HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP031016CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
City Council Meeting Agenda
March 10, 2016
Next Res. 1446
Next Ord. 2026
I.REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER – 7:00 P.M.
II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III.ROLL CALL
IV.PUBLIC APPEARANCES – Comments will be limited to 3 minutes per
individual or 5 minutes if representing a group or organization.
V.SPECIAL PRESENTATION – Fire District No. 3 Quarterly Report
VI.CONSENT AGENDA
Page 2 - 7 A. Approval of February 11, 2016 Council Minutes
VII.ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
VIII.CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARING
9 -198 City Staff Report (Humphrey/Holtey)
199 - 247 A.Appeal of Planning Commission Decision filed by L.
Calvin Martin regarding approval of Costco Conditional
Use Permit
248 - 256 B.Appeal of Planning Commission Decision filed by David
J. Smith regarding approval of Costco Conditional Use
Permit
IX.MAYOR’S REPORT
X.CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
XI.COUNCIL REPORTS
Central Point
City Hall
541-664-3321
City Council
Mayor Hank Williams
Ward I Bruce Dingler
Ward II Michael Quilty
Ward III Brandon Thueson
Ward IV Allen Broderick
At Large Rick Samuelson Taneea Browning
Administration Chris Clayton, City Manager Deanna Casey, City Recorder
Community Development Tom Humphrey, Director
Finance Bev Adams, Director
Human Resources Elizabeth Simas, Director
Parks and Public Works Matt Samitore, Director Jennifer Boardman, Manager
Police Kris Allison Chief
XII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The City Council may adjourn to executive session under the provisions of ORS 192.660.
Under the provisions of the Oregon Public Meetings Law, the proceedings of an
executive session are not for publication or broadcast.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Individuals needing special accommodations such as sign language, foreign language interpreters or equipment for the hearing impaired must request such services at least 72 hours prior to the City Council meeting. To make your request, please contact the City Recorder at 541-423-1026 (voice), or by e-mail at: Deanna.casey@centralpointoregon.gov . Si necesita traductor en español o servicios de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a una junta publica de la ciudad por favor llame con 72 horas de anticipación al 541-664-3321 ext. 201
Consent Agenda
CAP031016 Page 1
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT City Council Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2016
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Mayor Williams called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL: Mayor: Hank Williams Council Members: Bruce Dingler, Brandon Thueson,
Taneea Browning, Rick Samuelson, and Mike Quilty were
present. Allen Broderick was excused.
City Manager Chris Clayton; City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer; Police Captain Dave
Croft; Community Development Director Tom Humphrey; Finance Director Bev Adams; Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore; and City Recorder
Deanna Casey were also present.
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - None
V. SPECIAL PRESENATION – RVCOG Annual Report
Rogue Valley Council of Governments Executive Director Michael Cavallaro presented the 2016 Program and Financial Update. There are no big changes everything is status quo. Their mission statement is: “We shall act as a catalyst to
promote quality of life, effective and efficient services, and leadership in regional communication, cooperation, planning and action in Southern Oregon. He
explained how the Middle Rogue MPO is doing, they hope that eventually we will
have one MPO for the valley. They are concentrating on hiring new employees that will stay with the COG and have the mind set needed for this kind of work.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of January 28, 2016 City Council Minutes B. Approval to cancel the February 25, 2016 City Council meeting. C. Approval of OLCC Application for Art4Joy
City Manager Chris Clayton explained that there was a question regarding the extra money from backflow testing. The statement that extra funds “would” be
used to work with the properties in downtown has been changed to “could” be used to help downtown properties. He also gave a brief explanation of why Art4Joy is applying for an OLCC License. Mike Quilty moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Brandon
Thueson seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea
Browning, yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved.
CAP031016 Page 2
City of Central Point City Council Minutes February 11, 2016
Page 2
VI. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA - None
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Ordinance 2024, An Ordinance of the City of Central Point Imposing
a Three Percent Tax on the Sale of Marijuana Items by a Marijuana Retailer and Referring Ordinance
City Attorney Dreyer explained that this is the second reading of an Ordinance imposing a 3% tax on the sale of marijuana items by a retailer. There were no
recommended changes to the ordinance at the first reading on January 28, 2016.
Brandon Thueson moved to approve Ordinance 2024, An Ordinance of the
City of Central Point Imposing a Three Percent Tax on the Sale of Marijuana Items by a Marijuana Retailer and Referring Ordinance. Taneea Browning seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning,
yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved. B. Resolution No. 1444, A Resolution Approving Referral to the Electors of the City of Central Point a Question of Imposing a Three
Percent Tax on the Sale of Marijuana Items by a Marijuana Retailer with in the City
Mrs. Dreyer explained that in addition to the approval of the above ordinance the
Council also needs to approve a resolution referring to the electors the question regarding a three percent tax on marijuana sales. The proposed resolution
adopts the ballot title, summary and explanatory statement and authorizes the
City Recorder to take all necessary steps to file with the County Elections office for the November Ballot.
The question to tax marijuana retail sales would become operative only if the proposed measures to prohibit marijuana entities do not pass by a majority of
votes in November, 2016. Staff recommends approving the proposed Resolution to be consistent with
previous efforts of the City Council to create a disincentive to the establishment of licensed and registered marijuana uses within Central Point and to minimize the potential adverse impacts resulting from them. The Strategic Plan
emphasizes a proactive City Government that adopts policies aligning with the values of the community.
Mayor Williams opened the public hearing. No one came forward and the public hearing was closed.
Rick Samuelson moved to approve Resolution No. 1444, A Resolution
Approving Referral to the Electors of the City of Central Point a Question of Imposing a Three Percent Tax on the Sale of Marijuana Items by a
CAP031016 Page 3
City of Central Point City Council Minutes February 11, 2016
Page 3
Marijuana Retailer with in the City. Mike Quilty seconded. Roll call: Hank
Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning, yes; Brandon Thueson, yes;
Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved.
C. Ordinance 2025, Amending Chapter 3.24 Transient Lodging Tax
Finance Director Bev Adams stated that this was the second reading of an
ordinance to update and expand Chapter 3.24 of the Central Point Municipal
Code. There were minor grammatical changes to the recommended ordinance.
There was discussion regarding appeals and how that would work with the
changes. Mrs. Adams stated that if a business didn’t agree with the Finance Director they could appeal a decision to the City Manager, and then to the
Council if needed. Mike Quilty moved to approve Ordinance 2025, Amending Chapter 3.24
Transient Lodging Tax. Brandon Thueson seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning, yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved. VIII. BUSINESS
A. Planning Commission Report
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey reported that the Planning
Commission had one item on the agenda for their February 2, 2016 meeting.
The Commission considered a Conditional Use Permit application for the
construction of a 161,992 square foot membership warehouse and fuel facility on an 18.28 acre site at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock Road. The
project site is within the Federal Way Business Park Subdivision in the Industrial
(M-1) zoning district. Various members of city staff were present to answer questions raised by Commission members during their deliberations. The
Commission unanimously approved the Conditional Use Permit based on the staff report from the January 5, 2016 meeting, including the exhibits and findings in that report and subject to the recommended conditions of approval also in that
report. Staff reported that the Southern Oregon Veterans Benefit formally withdrew their
Conditional Use Permit application to place a Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial Wall in Don Jones Park.
B. Commission/Committee Appointments
Mr. Clayton explained that the term for Kay Harrison expired December 31, 2015.
The City received a resignation notice from Tim Schmeuser that he has moved out of the city limits and no longer fulfills the qualification for a Planning
Commission Member. On February 2, 2016 the city received a resignation notice
from Susan Sxczesnik. The Council should appoint members to finish the terms
CAP031016 Page 4
City of Central Point City Council Minutes February 11, 2016
Page 4
for Position 4 and 6 and fill Position 2. Chuck Piland has agreed to continue as the Chair for the Planning Commission. The seven applications have been
included in the Council Packet for review. The Citizens Advisory Committee members are auto renewed each year. Staff
recommends reappointing David Painter as Chair.
The Parks and Recreation Commission had four positions expire on December
31, 2015. Staff recommends reappointment of Patricia Alvarez, John Beck, Deven Howard and Lee Orr and reappointment of Mark Ludwiczak as Chair.
The Multicultural Committee has one expired term. Staff recommends reappointment of Christina Garrett and appointment of Amy Sweet as Chair. Staff
is still taking applications for vacancies on this committee.
The Budget Committee had a resignation from Randy Sparacino. The City
received an application from Chris Richey who would like to be appointed to the Budget Committee if he is not appointed to the Planning Commission. There are also two positions that can be reappointed.
Mayor Williams recommended that:
• reappointment for Kay Harrison to Planning Commission Position 2
• Rob Hernandez to Planning Commission Position 4.
• Elizabeth Powell for Planning Commission Position 6.
• Chuck Piland as Planning Commission Chair.
• David Painter as Citizens Advisory Committee Chair.
• Reappointment of Patricia Alvarez, John Beck, Deven Howard and Lee
Orr to the Parks and Recreation Commission with Mark Ludwiczak as Chair.
• Reappointment of Christina Garrett to the Multicultural Committee and Amy Sweet as Chair.
• Appointment of Chris Richey to the Budget Committee and reappointment of Steven Weber.
Mike Quilty moved to approve the Mayor’s recommendation for all Committee/Commission positions. Rick Samuelson seconded. Roll call: Hank
Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning, yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved.
IX. MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Williams reported that he:
• Attended the Medford Water Commission Meeting.
• Attended the Central Point Chamber Auction Dinner.
• Attended the Medford Chamber Forum.
• Will be presenting the Mayor’s Choice award at the Car Show this weekend. He invited other members to attend the event with him.
CAP031016 Page 5
City of Central Point City Council Minutes February 11, 2016
Page 5
X. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Chris Clayton reported that:
• Rogue Community College will have a measure on the November ballot
for a bond to leverage money for a new facility.
• We will have officers graduating from the Police Academy next week.
• The ribbon cutting for Jackson County Court Building is scheduled for May 5, 2016.
• There will not be a meeting on February 25, 2016.
XI. COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Member Mike Quilty reported that:
• The RVACT is looking at which projects to fund in the area. They are reviewing transit stops in the area and funds to dedicate to a transit stop
in Grants Pass.
• He attended an OMPOC meeting, they are lobbying with the state
regarding transportation projects for next year.
• He has been appointed to an LOC Policy Committee.
Council Member Brandon Thueson reported that he attended the School Board meeting. They are proposing a new course dedicated to the history of Islam. He
also updated on some new programs available at Jewett Elementary.
Council Member Rick Samuelson reported that he attended the Chamber of
Commerce Awards Dinner. Council Member Bruce Dingler had no report.
Council Member Taneea Browning reported that:
• She attended the ribbon cutting at Montgomery’s meats.
• The Central Point Chambers 44th Annual Awards Banquet and Auction
was last weekend. It was well attended with over 150 guests and many
great sponsors.
• She is looking forward to the Central Point Second Saturday Farmers
Market that will start in May and run through October.
• She was happy to read an article listing 11 factors contributing to a
healthy city. Central Point had nearly all of them and we are working on those we don’t have yet.
XII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore reported that:
• There are still soft spots in the new student drop off area. They are
working on the issue.
• The block wall on the corner of Beebe and Hamrick was started this
week.
CAP031016 Page 6
City of Central Point City Council Minutes February 11, 2016
Page 6
Police Captain Dave Croft reported that:
• He will be going to the Police Academy next Friday to attend the graduation. It will be nice to get officers back in the cars. Two more officers will be going to the Academy in April.
• The Department will be looking for a new Community Service Officer. Cameron Cunningham will be moving into an Officer position when he
returns from the Academy.
• There will be ORPAT testing process coming up very soon for new
applicants.
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey left the meeting early.
Finance Director Bev Adams and City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer had nothing further to report.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - None
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Brandon Thueson moved to adjourn, Mike Quilty seconded, all said “aye” and the
Council Meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the February 11, 2016, Council meeting were approved by the City Council at its meeting of March 10, 2016.
Dated: _________________________
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
__________________________ City Recorder
CAP031016 Page 7
Consolidated Public
Hearing
Planning Commission
Appeals
Martin and Smith
CAP031016 Page 8
Community Development STAFF REPORT Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
STAFF REPORT
March 10, 2016
ITEM
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application for the construction of a 161,992 square foot Costco
membership warehouse and fuel facility on an 18.28 acre site at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock
Road. The project site is within the Federal Way Business Park subdivision in the Industrial (M-1) zoning district,
and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 12B, Tax Lots 213, 214, 215, and 216.
Applicant: Costco Wholesale; Agent: Steve Bullock, MG2
STAFF SOURCE
Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner II
BACKGROUND
In 2009, based on the authority for similar use authorizations provided in CPMC 17.48.020(W) and 17.60.140, the
Planning Commission approved membership warehouse clubs, such as Costco Wholesale, as similar to other uses
permitted in the M-1 zone and approved such uses as conditional uses (Planning Commission Resolution No. 764).
As a conditional use, the City has more discretion in determining the compatibility of the use with other permitted
uses. Upon appeal, the City Council affirmed the Planning Commission’s similar use determination and
authorization of membership warehouse clubs as a conditional use (City Council Resolution No. 1217).
In 2015, Costco Wholesale submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to develop a membership warehouse
and fuel facility on 18.28 acres in the M-1 zone (Attachment “A”). On February 2, 2016, the Planning
Commission, in accordance with CPMC 17.76, approved the CUP application (Resolution No. 827). The Planning
Commission’s decision considered testimony received by the applicants, proponents and opponents at the January
5, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, including the period that the record was left open (Attachment “B”).
After the final decision, appeals were filed by L. Calvin Martin (“Martin Appeal” - Attachment “C-1”) and David J.
Smith (“Smith Appeal” – Attachment D-1”) on February 16, 2016. The Martin Appeal and the Smith Appeal raise
similar issues alleging the Planning Commission erred in approving the application based upon the following issues
which are summarized as follows:
•The use is not compatible;
•The Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by the Applicant is flawed;
•The use will generate significate traffic; and
•The decision conflicts with the City’s Statement of Values for Growth and Transportation.
Upon appeal, the Council’s consideration is based upon the evidence and issues presented in the record before the
Planning Commission. Based upon that record, the Council must determine whether there is substantial evidence in
CAP031016 Page 9
the record to support the Planning Commission’s decision, or whether the Planning Commission erred as a matter
of law.
Staff has reviewed the issues raised in the Martin Appeal and the Smith Appeal and the evidence in the record in
the context of the standards and criteria that apply to Conditional Use Permits per CPMC 17.76. There are no
issues raised that have not already been addressed by the Planning Commission as evidenced in the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Martin Appeal (Attachment “C-2) and the Smith Appeal (Attachment “D-2”).
COUNCIL OPTIONS
In an appeal of a Type III land use decision, the Council has four options:
1) Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. If the Council does so, it must specify the basis for its
decision;
2) Reverse the Decision of the Planning Commission. If the Council does so, it must specify the reasons for
the reversal;
3) Modify the decision of the Planning Commission and specify the reasons for the modification; or
4) Remand the decision back to the Planning Commission with an explanation of the error and the action
necessary to rectify the error. Given the constraints of the 120-day rule, this is not an option unless the
applicant concurs and agrees to extend the 120-day limit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
There are two appeals before Council. Though the hearings have been consolidated, the Council will need to make
separate motions as to each appeal at the close of the public hearing. With regard to each appeal:
Martin Appeal:
Staff recommends the Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission on the basis that there is substantial
evidence in the record to find that the application complies with the Conditional Use Permit criteria in CPMC
17.76. Attached hereto as Exhibit C-2 are draft Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law the Council may adopt
in its motion to affirm the Planning Commission.
Smith Appeal:
Staff recommends the Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission on the basis that there is substantial
evidence in the record to find that the application complies with the Conditional Use Permit criteria in CPMC
17.76. Attached hereto as Exhibit D-2 are draft Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law the Council may adopt
in its motion to affirm the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment “A” – Planning Commission Resolution No. 827 including all exhibits thereto
Attachment “B” – Staff Report dated February 2, 2016 (with Exhibits 1 – 14; Exhibit 15 is the Revised Staff Report
dated January 5, 2016 included in Attachment “A”)
Attachment “C-1” - Notice of Appeal – L. Calvin Martin dated February 16, 2016
Attachment “C-2” – Draft Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Martin Appeal
Attachment “D-1” – Notice of Appeal – David J. Smith dated February 16, 2016
Attachment “D-2” – Draft Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Smith Appeal
CAP031016 Page 10
ACTION
Consider the appeals of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit allowing
development of a membership warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district and 1)
affirm the decision; 2) modify the decision; 3) reverse the decision; or 4) remand the decision to take further action.
RECOMMENDATION – SUGGESTED MOTION
Martin Appeal:
I move to affirm the Planning Commission Decision adopted as Resolution 827 and direct Staff to prepare a
resolution approving the application for a Costco Wholesale Membership Warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28
acres within the M-1 zoning district as per the staff reports at Exhibits A and B hereto and the draft findings at
exhibit C-2 attached hereto, for the Council’s next meeting on March 24, 2016.
Smith Appeal:
I move to affirm the Planning Commission Decision adopted as Resolution 827 and direct Staff to prepare a
resolution approving the application for a Costco Wholesale Membership Warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28
acres within the M-1 zoning district as per the staff reports at Exhibits A and B hereto and the draft findings at
exhibit D-2 attached hereto, for the Council’s next meeting on March 24, 2016.
CAP031016 Page 11
CAP031016 Page 12
CAP031016 Page 13
CAP031016 Page 14
CAP031016 Page 15
CAP031016 Page 16
CAP031016 Page 17
CAP031016 Page 18
CAP031016 Page 19
CAP031016 Page 20
CAP031016 Page 21
CAP031016 Page 22
CAP031016 Page 23
CAP031016 Page 24
CAP031016 Page 25
CAP031016 Page 26
CAP031016 Page 27
CAP031016 Page 28
CAP031016 Page 29
CAP031016 Page 30
CAP031016 Page 31
CAP031016 Page 32
CAP031016 Page 33
CAP031016 Page 34
CAP031016 Page 35
CAP031016 Page 36
CAP031016 Page 37
CAP031016 Page 38
CAP031016 Page 39
CAP031016 Page 40
CAP031016 Page 41
CAP031016 Page 42
CAP031016 Page 43
CAP031016 Page 44
CAP031016 Page 45
CAP031016 Page 46
CAP031016 Page 47
CAP031016 Page 48
CAP031016 Page 49
CAP031016 Page 50
CAP031016 Page 51
CAP031016 Page 52
CAP031016 Page 53
CAP031016 Page 54
CAP031016 Page 55
CAP031016 Page 56
CAP031016 Page 57
CAP031016 Page 58
CAP031016 Page 59
CAP031016 Page 60
CAP031016 Page 61
CAP031016 Page 62
CAP031016 Page 63
CAP031016 Page 64
CAP031016 Page 65
CAP031016 Page 66
CAP031016 Page 67
CAP031016 Page 68
CAP031016 Page 69
CAP031016 Page 70
CAP031016 Page 71
CAP031016 Page 72
CAP031016 Page 73
CAP031016 Page 74
CAP031016 Page 75
CAP031016 Page 76
CAP031016 Page 77
CAP031016 Page 78
CAP031016 Page 79
CAP031016 Page 80
CAP031016 Page 81
CAP031016 Page 82
CAP031016 Page 83
CAP031016 Page 84
CAP031016 Page 85
CAP031016 Page 86
CAP031016 Page 87
CAP031016 Page 88
CAP031016 Page 89
CAP031016 Page 90
CAP031016 Page 91
CAP031016 Page 92
CAP031016 Page 93
CAP031016 Page 94
CAP031016 Page 95
CAP031016 Page 96
CAP031016 Page 97
CAP031016 Page 98
CAP031016 Page 99
CAP031016 Page 100
CAP031016 Page 101
CAP031016 Page 102
CAP031016 Page 103
CAP031016 Page 104
CAP031016 Page 105
CAP031016 Page 106
CAP031016 Page 107
CAP031016 Page 108
CAP031016 Page 109
CAP031016 Page 110
CAP031016 Page 111
CAP031016 Page 112
CAP031016 Page 113
CAP031016 Page 114
CAP031016 Page 115
CAP031016 Page 116
CAP031016 Page 117
CAP031016 Page 118
CAP031016 Page 119
CAP031016 Page 120
CAP031016 Page 121
CAP031016 Page 122
CAP031016 Page 123
CAP031016 Page 124
CAP031016 Page 125
CAP031016 Page 126
CAP031016 Page 127
CAP031016 Page 128
CAP031016 Page 129
CAP031016 Page 130
CAP031016 Page 131
CAP031016 Page 132
CAP031016 Page 133
CAP031016 Page 134
CAP031016 Page 135
CAP031016 Page 136
CAP031016 Page 137
CAP031016 Page 138
CAP031016 Page 139
CAP031016 Page 140
CAP031016 Page 141
CAP031016 Page 142
CAP031016 Page 143
CAP031016 Page 144
CAP031016 Page 145
CAP031016 Page 146
CAP031016 Page 147
CAP031016 Page 148
CAP031016 Page 149
CAP031016 Page 150
CAP031016 Page 151
CAP031016 Page 152
CAP031016 Page 153
CAP031016 Page 154
CAP031016 Page 155
CAP031016 Page 156
CAP031016 Page 157
CAP031016 Page 158
CAP031016 Page 159
CAP031016 Page 160
CAP031016 Page 161
CAP031016 Page 162
CAP031016 Page 163
CAP031016 Page 164
CAP031016 Page 165
CAP031016 Page 166
CAP031016 Page 167
CAP031016 Page 168
CAP031016 Page 169
CAP031016 Page 170
CAP031016 Page 171
CAP031016 Page 172
CAP031016 Page 173
CAP031016 Page 174
CAP031016 Page 175
CAP031016 Page 176
CAP031016 Page 177
CAP031016 Page 178
CAP031016 Page 179
CAP031016 Page 180
CAP031016 Page 181
CAP031016 Page 182
CAP031016 Page 183
CAP031016 Page 184
CAP031016 Page 185
CAP031016 Page 186
CAP031016 Page 187
CAP031016 Page 188
CAP031016 Page 189
CAP031016 Page 190
CAP031016 Page 191
CAP031016 Page 192
CAP031016 Page 193
CAP031016 Page 194
CAP031016 Page 195
CAP031016 Page 196
CAP031016 Page 197
CAP031016 Page 198
Community Development STAFF REPORT Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
STAFF REPORT
February 2, 2016
ITEM
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application for the construction of a 161,992 square foot Costco
membership warehouse and fuel facility on an 18.28 acre site at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock
Road. The project site is within the Federal Way Business Park subdivision in the Industrial (M-1) zoning
district, and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 12B, Tax Lots 213, 214, 215, and
216. Applicant: Costco Wholesale; Agent: Steve Bullock, MG2
STAFF SOURCE
Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner II
BACKGROUND
Costco Wholesale (“Applicant”) is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to develop a 161,992 square foot
membership warehouse on 18.28 acres in the M-1, Industrial zone.
The Conditional Use Permit application was considered at the January 5, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. At
that time staff presented an evaluation of the proposal relative to its compliance with the conditional use approval
criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76.040. Based on the evidence submitted, the proposal was found to comply with
the applicable review criteria as conditioned.
The Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant, and proponents and opponents of the application.
Due to the timing of revised comments and conditions from the City of Medford on January 5, 2016, the applicant
requested that the record remain open for seven (7) days following closure of the public hearing; including a
seven (7) day rebuttal period. The public hearing was closed and, per a duly seconded motion, the request to
leave the record open was granted with written comments to be submitted as follows:
• Open record period – January 12, 2016 at 4:30 p.m.;
• Applicant’s rebuttal period – January 19, 2016 at 4:30 p.m.
On January 19, 2016 the applicant submitted their written rebuttal (Exhibit “14”) to the City of Medford’s
January 5, 2016 revised conditions and comments. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s rebuttal and finds that the
previously written conditions 3 and 4 in the Revised Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 adequately address the
situation and do not need to be modified.
ISSUES
During the open record period, thirteen (13) letters were received with six (6) in favor, five (5) in opposition, and
CAP031016 Page 199
two (2) neutral. The applicant responded to opposing testimony with timely rebuttal. It should be noted that
some of the issues were anecdotal and beyond the scope of the conditional use approval criteria in CPMC
17.76.040 (i.e. Costco’s business policies, impacts to local businesses and associated internship and scholarship
opportunities). A summary of the written comments received during the open record are:
1. Opposition. Testimony received in opposition to the proposed use primarily focused on traffic issues
and includes three broad categories: 1) concerns about the TIA assumptions; 2) operations/safety; and
3) mitigation sufficiency/cost allocation. Due to the volume of the traffic generated by Costco, there is
a perception that additional mitigation actions are necessary to ease operational and safety concerns.
Emphasis was given to Table Rock Road widening, impacts of heavy truck traffic, and the need for the
applicant to bear the cost of improvements (See Exhibits “1” through “5”).
The Applicant’s Rebuttal (Exhibit “14”) and the TIA (Exhibit “15”) address the testimony opposing the
proposed use on the following basis:
a. The TIA was prepared and reviewed by affected agencies and Southern Oregon Transportation
Engineers, LLC. The analysis relied on assumptions including Costco’s market demographics,
area-wide population, employment, land use, and transportation system information including
heavy trucks/ vehicles (See TIA, Exhibit “15”);
b. Per the conditions of approval, mitigation measure address safety and operational impacts
necessary to provide adequate transportation services.
c. Costco’s cost share for the improvements are proportional to the impact generated by the proposed
use and therefore sufficient to mitigate the financial cost of off-site impacts.
2. Support. Testimony in support of the proposed use counters concerns about adverse impacts to local
business and further asserted support for the proposed location due to community benefits associated
with economic growth stimulus and improved property values. It is further emphasized that traffic
impacts have been adequately addressed and that the concerns about heavy truck traffic conflicts and
congestion on Biddle/Pine Street have been adequately addressed and mitigated (See Exhibits “6”
through “11”).
Based on evidence in the record and the applicant’s rebuttal, the testimony received during the open record period
has been adequately addressed (See Exhibits “14” and “15”).
EXHIBITS
Exhibit “1” – Letter from L. Calvin Martin, received January 12, 2016
Exhibit “2” – Letter from David Smith, received January 12, 2016.
Exhibit “3” – Letter from Tanya Wilkerson, received January 12, 2016
Exhibit “4” – Letter from Kathy and Ray Wilkerson
Exhibit “5” – Letter from Dennis Burt, received January 12, 2016
Exhibit “6” – Letter from Wayne and Hattie King, received January 12, 2016
Exhibit “7” – Letter from Kimberly Little, received January 11, 2016
Exhibit “8” – Letter from John Batzer, received January 11, 2016
Exhibit “9” – Letter from Glen Finley, received January 11, 2016
CAP031016 Page 200
Exhibit “10” – Letter from Laura Vaughn, received January 8, 2016
Exhibit “11” – Letter from Pulver & Leever, received January 8, 2016
Exhibit “12” – Letter from Vic Agnifili, received January 12, 2016
Exhibit “13” – Letter from Vic Agnifili, received January 12, 2016
Exhibit “14” – Applicant’s Rebuttal, received January 19, 2016
Exhibit “15” – Revised Staff Report dated January 5, 2016
ACTION
Consider the Conditional Use Permit application and either 1) approve; 2) approve with conditions; or 3) deny the
application.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Conditional Use Permit per the Revised Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 and all conditions therein.
CAP031016 Page 201
CAP031016 Page 202
CAP031016 Page 203
CAP031016 Page 204
CAP031016 Page 205
CAP031016 Page 206
CAP031016 Page 207
CAP031016 Page 208
CAP031016 Page 209
CAP031016 Page 210
CAP031016 Page 211
CAP031016 Page 212
CAP031016 Page 213
CAP031016 Page 214
CAP031016 Page 215
CAP031016 Page 216
CAP031016 Page 217
January 19, 2016 Project #: 19046.0
Planning Commission
City of Central Point
155 S. 2nd Street
Central Point, OR 97502
RE: Conditional Use Permit Application
Dear Chairman Piland and members of the Planning Commission:
This letter responds to transportation-related issues raised in written comments submitted to the City of
Central Point on or before January 12, 2016 and referencing the Conditional Use Permit Application by
Costco Wholesale for a warehouse and fuel facility near the Hamrick Road/Table Rock Road intersection
in Central Point, Oregon.
1. Comment: “Costco’s traffic study is flawed in that it does not identify the routes its members
use to access the existing Medford store; information which is necessary to accurately predict
how those members will re-route to the proposed location.” January 12, 2016 letter from David
Smith.
Response: To assure that the traffic analysis was based on reasonably worst-case conditions,
none of the traffic associated with the existing Costco warehouse on Crater Lake Highway was
subtracted from the estimated existing and future background traffic volumes, nor was any of it
re-routed to the proposed new warehouse location. Instead, current market demographics were
used along with area-wide population, employment, land use, and transportation system
information to estimate the likely trip distribution and routing characteristics of the entirely new
vehicle traffic that was assumed to be generated by the proposed new Costco warehouse. This
additional traffic was then superimposed on existing and anticipated future background traffic
volumes, resulting in a conservatively high estimate of the total amount of traffic the
transportation system will need to be able to accommodate at all key intersections.
2. Comment: “It makes no sense to add 10,670 more vehicles traveling through a construction
zone, for an undetermined period, which will create an additional problem which has not been
addressed.” January 12, 2016 letter from David Smith.
Response: As is normal practice in almost all road construction projects, a traffic management
plan will be established and implemented for the duration of the road construction period for the
benefit of both vehicles and workers.
3. Comment: “Costco generates more traffic to its ‘warehouse’ of 130,000 square foot store in
Medford than the nearly 700,000 square foot Rogue Valley Mall.” January 11, 2016 letter from
L. Calvin Martin.
CAP031016 Page 218
Response: We are not aware of recent traffic counts at the Rogue Valley Mall. However, a traffic
analysis of a shopping center containing 700,000 square feet would be based on an assumption
of near-full occupancy and would result in an estimate of about 25,000 average weekday trip
ends.
4. Comment: “[sic] Kittleson Consultants have made many assumptions that can and should be
examined, at the very least, by a neutral consultant.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin
Martin.
Response: The traffic analysis and associated report that was initially prepared by Kittelson &
Associates has been critically reviewed by transportation planning and engineering staff at the
City of Central Point; Jackson County; City of Medford; and Oregon Department of
Transportation. Additionally, the City of Central Point hired Southern Oregon Transportation
Engineers, LLC to conduct a thorough review and provide comments of the transportation impact
analysis. Staff from the public review agencies also participated from the outset in defining the
scope and scale of the traffic analysis that was ultimately performed. The results of the critical
reviews conducted by these agencies have been incorporated into the final report and the follow-
up letters and technical memoranda that are part of the record.
5. Comment: “Table Rock Road…needs to be widened all the way to its intersection with Merriman
Road.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin.
Response: Jackson County has jurisdiction over Table Rock Road in this area and has made the
decision on the begin and end points of this particular widening project based on a multitude of
factors that fall beyond the scope of this Conditional Use Permit Application. With respect to the
adequacy of the transportation system to accommodate the proposed new Costco warehouse,
the traffic analysis demonstrates that adequate transportation services can be provided without
extending the Table Rock Road improvement project beyond its current boundary limits.
6. Comment: “The bridge crossing the I-5 [on Table Rock Road] is old and very narrow. The
increased traffic…will require that it be replaced with a stronger and wider (at least four lanes)
bridge.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin.
Response: The proposed new Costco warehouse does not cause the need for this bridge to be
replaced or widened in order to maintain adequate transportation services.
7. Comment: “The proposed location of Costco will create a very dangerous mix of large heavy
trucks (including triples) from adjacent and nearby businesses (Knife River Concrete and
Aggregates, FedEx Ground and others).” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin.
Response: The traffic analysis conducted by Kittelson & Associates was reviewed by appropriate
City, County, and State agencies and explicitly considered the safety as well as the operational
effects of the proposed new Costco warehouse. The mitigation measures incorporated into the
conditions of approval have been found sufficient to maintain adequate transportation services
with respect to both operations and safety.
CAP031016 Page 219
8. Comment: “The mix of senior drivers with congestion and heavy trucks is not appropriate or
desirable and could have disastrous results.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin.
Response: The traffic analysis conducted by Kittelson & Associates was reviewed by appropriate
City, County, and State agencies and explicitly considered the safety as well as the operational
effects of the proposed new Costco warehouse. The mitigation measures incorporated into the
conditions of approval have been found sufficient to maintain adequate transportation services
with respect to both operations and safety.
9. Comment: “The land around the proposed Costco has not been developed to its potential,
particularly to the North and West. When that land develops the intersections will be even more
stressed.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin.
Response: The projected future background traffic volumes used in the traffic analysis are based
on estimates of future population and employment for Central Point and the surrounding urban
areas, and therefore anticipate that growth will continue to occur throughout the urban area.
Additionally, separate traffic analyses will be required of all nearby specific development
applications that are expected to generate significant volumes of additional vehicular traffic. All
such development applications will need to provide, as part of their own approval process,
whatever mitigation is identified as being necessary to assure continued adequate transportation
services in the area.
10. Comment: “The mitigation measures proposed create difficult driving and congestion all
through Central Point’s downtown area.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin.
Response: The mitigation measures set forth as conditions of approval were developed in
collaboration with City, County, and State engineers and planners. They have been found to
adequately mitigate the off-site transportation impacts associated with the proposed new Costco
warehouse without creating unacceptable side-effects elsewhere.
11. Comment: “The expenses, of this first set of mitigations, are likely to be much more than what
has been projected by the applicant’s consultant and others.” January 11, 2016 letter from L.
Calvin Martin.
Response: The construction cost estimates associated with each condition of approval were
developed and reviewed by registered professional engineers and are based on the most recent
available unit prices from similar and/or nearby construction projects.
12. Comment: “I assume that the roads around it will be widened somehow and traffic lights will
be added. Who will be paying for this?” January 12, 2016 printed email letter from Kathy and
Ray Wilkerson.
Response: Costco has agreed to pay its proportionate share of each mitigation measure identified
in the conditions of approval, which means it will fully mitigate the financial costs of the off-site
impacts associated with the proposed new Costco warehouse. See also the response to
Comment #1 above: the fact that Costco’s traffic analysis has conservatively overestimated the
CAP031016 Page 220
facility’s off-site traffic impacts gives further assurance that Costco is fully contributing its
proportionate financial share of each mitigation measure identified in the conditions of approval.
13. Comment: “I don’t have, nor remember, the exact numbers but it was somewhere in the realm
of 13,000 cars a day, on average, were passing by the intersection of Wilson and Table Rock
Road”. January 11, 2016 letter from Dennis Burt.
Response: Traffic data available from Jackson County indicates that in 2008 the average daily
traffic volume on Table Rock Road in the vicinity of Wilson Road was about 17,000 vehicles per
day. The traffic analysis estimates the proposed new Costco warehouse will generate about 90
additional vehicle trips (45 in each direction) on Table Rock Road in the vicinity of Wilson Road
during a typical weekday evening peak hour.
14. Comment: “Table Rock Rd. and Villas Rd. will become, more than ever, a safety and logistics
nightmare for the people who live there.” January 11, 2016 letter from Dennis Burt.
Response: The traffic analysis conducted by Kittelson & Associates was reviewed by appropriate
City, County, and State agencies and explicitly considered the safety as well as the operational
effects of the proposed new Costco warehouse. The mitigation measures incorporated into the
conditions of approval have been found sufficient to maintain adequate transportation services
with respect to both operations and safety.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these responses.
Sincerely,
Wayne Kittelson, P.E. Brett Korporaal
Principal Associate
CAP031016 Page 221
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 19, 2016 Project #: 19046.0
To: Stephanie Holtey
City of Central Point
140 South Third Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
From: Brett Korporaal and Wayne Kittelson, PE
Project: Central Point Costco TIA
Subject: Response to City of Medford Comments dated January 5, 2015
This memorandum responds to comments submitted by staff from the City of Medford related to the
Central Point Costco Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Each comment from the letter dated
January 5, 2016 is summarized below and then followed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc.’s (KAI)
response.
COMMENT 1 FROM CITY OF MEDFORD
We understand the Rogue Valley International Airport is opposed to a median at the intersection of
Biddle Rd and Airport Rd, as described in Condition No. 3. We recommend a condition that requires
the developer to pay a proportional share towards a future traffic signal at this intersection. The City
of Medford estimates the total cost for a traffic sign at this location to be $450,000 including design,
construction, and inspection. We estimate the development’s contribution at 10% from the
additional traffic at this intersection shown in the Traffic Impact Analysis, dated October 2015,
prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. This results in a $45,000 contribution from the developer to
this future project.
RESPONSE 1 FROM KAI
Costco Wholesale and the traffic engineers it has retained respectfully disagree that signalization is
the most appropriate mitigation at the Airport Road/Biddle Road intersection. We believe there are
good reasons to route trucks to the airport and Airport Road via Biddle Road. Biddle Road is currently
a five lane road with a jug handle connection from Interstate 5, SR 62, SR 99, and SR 238 to the south
of the airport. Biddle Road also provides a direct connection to E Pine Street, which provides access to
Table Rock Road and I-5 for trucks access north of the airport. KAI would need truck origin and
CAP031016 Page 222
destination data to determine optimum truck routing into and out of the airport. However, it is clear
from information already available that a raised median can be constructed that will still allow trucks
to make left- and right-turns onto Airport Road via Biddle Road. With a median at the Airport
Road/Biddle Road intersection trucks would be able to make right-outs onto Biddle Road or a left-
turn out of the airport can be accommodated at the O’Hare Parkway/Biddle Road intersection, which
is roughly a quarter-mile south of the Airport Road/Biddle Road intersection and therefore does not
require out-of-direction travel.
Based on the low volumes on Airport Road, Costco’s traffic engineers also question whether a traffic
signal would be able to meet official installation warrants. A traffic signal will disrupt and add delay to
all vehicles approaching the intersection whereas a raised median will re-route only a small number
of vehicles – and it will re-route them in a way that does not add travel distance or create additional
safety or operational problems. For these reasons, we believe that a raised median is the most
effective and most appropriate measure to mitigate the effects of the proposed new Costco
warehouse at this location. A planning level cost estimate has been prepared for a raised median at
this intersection, resulting in an estimated total construction cost of $35,000. Attachment A contains
KAI’s planning level cost estimation spreadsheet for a raised median at the Airport Road/Biddle Road
intersection.
COMMENT 2 FROM CITY OF MEDFORD
At the intersection of Table Rock Rd and Morningside St we recommend a condition that requires the
developer to pay a proportional share towards a future left turn lane at this intersection. See
attached accident history showing an existing pattern of northbound rear-end collisions at this
intersection. Per our December 24, 2015 letter, this development will increase PM peak hour trips
through the intersection by 20%. The City of Medford estimates the total cost for a left-turn lane at
this location to be $300,000 including design, construction, and inspection. A 20% contribution would
result in a $60,000 contribution from the developer to this future project.
RESPONSE 2 FROM KAI
The City of Medford provided KAI with crash data at the Table Rock Road/Morningside Street
intersection dated 2010 through 2014. In the City of Medford’s letter to the City of Central Point
dated December 24, 2015, the noted concerns were focused specifically on northbound rear-end
crashes. However, a review of the crash data provided by the City reveals that the total number of
reported crashes has declined each year since 2010, and only one rear-end northbound crash has
been reported in the past three years at this location. These observations cause KAI to question
whether there is an ongoing significant northbound rear-end crash problem that warrants mitigation.
Even if the City of Medford believes an intersection improvement is needed at this location, neither
KAI nor Costco sees a nexus between the relatively small amount of net new site-generated traffic
expected to travel through the intersection and the concern about northbound rear-end crashes:
CAP031016 Page 223
• To the extent a problem requiring correction exists, it was created by a combination of traffic
volume, roadway design, and environmental factors that Costco did not affect.
• To the extent a problem requiring correction exists at this intersection, it is created by
northbound vehicles on Table Rock Road turning left onto Morningside Street, and this is a
movement to which Costco is expected to add no additional traffic.
• The City of Medford has thus far provided insufficient information to confirm the northbound
rear-end crash problem, to the extent such crashes are an ongoing significant problem, can be
attributed primarily to the volume of through traffic on Table Rock Road. More specifically, it
is impossible at this time to rule out the possibilities that approach speed and/or intersection
visibility are the primary contributing factors to a northbound rear-end crash problem.
• Given that the vehicle fleet is rapidly evolving into vehicles with forward-looking radar and
automated braking capabilities, it is likely that the rear-end crash problem at this intersection
(to the extent it exists) will naturally decline in significance and incidence over time, simply
because of the new vehicle technology that is already being deployed.
The City of Medford states that Costco’s proportional share for constructing a separate left turn lane
should be 20%, based on the volume of additional traffic that is expected to pass through the
intersection because of the presence of the Costco warehouse during a typical weekday evening peak
hour. However, the City’s computations do not recognize that when analyzing crash data
transportation engineers use average daily traffic (ADT) data on the approaches at the intersection
rather than peak hour volumes. The City of Medford provided 2014 ADT data at this location, which
totals 15,416 vehicles per day. Daily site-generated trips accessing the proposed site via Table Rock
Road from the south is estimated to equal 20% of total site-generated traffic. This would add an
additional 2,134 daily trips to Table Rock Road south of the site for a total of 17,550 ADT when the
site opens in 2016. When performed on the basis of average daily traffic, therefore, the City’s
computations would result in a proportionate share estimate of 12% and not 20%.
In summary, neither Costco nor the traffic engineers it has retained sees a nexus between the site’s
generated trips and the possible need for a northbound left-turn lane on Table Rock Road at its
intersection with Morningside Street. As well, Costco and its traffic engineers believe the need for
and appropriateness of a northbound left-turn lane at this intersection has not yet been established,
and that further investigation could reasonably conclude that traffic volume on Table Rock Road,
while a contributing factor, is not the primary or the only factor contributing to northbound rear-end
crashes at this intersection. Attachment B includes the crash data summary and ADT at the Table Rock
Road/Morningside Road intersection.
CAP031016 Page 224
SUMMARY
Costco Wholesale believes that a contribution of $35,000 will allow construction and implementation
of roadway improvements in Medford appropriate to mitigate the off-site transportation impacts
anticipated within the City of Medford and attributable to the proposed new Central Point Costco
warehouse. Even so, Costco Wholesale is prepared to contribute up to $70,000 to the City of Medford
in order to assure that sufficient funds are provided to fully mitigate the proposed Costco
warehouse’s off-site transportation impacts within the Medford’s jurisdictional boundaries.
CAP031016 Page 225
Attachment A Raised Median Cost Estimate
at Airport Rd/Biddle Rd
CAP031016 Page 226
Airport Rd. & Biddle Rd. Intersection
Costco Wholesale
This Estimate has a Rating of:3C (See rating scale guide below.)
ITEM UNIT TOTAL
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST
MOBILIZATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL (00200)
1 Mobilization (00210)LS ALL $4,000.00 $4,000.00
2 Temporary Protection & Direction of Traffic (00225)LS ALL $2,000.00 $2,000.00
3 Erosion Control (00280)LS ALL $2,000.00 $2,000.00
MOBILIZATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL SUBTOTAL 8,000$
ROADWORK (00300)
4 Removal of Structures and Obstructions (00310) LS ALL $3,000.00 $3,000.00
5 Clearing and Grubbing (00320) LS ALL $2,000.00 $2,000.00
6 General Earthworks (00330) CY 200 $25.00 $5,000.00
7 Subgrade Geotextile (00350) SY 80 $1.00 $80.00
ROADWORK SUBTOTAL 10,080$
BASES (00600)
8 Aggregate Base (00641)CY 48 $40.00 $1,920.00
BASES SUBTOTAL 1,920$
WEARING SURFACES (00700)
9 Level 3, 1/2 inch Dense HMAC (00744)TONS 36 $70.00 $2,520.00
10 Concrete Curbs, Standard Curb and Gutter (00759)LF 150 $15.00 $2,250.00
11 Concrete Curbs, Traffic Separator (00759)LF 250 $15.00 $3,750.00
12 Concrete Islands (00759)SF 170 $10.00 $1,700.00
13 Concrete Walks (00759)SF 900 $5.00 $4,500.00
14 Truncated Domes (00759)EA 3 $450.00 $1,350.00
WEARING SURFACES SUBTOTAL 16,070$
PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND GUIDANCE DEVICES
(00800)
15 Pavement Markings, Complete LS ALL 1,000.00$ $1,000.00
PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND GUIDANCE DEVICES
SUBTOTAL 1,000$
RIGHT-OF-WAY DEVELOPMENT (01000)
16 Permanent Landscaping (01030)SF 900 $2.50 $2,250.00
RIGHT-OF-WAY DEVELOPMENT SUBTOTAL 2,250$
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 21,285$
ENGINEERING SUPPORT
17 Engineering & Construction Management LS 15% 21,285$ $3,200.00
18 City Construction Management LS 10% 24,485$ $2,500.00
ENGINEERING SUPPORT SUBTOTAL 5,700$
TOTAL PROJECT SUBTOTAL 26,985$
30% Contingency 8,100$
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 35,085$
Central Point Costco Public Improvements
Engineer's Estimate ‐ Conceptual
Prepared By: Fred Wismer, PE & Charles Radosta, PE Date: January 11, 2016
Page 1 of 2CAP031016Page 227
Airport Rd. & Biddle Rd. Intersection
Costco Wholesale
This Estimate has a Rating of:3C (See rating scale guide below.)
ITEM UNIT TOTAL
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST
Central Point Costco Public Improvements
Engineer's Estimate ‐ Conceptual
Prepared By: Fred Wismer, PE & Charles Radosta, PE Date: January 11, 2016
Scope Accuracy:
Engineering Effort:
Level C: No engineering performed. Educated guesstimating. Limited technical information available and/or analysis performed. Project Development and Construction Contingencies should be selected appropriately by Project Manager. Contingency may range up to 50%.
Level 1: Project scope well understood and well defined.
Level 2: Project scope conceptual. Scope lacks detail due to potential permit requirements; Unknown project conditions;
limited knowledge of external impacts.
Level 3: Project scope is a "vision" with limited detail.
Level A: Preliminary engineering performed. Technical information is available, engineering calculations have been performed; clear understanding of the
materials size and quantities needed to execute job. Schedule understood; staff and permitting is fairly clear, (however this element may still need
refining). Project Development & Construction Contingencies ranges between 10%-20%.
Level B: Conceptual engineering performed. Technical information is available, rough engineering calculations may have been performed, or similar
information from previous similar work is compared and used. Project Development Contingencies ranges between 15% to 25% and Construction
Contingencies ranges between 20% to 30%.
Page 2 of 2CAP031016Page 228
Attachment B Crash Data Summary & ADT at
Table Rock Rd/Morningside St
CAP031016 Page 229
C
A
P
0
3
1
0
1
6
P
a
g
e
2
3
0
C
A
P
0
3
1
0
1
6
P
a
g
e
2
3
1
Page 1 Site Code: 338Station ID:
Latitude: 0' 0.0000 South
CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION24 Hr Average Weekday
TRAFFIC VOLUME
Start 28-Jul-14 Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Week Average
Time Direction 1 Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction12:00 AM * *33 52 31 69 * ** ** ** *32 6001:00 **30 50 26 37 ********28 4402:00 * *16 19 13 39 * ** ** ** *14 29
03:00 **53 34 40 32 ********46 3304:00 * *136 33 127 54 * ** ** ** *132 4405:00 **258 118 208 177 ********233 14806:00 * *287 197 199 280 * ** ** ** *243 238
07:00 **414 244 253 407 ********334 32608:00 * *323 280 194 400 * ** ** ** *258 34009:00 252 277 284 273 188 337 ********241 296
10:00 318 271 259 310 194 399 * ** ** ** *257 327
11:00 275 332 314 357 186 363 ********258 351
12:00 PM 293 368 367 402 * ** ** ** ** *330 385
01:00 364 387 456 439 **********410 41302:00 311 417 345 476 * ** ** ** ** *328 44603:00 376 519 295 569 **********336 544
04:00 372 542 259 625 * ** ** ** ** *316 58405:00 370 520 298 587 **********334 554
06:00 295 304 205 341 * ** ** ** ** *250 32207:00 197 249 159 260 **********178 25408:00 176 180 115 232 * ** ** ** ** *146 20609:00 142 175 111 205 **********126 190
10:00 100 135 84 134 * ** ** ** ** *92 13411:00 46 71 58 101 **********52 86Lane3887474751596338165925940000000049746354Day8634114974253000011328
AM Peak 10:00 11:00 07:00 11:00 07:00 07:00 - - - - - - - - 07:00 11:00Vol. 318 332 414 357 253 407 - - - - - - - - 334 351PM Peak 15:00 16:00 13:00 16:00 ----------13:00 16:00Vol. 376 542 456 625 - - - - - - - - - - 410 584
Comb.Total 8634 11497 4253 0 0 0 0 11328
ADT ADT 11,327 AADT 11,327
CAP031016 Page 232
Page 1 Site Code: 000000009742Station ID:
Latitude: 0' 0.0000 South
CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION24 Hr Average Weekday
TRAFFIC VOLUME
Start 28-Jul-14 Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Week Average
Time Direction 1 Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction12:00 AM * *10 17 9 15 * ** ** ** *10 1601:00 **9 23 12 23 ********10 2302:00 * *3 9 3 6 * ** ** ** *3 8
03:00 **18 12 13 9 ********16 1004:00 * *44 11 48 11 * ** ** ** *46 1105:00 **97 29 100 30 ********98 3006:00 * *124 39 133 33 * ** ** ** *128 36
07:00 **191 59 175 60 ********183 6008:00 * *146 53 128 65 * ** ** ** *137 5909:00 **112 77 98 95 ********105 86
10:00 * *95 88 121 92 * ** ** ** *108 9011:00 **105 117 106 120 ********106 118
12:00 PM * *114 140 102 140 * ** ** ** *108 14001:00 **98 141 126 138 ********112 14002:00 * *111 138 108 158 * ** ** ** *110 14803:00 **114 198 109 222 ********112 210
04:00 111 217 111 236 116 248 * ** ** ** *113 23405:00 127 260 124 243 133 253 ********128 25206:00 102 171 91 158 2 5 * ** ** ** *65 111
07:00 78 139 89 139 0 0 ********56 9308:00 67 100 54 103 * ** ** ** ** *60 10209:00 52 95 49 102 **********50 9810:00 33 77 28 55 * ** ** ** ** *30 6611:00 19 30 17 44 **********18 37Lane589108919542231164217230000000019122178Day16784185336500004090AM Peak - - 07:00 11:00 07:00 11:00 - - - - - - - - 07:00 11:00Vol. - - 191 117 175 120 - - - - - - - - 183 118PM Peak 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 --------17:00 17:00Vol. 127 260 124 243 133 253 - - - - - - - - 128 252
Comb.Total 1678 4185 3365 0 0 0 0 4090
ADT ADT 4,089 AADT 4,089
CAP031016 Page 233
CAP031016 Page 234
CAP031016 Page 235
CAP031016 Page 236
Page 1 of 11
COSTCO WHOLESALE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
L. Calvin Martin Filing Date: February 16, 2016
File No. 15022
City Council Appeal Hearing
March 10, 2016
PART 1 – INTRODUCTION
On February 2, 2016, the Planning Commission in accordance with CPMC 17.76 approved a Conditional
Use Permit authorizing the development of a Costco Wholesale membership warehouse and fuel facility
on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district (“Costco Application”). The project site is located on the
eastern edge of Central Point city limits at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock road. The
site also has frontage on Federal Way, a local street. Surrounding properties include developed and
undeveloped industrial lands, including the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts.
On February 16, 2016, L. Calvin Martin filed an appeal contesting the Planning Commission’s decision
on the basis that the City of Central Point Planning Department and Planning Commission committed an
error when approving the Conditional Use Permit for the Costco Store (“Martin Appeal”). The Martin
Appeal addressed several issues that focused on legitimacy of a commercial/retail use in the M-1 zone
and traffic related concerns, which are addressed below.
The Council’s scope of review on this appeal is limited to the issues and evidence presented in the record
before the Planning Commission as per CPMC. 17.05.400(F)(3). As this appeal is on the record the City
Council may not consider new evidence or issues that were not preserved in the record below. Council
review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings
of the Planning Commission; or whether errors of law were committed.
Membership warehouses are permitted as a conditional use per the City’s 2009 similar use determination
under CPMC 17.48.020(W) and 17.60.140, which was adopted by the Planning Commission as
Resolution No.764, and affirmed by the Council on Appeal as Resolution No. 1217. The applicable
approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are set forth under CPMC 17.76.040, Findings and
Conditions for Conditional Use Permits.
PART 2 – APPEAL ISSUES
There were seventeen (17) issues raised in the Martin Appeal. Though some of these issues overlap, staff
has attempted to lay each issue out separately for Council consideration. The following is a summary of
each issue presented in the Martin Appeal including the draft findings and conclusion pertinent to each
issue.
CAP031016 Page 237
Page 2 of 11
1.Planning Commission Abuse of Discretion. “The City Planning Commission has abused their
discretion in allowing such a use in the industrial zone and at this location.”
Finding 1: Membership warehouses, per Section 17.48.020(W) and 17.60.140, are allowed as a
conditional use in the M-1 district per Planning Commission Resolution No. 764 and City Council
Resolution No. 1217. As such, the Planning Commission considered and approved the Costco
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application in accordance with the conditional use permit
standards and criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76. Per the Applicant’s Findings (“Applicant’s
Findings” and the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (“Supplemental Findings”) and
testimony provided in the record, evidence was submitted into the record as to each criterion
under 17.76.040 and was found to comply with all such standards and criteria.
Conclusion 1: The Council concludes that the Planning Commission did not err in finding that
membership warehouses are permitted subject to a conditional use application under CPMC
17.76 and/or that there was substantial evidence in the record to find that all such standards and
criteria were met under 17.76.040..
2.Traffic Impacts. Traffic generated by Costco on a daily basis is substantially more than is
generated by the entire Rogue Valley Mall.
Finding 2: The Applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (“TIA”) into the record prepared by
Kittelson and Associates for the subject property. City staff reviewed the TIA and there is
testimony in the record as to the substance of the TIA. No other traffic reports or analysis were
prepared or submitted into the record by traffic engineers or other traffic experts. Testimony
from opponents was limited to opinions as to the amount of traffic that would be generated by the
subject application. There was no other traffic analysis in the record to contradict the
Applicant’s TIA, nor does the record contain any traffic analysis as to the amount of traffic at the
Rogue Valley Mall.
Conclusion 2: The Council concludes there is not substantial evidence in the record to find that
traffic at the Rogue Valley Mall is relevant to this application, nor is there sufficient evidence in
the record to substantiate the amount of traffic generated by the mall.
3.Development Ordinance. – “You are required to follow the rules laid out in your development
ordinance when approving such an application.”
Finding 3: The Planning Commission’s considered the subject application as a CUP under the
City’s authorization of membership warehouses as a conditional use in the M-1 zone as discussed
in Finding 1 above, and Finding 17.48.040(A) of the Planning Department Supplemental
Findings in the record. The Planning Commission considered and approved the Conditional Use
Permit for Costco Wholesale based on the application’s demonstrated compliance with the
standards and criteria for conditional use permits per CPMC 17.76 as set forth in the Applicant’s
Findings and the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (See Resolution No. 827 and
attachments thereto).
CAP031016 Page 238
Page 3 of 11
Conclusion 3: The Council concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to find that
the Planning Commission applied the relevant standards and criteria under Resolution Nos. 764
and 1217, and CPMC 17.76 to approve a membership warehouse and fuel facility and applied
the evidence in the record to find such standards and criteria were met.
4. Statement of Values. - “Your STATEMENT OF VALUES regarding growth…stated that, “We
value planned growth that will retain our small town atmosphere.” This project does not fit that
statement.”
Finding 4: In considering the Conditional Use Application for the proposed Membership
Warehouse and fuel facility, the Planning Commission was required to render a decision based
on the proposal’s demonstrated compliance with Standards and Criteria for Conditional Use
Permits set forth in Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 17.76.
Conclusion 4: The mission statement is not part of the Municipal Code nor Comprehensive
Plan. It does not serve as a standard or criteria and is merely aspirational language under the
City’s general Mission Statement. The Council finds the Planning Commission did not err
applying the Standards and Criteria of CPMC 17.76.
5. Accessory Use. – “One of the issues is that the zone that the store is to be located in is Industrial.
The reason that retail/commercial activities are allowed in those zones with restrictions, and not
outright, and that they go through the Conditional Use Permit process is that they are not the
primary use but an accessory use to the primary.”
Finding 5: The Planning Commission found that membership warehouses were adopted by the
City as conditional uses in 2009 as set forth in Finding 17.48.040(A) of the Planning Department
Supplemental Findings adopted by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission found
that as a result of the similar use determination, membership warehouses are not considered
accessory uses but are permitted subject to the standards and criteria for Conditional Use
Permits per CPMC 17.76.
Conclusion 5: The Council concludes that the Planning Commission’s consideration of
membership warehouses as a conditional use and not as an accessory use is in conformance with
the City’s similar use authorization per CPMC 17.48.020(W) and CPMC 17.60.140. See also
Planning Commission Resolution 764 and City Council Resolution 1217.
6. Semantics. – “When a store like Costco is placed in that zone you have to play, and indeed did
so, a very significant semantic game with what you call the store. In calling it a warehouse store
the project might just seem like a fit. With that said, it is certain that the management of Costco
is under no illusions, whatsoever, that they are the largest retailer in the area.”
Finding 6: The Planning Commission’s consideration of the Costco CUP to develop a
membership warehouse and fuel facility is based on the City’s similar use authorization for
CAP031016 Page 239
Page 4 of 11
membership warehouses in the M-1 zoning district per Finding 17.48.040(A) in the Planning
Department Supplemental Findings and Finding 1 above..
Conclusion 6: Membership warehouse clubs, such as Costco Wholesale, are allowed in the M-1
district subject to the standards and criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76, Conditional Use Permit.
7. Not a Fit in the Zone. – “As I previously stated, Costco generates more traffic than the Rogue
Valley Mall and they are about one fifth of their building footprint. Just consider the number of
parking spaces that they are illustrating in their plan. It is obvious that they don’t fit this zone.
They are not a complimentary service and supply provider that is allowed in this zone. A store of
this size and magnitude should not be in an industrial zone. If they are allowed to develop on this
site it will become a traffic disaster.”
Finding 7: As noted in findings 5 and 6, membership warehouses were approved in 2009 as a
conditional use in the M-1 zone. With regard to traffic, CPMC 17.76 requires consideration of
the following:
A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code;
B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street
or highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic
that is expected to be generated by the proposed use;
C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall
consider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehicular ingress, egress
and internal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings and structures; walls and
fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs;
D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore will
not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to
the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community based on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of this section;
E. That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to
protect the public health, safety and general welfare and may include:
2. Increasing street widths, modifications in street designs or addition of
street signs or traffic signals to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use,
CAP031016 Page 240
Page 5 of 11
3. Adjustments to off-street parking requirements in accordance with any
unique characteristics of the proposed use,
4. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress,
***
11. Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare,
The findings adopted by the Planning Commission reviewed the criteria for Conditional Use
Permits set forth in CPMC 17.76 and made findings that the site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use; the site has adequate access to a public street or highway; the proposed
use will not have adverse effects to abutting properties or permitted uses thereof; that the use will
not be detrimental to the health safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
surrounding area or the community; and that the conditions imposed are deemed necessary and
sufficient to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. See the Supplemental and
Applicant’s findings in the record below.
More particularly, the only traffic impact analysis or other expert evidence submitted into the
record is the TIA submitted by the Applicant, and comments from the City, City of Medford,
ODOT and the Airport. The Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval pursuant to
the TIA and comments from other jurisdictions for traffic impact mitigation. No expert testimony
was received into the record countering the TIA or agency recommendations for traffic impact
mitigations. (See Finding 2 addressing traffic generated by Costco compared to the Rogue
Valley Mall). All other evidence as to traffic was conjecture or speculation.
As demonstrated in Finding 17.76.040(C) in the record below, the Planning Commission
considered the proposal’s impacts to abutting properties, including an evaluation of the location
of proposed site improvement; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks;
building height; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting and signs. The Planning
Commission found that the proposed project is typical of site development within the M-1 zone
and that the site development standards for permitted uses in combination with the conditions of
approval relative to ingress and egress per Finding 17.76.040(B) in the record below are
sufficient to avoid adverse impacts to abutting properties or permitted uses thereof.
As demonstrated in Finding 17.76.040(D) in the record below, the Planning Commission
considered the issue of safety and found that there is sufficient evidence in the Applicant’s
findings to demonstrate, in conjunction with the building code and fire district regulations, that
the proposed use will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and
therefore not be a detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the community or persons
residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Conclusion 7: The proposed membership warehouse and fuel facility was evaluated against the
standards and criteria for conditional use permits and found to comply. There is substantial
CAP031016 Page 241
Page 6 of 11
evidence in the record for the Planning commission to find that the use is compatible with the
zone.
8. Traffic Effects Far Reaching. – “The traffic issues have far reaching effects of congestion and
cost on Central Point, Jackson County, and the City of Medford as well as the Oregon
Department of Transportation. Of course, that means the tax payers who support those entities.
In other words, all of us will be paying a huge price for the location of a store that is not an
appropriate fit. It is not a code fit and it is not a size and traffic fit all in one. Once Costco goes
in there will be no way to fix this problem.”
Finding 8: Per the TIA, the proposed Costco Wholesale and fuel facility is expected to generate
10,670 new daily trips. Heavy vehicles were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were
identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume and impacts to LOS/VC. On
the day of opening traffic impacts were identified at four (4) intersections: 1) Interstate 5
Northbound Off-Ramp; 2) Table Rock and Hamrick Road; 3) Table Rock and Airport Road; and
4) Airport and Biddle Road. Although not identified in the TIA, the City of Medford provided
crash data and comments in a letter dated January 5, 2016 indicating that traffic generated by
Costco would negatively impact the intersection of Table Rock Road and Morningside Street
south of the project site. In accordance with the TIA and comments received from affected
agencies, the Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval requiring mitigation of the
traffic impacts caused by the proposed Costco Wholesale (See Table 1).
Table 1. Traffic Impact Mitigation Summary
Intersection Impact Mitigation Timing
Interstate 5 NB
Off-Ramp
Volume to Capacity (v/c) Ratio is exceeded. Enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and the City to
develop and construct dual
right turn lanes per IAMP Project No. 9.
Prior to building permit
issuance
Table Rock/Hamrick
Road
Intersection Failure due to left turn delays Construct center turn lane and refuge within existing
Table Rock Road right-of-way at Hamrick Road.
Prior to certificate of
occupancy.
Table Rock/Airport Road
Existing left turn delays cause the intersection to operate at
a Level of Service (LOS) F. The existing status is aggravated by additional
traffic generated by the proposed use.
Jackson County has funding to construct
improvements on Table Rock Road that includes signalization of the
intersection. The County has indicated that construction of the
improvements will begin in 2017; therefore, no interim
mitigation is necessary.
Jackson County Table
Rock Road Improvement Project
commences in 2017.
Airport/Biddle Road
Traffic generated by Costco
causes left turn delays which
Per the City of Medford in
a letter dated January 5,
Proof of
payment
CAP031016 Page 242
Page 7 of 11
results in a decline in the LOS from C to E. 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata share toward construction
of a signal at the intersection.
prior to building permit
issuance.
Table Rock Road at Morningside Street
Traffic generated by Costco aggravates an existing left
turn delay at the intersection.
Per the City of Medford in a letter dated January 5,
2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata share toward construction
of a center left turn lane and refuge on Table Rock Road at Morningside Street
Proof of payment
prior to building permit
issuance.
As demonstrated in the Applicant’s Findings and the Planning Department Findings, the
Planning Commission found the project as conditioned is adequate to accommodate the use (See
Planning Commission Findings for 17.76.040 in the record below).
Conclusion 8: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find
that as conditioned, the application complies with CPMC 17.76 and that traffic impacts from the
project will funded or constructed at the time of development.
9. Heavy Vehicle Conflicts. - “Traffic congestion around the Costco store will be a mix of heavy
trucks and light vehicles. Table Rock Road will see the bulk of traffic and the measures that have
been suggested will only assist but not solve the problems related to this location.”
Finding 9: The Council incorporates Finding 8 as if fully set forth herein.
Conclusion 9: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find
traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned.
10. Additional Traffic Impacts on Table Rock Road. - “Additional traffic on Table Rock Road will
soon find that it is not designed to handle the load further south of this store and people will soon
move their preferred approach to Biddle Road and Table Rock Road north of the site. They will
start using the freeway to enter Central Point from the North and the South. This will add
congestion on the freeway off-ramps north and south and a loading on Pine Street all the way to
the intersection with Hamrick and Pine and Table Rock Road and Pine/Biddle Road.”
Finding 10: The TIA did not identify any issues south of the project site on Table Rock Road.
Although not identified in the TIA, the City of Medford submitted comments on December 24,
2016 and January 5, 2016 indicating that the intersection of Table Rock Road at Morningside
Street would be adversely impacted due to left turn delays and associated safety concerns. Per
the City of Medford’s request, the Planning Commission imposed a condition requiring financial
contribution for the applicant’s proportional share of traffic mitigation to the intersection prior
to building permit issuance.
CAP031016 Page 243
Page 8 of 11
Conclusion 10: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find
that the Applicant will improve, or make financial contributions toward traffic mitigation, that is
roughly proportional to the impacts of this development.
11. Improvement Timing. - “The improvements required in the Traffic Impact Study indicate a
resultant congestion from construction that is not to be completed for as much as two years. In
reality, some of these items, such as an I-5 off-ramp improvement, are not scheduled by ODOT
until 2023. There is no definitive evidence that the schedule has been modified. There are no
engineering studies or drawings that would support a timely upgrade of that facility. There is no
indication, other than verbal at the hearing of January 6th, 2016 that some concession might be
made. There is no evidence that the improvements along Table Rock Road are funded or that the
requisite imminent domain takings of additional land for widening and intersections have been
done.”
Finding 11: There was evidence in the record that identifies traffic impacts and mitigation
measures and the feasibility of imposing conditions for such traffic mitigation which includes the
TIA prepared by Kittelson & Associates, as well as comments received from affected agencies,
including the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Jackson County Roads, City of
Central Point Public Works Department, and City of Medford. Evidence in the record addressing
traffic impacts and the timing of improvements is as follows:
- Table Rock Road Improvement Project. The traffic impact analysis prepared by Kittelson &
Associates took into account planned roadway improvements, including the Jackson County
Table Rock Road Improvement project, which is scheduled to be constructed in 2017 (See TIA,
Page 32).
- Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp, Exit 33 Improvements. As conditioned, Costco will be
required to enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and pay its
proportional share of the improvement cost prior to building permit issuance (See Revised Public
Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016, Condition No. 1). Evidence in the record establishes
that the improvements are planned to be expedited such that they will be constructed as close to
opening day of the subject development as possible:
a. The Revised Public Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 states that, “Per ODOT,
construction will commence at the earliest possible date.” (See Traffic Impacts and
Mitigation Item No. 4)
b. During staff’s presentation at the January 5, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting, during
a discussion of traffic impacts and mitigation (26:05), staff stated that ODOT agreed to
expedite construction of the off-ramp improvements as close to opening day as possible.
Don Morehouse, ODOT Planner, concurred with the staff presentation and stated that he
had nothing further to add. (Audio Recording. at 1:26:15).
CAP031016 Page 244
Page 9 of 11
Conclusion 11: There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s
decision as to the feasibility and timing of the traffic mitigation conditions.
12. Biddle Road and Airport Road Intersection. - “The intersection of Biddle Road and Airport
Road has not been fully vetted. This intersection is important for travelers using the airport.
Congestion will create difficulties for them.”
Finding 12: The applicant’s TIA indicates that the westbound approach of Airport and Biddle
Road exceeds the level of service standard for the City of Medford. In a letter dated January 5,
2016, the City of Medford requested a condition that requires the developer to pay a proportional
share toward a future traffic signal at this intersection. The estimated project cost is $450,000,
including design, construction and inspection. Per the TIA, Costco contributes 10% of the traffic
at this intersection. As conditioned, Costco shall provide evidence it has contributed its
proportionate share of the construction of signalization improvements in an amount not to exceed
$45,000, which shall be payable to the City of Medford prior to building permit issuance.
Conclusion 12: As conditioned, facility adequacy at this intersection is met by the Planning
Commission’s requirement that the Applicant contribute its pro rata share of the signalization
improvements per the City of Medford Comments dated January 5, 2016.
13. Traffic Impacts Not Easily Solved, if at all. - “The impact on all these roads is significant and
not easily solved if at all.”
Finding 13: Traffic impacts and mitigations are identified in the TIA and by the City of Medford,
ODOT relative to the intersections of Biddle and Airport Road and Table Rock and Morningside
Street. The Planning Commission’s decision to approve the CUP is subject to conditions of
approval assuring timely completion of the mitigation actions outlined in the TIA and requested
by the affected agencies. See also Finding 8 incorporated herein by reference.
Conclusion 13: There is substantial evidence in the record that as conditioned, the project will
mitigate its proportionate traffic impacts caused by this project and that such conditions are
feasible.
14. Cost of Improvements. - “The costs for all of the improvements needed to place this major
retailer in an industrial zone along Table Rock Road more than eclipses the cost of the store itself
by a factor of five. Estimates for the widening of the freeway overpass on Table Rock Road
exceeds 20 million dollars. Further south of the overpass are single family residences that need to
back out onto Table rock Road to exit their properties. The estimate for acquiring these
properties for road widening does not exist, but would be very high.”
Finding 14: There is no evidence in the record from affected agencies or traffic experts or
engineers to demonstrate that the Interstate 5 overpass on Table Rock Road warrants
replacement or that Table Rock Road improvements south of Interstate 5 are required, other than
CAP031016 Page 245
Page 10 of 11
required mitigation at the intersection of Table Rock Road and Morningside Street, which was
addressed. See also Finding No. 8, incorporated herein by reference.
Conclusion 14: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find
traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned and that such
conditions are feasible.
15. Freight Route, Traffic Conflicts. - “Table Rock Road is designated as a freight route in the
overall traffic master plan and this enormous retailer with its accompanying vehicle traffic is not
an appropriate mix with the truck traffic in that area.”
Finding 15: Heavy vehicle impacts were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were identified
with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume and LOS/VC ratios (See Synchro
Reports in the TIA Appendices). No other expert testimony was presented as to the mix of vehicle
traffic.
Conclusion 15: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find
that the mix of light and heavy vehicles does not create problems that would warrant further
traffic mitigation or denial of this application.
16. Vehicle and Truck Accidents. - “Vehicle and truck accidents will undoubtedly increase and
serious injuries will occur when Costco’s large number of senior drivers are forced to mix with
large truck traffic.”
Finding 16: Heavy vehicle impacts were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were identified
with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume (See Synchro Reports in the TIA
Appendices) nor was there evidence in the record from experts as to the “large number of senior
drivers.”
Conclusion 16: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find
traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned and safety concerns
do not exist as a result of this project.
17. Vilas and Crater Lake Highway. - “The intersection of Vilas and Crater Lake Highway has been
the scene of horrendous accidents and many deaths and this location and traffic load creates at
least four intersections with that type of potential.”
Finding 14: A crash analysis was conducted as part of the TIA at all study area intersections
(TIA Page 28) to document crash types, trends and severity. The TIA found that there were no
fatality crashes and the most common crashes were turning movement and rear-end crashes
accounting for approximately 82% of all crashes. There is no expert evidence in the record
substantiating this allegation.
Conclusion 14: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find
CAP031016 Page 246
Page 11 of 11
traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned and safety concerns
do not exist as a result of this project.
PART 3 – SUMMARY CONCLUSION
Council has reviewed the evidence and issues in the record and the issues raised in the Martin appeal.
The Council concludes that there was substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to
approve the application, and the Commission did not commit errors of law. This Conclusion is based
upon the findings herein, and the evidence in the record including the Applicant’s findings and the
Planning Staff Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
CAP031016 Page 247
CAP031016 Page 248
CAP031016 Page 249
CAP031016 Page 250
Page 1 of 6
COSTCO WHOLESALE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant: David J. Smith Notice of Appeal Date: February 16, 2016
File No. 15022
City Council Appeal Hearing
March 10, 2016
PART 1 – INTRODUCTION
On February 2, 2016, the Planning Commission in accordance with CPMC 17.76 approved a Conditional
Use Permit authorizing the development of a Costco Wholesale membership warehouse and fuel facility
on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district (“Costco Application”). The project site is located on the
eastern edge of Central Point city limits at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock road. The
site also has frontage on Federal Way, a local street. Surrounding properties include developed and
undeveloped industrial lands, including the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts.
On February 16, 2016, David J. Smith filed an appeal (“Smith Appeal”) contesting the Planning
Commission’s decision on grounds that the Planning Commission erred in approving the application as:
1. Costco’s traffic study is flawed because it does not accurately identify trip distribution patterns.
2. Costco’s traffic study does not indicate that the airport master plan has been taken into
consideration.
3. Site access on an ODOT designated Fright Corridor will mix existing and future high volume
truck traffic with Costco generated traffic.
4. There is nothing in the record to verify that ODOT has funded and scheduled construction of the
improvements relied upon to support the Costco application.
5. As a result of specific issues identified above, approval of the Costco CUP without further study
will create immediate and future traffic congestion and hazards.
6. Approval of the CUP is contrary to the Central Point Statement of Values relative to growth and
transportation.
The Council’s scope of review on this appeal is limited to the issues and evidence presented in the record
before the Planning Commission as per CPMC 17.05.400(F)(3). As this appeal is on the record the City
Council may not consider new evidence or issues that were not preserved in the record below. Council
CAP031016 Page 251
Page 2 of 6
review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings
of the Planning Commission; or whether errors of law were committed.
Membership warehouses are permitted as a conditional use per the City’s 2009 similar use determination
under CPMC 17.48.020(W) and 17.60.140, which was adopted by the Planning Commission as
Resolution No.764, and affirmed by the Council on Appeal as Resolution No. 1217. The applicable
approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are set forth under CPMC 17.76.040, Findings and
Conditions for Conditional Use Permits.
PART 2 – APPEAL ISSUES
There were six (6) issues raised in the Smith Appeal. The following is a summary of each issue in the
Smith Appeal, including the findings and conclusions pertinent to each issue.
1. Traffic Study Flawed. - “Costco’s traffic study is flawed in that it does not identify the present
traffic patterns for Costco’s members to the present store and, without that information, it is
impossible to predict the route choices of Costco members to the proposed site. The use of
general population statistics in inadequate to assign predicted distribution of the 10,670 daily trips
by Costco Members.”
Finding 1: The Applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (“TIA”) by Kittelson and
Associates for the subject property into the record. City staff reviewed the TIA and there is
testimony in the record as to the substance of the TIA from City staff. No other traffic reports or
analysis were prepared or submitted into the record, by traffic engineers or other traffic experts.
According to the TIA, “the trip distribution pattern for site generated trips was developed using
zip code data from current memberships at the existing Costco warehouse located on OR 62
(Crater Lake Highway) in Medford, Oregon, as well as from the existing traffic patterns and
major trip origins and destinations within the study area.”1 Trip distribution was verified by
regional travel demand models provided by ODOT for the base year (2006) and future year
(2038). There was no traffic analysis supporting the allegation that the trip distribution
methodology utilized in the TIA is flawed.
Conclusion 1: The City Council concludes there is substantial evidence in the record to find
that the TIA is valid and contained adequate trip distribution methodology for the subject
property.
2. Costco’s traffic study indicates that there will be heavy traffic added to Biddle Road at the
entrances to the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, but does not indicate that the
airport master plan has been taken into consideration in the traffic study.
Finding 2: The Planning Commission’s consideration of the Costco CUP application relied
upon the Applicant’s TIA and agency comments (i.e. the City of Medford) relative to the identified
traffic impacts and mitigation measures at the intersection of Biddle Road and Airport Road (See
1 Traffic Impact Analysis: Central Point Costco Development, Central Point, Oregon. Kittelson & Associates. October 2015. Page 37.
CAP031016 Page 252
Page 3 of 6
Finding 17.76.040(B)(4) in the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (“Supplemental
Findings” in the record below.) The airport was identified as an agency entitled to notice, but
did not submit comments into the record requiring additional traffic mitigation. The TIA
identified impacts to the intersection. The City of Medford recommended a condition of approval
to include a median to resolve the impact. In a letter dated January 5, 2016, the City of Medford
indicated that the airport was opposed to the proposed mitigation measure because it was in
conflict with the airport master plan. As an alternative, the City of Medford requested a
condition that requires the applicant to pay a proportional share toward a future traffic signal at
this intersection in conformance with the airport master plan. The City of Medford indicated this
contribution would be sufficient to mitigate the impacts of this project. The estimated project cost
is $450,000, including design, construction and inspection. Per the TIA, Costco contributes 10%
of the traffic at this intersection. As conditioned, Costco shall provide evidence it has contributed
its proportionate share of the construction of signalization improvements in an amount not to
exceed $45,000, which shall be payable to the City of Medford prior to building permit
issuance. No other traffic reports or analysis were prepared or submitted into the record by
traffic engineers or other traffic experts.
Conclusion 2: The City Council concludes there is substantial evidence in the record to find
that, as conditioned, the application complies with CPMC 17.76 and that the applicant will have
contributed its proportional share toward traffic mitigation to the intersection of Biddle Road
and Airport Road at the time of development. The Council further concludes there is sufficient
evidence in the record to determine that the airport did not request any mitigation for the airport
master plan, but that consideration to such master plan was given.
3. The access points for the proposed Costco site are on roads which ODOT has master planned as a
freight corridor. ODOT’s freight Profile identifies Table Rock Road as one of the local roads that
“experience high volumes and of freight traffic.” The proposed location is in the midst of
existing freight terminals, with more planned for the future, which will mix high volume truck
traffic with 10,670 Costco member daily automobile trips.
Finding 3: Heavy vehicles were evaluated in the Applicant’s TIA at all study intersection and
site driveways, including Table Rock Road. No problems were identified with the mix of light and
heavy vehicle traffic based on volume and impacts to LOS/VC. An ODOT representative was
present at the January 5, 2016 hearing and did not identify safety concerns during his
testimony.(Audio Recording at 1:26).
The Planning Commission considered in Finding 17.76.040(B) and 17.76.040(C)(2) the
operational and safety conditions of ingress and egress on Table Rock Road, as well as all study
intersections. Per the TIA and agency comments, the Planning Commission imposed conditions
of approval requiring access restriction and mitigation measures to resolve traffic impacts
associated with ingress and egress on Table Rock Road. No other traffic reports or analysis was
prepared or submitted into the record by traffic engineers or other traffic experts.
Conclusion 3: The Council concludes there is sufficient evidence in the record for the Planning
CAP031016 Page 253
Page 4 of 6
Commission to find traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned
and that the mix of truck traffic with the proposed development will not create additional safety
concerns requiring further mitigation, except at identified and conditioned herein..
4. There is nothing in the record to verify that ODOT has funded and scheduled construction of the
improvements relied upon to support the Costco application. Without that confirmation that the
improvements will be completed soon after the store opens is total speculation.
Finding 4: Evidence in the record addressing traffic impacts and the timing of the Interstate 5
Northbound Off-Ramp, Exit 33 Improvements, and the feasibility of imposing conditions for such
traffic mitigation includes the TIA prepared by Kittelson & Associates, as well as comments
received from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). As conditioned, Costco will be
required to enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and pay its
proportional share of the improvement cost prior to building permit issuance (See Revised Public
Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016, Condition No. 1). Evidence in the record establishes
that the improvements are planned to be expedited such that they will be constructed as close to
opening day of the subject development as possible:
a. The Revised Public Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 states that, “Per ODOT,
construction will commence at the earliest possible date.” (See Traffic Impacts and
Mitigation Item No. 4)
b. During staff’s presentation at the January 5, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting, during
a discussion of traffic impacts and mitigation (26:05), staff stated that ODOT agreed to
expedite construction of the off-ramp improvements as close to opening day as possible.
Don Morehouse, ODOT Planner, concurred with the staff presentation and stated that he
had nothing further to add. (Audio Recording. at 1:26:15).
Conclusion 4: There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s
decision as to the feasibility and timing of the traffic mitigation conditions.
5. Without further study, Costco has the potential to create immediate and future traffic congestion
and hazards.
Finding 5: Per the TIA, the proposed Costco Wholesale and fuel facility is expected to generate
10,670 new daily trips. Heavy vehicles were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were
identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume and impacts to LOS/VC. On
the day of opening traffic impacts were identified at four (4) intersections: 1) Interstate 5
Northbound Off-Ramp; 2) Table Rock and Hamrick Road; 3) Table Rock and Airport Road; and
4) Airport and Biddle Road. Although not identified in the TIA, the City of Medford provided
crash data and comments in a letter dated January 5, 2016 indicating that traffic generated by
Costco would negatively impact the intersection of Table Rock Road and Morningside Street
south of the project site. In accordance with the TIA and comments received from affected
agencies, the Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval requiring mitigation of the
traffic impacts caused by the proposed Costco Wholesale (See Table 1 below).
CAP031016 Page 254
Page 5 of 6
Table 1. Traffic Impact Mitigation Summary
Intersection Impact Mitigation Timing
Interstate 5 NB
Off-Ramp
Volume to Capacity (v/c)
Ratio is exceeded.
Enter into a Cooperative
Improvement Agreement with ODOT and the City to develop and construct dual
right turn lanes per IAMP Project No. 9.
Prior to
building permit issuance
Table Rock/Hamrick
Road
Intersection Failure due to left turn delays Construct center turn lane and refuge within existing
Table Rock Road right-of-way at Hamrick Road.
Prior to certificate of
occupancy.
Table Rock/Airport Road
Existing left turn delays cause the intersection to operate at
a Level of Service (LOS) F. The existing status is aggravated by additional
traffic generated by the proposed use.
Jackson County has funding to construct
improvements on Table Rock Road that includes signalization of the
intersection. The County has indicated that construction of the
improvements will begin in 2017; therefore, no interim mitigation is necessary.
Jackson County Table
Rock Road Improvement Project
commences in 2017.
Airport/Biddle Road
Traffic generated by Costco
causes left turn delays which results in a decline in the LOS from C to E.
Per the City of Medford in
a letter dated January 5, 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata
share toward construction of a signal at the intersection.
Proof of
payment prior to building
permit issuance.
Table Rock Road at Morningside
Street
Traffic generated by Costco
aggravates an existing left turn delay at the intersection.
Per the City of Medford in
a letter dated January 5, 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata
share toward construction of a center left turn lane and refuge on Table Rock
Road at Morningside Street
Proof of
payment prior to building
permit issuance.
Per the TIA, conditions of approval were established to address identified traffic impacts as set
forth in Finding 17.76.040(B), 17.76.040(C)(2), and 17.76.040(E)(2) in the record below. No
other traffic studies or testimony from a traffic engineer or other traffic expert was received as to
the substance of the TIA.
As demonstrated in the Applicant’s Findings and the Planning Department Findings, the
Planning Commission found the project as conditioned is adequate to accommodate the use (See
Planning Commission Findings for 17.76.040 in the record below).
CAP031016 Page 255
Page 6 of 6
Conclusion 5: The City Council concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the Planning Commission’s decision that, as conditioned, the project will mitigate the
traffic impacts generated by this project.
6. The placement of Costco in the proposed location is contrary to the Central Point Statement of
Values: “Growth: We Value planned growth that will retain our small town atmosphere,” and
“Transportation: We value a system of transportation and infrastructure that is modern, efficient
and sensitive to the environment.”
Finding 6: In considering the Conditional Use Application for the proposed Membership
Warehouse and fuel facility, the Planning Commission was required to render a decision based
on the proposal’s demonstrated compliance with Standards and Criteria for Conditional Use
Permits set forth in Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 17.76.
Conclusion 6: The mission statement is not part of the Municipal Code nor Comprehensive
Plan. It does not serve as a standard or criteria and is merely aspirational language under the
City’s general Mission Statement. The Planning Commission did not err in applying the
Standards and Criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76. t.
PART 3 – SUMMARY CONCLUSION
Council has reviewed the evidence and issues in the record and the issues raised in the Smith appeal. The
Council concludes that there was substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to
approve the application, and the Commission did not commit errors of law. This Conclusion is based
upon the findings herein, and the evidence in the record including the Applicant’s findings and the
Planning Staff Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
CAP031016 Page 256