7.67.070(D)(1)(c): Consistent. d. The dominant feature of any building frontage that is visible from a pedestrian street or public open space shall be the habitable area with its accompanying windows and doors. Parking lots, garages, and solid wall facades (e.g., warehouses) shall not dominate a pedestrian street frontage. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(d): The Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9) provides enclosed patios /decks, windows and doors along the street frontage. Rear loaded garages provided for the duplexes and row houses avoid the pedestrian street frontage. Conclusion] 7.67.070(D)(1)(d): Consistent. e. Developments shall be designed to encourage informal surveillance of streets and other public spaces by maximizing sight lines between the buildings and the street. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(e): Provision of outdoor living spaces (i.e. enclosed patios and decks) and extensive window area from living areas encourage informal surveillance of streets and other public spaces. Conclusion17.67.070(D)(1)(e): Consistent. f. All buildings, of any type, constructed within any TOD district or corridor shall be constructed with exterior building materials and finishes that are of high quality to convey permanence and durability. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)()9: The Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9) and Master Plan narrative (Attachment "A') provide for high quality building materials and finishes. Conclusion17.67.070(D)(1)(,0: Consistent. g. The exterior walls of all building facades along pedestrian routes, including side or return facades, shall be of suitable durable building materials including the following: stucco, stone, brick, terra cotta, tile, cedar shakes and shingles, beveled or ship -lap or other narrow- course horizontal boards or siding, vertical board - and - batten siding, articulated architectural concrete or concrete masonry units (CMU), or similar materials which are low maintenance, weather - resistant, abrasion - resistant, and easy to clean. Prohibited building materials include the following: plain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, unarticulated board siding (e.g., T1 -11 siding, plain plywood, sheet pressboard), Exterior Insulated Finish Systems (EIFS), and similar quality, nondurable materials. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(g): The Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9) includes shingles, beveled wood or composite narrow - course horizontal siding, vertical board and batten siding and painted accent panels. The proposal does not include any prohibited materials. Conclusion] 7.67.070(D)(1)(g): Consistent. h. All visible building facades along or off a pedestrian route, including side or return facades, are to be treated as part of the main building elevation and articulated in the same manner. Continuity of use of the selected approved materials must be used on these facades. Page 49 of 54 Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(h): Per the Master Plan, the sides of buildings are designed to utilize the same materials palette. Articulation will be similar to the front facades. Conclusion] 7.67.070(D)(1)(h): Consistent. i. Ground -floor openings in parking structures, except at points of access, must be covered with grilles, mesh or lattice that obscures at least thirty percent of the interior view (e.g., at least thirty percent solid material to seventy percent transparency). Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(i): There are no parking structures proposed as part of the site plan (Exhibit 4) or Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9). Conclusion] 7.67.070(D)(1)(1): Not applicable. j. Appropriately scaled architectural detailing, such as but not limited to moldings or cornices, is encouraged at the roofline of commercial building facades, and where such detailing is present, should be a minimum of at least eight inches wide. Finding 17.67.070(D)(I)(j): There are no commercial buildings proposed as part of the Master Plan. Con clusion17.67.070(D)(1)O)F : Not applicable. k. Compatible building designs along a street should be provided through similar massing (building facade, height and width as well as the space between buildings) and frontage setbacks. Finding 17.67.070(D)(1)(k): The Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9) applies compatible building designs for all housing types along streets by providing similar architectural elements and building materials, massing and setback applications. Conclusion] 7.67.070(D)(1)(k): Consistent. 2. Commercial and High Mix Residential. Finding 17.67.070(D)(2): The Master Plan does not include any commercial development or lands zoned High Mix Residential (HMR). Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(2): Not applicable. 3. Residential. a. The facades of single - family attached and detached residences (including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and row houses) shall comply with the following standards: No more than forty percent of the horizontal length of the ground floor front elevation of a single - family detached or attached dwelling shall be an attached garage. Finding 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(i): The Master Plan proposes duplexes and row houses /townhouses with alley loaded garages. The proposal does not include garages along the front building elevation for any building type. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(i): Consistent. Page 50 of 54 ii. When parking is provided in a garage attached to the primary structure and garage doors face the street the front of the garage should not take up more than forty percent of the front facade in plan, and the garage should be set back at least ten feet from the front facade. If a porch is provided, the garage may be set back ten feet from the front of the porch. In addition, garage doors that are part of the street - facing facade of a primary structure should not be more than eighty square feet in area, and there should not be more than one garage door for sixteen feet of building frontage. Finding 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(ii): The Master Plan proposes duplexes and row houses /townhouses with alley loaded garages. The proposal does not locate any garages along the front building elevation. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(ii): Consistent. iii. Residential building elevations facing a pedestrian route shall not consist of undifferentiated blank walls, but shall be articulated with architectural details such as windows, dormers, porch details, balconies or bays. Finding 17 67.070(D)(3)(a)(iii): Exhibit 9, A -B provide the architectural elevations for the proposed duplexes and row houses, which show architectural details that avoid blank undifferentiated walls, including windows, enclosed patios with accent shingles, stepped walls, and building material variation. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(iii): Consistent. iv. For any exterior wall which is within twenty feet of and facing onto a street or public open space and which has an unobstructed view of that pedestrian street or public open space, at least twenty percent of the ground floor wall area shall be comprised of either display area, windows, or doorways. Finding 17.67.070(D)(a)(3)(iv): Exhibit 9(A) presents the architectural elevations for duplexes. Based on measurements of the windows and doors, the ground floor adjacent on the front elevation consists of 38.1 % of window and door area. Exhibit 9(B) presents the architectural elevation for row houses. Based on measurements of the windows and doors, the ground floor consists of 36.7% of door and window area. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(iv): Consistent. V. Architectural detailing is encouraged to provide variation among attached units. Architectural detailing includes but is not limited to the following: the use of different exterior siding materials or trim, shutters, different window types or sizes, varying roof lines, balconies or porches, and dormers. The overall design shall recognize that color variation, in and of itself, does not meet the requirements of this subsection. Finding 17.67.070(D)(a)(3)(v): Exhibit 9 illustrates the architectural detailingfor the duplexes and row houses, including but not limited to: variations in exterior siding materials, different window sizes, varying rooflines, and porches and balconies. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(v): Consistent. Page 51 of 54 vi. Fences or hedges in a front yard shall not exceed three feet in height. Side yard fencing shall not exceed three feet in height between the front building facade and the street. Fences beyond the front facade of the building in a side yard or back yard and along a street, alley, property line, or bike /pedestrian pathway shall not exceed four feet in height. Fences over four feet in height are not permitted and hedges or vegetative screens in no case shall exceed six feet in height. Finding 17.67.070(D)(a)(3)(vi): The site plan Exhibit 4 and Building Design Plan (Exhibit 9) do not illustrate any proposed fences or hedges exceeding three feet. At the time of site plan and architectural review, any proposed fences and /or landscaping will be further evaluated for consistency with this standard. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a)(vi): Consistent. b. The facades of multifamily residences shall comply with the following standards: i. Building elevations, including the upper stories, facing a pedestrian route shall not consist of undifferentiated blank walls, but shall be articulated with architectural detailing such as windows, balconies, and dormers. Finding 17.6 7.0 70(D) (b) (i): Exhibit 9(C) provides the architectural elevations for the proposed apartments, which show architectural details that avoid blank undifferentiated walls, including windows, patios /balconies with accent shingles, stepped walls, and building material variation. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(b)(i): Consistent. ii. For any exterior wall which is within twenty feet of and facing onto a pedestrian street or public open space and which has an unobstructed view of that pedestrian street or public open space, at least twenty percent of the ground floor wall area shall be comprised of either display area, windows, or doorways. Finding 17.67.070(D)(b)(ii): Exhibit 9(C) provides the architectural elevations for the proposed apartments, which include 28% of door and window area on the ground floor. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(b)(ii): Consistent. iii. Arcades or awnings should be provided over sidewalks where ground floor retail or commercial exists, to shelter pedestrians from sun and rain. Finding 17.67.070(D)(b)(iii): Ground floor retail and commercial are not proposed as part of the Master Plan. Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(b)(iii): Not applicable. E. Roofs. 1. Residential. a. Flat roofs with a parapet and cornice are allowed for multifamily residences in all TOD, LMR, MMR and HMR districts, in which the minimum for sloped roofs is 5:12. Finding 17.67.070(E)(1)(a): As illustrated in Exhibit 9, flat roofs are not proposed for any housing type in the Master Plan. Conclusion 17.67.070(E)(1)(a): Not applicable. Page 52 of 54 b. Flat roofs with a parapet and cornice are allowed for single - family attached and detached residences (including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and row houses) in all TOD residential districts, except the LMR zone. Finding 17.67.070(E)(1)(b): As illustrated in Exhibit 9, flat roofs are not proposed for any housing type. Conclusion 17.67.070(E)(1)(b): Not applicable. c. For all residences with sloped roofs, the roof slope shall be at least 5:12, and no more than 12:12. Eaves shall overhang building walls at a minimum twelve inches deep on all sides (front, back, sides) of a residential structure. Finding 17.67.070(E)(1)(c): Exhibit 9 illustrates the proposed roofpitch for each housing type as follows: Duplexes Exhibit 9(A)) — 9 :12 with 5:12 overhangs Row houses (Exhibit 9(B)) — 9:12 with 5:12 overhangs Apartments (Exhibit 9(C)) — 8:12 with 4:12 saddles and 5:12 overhangs. Conclusion 17.67.070(E)(1)(c): Consistent. d. Roof shapes, surface materials, colors, mechanical equipment and other penthouse functions should be integrated into the total building design. Roof terraces and gardens are encouraged. Finding 17.67.070(E)(1)(d): As illustrated in Exhibit 9, the proposed architectural elevations show gable roof shapes with composition shingles. No mechanical equipment is proposed as part of the roof design. Conclusion 17.6 7.0 70(E) (1) (d): Not applicable. F. Exterior Building Lighting. 1. Residential. a. Lighting shall not draw inordinate attention to the building facade. b. Porch and entry lights are encouraged on all dwellings to create a safe and inviting pedestrian environment at night. c. No exterior lighting exceeding one hundred watts per fixture is permitted in any residential area. Finding 17.67.070(F): The Master Plan indicates that lighting will be minimized to provide for safety and ADA requirements to promote energy efficiency. Each dwelling unit for all housing types will provide porch lights. All exterior lighting will be under 100 waters per fixture. Conclusion 17.67.070(F): Consistent. G. Service Zones. 1. Buildings and sites shall be organized to group the utilitarian functions away from the public view. Finding I Z67.070(H)(1): As illustrated in Exhibit 4, the site is organized so thatparking, and service areas are interior to site and away from public rights -of -way. Conclusion 17.67.070(H)(1): Consistent. Page 53 of 54 2. Delivery and loading operations, mechanical equipment (HVAC), trash compacting /collection, and other utility and service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building(s) and the landscaping. Finding 17.67.070(H)(2): The applicant's findings state that no mechanical equipment is necessary to serve the apartment units because each will be heated with small electrical units and air conditioned with PTAC units or a mini -split system. Heat pumps utilized for the row houses and duplexes will be screened using landscaping. Conclusion 17.67.070(H)(2): Consistent. 3. The visual and acoustic impacts of these functions, along with all wall- or ground- mounted mechanical, electrical and communications equipment, shall be out of view from adjacent properties and public pedestrian streets. Finding 17.67.070(H)(3): See Condition 17.67.050(H)(2). Conclusion 17.67.050(H)(3): Consistent. 4. Screening materials and landscape screens shall be architecturally compatible with and not inferior to the principal materials of the building. a. The visual impact of chimneys and equipment shall be minimized by the use of parapets, architectural screening, rooftop landscaping, or by using other aesthetically pleasing methods of screening and reducing the sound of such equipment. Finding 17.67.070(H)(4): The applicant's findings for the Master Plan state that screening materials will be architectural extensions of the principal materials of the buildings. Conclusion 17.67.050(H)(4): Consistent. H. Parking Structures. 1. Parking garage exteriors should be designed to visually respect and integrate with adjacent buildings. 2. Garage doors and entrances to parking areas should be located in a sensitive manner using single curb cuts when possible. 3. Residential parking structures must comply with the facade requirements for residential developments. Finding 17.67.070(1): There are no parking structures proposed as part of the Master Plan. Conclusion 17.67.070(1): Not applicable. PART 5 SUMMARY CONCLUSION As evidenced in these findings, the proposed application for the White Hawk Master Plan has been evaluated and found to comply with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site and the applicable standards and criteria of the Central Point Municipal Code. Page 54 of 54