Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 845 - Comp Plan Amd. 3428 &3470 chicory Ln.PLANNING COTNUi IISSION RESOLUTION NO. 845 A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOiLLNIENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE COiTMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANIENDM[ENTlCLARIFICATION OF 3428 AND 3470 CHICORY LANE TO TOD CORRIDOR Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC; Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. (375 2W IIC, Tax Lots 8300 & 8400) File No. CPA -17002 WHEREAS, the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane as TOD Corridor, and the current TOD-MMR/R-3 zoning designation and the proposed TOD-1,MR/R-2 zoning designation are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will provide clarification of the Property's land use designation upon annexation in the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendments per Section 17.96.500, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law incorporated herein (Exhibit "X'), and WHEREAS, adequate public services and transportation networks are available to the site, and are consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals and Transportation Planning Rule; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 2017, the Central Point Planning Commission opened a duly -noticed public hearing on the Application, at which time the Planning Commission heard testimony and comments on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application, as specifically identified in Exhibit "A„ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. 845, does hereby recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in Exhibit "A, and attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein; and PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5th day of Septem'oer, 2017. Planning Commission Chair A ST: t epresentative Approved this Sfl'k day of September, 20t7. Planning Commission Chair Planning Com. rnission Resolution No. 838 390 ATTACHMENT "E" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 846 A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE REZONING OF 3428 AND 3470 CHICORY LANE FROM TOD-MMR/R-3 TO TOD-LMR/R-2 Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC; Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. (37S 2W IIC, Tax Lots 8300 & 8400) File No. ZC-17001 WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane as TOD Corridor; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Map amendment from TOD-MMR/R-3 to TOD-LMR/R-2 zoning designation on property located at 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane constitutes a minor amendment per CPMC 17.10.300(B); and, WHEREAS, on September 5, 2017, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Central Point Planning Commission considered the Application, at which time it reviewed the Staff Report and heard testimony and comments on the minor Zone Change Application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to Minor Zone Map Amendments per Section 17.10.400, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law incorporated herein (Exhibit "A"); and, WHEREAS, As evidenced in the findings of fact and conclusions of law (Exhibit "A"), the proposed zone map amendment is consistent with applicable standards and criteria in the Central Point Municipal Code, including the statewide Planning Goals (where applicable), the Comprehensive Plan, and Statewide Transportation Planning Rule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. 846, does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the Zone Change from TOD-MMR/R-3 to TOD-LIvIR/R-2. This decision is based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in Exhibit "A", and attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5th day of September, 2017. ATTEST: City Representative Approved this klay of 5eptemlaer,'2.017, Planning Commission Resolution No. 846 Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Chair 226 The Applicant has done some more specific design work for the site, see the attached design concept. The Applicant envisions a project that can deliver 21 dwelling units. Applicant is willing to stipulate to a condition of the zone change that would require delivery of at least 21 units on the site. The design work for the site results in approximately 2,16 net developable acres for residential development. Because of all the infrastructure requirements for this particular site, the net -to -gross factor for this site is approximately 1,68, This is 35% more than the assumption in the City's calculations above, The City's proposed net -to -gross factor of 1.25 would typically be associated with a site of approximately 2.7 gross acres where the site yields 2.16 net developable acres, as follows: 2.16 (net acres) x 1.25 (net - to - gross Factor) = 2.7 (gross acreage assumption) If the site were 2.7 acres then the minimum density requirement above of 7.5 units to the gross acre contemplated by the City in its draft calculations would be satisfied with the stipulated 21 dwelling units: 2.7 (gross acres) x 7.5 (gross density contemplated) = 20,25 dwelling units In this instance, 0.80 additional acres on a small project is being devoted to the delivery of key infrastructure by working with Public Works on the Haskell Street improvements. This needed connection will eventually benefit the entire City and this will in turn support the City's goals to comply with Goal 10 and implement its TSP. We believe the minimal effect on the City's overall density objectives should be weighed in favor of m vivig thus key irifrastiuctute connection forward in a collaborative manner with the property owner. The Applicant believes the stipulated minimum supply of 21 dwelling units represents an appropriate balance between marker dernand for single-family homes, attainment of the draft minimum density standards being developed by staff to implement Regional Plan Element Section 4.1.5 and compliance with the current density regulations in the LMR District which would allow for as few as 13 dwelling units. Very Truly Yours, CSA Planning, ltd. Harland Principal Applicant Reserves the right for his attorney to argue this provision is inappllcable to the subject application under the applicable case law, i e. Bennett vs. The City of Dallas, and subsequent cases, City of Central Point Page 3 225 City of Centra! Point Housing Construction by Housing Type and Zoning, City Llmits 1980-2016 4. Committed Residential Density Supplemental Findings: Based upon the above information provided by the City, the Applicant herewith provides the following supplemental findings related to this issue: a. The Applicant seeks the LMR zoning because the market demand is for single-family dwellings as has been the case over the last 37 years. Over 78 percent of the houses constructed during that period have been detached single family dwellings. The Applicant/Owner seeks to construct single family dwellings on the site as the predominant housing type consistent with historical the market demands in Central Point. The LMR designation will allow this to occur. Moreover, when the housing type market data in the second table is compared to the land supply data in first table, it appears that Central Point is considerably overweight with respect to land in the multi -family designations. The MMR, HMR and R-3 zones comprise 45.5% of the total vacant land supply when just over 20% of total housing, by type constructed is multi -family. This is born -out by an estimated build -out under the minimum densities of over 13 units to the gross acre. This condition makes a strong case that many other properties, in addition to the Fellows property, should be re -designated to a lower density residential designation to better balance RPS density commitments with the City's Goal 10 Housing obligations. b. With respect to the density requirements at Regional Plan Element Section 4,1 .5, the Applicant's position is that the language and context of Section 4.1.5 concerns City-wide density commitments. As such, plan amendments such as the one proposed here relate only to the effect the individual change is projected to have on the City-wide density obligations. According to the math in the above table, the City's currently planned densities exceed the minimum density requirement in RPS by almost double (an additional 6.5 units to the acre) and the proposed amendment would still result in the City having a planned minimum density that would be approximately 6.23 units to the acre above the minimum requirement. 5. Site Density Effects If Draft Gross Density Standards of LMR Are Adopted: Notwithstanding Applicant's position in 4(b) above that Regional Plan Element S00i0li 4.1 .5 concerns the City as a whole and that the proposed change has a nominal effect on the City's ability to meet those density commitments, the Applicant would like to work with the City on advancing its density objectives. City of Central Poin-r Page 2 224 Hoblle Total SNR SHR M.W. Soma Care Rousing 9'o of letachtd Jejackcil 0a cs_ frielcs __MPR__ llama _-_ Par _ _ Fstifiew U ti _ra ai 30 30 I' 71 71 x 896 2 - 898 21' 1,145 1 1.14E 27 426 4 68 498 17 334 17t 12 222 65 221 1,025 24' 370 4 12 386 to 113 12 2 75 0 217 9 16l0 26 . N 9. 429 79.7% 42% !13% 0,3% ?.T% IA% 3.1% % i0C' 4. Committed Residential Density Supplemental Findings: Based upon the above information provided by the City, the Applicant herewith provides the following supplemental findings related to this issue: a. The Applicant seeks the LMR zoning because the market demand is for single-family dwellings as has been the case over the last 37 years. Over 78 percent of the houses constructed during that period have been detached single family dwellings. The Applicant/Owner seeks to construct single family dwellings on the site as the predominant housing type consistent with historical the market demands in Central Point. The LMR designation will allow this to occur. Moreover, when the housing type market data in the second table is compared to the land supply data in first table, it appears that Central Point is considerably overweight with respect to land in the multi -family designations. The MMR, HMR and R-3 zones comprise 45.5% of the total vacant land supply when just over 20% of total housing, by type constructed is multi -family. This is born -out by an estimated build -out under the minimum densities of over 13 units to the gross acre. This condition makes a strong case that many other properties, in addition to the Fellows property, should be re -designated to a lower density residential designation to better balance RPS density commitments with the City's Goal 10 Housing obligations. b. With respect to the density requirements at Regional Plan Element Section 4,1 .5, the Applicant's position is that the language and context of Section 4.1.5 concerns City-wide density commitments. As such, plan amendments such as the one proposed here relate only to the effect the individual change is projected to have on the City-wide density obligations. According to the math in the above table, the City's currently planned densities exceed the minimum density requirement in RPS by almost double (an additional 6.5 units to the acre) and the proposed amendment would still result in the City having a planned minimum density that would be approximately 6.23 units to the acre above the minimum requirement. 5. Site Density Effects If Draft Gross Density Standards of LMR Are Adopted: Notwithstanding Applicant's position in 4(b) above that Regional Plan Element S00i0li 4.1 .5 concerns the City as a whole and that the proposed change has a nominal effect on the City's ability to meet those density commitments, the Applicant would like to work with the City on advancing its density objectives. City of Central Poin-r Page 2 224 ATTACHMENT "D" July 6, 2017 City of Central Point 140 S. 3r6 Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Files Annex -17001, CPA -17002, and ZC•17001 Dear Mr. Humphrey: r X �, LyT11% CSA Planning, Ltd 4497 Brownridge, Suite 101 Medford, OR 97504 Telephone 541 779.0589 Fax 541 .779.01 14 JavOCSAplanning. ne t CSA Planning is in receipt of your letter dated May 19, 2017. That letter raised three issues concerning the above captioned land use applications (items 2 & 3 in the letter essentially concern the same matter). This letter addresses these issues as follows: Pre Application Issue: The Pre -Application meeting was held on June 28. 2017. Attendees were Tom Humphrey, Matt Samitore, Don Burt, Molly Bradley, Bob f=ellows, Bev Thruston and Jay Harland, 2. Traffic Impact Analysis issue. Applicant has engaged Southern Oregon Traffic Engineering to provide evidence from a traffic engineer that can be labelled "TIA". The Transportation impact Analysis Is submittecl under cover of this letter - 3 Committed Residential Qensity Issue: The City's May 17"' latter requests the Applicant provide additional findings that address the Regional Plan Element Section 4.1.51. At the June 28 meeting, this issue was discussed in some depth. At the meeting, the City agreed to provide the Applicant with draft calculation methodologies relating to density commitments in Section 4.1 .5 and housing construction historical data. The same was provided by email in the form of the below text and tables: The below table is the latest inventory of vacant residential acreage within the urban area. The table includes the current minimum net density for each zoning district and adjusts that number by a factor of 1.25 to get gross. The 1.25 is based on the State's safe harbor 25% figure for right-of-way. The table also takes into consideration the Fellows adjustments (last two columns) in the LMR (3.64+) and MMR (3,64) districts. As you can see the change In the average gross density remains well above the 6.9 figure. Average Gross Deaelty Cakabtbn City of Cental Point SWM GAY d OW&W PON 9WId619 LOMM IM".rY 223 Gree Mosel Yellows Aosled Zwlee Mio.Ytt M1e•Gr. Arreele Y. Build -Out AdJveled Dt111d•Oet 91/111/0 deed paean � IlrkmArm Warl0d1roe DV V144 4r. Acre. DUVeld 211 ! I..3 4,:3 3Y 3 4.75 3 12.1.6 4 3 10.88 8% 54 10.88 34 H41.8 3 373 3.86 3% A 3.86 14 R-1.10 2 2.1 313 2% 8 3.13 9 R-7 6 7.5 37.99 2111 283 37 99 283 R-3 14 17.3 3.32 A. 62 152 62 °LlIR 6 1.3 U44 ll%. 116 19,02 143 1N/111 14 17,3 46.21 331/. 809 42,51 745 �M?R 30 31,3 1.130 10% 106 13.50 96 SWM GAY d OW&W PON 9WId619 LOMM IM".rY 223 222 Order WO. 0763996 Page 4 /> ZDXT 'A. Commenting ac the Horthoast corner of Lot"K' of 9notry Butte Orchards, Jackman County, Oregon, mccording to the official plot thereoC, now OC record, rhlch amid poAnr Is an the Souchweeterly right-vl-way line of the Southern Pacific Ra.ilroadj thence run South 35°06' Test along maid right-of-way line 520.66 to a V Aron pin; thence North 99'77' Mest 300.77 Cast Car the true point of beginning; thence Horth 09°27' tient 356.63 feet more or 1048 to the Meaterly boundary line Of said Lot ^%•; thence South 0°01' Mast 322,24 Cant, more or lama, to the Southwesterly corner Of maid Lot "K"j thence $QLith e9.59' gait 357.95 feet to a point which bears Worth 59050, West 454.04 teat from Cha Suuthesst: corner of said Lot; thante Worth Vol, Qast 227.24 feet, more or les■ to the Point of beginning, (NMP Aos 7721111C,,'Cax Lot $300, Account No. 1-017631-0, Coda 6-2) a 221 LEGAL DESCRIPTION —. 372W11C, Tax Lot 8300 AmON& n.rr o/T&jau-wavlerty After recording rcturn to: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Ohm on Limited Llsbillty CampanL 2950 Phi 111P3 Water Central Paint OR 7"2 Until a change is requested all tax stalemenls shall be sent to The following address: BOB FELLOW5 CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an praloet Limited LiabRky Comp.n_y 2958 Phil) We Central Poin OR 97302 Esraow No. AP076399S Title No. 0763996 P, Jackson County 011ldal Records 2005-072911 R w0 CM -1 Stn -4 SHAWBJ 12/0111005 00:00:00 AM 310-00 $500 $11-00 Tolal:1126,00 IIIIIhYI�III�tEI ll 0MI THIS SPACE RESERI i, wrr.n a. aw s ew ny eNix r•, rwn..e c,wry, ager ewsry it m. nrr,.,r iaennw nw�, .w. m.rsw a m. cnw ,Kwr Kellam S Sackett - Canty Clark STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED /s WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA V, FROHREICH, TRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE FROHREICH LOVING TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, I"G, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, Grastta(s) hereby convey and warrant to BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LIM an Oregon Limited Liability Comprt oy, Graalse(s) the following deaerlbed rad property in the County of JACKSON and Slate of Oregon free of esctanbnonccs except r specifically act forth havin: SEE EXHIBIT A WHICH IS MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE The shove-dwcribW property is free of encumbrances except all thaw itan of record, if any, as of 1M data of this deed and Grose shown blow, if any: Tt»TNa and acW41 conw1crntion fur lhl+conveysme is PURSUANT TO AN IRC 1031 TAX DEFERRED EXCHANGE ON EF.IIAL.F OF GRANTOWGRA.NTEE. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRTjMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS W 930. Doled lhisgn- day of l) WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA V, FROHREICH- TRUSTEES DR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE PROHREICH LOVING TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, 1996, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO 13y; A, WALTER H. FROHREICH. TRUSTSE B OFy1CY1l s><Fi RA V. FROHRMMCH,TRU&TEE J,L. 140FMAMN 110tARY a+JOF,.IC- t:0alaeUdIGY1 M0. Slate ofOragon 1M t2eJlllrki0lOe1 County ofJACKSON This iuslrument was acknowledged before me on 2003 by WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA 1 PROHREICH, TRUSTEES OF THE FROHREIC L ING TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, 1996,. a wy p4bHo r gun) My commission expires 220 LEGAL DESCRIPTION �. 372W11C, Tax Lot 8400 Amerildle P.rr of rk, IF?. D -WEN F—a y A net recording rciunl to: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, Lt.C. AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPAN)' 2950 PIIILLIPS (kntrol Point, OR 97502 Until a change is requested all tax statements shall be sent to 'the following address: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 2950 PHILLIPS Central Point, OR 97502 Escrow No AF0764707 THIS SPACE, RESF,RV I Jarxsun'ut:nly OIIIcINI Rncords 2004-038981 FI -WD St -10 cU; TIr4GR7I0012004 02:30:00 PM ss on $5 00 31 100 Total:S21.00 1111111111111111111111111f 11111111111111 I i963200400309010010011 t.Mi-9 0.1k.N C.-ty—I$'F for J.cA 'celul1, 0.eron n,ry O'l Int In.1Nm.n1 tl.nNN.tl n.nln w..•.ewd.d Ie P.. Cl,,4 ."old. Kathleen $ Beckett Cowley Clark STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED LOLA V. ALBRIGHT, Grantwlis) hereby convey and warrant to BOB FELLOWS CONST RUCTION. LLC, AN OREGON IJMPTED LIABILITY COMPANY. Granlec(s) the following described real property in the County of JACKSON and State of Oregon, free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein: Cemniencing at the Northeast corner of Lot K of Snowy Butce Orchards, Jackson County, Oregon, a,:curding to rhe official plat thereof, now of record, which said point 13 ,+n the Sonthwesrerly right of way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad; thence run :;outh 35'r0' East along said right of way line 528.68 feet to a L" iron pin for the %rue poin` of beginning; thence North 89"27' hest 300.71 feet; thence South 0°01' West 222.24 feet., more cr less, to the South boundary line of said lot; thence ;;Doth 09°58' East 454.04 tees, more or less, to the Southwesterly right of way line .,f the Bouthern Pacific Railroad; thence North 35000' West 264.58 feat along said ight. of way line to the true point of beginning. (Map No. 37ZWliC, Tax Lot 8400, Account No. 1-017632-8, Code 6-28) 'The aboye-described property is free ofencumbrrnces except all those items of record, if any, ss of the date of this deed and those sluo%vn below, if any! Subject to the 2004-05 real property taxes, a lim not yet due and payable ]'he true and actual considcralion for this conveyance 1111S INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF ALICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, 1 -HE PPPERSON ACQUIRING FEE'TITt.F_ TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH 'rflE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DfPAR'TMENTTO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON I,A WSI it-fS AGAINST FARMINCi OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 70.930. �f 1 Dated (lis' Lj f� day of l� FCL'Ic.�' ZOO UFFSCIRLSEAL HOrAR+ P491,ICt)RrG414 ,,.. rr C;.y,IMtRt:i[!N !K]. SiE208 LS��.r .� • � � + � � Mr C4r4MlS9Ir]N E7tPHG9 RINE 50.29aB Sia Ie o r Oregon C-uunty of1ACKSON +, This instrument was acknowledged before me on I .2004 by Lala V Albright . 1 NWary Public r Iayluuy a My cuminission elm .r-:1 %(1 219 jig lot 1111 3NV, '14�% �_ _ 218 JENSEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS May 3, 2017 EXHIBIT 11 CSA Planning Public Utility Analysis - 37S 2W 11 C Tax Lots 3470 & 3428 Per your request, I have prepared an analysis of the availability of public underground utilities necessary to provide service to the development of the referenced tax lot in Central Point, Domestic Water System The property is basically surrounded by existing water lines and the installation of a looped water system supplying domestic water and fire protection will not be difficult. Storm Drainage Providing adequate storm drainage will be somewhat more challenging, from a design standpoint, since the property is generally lower than surrounding properties. A 12" storm drain has been stubbed into the property on the west side from Lindsey Court. The site will need to be filled in order to utilize this 12" storm drain and the storm drain may need to be removed and replaced with a larger sized pipe. Sanitary Sewer System The sanitary sewer system in Central Point is owned and maintained by RVSS. An existing system in the Lindsey Ct, Chicory Lane area is available for connection and extension to the east to provide service to the referenced parcels. Summary Any design challenges can be overcome through a combination of site grading and pipe upsizing and serving the property with adequate municipal storm drainage and other public utilities is feasible. ha E..lensen, . 310 RICHARD WAY, JACKSONVILLE, OR 87530 TEL. 541-7784352 Cell 541-727-1330 emall: jej42843@®maII.com 217 W e CL C13 � � � � U) (D � 54 � �_an- C. I K .� � � J�.1;11 oz oo/ --an. P f � � )} �C,� \ k m E I K .� � � J�.1;11 oz oo/ --an. P ■ f � �t )} \ k m E q L )o a �a %$ / ) \ ƒ \ ?2 .� k $2 ) LO to f\ % o � £$ § ak § ■ f � \ k m E q m / ) \ ƒ \ ?2 .� U) c L 0 E L U T 0 d m L C A 214 c U 213 6� i i 0 0 order No. 076399e Page 4 EXHIBIT "A" page 3 of 3 Crnwnencing at the M,CtheaBC corner of Got `K' of Snowy Butte orcharda, .14rks0n County, Oregon, according ro the official Alar, thareof, now of record, wi+lch Bald point la on the Saurhw*atarly fright -of -way line o£ the Southern PacLfic Railroad; thence rein South 351oa pant along aaLd rLghL,o(-Bay llna 576.68 tO a 1^ 1COn pin; them,;. North a9"27' Haut 36n.;7 face for the true polnc QC beginning; thence North 87"27, }fent ]58.63 (est more OC Lrua to the westerly floc v# Bald 4or. •K"; thence Sour 6°0, We., 122 2t (eat, mace or le os. en the SOUthwaaterly cutner oe maid l,ot "3r."; th*nce South 84°58' 6aar 357.05 fact to a paint which bears Worth 99'59' want 4y4.04 fear. from the Rnutha■*t Cotner of said Lut1 thonce :forth 0141' F.,Aat Z2i 24 (Arlt, mare ar le*,� r.o chA Point or. begLnnLng. "OP ;;v ;?Zwll', rax LOC A3fu Account No L -0063L•0, Cilie 6.21 212 EXI[IBIT "A" A page 2 of 3 AmenTitle Pmt OfT7. fELO-WEN F.Wny Afler recording return to: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an _9!%un Limited Ltabili Cum 2950 Phillips Wap Cantnl Point, OR 9750 Until a change is requested all tar amcments shall be sent to The following address.. BOB FELLOWS CONS'1'RUCl30N, LLC, on Limited Limbilk Commy 3950 Phar Ws Centra# Paint OR 97103 F.gcrow No. AP0763999_ Title No. 0763998 Jackson County Official Records 2005-072911 R -'NO 1210'112006 00:00:00 AM Cnl=I Stn=4 SHAWBJ $1000$5005!100 Total!$26.00 tlIIIIB�OilI00 0020021 THIS SPACE RESER%,.won .se..w.re.c.�ve.as J.w.eaeawxv.o..w.2 ...twv h"h. tnMr. "—MM MrHn wu n...drd Inch. CI.rF ,—d. Kall S 9ecken - Coreny Clerk STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED fm WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA V. FROHREICH, TRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE FROUREICII LOVING TRUST PATP.D JANUARY 4, 1"(A AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERF.10. Chnntar(s) hereby convey and warrantee 608 FF.LI.O►VS COAI$TRIICTION, LLC, so Oregon l,imlted [AmblillY C01atlltlny, Grantees) dwe fuifuwing dcscnbed real Property in the Canty of JACKSON and State of Orogen free oreacw6rances axcapt as specifically set 604h berth: SEE EXHIBIT A WHICH IS MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE The above-daae7berl property is free of escwnhrances except all drove ileus of racord, if any. as of om deer 0f rhia k vj and them shown blow, if any: The true and actual considerstiear for this conveyance is PURSUANT TO AN IRC 1111131 TAX DEFEkRED EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF GRANTORIGRANTEE. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS_ BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING. THIS IMMUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNINO DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMI[ j OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. C ; l 1 Dated thi<jg_7-__day of�►JlZsl{ j�7yy a WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA V. FROHREICH, TRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE FROHREICH LOVING TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, 1996, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO BY� : /'r'� WAt, -MOO 1. "Off REICf1. TRUS7['E B I pFf ICYrl.1fAR i kA Y. BROHR�ICII. TRlISTIT 3.G fu��, J,L HPIN MOT+%RY Vr7AL1L:-(3R@OOH ,O1Mtal ON NO 359M State of Oregon 6 IIM[ IQ Canty of IACKSON This instrument wan acknowledged before meon . i 2005 by WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA 1 FROHRETCH, TRUSTF.F.S f1P THE FROHREIC VTNC TRU iT DATED JANUARY 4, 1996,. {Nn sr� y PuAblie r ragou) �J My commission eapifea--(� = EXHIBIT "N" A i << page I of 3 Ven r,l/ ih, irl.n 4VE�'ramay After recording remm In BOB 1 ELI OWS CONS I RU(710N, LLC. AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILI f_Y COMPANY _ 2950 PHILLIPS _ Crcn(ral Point, OR '17502 I lulil a change is rcyucs(ed all mx smtcmen(s shall be sero to rhe following address: BOB FELLOW'S CONS i-RUCl'ION. LLC, AN 011E60N LIILIITEO LIABILITY C911-TANY _ B950 PHILLIPS_ _ Central Point, OR 97502 FserowNo AP0764707 THIS SPAUF RFSERVI -1.1' ;:rl •, nr: orliz 2004-038981 R -WO •-Irl =' 31-10x.11114K-PT/0812004 02:30:00 PPA .510,5un5110,; Total:f21.00 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 09910910011 I •:elnle<rri Orr., ell r ulrry Cl er. far )e<r ,ol, :: m,nry 'Vnlepan II�l Met ln<nlf,nem,nl annlHlne Ver<in n„ ,cnr,l,rr,n ll�e iter• etertl, i<alhleen 5 Berk." C'nunly .1- STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED I.OLA V, At. BRIG FIT, Grantor(s) hmAly convey and wamn( to BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN OREGON LIM [TED LIABILITY COMPANY. Grantees) the following Described real property in the Countv of JACKSON and Slate of Oregon, free of e+lcuinbramcs except as specifically =1 forth herein: mnoerec:r9 a the North,�a-t corner of Loot K of Snowy Butte )rchards, Jackson County, r"•cegoa, a-7cording to the official plat thereof, now of record, which said point is r. the Sot;0;weG-.erly righv of way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad: thence run yrs li. 15° IRI Fsyi adonq said right of way line 528.6P feet to a L" iron pin fox the ria point if beglnrsing: thence North 69°27' West 300.77 feet; thence South 0'01' Nest- 2r. .i4 feet, more or less, to the Sauth bounflary lLne of said Lot: thence `:,,v• -h .. ,8' Easy 454.D•i fade, Jlore or less, tc the Southwesterly right of way line Pari fiq Bai tread: thence North 15"06' Nest 261.58 tee alonq lard -i.ght ;firs•,• i ne t -o the true point_ of beginning. Ihcs}-• .I ) %.'•i i 1C, [ ix tris 6400, Account No- t-01-1632-9, erode 6-281 The above-described properly is fru of encumbrances except all those items of record, if any, as of the date of this deed and limse shown below, if any: Subieet m dtc 2(104-05 real property taxes, a lien not yet due and payable I be true and -nchral cousideralion for Ihiv conveyance iAMOM, I HIS INS I'RUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUNIENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, HIE PERSON Af- QVIRING FFI: TITI F. f0 LFIE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR l OUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USF,S AND 1-0 OET'ERNIINE ANY LIMITS ON I AWSI1FfS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. t� Ihnnl $ns (r � dzy of J.l.. dIs�FAIafIN } rj NOTAP.y f"fi}1.4G-llR! G0H I ++ s % f IIAn?[L: K16 Nfl 150�nE ��,,�►•�,cCd f t p E u .moi rFC ° n+rr lx2l�iGsn t IUI+E la.xoah 'i�k►� udiRnrrr�` r, - Smlc of Oregon C'amnly of 1AC'KSON r us immi tient wj mAnowledged before me on ,• 21104 by Imiaj V�AItoright. ItWhtryPulrF,c mguoy y r'nr�endxanm rtp:h'v_ �• HCl f ] 210 EXHIBIT 8 ANNEXATION PETITION The undersigned hereby request and consent to the annexation to the City of Central Point, Oregon, of the real property contiguous thereto described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part of the within petition. Bytheir signature hereto, the undersigned certify that they are either "owners" of land in the territory proposed to be annexed as described in Exhibit "A", or are "electors" registered in the territory proposed to be annexed as described in Exhibit "A". This petition, containing the request and consent to said annexation, must be filed with the Central Point City council on or before the date of the public hearing to be held upon the proposed annexation pursuant to ORS 222.120. "Owner" is defined by ORS 222.120 as meaning the legal owner of record or, where there is a recorded land contract which is in force, the purchaser thereunder. if there is multiple ownership in a parcel of land, each consenting owner shall be counted as a fraction of the same extent as the interest of the owner in the land bears in relation to the interest of the other owners, and the same frac:tinn shall be applied to the parcel's land mass for purposes of the consent petition. If a corporation owns land in a territory proposed to be annexed, the corporation shall be considered to be the individual owner of that land. "Elector" is defined in said statute as an individual qualified to vote under Article II, Section 2 of the Oregon Constitution, which in turn requires that the individual be 18 years of age or older, a resident of the area in question, and registered to vote as required by applicable state law. Furthermore, ORS 222.270(2) requires that electors petitioning for annexation be registered in the territory proposed to be annexed. 209 War M Name/Address Prem ONONTr 5pline Dole Bob Fellows fonslruction ILC _ _ 2950 Phillips Mly CentelpolntOR97502 9(opeigOWN r 209 Table 2 Land Use Summary — TOD Corridor Existing Comprehensive, Plan and Zoning Deslpnktlons Resldentisi R-1-8 -Residential, Single Family District (8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) R-2 - Residential, Two Family District (8,004 sq. n. min. lot size) R-3 - Residential, Multiple Family District (8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) commercial C-2 — Commercial - Professional G-3 _ Downtown Business District C4 — Tourist and Office Professional District C-5 — Thoroughfare Commercial District IndusMal M-1 - Industrial District M-2 - Industrial General District Centrai Point Optional WD Corridor Comptihinsim Plan and Zoning Designations TOD-MMR _ Medium Mix Residential TOD-LMR - Medium Mix Residential TOD-MMR - Medium Mix Residential TOD-HMR High Mix Resldantial TOD-EC Employment Commercial TOD-EC- Employment Commercial TOD-GC -- General Commercial TOD-GC - General Commercial TOD-GC - General Commercial 208 Draft TOD CPArZC Proposal Page -13 The TOD Corridor stretches from Pine Street to Beall Lane and include properties on both sides of Hwy 99. Hwy 99 is a proposed future transit/bus route. The TOD Corridor overlay design standards work in tandem with the overlay zoning. The design standards address issues such as circulation, building design, site .design, and open spaces. The intent is to create pedestrian oriented development areas that provide opportunities to use multiple forms of transit and have convenient access to quality open spaces. Land Use Designation Summary The TOD Corridor includes the TOD-GC, TOD-EC, and TOD-MMR designations described earlier under the TOD District information. These uses include medium density and multifamily housing, commercial, and industrial uses. The Corridor is not proposed to have the TOD Civic or Open Space designations. The existing zoning designations and the corresponding optional TOD Corridor zoning di:tihicts are listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 3. The major difference from the TOD District is that the existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations in the TOD Corridor are proposed to remain and the new TOD designations represent optional standards that may be applied in lieu of the existing requirements. The decision of which set of standards to use rests with the property owners. The TOD Corridor zoning designations will generally allow property owners to develop their properties more intensively and with greater options, including mixing uses such as commercial and residential. The potential for greater densities and mixed uses can create a more viable neighborhood based on a variety of housing types and commercial or industrial activities. Centra! Point 207 Draft TOD CPAIZC Proposal Page - 12 Civic (TODW Location The TOD-C designation is proposed to be located in the center of the TOD District, the Crater High School property, and the Mae Richardson Elementary School property The TOD-C designation is also located in the vicinity of Pine Street Between North 6" and 7�h and along Oak Street between 2nd and 3`d (Figure 3). Land Uses and Building Types The intent of this designation is to provide necessary civic uses for the community, such as schools, post offices, public offices, and similar uses. The uses allowed are proposed to be compatible with the residential neighborhoods that generally surround them. Institutions, such as colleges and hospitals, which can have a wide range of potential impacts, are subject to conditional use review. Open Space (TOD) Location The TOD-OS designation is proposed to be located along Griffin and Jaden Creeks as well as the north -central portion of the TOD District. TOD-OS is also located in downtown Contra! Point between Laurel and Manxanita Streets and North 6�' and North 7s' Streets (Figure 3). Land Uses and Building Types The intent of this designation is to provide necessary open space for the community amd protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The uses allowed are proposed to be compatible with and complement the residential neighborhoods that generally surround there. Only park and open space uses are permitted. TOD CORRIDOR Development Concept The TOD Corridor Zoning designation is intended to promote efficient land development and the Increased use of transit as proposed In the 1999 Transit Oriented Design and Transit Corridor Development Strategies for the Rogue Valley Transportation; DIstrict Report. In the context of the Rogue Valley region, the Central Point TOD Corridor will tre one of several bus transit corridors which form links to a network of destinations. The Increased densities along these corridors provides the ridership needed to commit funds to increase service frequency making bus transit a more viable means of transportation. In addition to the TOD District, the corridor is another Important link in what is envisioned to be a region -wide system to Increase reliance on public transit and decrease use of the automobile. Control Point 206 Draft TOD CPA/ZC Proposal Page -11 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Density The required density will be a minimum of 30 units per acre. I Employment (TOD) TOD-EC — Emolovment Commercial Location The.. TOD-EC designation is proposed to be located on the east and west side of Rogue Valley Highway 99 and north of Crater Higher School and on Pine Street from Haskell Road to North 6"' Street (Figure 3). These designations primarily reflect existing development and uses. Having employment, retail, and service activities with convenient transit availability is an important element of the TOD. Land Uses and Building Types Commercial uses are the primary permitted activities. Multiple family uses are also permitted above the ground floor, and civic and open space uses may also be allowed. Industrial activities are not permitted. Density There are no minimum density or commercial floor area requirements. TOD-GC — General Commercial Location The TOD-GC designation is proposed to be located on the east side of Rogue Valley Highway 99 north of Pine Street (Figure 3). Similar to the EC designation, the GC designation primarily reflects existing development and uses. Convenient transit access is an important characteristic of this area. Land Uses and Building Types The emphasis of this designations shifts from the commercialiresidential focus of the EC designation to one, which includes industrial activities and excludes residential and civic uses. Density There are no minimum density or commercial/industrial floor area requirements. Central Point Draft TOD CPAIZC Proposal Page - 10 205 J provide a suitable transition between the district and the low density residential uses I outside of the district. Land Uses and Building Types ' The TOD-LMR designation will allow single-family detached dwellings, single-family dwellings with 0 -foot setbacks, and lower density multiple family dwellings. Commercial ' or industrial uses are not allowed in this zone. Density 1 The required density range will be 6 to 12 units per acre. TOD-MMR - Medium Mix Residential Location ' The TOD-MMR designation Is proposed to be located between the LMR and the higher ' density./intensity uses in the center of the TOD District Figure 3). The moderate density in these areas is intended to continue the transition from lower density residential uses on the perimeter of the TOD District to the more densely developed center of the , district. Land Uses and Building Types I The TOD-MMR designation will.allow single-family dwellings with 0 -foot setbacks, and a And range of multiple family dwellings. Commercial or industrial uses are not allowed in , this zone. Density 1 The required density range will be 16 to 32 units per acre. TOD-HMR - Hiah Mix ResidentiallCOm merCia1 , Location I The TOD-HMR designation is proposed to be located in the center of the TOD. District, along Haskell Road, and in the Central Business District on asection of Manzan" and ' Oak Street (Figure 3). Land Uses and Building Types ' The only residential uses in the TOD-HMR designation will be a range of multiple family dwellings. Because of the higher residential densities, support activities, such as retail ' sales and service, professional offices, and daycare are permitted in addition to multiple family residences. Cmural Point Draft TOD CPAfZC Proposal ' Pie - 9 1 204 Two commercial designations are proposed which will be compatible with and supportive of the transit -oriented district. TOD-EC - Employment Commercial Zone TOD-GC - General Commercial Zone • Civic (TOD) - Comprehensive Plan TOD-C Zone will apply to civic uses such as government offices, schools, and community centers are the primary uses intended In this district. • Open Space (TOD) - Comprehensive Plan TOD-OS Zone is intended to provide a variety of outdoor and recreation amenities. Table 7 Land Use Summwy - TOD District Zone DesigmWon I Aawgp i (TDD) B� LMR MMR HMR Ema.lq t EC GC Civic C ooan soaps OS 129 53 53 37 27 EA L] Dsnslty UnAWAcm 6-12 16-32 30; WA WA WA WA Reeldendal TOD TONAR - Low Wx Residential Locavan The TOD-LMR dation is proposed to be located in the north, west, and southwest portiotis of the TOD District (Figure 3). The lower density in these anus Is Intended to CM*81 Point 203 Draft TOD CPA= Proposal Page - 6 TOD DISTRICT Development Concept The concept for the proposed development is a Transit Oriented Development (TOD). A TOD is a mixed-use development comprised of residential, commercial, civic, and recreational land uses designed in a way that increases ridership on transit systems, provides a pedestrian oriented environment, provides a diversity of housing types, improves public infrastructure investment, enhances property value, and provides an identifiable sense of community and a better quality of life. A system of pedestrian and bicycle friendly streets and pathways are intended to link uses within the development, provide a network of connections to a bus transit hub near the center of the site, and connect with the community of Central Point. The residential zones will allow a combination of single-family detached housing, town homes, condominiums, apartment buildings, apartments over ground floor commercial and office space, and a senior center. The commercial and office space are planned to provide employment opportunities and services such as retail sales and service, professional dffices, and daycare to the residents of Central Point. The parks and open spaces are planned to be an k>tegral part of the TOD District. Ail residents of the TOD will be able to walk jor.ride a tricycle to a park or open space within one-quarter mile of their residence. The parks and open spaces are intended to provide opportunities for passive and active recreation and to protect and enhance natural resources and habitat. The new TOD District designation is intended to compliment existing, land uses within the District. TOD-LMR zoning is proposed east Of Hwy 99 and north of Crater High. TOD-MMR, TDD -EC, and TOD-GC are proposed south_ of Crater High and compliment the proposed TOD zoning west of Hwy 99. This concentration of uses is intended to strengthen and anchor the western end Central Point's CBD. Land Use Designation Summary The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designations for the TOD District are: • Residential (TOD) This category would include three residential designations with densities ranging from 6 to 30+ units per acre. TOD-LMR - Low Mix Residential Zone TOD-MMR - Medium Mix Residential Zone TOD-HMR - High Milk Residential/Commercial Zone • Employment (TOD) — Comprehensive Plan Central Point 202 Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page - 7 IffIlls �� .�•'tif�• Y�p,lp -�9 irylft�fll�w�`���'�j�� �■��� WE1'��11r %ownumi rum � d Zoning Map o M I � kl �r � r 'tit �� Cllr• f:w i0:;� \-� Bim' ryri ,� R���� ti� ■ri�r im .4 r r m Ifs A& J�■IRS IffIlls �� .�•'tif�• Y�p,lp -�9 irylft�fll�w�`���'�j�� �■��� WE1'��11r %ownumi rum � d Zoning Map o I 4w L-1 twom commhanlaws P12ft MAIr m Zoning Code Amendments Land Use Desionetions and Procedures The proposed Zoning Code amendments include new code sections containing requirements and standards for the new zoning designations for the TOO District and new procedural requirements for major development applications within it. A summary of the zoning designations changes is provided below. Please refer to the proposed Zoning Map in Figure 3 and the draft Zoning Code sections in 'Exhibit B — Zoning Code Amendments for the complete version of the proposed amendments. Definitions for new or unfamiliar terminology used in the proposed TOD Zoning Code and Design Standards can also be found in Exhibit .. Design Standards Proper design and orientation of devebpment becomes increasingly important as densities increase and ditront uses are closer together. , In addition, much of the success to alternative transportation modea, such as walking and transit, relies on creating environments which are pleasant and convenient for people to use. Building design, setbacks, orientation, landscaping, etc. all play a part In providing these pedestrian -friendly environments. Design Standards in Exhibit C are also proposed to be part of the Zoning Code amodrnents. The TOD design standards address: • Circulation and Access Standards for streets, public access, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation; • Site Design Standards for retaining important on-site features, compatibility with existing structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, signs, and service areas; • Common Open Space Design Standards for location, size, and design; and • Building Design Standards regarding density transition, adjacent landscaping, architecture, and other design techniquss to enhance compatibility between different uses within the development. The nature of the amendments varies between the TOD District, proposed for the largely unincorporated area in the northwest comer of the UGB, and the TOD Corridor, located along Rogue Valley Highway 99. Therefore, the description of the amendments is presented in separate subsections below. Centnil Point 199 Draft TOD CPAJZC Proposal Page -4 INTRODUCTION In August 1999, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) completed a Transit Oriented Development and Transit Corridor Development Strategies report of the Rogue Valley Transit District. The purpose of the project was to create amended land use strategies to develop land more efficiently and promote transit use in a number of communities, including Central Point. Model land use ordinances and design guidelines were an important result of the project. The project recommended that eight 'TOD districts" should be established in selected locations in the Rogue Valley. One of these TOD Districts is proposed for the northwest portion of the City of Central Point, It is proposed to feature a mix of medium and high- density residential uses, commercial services, civic uses, and paries and open space. A key element for the district Includes accommodations for future transit service coupled with design features to encourage walking and bicycling. To further enhance transit service in the Rogue Valley, "Transit Corridors" were also recommended to help support transit service along major transit routes, such as Highway 99. The same mix of land uses for the districts Is recommended for the corridors. However, it is recognized that the corridors are more fully developed, and that change to transit should be accomplished over time, and on a voluntary basis by Property owners. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code text and maps are intended to promote TOD design for the district and corridor areas in the city that are based upon the model RVCOG cede and design guidelines. The amendments are summarized In the following pages. The complete text can be found in the exhibits as noted below. Comprehensive Plan Amendments The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments include a revised Comprehensive Plan Map that shows the location of the TOD District, the TOD Corridor, and a brief section of new text that Introduces the TOD design concept. Please refer to the Proposed Comprehenslve Plan Map In Figure 2 and the draft plan text in Exhibit A — Central Point Comprehensive Plan Amendrntwnts. Control Point 198 Draft TOD CPA/ZC Proposal Page - 3 M of Caft POMC Lend * Gn lla uw C" lL� Vicinity Map odobw Q "W 8dwd W.0 TOO dMISd a1 rPr LbraY "'^RdtroM TOD Carrldar Or"k TSUob Conn* Point 197 1 Figure 1 ORDINANCE 1815 ADOPTED DECEMBER 14, 2000 PURPOSE For a Comprehensive Pian Amendment and a Zoning Code Text and Map Amendment to establish TOD (Transit Oriented Development) design requirements and guidelines in specific areas within the city of Central Point Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The purposes of the TOD District -end Corridor are to: • Use land efficiently; • Provide a diversity of housing types; • Provide a complementary mix of housing► serVIce, and civic uses; • Encourage transit, walking and bicycling; • retain and enhance environmentally gensitive areas; and • Provide open space. LOCATION The affected properties are located in the central and northwest portions of the Central Point UGB as shown in Figure 1 and described in the background section of this application, beginning on page 9. The proposal involves two areas: I. TOD District located in the northwest. portion of the Central Point UGB; and 2. TOD Corridor located along Rogue Valley Highway 99 within the current city limit Central Point 196 Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page - i • A p�al� �.de Twat mad MaR 195 EXHIB(T 7G ORDINANCE NO. /915- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANDZONING CODE TEXT AND MAPS TO CREATE A TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) DISTRICT AND TOD CORRIDOR DISTRICT RECITALS: 1. The City of Central Point ("City") is authorized under Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 197 to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. 2. The Cityhas coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with ORS 197.040(2xe) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure compliance with goals and compatibility with City and County Comprehensive Plans. 3. Pursuant to authority granted by the City charter and the Oregon Revised Statutes, the City has determined to amend the Central Point Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map which was originally adopted onAugust 29, 1980, and has been amended at various times since then. 4. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Chapter 1.24 and Chapter 17.96, the Cityhas conducted the following duly advertised public hearings to consider the proposed amendments: (a) Citizen's Advisory Committee hearing on August 29, 2000. (b) Planning Commission hearings on September 19 and October 3, 2000. (c) City Council hearings on October 26, November 16 and 30, 2000. Now, tl wWore; THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: At its public hearing on November 30, 2000, the City Council received the findipgs of *e Citizen's Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, received the City Staff Report, and received public testimony from all interested persons. Based upon all the infolrtaation received, the City Council adopts the findings and conclusions set forth in the TOD CPA/ZC Proposal, Applicable Review Criteria, and based upon the same, the City Council finds that there is sufficient public need and justification for the proposed changes, and the proposed changes are hereby adopted entirely. Serlinn'2. The City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map are hereby amended as set forth on Exhibit "A" the Central Point TOD Design Requirements and Guidelines, with changes through November 30, 2000.including all maps and attachments to said exhibit, which arc attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, 1 - Ordinance No. ` 1S' (113000) 194 City staff would argue that there are various other rail -oriented industrial sites, particularly in White City which meet federal and state air quality standards and are equally, if not more valuable for development. After speaking with Central Oregon & Pacific General Manager Bill Libby, it was confirmed that the COP's service to the Rogue Valley is increasing in support of bulk commodities or for loads longer than those permitted on highways. Historically, lumber and wood products have been the principal commodities, however support manufacturing products such as glue, resin, wood chips, methanol, propane and cement are also transported into the region, COP's Central Point clients are the mill and Grange CO-OP. The Rail carrier has most recently added new clients Certainteed and BOC Gases to its service in White City. The COP comes off its main line at Tolo for daily service to White City, The last item raised by DLCD involved the Transportation Planning Rule, regional objectives and the traffic analysis performed by the Rogue Valley COG. The concerns expressed have to do with the effect land use changes will have on the number and length of automobile trips and whether changes will make if more difficult for the region to meet its VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) objectives. As the Commission is aware, Hardey Engineering & Associates performed a Transportation Impact Study which was submitted at the last meeting. Excerpts from this study are included in the Commission packet and the conclusions are similar to those of the COG EMME/2 model analysis. Hardey states that, based on the results of their analysis, they believe that the proposed zone changes decrease the overload on the surrounding street system in comparison to the existing zoning (Page 6). Furthermore, all intersections are expected to operate at better levels ofservice under the proposed zone change (refer to Table on Page 5), ODOT Correspondence ODOT responded to the Hardey TIS, have no concerns with the amendment to Policy 9 of the City/County Urban Growth Boundary Policy Agreement, and concur with the engineering analysis. They have concurred with the discussion of Rail Issues raised by Jim Hinman of DLCD but are primarily concerned that the City recognize that once rail - oriented industrial sites are gone, they cannot be replaced. The issues raised by the State are not complex but require analysis and evidence to justify the City's decision. The Commission may receive additional testimony at the public hearing which could support or result in the modification of this proposal. If you believe the issues raised have been adequately dealt with, the public hearing may be closed and a decision (recommendation) rendered. Paye 124 193 In contrast, the City has received two separate requests in the last 60 days to annex a total of 50 acres of industrially designated land east of I-5 for immediate development. It is the City's conviction that the potential for marketing industrial land east of I-5 (and in the vicinity of the airport) is greater than it is west of I-5 in spite of the land's proximity to the railroad. In response to OAR 660-09-015, the City has not only Identified industrial and commercial sites (in Area 43) that could reasonably be expected to locate or expand in the planning area ... and likely to be needed, but has identified sites for which there is now a development demand. The letter from Bear Creek Orchards, Inc. (which was read into the public record on May 5, 1998) also substantiates the City's analysis and findings. Over the years, Jackson County has received authorization from the State to develop the White City industrial complex which is also served by the railroad. Heavier industrial uses have found the area more desirable due to the number of large vacant parcels with ample infrastructure and no municipal taxes. When viewed in a regional and historic context, Central Point has an adequate supply of industrially designated land and a net reduction of 104 acres does not materially diminish this supply. In fact, DLCD has previously stated to City staff that light industry often generates higher numbers of employees than heavy industrial uses. The RVMPO Regional Transportation Plan, prepared by David Evans and ,Associates, Inc. speaks to the issue of regional land use development patterns (RVMPO RTP, Page XIII -1). The Plan states that, evaluations and research conducted in Oregon and elsewhere suggests that a mix of land uses involving residential and commercial activity in adjoining areas can contribute to lower travel demand than a development scheme with more widely -separated uses. This is One of the reasons the City wishes to develop residential land in closer proximity to its downtown commercial business district and is also proposing small-scale commercial uses near prospective residential subdivisions in Areas 1 and 4. It should be noted that industrial land uses generate fewer vehicle trips than do commercial uses (reference the OTE Manual). Therefore the balance between residential and commercial uses is more significant in terms of lowering travel demand than the balance between residential and industrial uses. There is a 3:1 ratio between the residential and commercial zone changes being proposed. DLCD staff have identirwd Area 1 as perhaps one of the best sites in the region for rail - oriented industrial demlopment. The reasons given to substantiate this claim include the area's size; proximity to state highways and the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad; and the site meets federal and state air quality standards. The Oregon Rail Freight Plan is cited twice to empbasize the value that can be added to rail -served industrial land and the inherent compatibility problems created by residential uses located adjacent to railroad tracks. Parallel streets sod buffers are recommended in the Freight Plan. DLCD does not elaborate upon its air quality statement but it can be assumed they are referring to PM 10 (Particulate Matter) related issues as opposed to CO (Carbon Monoxide). The Rogue Valley COG has Air Quality Modeling "Grids" which identify PM 10 Exceedences in Medford and west of White City (refer to RVCOG map). Projections to the year 2015 show no significant deterioration within the grid area west of White City but do add several grids to the Medford core area. PAW 123 192 DATE: May 19, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Planning Department Response to Correspondence Received from DLCD & ODOT The following is a discussion and analysis of the letters Central Point has received from two State agencies regarding the proposed City-wide plan amendments and zone changes being contemplated. Staff will attempt to address each issue as it is presented in the letters received and then provide the Commission with evidence to enable you to arrive at a decision. DLCD Correspondence The first statement made by DLCD staff is that industriA commercial and resldentiai acreages need to "balance" so that the city continues to have a twenty year supply of land for each use. Statewide Planning Goals 9,10 and 14 ore cited as the legislative requirements for a twenty year supply and it is pointed out that Central Point's proposal will decrease the amount of industrial land by 104 acres and increase both commercial land (by 32 acres) and residential land by % acres. The state asks that justification be provided to ensure the City will have enough of a land use mix to meet future employment needs with its industrial and commercial land inventory (as defined by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-09-0250) and future housing needs(" defined by OAR 660-08-010). The belief is that failing to balance jobs and housing will lead to an increase in work-related vehicle trips and the corresponding failure to meet regional transportation objectives. There are no specific statements in any of the Goals regarding the "balance" DLCD discusses however Goal 9 does encourage municipalities to provide an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types and locations for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies. For nearly twenty years the City of Central Point has regularly experienced, residential prosperity... not shared by the commercial and industrial sectors ... A major objective of this (Comp) Plan is to promote a greater emphasis on commercial and industrial growth ... (refer to Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Economics Page IX -14). The land use designations that the City is now proposing to change were created in the 1980's. Of the three land use categories, the industrial land has been the slowest to develop and in most cases has been farmed or remained vacant throughout the planning period. Recent attempts to develop industrial land west of Interstate 5 have met with significant local opposition. Page 122 191 Ensuring that "residential neighborhoods that arc located +mme4iott4y adjacent to the railroad right-of-way satisfy safety requirements and accelJted industry standee- ds./in-noise mitigation. LAND USE (SECTION 711) 10. Where residential development 13 proposed on parcels adjacent to a railroad, a sub -area master plan will be required by the City which could reswit in subsequent rezoning or other acceptable methods to provide effective land use buffering and minimize threats to .safety and/or quality of life for local residents. Mumirnrizthe Retain existing industrial development peftrf ial e€ along the Highway 99lSettgtem n__:r_ railroad corridor thrW& the City by providing sites Flor induairialtke needs to the Year MOW,, ' adequate flexibility for industrial expansion. beyend WOO. 190 ENERGY UTILIZATION & CONSERVATION (SECTION X) 4- T /1i'S? I'NEI�CrY��N�1 RV�Ll1C�1 W1 P-olicie : C. The City will continue to plan for new industrial development but rather than limit development to land that is located adjacent to rail facilities, the City will also encourage industrial development in the vicinity of highways and airports eitecg ef7Freierzt-Mi} f 0t tramp". Pg.X-2 I. CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION (SECTION XI) OTKER FACILITIES Paragraphs I & 2 The Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (formerly Southern Pacific Railway) serves the Central Point area and parallels Highway 99 through the community. The railroad played a key role in, the City's development during the late 1800s and into this century. The original City grid pattern of streets was laid out shortly after the rail line was built. The railroad no longer provides passenger service to Central Point or the Rogue Valley, the Central Point depot is not longer in existence. However, the rail facilities still play a s*ifieent role in the area's economy and serve the industries that are located along its route, mostly within the present City limits. lir, iouaacddies liuve irtdieoed-that trhvTnrl f t6litte's-t#� �' `• �tlscJi cv `tn[ i iiiu iirttifti �i�t Ft C1 15. xtRetain the indtistrial potential of the existing industrial land uses along railroad facilities as proposed in this Comprehensive Plan, CORRE CIEVE MEAS U RES To S P EC REDUCITON OF NOISE A summary of some of tht; wajur considerations are; 189 EXHIBPi' 13 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (SECTION VI) HISTORY OF CENTRAL POINT THE RAILROAD The impact of the railroad on the community4ms-beeft mwsignificant in the past. It was primarily responsible for the short life of the Old Central Point and the new direction of community growth and development after mtwe the 1880s. The railroad is sfill very remains important to the wood products in4ustry and other industries located along it but to a lesser extent today than in the past, and-wi}; '• •MMIMUNI U36110W P. C s: 3, The City shall tW# imavily-an require property owners to master plan t1le land use and design of new developments to control and minimize noise through such requirements as site orientation, buffering, distance separation, insulation, or other design features. ECONOMICS (SECTION Ix� 1' ie 2. Continue to emphasize the need to maximize the potential of major existing facilities that represent major public investments, but are presently under-utilized. (Emphasis on railroad, highway 99, and the I-5 Freeway and the airport related to industrial development, and Pine Street/Head Road for commercial, office -professional and tourist development) Pg. IX -24 188 t 1A I_ __ - .!.1-. i -1.- - i:. '[71 777 N 187 EXHIBIT A Comprehensive plan amendments include the redistribution of certain land uses within tine Urban Growth Boundary and Comprehensive Plan text amendments to reflect the proposed redistribution of land uses, Zoning Map changes are consistent with the new land use designations. The land use or map amendments are described as follows for Area # 2; Change the land use designation and zoning of Area 2 on the Attached map from Light Industrial (M-1) to Low Density Residential (R-1-6), High Density Residential (R-3) and General Commercial (C-4). 186 Section 2. The City Clan sand G11ning, Mall are herchy arriended pis scl Porth on Exhibits "A" X� 13", including all maps mica attachm�,nts to such cxl7ibits, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3, Tile City Administrator is directed to conduct post ackilowlcdgk»ent procedures defined in ORS 107,610 c:l seq. upon Lidohtion of the Conipreheasivc Plan Amendment and changes to the honing Meiji. Section 4, ".['his update being necessary [6)- the immediate preservation of the public Health, safety and x-�,elfarc of the City of Central Point, Oregon, and bused upon the need to conclude associated comprehensive plan amendment procedures. second rending of this ordinance is hereby waived and an erncrgency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect iinmediatety upon its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. Passed by [be Council and signed by nie in authentication of its passage this day of 5�f�199R. Mayor Res[y eGrath ATTI-.s,r: city Representative Approved by me this. 18'Ok day of t 1998. 2 - Oz,diriance Flo.t7 CR (091%98) 185 Mayor Rusty McGrath ORDINANCE NO. V1 tS EXHIBIT 71S AN ORDINANCE AMENDINCi'1NE CENTRAL POINT COMPREI-IENSIVE. 13LAN FOR AREA # 2 i 1. The City of Central Point ("City") is authorized finder Oregon] Revised Statute (QRS) Chapter 197 to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. 2. The City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with URS 197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure compliance with goals and compatibility witli City and County Comprehensive Pians. 3. Pursuant to authority granted by the City charter and the Oregon Revised Statutes, the City has determined to amend the Central Point Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map which was originally adopted on August 29, 1980, and has been amended at various times since then. 4. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Chapter 1.24 and Chapter 17.96, the City has conducted the following duly advertised public hearings to consider the proposed amendments: (a) Citizen's Advisory Committee hearing on February 26, 1998, (b) Planning Commission hearings on May 5th and May 19th, 1998. (c) City Council hearing on August 6, 1998. (d) Accepted written comments through September 11, 1998 Now, therefore; THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. At its public hearing on August 6, 1998, the City Council received the findings of the Citizen's Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, reviewed the City Staff Report, and received public testimony from all interested persons. Furthermore, written comments were accepted by the City through September 11, 1998, Based upon all the information received, the City Council adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth by City Staff, and based upon the sande, the City Council finds that there is sufficient public need and justification for the proposed changes, and the proposed changes are hereby adopted entirely. 1 - ordinance No. 1-1 ct3 (091798) 184 EXHIBIT 6 Subject Lots City Zoning - C -2(m) Tax Lots ;fru civic –*--+- Railroad - EC County Zoning GC LMR M-1 MMR - os - R-1.6 R-1 -.6 Proposed Zoning Map Annexation f Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC +F 37-2w-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 U300 150 0 300 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 182 _ _ City Zoning 1 -i Subject Lots L - - - 1 + 0-2(m) City Limits Cwic Tax Lots GC -«--- Railroad LMR M-1 County Zoning MMR as R-1-6 R-1-8 R-3 2012 Aerial Existing Zoning on Aerial Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLCv E 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S ® 400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 181 wujQlr d 2h CIVIC i �� htlgh density 4 G�o�� s� 1 u Aa High Density U Neighborhood t�Ao Neighbvchood Convein ce Center I Convonience Center ? ' y m Parka and open Space CHENEY LP S IVs c(�yti w ' G.`3�4 MAC Cf ® Low Density UNOSFY c r � r I TOD Corridor T}Mir)TNYST i Low Density i.AVENDER i N o; TARACR o' -j LL) 0 i Z. z i) 0 'ul A X O 0 z JESSICA CR WW 0, Q Y z Existing Comprehensive Plan Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC Nr+� 37 -2W -11C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S N400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. aemr a o nI 180 City Corp Plan Subiecl Lots Neighborhood Convenience Center Tax Lots r. L I City Limits TOD Corridor - I ligh DPnaity Ras - 2111I .Urban Qmwth ;IIIIrBoundary Low Density Res, y� Railroad Civic -Parks and Open Space Existing Comprehensive Plan Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC Nr+� 37 -2W -11C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S N400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. aemr a o nI 180 szn - M n -,1r y Lam\ Y17HLii ' i ro W y� N f l I.1 • 4 ?r r ��4 10,co �' $ .�� + r J ia3uls -f - n�xsd•fr 00• (iii e' _ u N t a Qc) r 017..-- -mow. pus- I CJs h - —_� Mtw �� ,i � .�` `^ad � __x •�, - - - --- �� - 'fir M ' 3 179 9N-ro ah,�sersawnVJu "a go Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC VIII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS; DECISION Based upon the record and the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is concluded that the applications for Annexation and Zone Change are consistent with the requirements of all of the relevant substantive approval criteria which have been addressed hereinabove. It is further concluded that if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is determined to be necessary by the City (or by the Courts on Appeal) the proposal can be found to comply with all relevant City of Central Point criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendment as provided as a precautionary submittal herein above. Respectfully submitted on behalf of Applicants and Property Owners. CSA Planning, Ltd. Jay Harland Principal May 9, 2017 t 178 Page 25 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC The City concludes that this policy is a major reason why this amendment is now appropriate. When the subject property was contemplated for the R-3 zoning, there was substantially more employment land planned nearby to the north (almost twice the acreage). That area is now primarily zoned residential instead. As such, advancement of this policy, can be better achieved as part of the legislative UGB review for housing to locate larger high density areas nearer to areas where expanding (rather than contracting) employment areas are planned and allow this property to meet current market needs for smaller single-family development. Moreover, because of the Railroad, the subject site is over half a mile from practical physical access to the nearest RVTD route. C. For urban grcr ti, h boundary amendments findings demonstrate that adequate pubic services and transport@;ron netwc*s :o serve ft property are either available, or ideniifwd tUr e nrislructxm in the city's public facilities master plans (major- and mina amendments); and Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the proposed amendment does not concern a UGB amendment. D. The amendment complies with OAR 6641-012-OOW o1 the 3ranspodatiat Pianrwtig R 4e. Conclusions of Law: The City herewith incorporates and adopts the above conclusions of law below conclusions of law addressing the Transportation Planning Rule under the zone change criteria. The Council further concludes that a significant effect on the transportation system is not expected where the amendment involves a modest reduction of residential density from TOD-MMR to TOD-LMR because the trip generation potential is expected to go down. ************ LII SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS' STIPULATIONS Applicants herewith agree to stipulate to the following, which they agree to observe if the same are attached as conditions to approval of the subject site plan review application: Stipulation 1: [RESERVED- The applicant did not idents the need for specific stipulations for the subject application but may supplement the initially submitted findings with certain stipulations if the same are found to be necessary during the course of the review process] 177 Page 24 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC than would be generated under TOD-MMR (R-3) and this is another reason to conclude significant impacts to the transportation system are not expected. Goal 13: Energy Conservation To conserve energy ... [balance omitted for breviW Conclusions of Law: The City concludes that the change between slightly different residential designations is such that the City's land use planning for energy conservation will be little affected by the proposed amendment. Goal 14: Urbanization To provide for an orderly and efficient transition Irom rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment lnsfde urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. ...1balance omitted forbrevltyl Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the proposed amendment concerns a map designation change between residential categories with similar allowed uses. The City concludes the proposed TOD-LMR designation is slightly less dense than the TOD-MMR zone but that it is still urban in nature and the actual expected yield difference between the two zones is approximately 12 units which is a nominal difference in the context of compliance with Goal 14 on citywide basis. Summary Conclusions of Law: In sum, the City concludes the proposed amendment from TOD-MMR (R-3) to TOD-LMR (R-2) is consistent in all ways with the Statewide Planning Goals B. AMoval of We request is consistent with the Central Point cornprehamme pian. Conclusions of Law: The City concludes criteria that require general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan does not automatically transform all the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan into decisional criteria for a quasi-judicial land use application, see Bennett vs. The City of Dallas. The City has reviewed its Comprehensive Plan and it finds that the language and context of only the following goals and policies are intended to function as approval criteria for the subject application: Housing Element Conclusion #1 Policy 2: Provide for a range of housing types, styles, and costs, including single-family homes, condominiums, rental housing and mobile homes. The City concludes this policy is a sort of restatement of Goal 10 requirements to plan for a range of housing types and price ranges_ The proposed amendments will not preclude advancement of this policy. The City TOD-LMR district still allows for multiple housing types and the stated intent of the Applicant is to supply housing at a price point (for new housing) that is very limited in Central Point that will provide more options for younger families looking for their first or second home and older residents looking to downsize. Land Use Element Policy 5: Continue to ensure that long-range planning and zoning reflects the need to locate the highest densities and greatest numbers of residents in the closest possible proximity to shopping, employment, major public facilities, and public transportation corridors. Page 23 176 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC Goal 10: Housing To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state ... [balance omitted for brevity] Conclusions of Law: Based upon the evidence and the Finding of Fact in Section IV, the City concludes as follows with respect to Goal 10: • The land use pattern around the subject property is different from the pattern that existed when the site was contemplated for R-3 zoning (and later TOD-MMR). The site (together with the Quillen property to the south) is surrounded by single-family development and the TOD-LMR zoning represents a designation that will still supply needed housing at appropriate densities. • The City concludes that the actual delivered housing unit difference is expected to be on the order of 12 fewer dwelling units which is a negligible reduction in the context of the City's entire UGB. • Ultimately, the City concludes that this amendment is beneficial because it is expected to supply needed housing now rather than. fording a Inning designation the. property owner does not want in the hopes that some future development may result in a small number of additional dwellings on the subject property. The Council concludes that it is has been many years since the City has amended its UGB for residential lands, and while currently underway, completion of that process is still several years in the future. Planning for the total UGB-wide housing needs can and must be fulfilled through that process. However, in the immediate term, the City is experiencing shortfalls of just the type of housing the Applicant wishes to construct and approval of the amendment herein is expected to deliver housing for which current needs exist. Goal 11: Public Facilities and SeMces To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a fran-k-work for urban and coral devpioprnetn ..(bafance omitted for brovityj Conclusions of Law: Based upon the Evidence in Section II and the Findings of Fact in Section IV, the City concludes the proposed amendment is located in an area where water, sewer, storm drainage, and streets are readily available to the property and future development can feasibly utilize such facilities. Moreover, the Council observes that the TOD-LMR designation would be expected to demand slightly less in the way of public facilities than would the TOD-MMR designation. Goal 12: Transportation To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system ... lbalance omitted for breviryl Conclusions of Law: The City concludes that OAR 660 Division 012 implements Goal 12 and OAR 660-012-0060 sets forth specific regulations for comprehensive plan reap amendments and zone changes. The City herewith incorporates and adopts its conclusions of law addressing TPR herein above and based upon the same concludes that no significant impacts to the transportation system will occur as a result of the amendment. The City further concludes that TOD-LMR (R-2) would be expected to generate slightly fewer trips 175 Page 22 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. All waste and process discharges from future development, when combined with such discharges from existing developments shall not threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal environmental quality statutes, riles and standards. With respect to the air, water and land resources of the applicable air sheds and river basins described or included in state environmental quality statutes, rules, standards and implementation plans, such discharges shall not (1) exceed the carrying capacity of such resources, considering long range needs; (2) degrade such resowces, or (3) threaten the avallabiGty of such resources...(balance omftled for brevifyj Conclusions of Law: Based upon the Findings of Fact in Section N, the City concludes that the proposed amendment will allow for single-family residential development which will be required to comply with agency permits (such as NPDES permits for stormwater) but the City and other agencies have standards in place to assure compliance and the development of the subject property and there is no evidence that the subject property is subject to unique circumstances that would be expected to make it infeasible to comply with applicable standards through the normal residential development review process. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards To protect people and property from natural hazards ... @elonce omlked khr bravityj Conclusions of Law: The City concludes that the subject property is not subject to any known specific natural hazards that require special planning or implementation measures except the general earthquake risks that exist in all of western Oregon and the same are adequately handled by applicable building codes. Goat a. t om-ational Needs To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational faclrzties including destination resorts... jbaf nce orn#W for brevMyj Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the subject property has not been adopted into any local parks plans to achieve Goal 8. It is not known to contain any unique resources necessary to attain Goal 8 and the proposed amendment from one residential designation to another will have no appreciable impact on the City's ability to achieve Goal 8. Goal 8: Economic Development To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Comprehensive plans and policies shall contribute to a stable and healthy economy in all regions of the state. Such plans shall be based on inventories of areas suitable for increased economic growth and activity after taking into consideration the health of the current economic base; materials and energy availability and cost; labor market factors; educational and technical training programs; availability of key public facilities; necessary support facilities; current market forces; location relative to markets; availability of renewable and non-renewable resources; availability of land; and pollution control requirements ... [balance omitted for brevity] Conclusions of Law: The subject amendment concerns two categories of residential development, and based thereupon, the City concludes that the proposed amendment will have no meaningful effect on the City' ability to achieve Goal 9. 174 Page 21 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC Goal 2: Land Use Planning PART I — PLANNING To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions ... lbalance omitted for brevilyyl Conclusions of Law: The City concludes that the subject application is quasi-judicial in nature and requires demonstration of compliance with predetermined criteria and approval of the requested plan map amendment requires substantial evidence to demonstrate each of the relevant criteria have been satisfied. The City herewith incorporates the balance of the conclusions of law addressing all other criteria applicable to the plan amendment, and concludes based thereupon, that adequate evidence exists in the application submittal and associated record to conclude all applicable criteria are satisfied. The City further concludes that the requested plan amendment is a narrow one from the standpoint of map designations between two residential designations that allow many of the same uses but will permit a modestly lower residential density on the subject property. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands To preserve and maintain ag ulturai lands...(baiance omitted forbrreyilA Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the subject property is within its Urban Growth Boundary and is planned for urban residential use and is not, therefore, subject to Goal 3 protection. Goal 4: Forest Lands To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on fonest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for reereatkooat opportunities and agriculiture... (balance omided for brevity) Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the subject property is within its UGB and is planned for urban residential use and the proposed amendment is not subject to Goal 4 protection. Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces ... (balance omitted for brevity] Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the subject property is not subject to any adopted Goal 5 protections and therefore the amendment from one residential designation to another will have no effect on the City's plan to achieve Goal 5. While not mapped on any identified inventories, a preliminary wetlands assessment indicates a portion of the site may contain wetlands in the area of the future Haskell Street extension; nothing about the plan amendment will alter the City's plans in its TSP to extend a higher order street in this location and the same will require further work to address this potential wetland issue. 173 Page 20 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC VI CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PLAN AMENDMENT (PRECAUTIONARY) In an abundance of caution, the Applicant herewith provides conclusions of law addressing the Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria. Applicant believes the City could properly interpret its Comprehensive Plan and development code to apply the requested zoning because the Evidence in Section II and the Findings of Fact in Section IV explain that the proposed TOD-LMR zoning district is an allowed zone in the TOD Corridor Plan designation. However, that evidence and findings also point up that the structure of the City's Plan results in some degree of ambiguity regarding the need for a Comprehensive Plan amendment in the context of the subject application requesting the TOD-LMR (R-2) zoning instead of a TOD-MMR (R-3) zone at the time of annexation. If the City (or the Courts on Appeal) were to conclude that a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required for the requested zone change, the Applicant herewith provides the following conclusions of law to be reached under each of the relevant substantive criteria which are recited verbatim and addressed below. The conclusions of law are supported by Applicants' evidentiary Exhibits at Section 11 and Findings of Fact in Section IV. The Conclusions of Law below are structured as an amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan in a manner that allows TOD-LMR (R-2) on the subject property instead of TOD-MMR(R-3). APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Chapter 17.96 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 17.96.500 Approval criteria. A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an application for an amendment to the comprehensive plan. or urban growth boundary shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address the fono<ving criteria: A. Approval of the request Is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals; Conclusions of Law: The City herewith incorporate and adopt the below conclusions of law with respect to each applicable statewide planning goal, as follows: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process...[balance omitted rorbrevity] Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment is quasi-judicial in nature and therefore citizen involvement is assured by and through application of the City's adopted and acknowledged procedures for the conduct and noticing of quasi-judicial reviews, including noticing and public hearings. t 172 Page 19 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC about the amendment would reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standards for facilities projected to meet adopted standards at the end of the planning period or worsen the performance of any facilities otherwise projected to exceed performance standards at the end of the planning period. is J A .ti * X F 3. } x 4 171 Page 18 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. Conclusions of Law: The City herewith incorporates and adopts its conclusions of law below regarding the Transportation Planning Rule and concludes the City the proposed zoning is consistent in all ways with those conclusions demonstrating compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule. OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE Oregon AdmInMrative Rules Chapter 660, Olvlslon 12 SECTION 660-012-0060 (1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an eAsting or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to rapacity ratio, etc.) of the faciitty. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transrx:rtation fa Aity if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an wdsting or planned transportation Willy (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) As measured at the end of the panning period Identified in the adopted lransportakpo sYsierm plan (A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are ineonsWent with Ura funcUonal cWAfication of an existing or punned trarupartaiivn tacky: (B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below Ure minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) yVQPZWII U1 - Pei rexiI%rJX:e ni em exibliiiy ca PW? +ned balL�:IPLVWfitmP laoiity aM16 U611wln+:ie pUjW.*.gJ to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. Conclusions of Law (continued): The City concludes the proposed amendment from County General Industrial to City TOD-LMR (R-2) will not significantly affect a transportation facility based upon the Findings in Section IV which supports the following conclusions: • The proposed amendment will not change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility because the projected number of new residential trips each direction on all the streets used by the subject application is equal to the amount of industrial traffic that would be possible under the existing zoning. • The amendment is a minor map amendment and does not propose any changes to standards implementing the City's functional classification system. • From a trip generation potential standpoint, the proposed amendment does not allow uses that generate materially more traffic than the existing designation so nothing about the amendment will allow land uses or level of development that are inconsistent with the functional classification of existing and planned transportation facilities in the area that are already planned in the City's TSP to residential uses at the subject property. • From a trip generation potential standpoint, the proposed amendment does not allow uses tliut generutu materially morti lraffiu than the existing designation so nothing C 170 Page 17 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR ZONE CHANGE Chapter 17.10 ZONE CHANGE 17.10A00 Approval criteria. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a text or map amendment shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address the following criteria: A. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals (mayor amendments only); Conclusions of Law: The City herewith concludes that the proposed zone change is a minor (quasi-judicial amendment) and concludes accordingly that the criterion is not applicable to the subject application2. 13. Approval of the request Is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan (major and minor amendments); Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the proposed TOD-LMR (R-2) zoning is a permissible zone within the TOD Corridor Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and is therefore consistent. the City further concludes that prior legislative Comprehensive Plan processes contemplated that the subject site would be zoned TOD-MMR (R-3) and that the proposed zoning is still a residential zone and one that is not expected to result in fewer dwelling units to such a degree as to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plana. C. If a zoning map amendment, findings demonstrating that adequate public services and transpoMbon networks to serve the property are either available. or identified for coastruction In U -w city, public facilities master plans (rnvor and minnr amendments); and Conclusions of Law: Based upon the evidence in Section II and the findings of fact in Section IV, the City concludes as follows with respect to public services and transportation networks to serve the property: • Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage facilities exist at the property and are adequate in condition and capacity to serve the property. • The proposed zone change will result in little or no change in trip generation potential of the site therefore it is expected that no significant transportation impacts will result. • Police and Fire protection exist at the site currently and fire protection will continue at similar levels following the zone change while police service will then become primary responsibility of the Central Point Police Department. 2 Applicant has also provided conclusions of law for a precautionary Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Statewide Planning Goals are addressed therein where substantively the same conclusions would be reached for the subject zoning map amendment. 3 If the City ultimately concludes that a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required, then the City would adopt the alternative conclusion of law as follows: The City concludes the proposed TOD-LMR (R-2) zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed zone is a permissible zone within the TOD Corridor Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and the City herewith incorporates and adopts the precautionary plan amendment conclusions of law herein below which demonstrates that the'I'OD-LMR (R-2) can be explained as an appropriate amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. 169 Page 15 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC (3) The city legislative body shall cause notice of the hearing to be published once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation In the city, and shall cause notices of the hearing to be posted in four public places in the city for a like period. (4) After the hearing, the city legislative body may, by an ordinance containing a legal description of the territory in question: (a) Declare that the territory is annexed to the city upon the condition that the majority of the votes cast in the territory is in favor of annexation; (b) Declare that the territory is annexed to the city where electors or landowners in the contiguous territory consented in writing to such annexation, as provided in ORS 222.125 or 222.170, prior to the public hearing held under subsection (2) of this section; or (7) For the purpose of this section, ORS 222.125 and 222.170, 'owner" or'landowner" means the legal owner of record or, where there is a recorded land contract which Is in force, the purchaser thereunder. If there is a multiple ownership in a parcel of land each consenting owner shall be counted as a fraction to the same extent as the interest of the owner in the land bears in relation to the interest of the other owners and the same fraction shad be applied to the parcel's land mass and assessed value for purposes of the consent petition. If a corporation owns land in territory proposed to be annexed, the corporation shall be considered the individual owner of that land. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the evidence provided by the Applicant and the evidence in the record, the City concludes that it has properly followed the hearing procedures for annexation and herewith declare the territory annexed pursuant to 222.120(4)(b). 1.20.010 Generally. All proposals for annexation of real property to the city under the provisions of Oregon Revised Stabiles 222.111 to 222.160, now in effect or as hereafter amended, shall be accompanied by a preliminary plat, an exterior boundary legal description and the annexation fee as in this chapter provided. (Ord. 1166 §1, 1974). Conclusions of Law: Based upon the conclusions of law hereinabove, the City concludes it has followed the provisions of ORS 222.111 to 222.180 and that the proposal for annexation is accompanied by a preliminary plat and exterior boundary legal description provided at Exhibit 12. The City further concludes that the application includes the required annexation fee. 1.20.011 Application and review. Applications and review thereof shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 17.05 of the Central Point Municipal Code and all applicable laws of the state. Applications for annexation may be accompanied by other, concurrent applications, for amendment to the comprehensive plan, amendments to the zoning map and requests for withdrawal from special districts, provided that such concurrent applications meet all requirements therefor. Conchmions of Law: The City concludes it has properly applied the procedures specifier) in Chapter 17.05, The City further concludes that the request of annexation is accompanied by a request for zone change as allowed by Section 1.20.011 as well as findings and evidence addressing the same herein (as well as the precautionary plan amendment also addressed herein). 168 Page 15 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC V CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ANNEXATION & ZONE CHANGE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT ZONING ORDINANCE (CPZO) The following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are reached under each of the relevant substantive criteria which are recited verbatim and addressed below. The conclusions of law are supported by Applicants' evidentiary Exhibits at Section II and Findings of Fact in Section IV. Chapter 1.20 ANNEXATION PROCEDURE 222.111 Authority and procedure for annexation. (1) W hen a proposal containing the terms of annexation is approved in the manner provided by the charter of the annexing city or by ORS 222.111 to 222.180 or 222,840 to 222.415, the boundaries of any city may be extended by the annexation of territory that is not within a city and that is contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a public right of way or a stream, bay, lake or other body of water. Such territory may lie either wholly or partially within or without the same county in which the city lies. (2) A proposal for annexation of territory to a city may be initiated by the legislative body of tha city, on its own motion, or by a petition to the Legislative body of the city by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed. (5) The legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS 222.120, 222.170 and 222.840 to 272.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation to the electors of the ta*rltory proposed for annexation and, except when permitted under ORS 222.120 or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense with sub" ing the proposal for annexation to she electors of the city. the legislative body of the city shall submit such proposal to the electors of the city. The proposal for annexation may be voted upon at a general election or at a special election to be held for that purpose. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the evidence in Exhibit 4, the City of Central Point Planning Commission and City Council (henceforth "the City") concludes the existing City limit is adjacent to the subject property and will result in a contiguous City limit following the annexation. The City herewith incorporates and adopts the annexation petition at Exhibit 8 and based thereupon concludes the proposal for annexation has been initiated by the owners of the real property in the territory to be annexed. The City further incorporates its findings tinder (QRS 222.120 below and concludes based upon the sante that ORS 222.120 allows the City Council to dispense with submission of the proposal for annexation to the electors of the City and does not herewith. 222.120 Procedure for annexation without election; hearing; ordinance subject to referendum. (1) Except when expressly required to do so by the city charter, the legislative body of a city is not required to submit a proposal for annexation of territory to the electors of the city for their approval or rejection. (2) When the legislative body of the city elects to dispense with submitting the question of the proposed annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall fix a day for a publlc hearing before the legislative body at which time the electors of the city may appear and be heard on the question of annexation. 0 167 Page 14 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC The Applicant, Bob Fellows Construction, has a proven track record of supplying new single-family houses that represent good value. The Applicant's concept for the project is still to attain a reasonable density with small lots (---4,500 square feet) and house plans appropriate for the lot size. This project concept is expected to deliver an excellent value proposition for aging homeowners looking to downsize and young families looking for that first or second home. The Applicant believes this market segment is important to the community and is underserved in Central Point. MPage 13 166 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC C. Qualitative and Locational Analysis: The Applicant believes there are a number of qualitative and locational considerations that make the TOD-LMR zoning the most appropriate zoning for the area. Locational and qualitative reasons to zone the property TOD-LMR include the following: i. The property to the north remained industrial at the time the land use redistribution was done in 1998. At that time, the subject property represented a transition area from single-family to the south to industrial to the north. This concept was perpetuated when the TOD Corridor was adopted where a large area of TOD-GC (M-2) existed to the north_ This circumstance no longer exists. The land immediately to the north is now zoned TOD-LMR and is developed with single-family dwellings. The site will no longer serves as a transition area between single family and more intensively developed areas as is described for MMR by Ordinance No. 1815, "The moderate density in these areas is intended to continue the transition from lower density residential uses on the perimeter of the TOD District to the more densely developed center of the district." ii. There is now approximately half the acreage remaining in the TOD-GC (M-2 & M-1) designation to the north than there was at the time the TOD Corridor designation was in place. Consequently, there are fewer opportunities for interactions between housing and employment/commercial uses. The only employment use west of the railroad and within a quarter mile of the site is an office use (Microvellum) and there are no commercial retail uses within a quarter mile that are west of the railroad tracks. The opportunities for high density housing to interact with commercial development to the north has been reduced to an extend that development to the upper density of the TOD- MMR range less desirable and thereby making the practical difference in expected future housing supply to be small. iii. In addition to the technical land use planning reasons to designate the property TOD-LMR (R-2), there are market reasons for this designation. The TOD standards for mixed housing types at MMR level densities works best on larger sites with more developable acreage. From a housing market perspective, economies of scale are important for economic multi -family development. Four eight-plex rental apartment buildings mixed in with 12 for -sale small lot houses is difficult to make work but something like this is really all that would fit on a site this size if the project is going to achieve anything close to the mid -point or above for the MMR density range. Neither housing type is going to work very well. Four apartment buildings is not enough to support construction and maintenance of the kind of amenities you want for apartment projects — like a pool, pool-house/rec center, playground etc as well as cost effective utilities and grounds maintenance. Meanwhile, the small -lot single-family unit prices are likely to be negatively affected by the immediate proximity of the apartment building project component. The single-family quality components are likely to suffer as a result. Page 12 165 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC as High Density Residential (R-3). While those amendments did not include precise calculations of the supply and demand implications of the redistribution, the Comprehensive Plan amendments did treat the subject property as High Density Residential and so a quantitative comparison in relation to the subject property between the two zoning districts is useful, as follows: To do this, first calculate the potential range of density for the property: Then compare the potential number of units under each zoning districts: From a pure regulatory standpoint, the range of potential dwelling unit differences is from as small as 4 to as much as 49. From a technical perspective, it is important to explain the 41% net -to -gross factor. This factor is higher than is typical, but preliminary design work on the site indicates this is appropriate given the requirements to address potential wetlands mitigation, a collector road right-of-way and the need to extend Lindsey Court. From an actual build -out standpoint, the implications of zoning the property TOD- LMR versus TOD-MMR or R-3 are expected to be small. Our client is not interested in doing a large apartment project on the site and would design to the minimum density under the MMR zoning of 14 units per acre. It would be impossible to achieve more than 30 units on the site without a large apartment building component. Under the LMR zoning, preliminary design work indicates units per the net acre would be expected to come in around 9.4. The proposed TOD-LMR zoning is expected to result in approximately 12 fewer units from a real-world perspective. Twelve units is a small number that has relatively little impact on the ability of the City, as a whole, to comply with its Statewide Planning Goal 10 requirements. 164 Page 11 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC widely -separated uses. This is one of the reasons the City wishes to develop residential land in closer proximity to its downtown commercial business district and is also proposing small-scale commercial uses near prospective residential subdivisions in Areas 1 and 4. It should be noted that industrial land uses generate fewer vehicle trips than do commercial uses (reference the OTE Manual). Therefore the balance between residential and commercial uses is more significant in terms of lowering travel demand than the balance between residential and industrial uses. There is a 3:1 ratio between the residential and commercial zone changes being proposed. The City's findings (at Record Page 122-123) reject DLCD's notion that a precise balance of land uses was required at the time of the amendments. Instead, the findings make a more generalized determination that the adopted land use re - designations are appropriate based upon market demand and locational factors. Following the major legislative amendment to the City's UGB, the City undertook another major legislative amendment in the form of Ordinance No. 1815. That ordinance created the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) standards and established two new Comprehensive Plan Map Designations: TOD District and the TOD Corridor. The main difference between these two designations is that the TOD District lands are required to apply the new TOD zoning districts and the TOD Corridor lands are afforded Lhe option Lo develop under the original zoning or under the new TOD zoning district standards. What is not clear from Ordinance No. 1815, is how future changes between zoning districts within these TOD designation areas relates to the overall arrangement of land uses on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Both the TOD District and the TOD Corridor allow for a variety of zoning districts including a wide variety of employment and industrial uses. For lands that were already in the City, this is somewhat less problematic because the zoning map that went with the Ordinance actually applied the new zoning to those lands. However, in the case of lands not in the City the zoning map is more "prospective" and it is unclear whether a zone change alone is adequate to apply a different zone at the time of annexation than the "prospective zone" depicted on the City's zoning map within the TOD District Corridor or whether such a change also requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Because of this procedural ambiguity, the Applicant has addressed the criteria for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment as a precautionary measure to assure an adequate factual base for the requested annexation and zone change. Not long after the TOD Corridor was created, the land south of the Quillen property (TL 1000) was annexed and rezoned to TOD-LMR and was developed as the Cascade Meadows Subdivision in 2002. Subsequently, land to the north was rezoned from TOD-GC (M-1) to TOD-LMR and TOD-Civic. B. Residential Land Supply and Demand Analysis: Based upon the structure of the City's regulations and the particular history associated with the subject property it is a little discern exactly what the contemplated zoning for the property is - following the TOD Corridor establishment from a quantitative standpoint. However, the prior amendments that redistributed land uses in the City contemplated the subject property 163 Page 10 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC decrease the amount of industrial land by 104 acres and increase both commercial land (by 32 acres) and residential land by 94 acres. The state asks that justification be provided to ensure the City will have enough of a land use mix to meet future employment needs with its industrial and commercial land inventory (as defined by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-09-0250) and future housing needs (as defined by OAR 660-08-010). The belief is that failing to balance jobs and housing will lead to an increase in work-related vehicle trips and the corresponding failure to meet regional transportation objectives. City of Central Point response: There are no specific statements in any of the Goals regarding the "balance" DLCD discusses however Goal 9 does encourage municipalities to provide an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types and locations for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies. For nearly twenty years the City of Central Point has regularly experienced, residential prosperity ... not shared by the commercial and industrial sectors ... A major objective of this (Comp) Plan is to promote a greater emphasis on commercial and industrial growth ... (refer to Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Economics Page IX -14). The land use designations that the City is now proposing to change were created in the 1980's. Of the three land use categories, the industrial land has been the slowest to develop and in most cases has been farmed or remained vacant throughout the planning period. Recent attempts to develop industrial land west of Interstate 5 have met with significant local opposition. In contrast, the City has received two separate requests in the last 60 days to annex a total of 50 acres of industrially designated land east ofl-5 for immediate development. It is the City's conviction that the potential for marketing industrial land east of 1-5 (and in the vicinity of the airport) is greater than it is west of 1-5 in spite of the land's proximity to the railroad. In response to OAR 660-09-015, the City has not only identified industrial and commercial sites (in Area #3) that could reasonably be expected to locate or expand in the planning area ... and likely to be needed, but has identified sites for which there is now a development demand. The letter from Bear Creek Orchards, Inc. (which was read into the public record on May 5, 1998) also substantiates the City's analysis and findings. Over the years, Jackson County has received authorization from the State to develop the White City industrial complex which is also served by the railroad. Heavier industrial uses have found the area more desirable due to the number of large vacant parcels with ample infrastructure and no municipal taxes. When viewed in a regional and historic context, Central Point has an adequate supply of industrially designated land and a net reduction of 104 acres does not materially diminish this supply. In fact, DLCD has previously stated to City staff that light industry often generates higher numbers of employees than heavy industrial uses. The RVMPO Regional Transportation Plan, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. speaks to the issue of regional land use development patterns (RVMPO RTP, Page X111-1). The Plan states that evaluations and research conducted in Oregon and elsewhere suggests that a mix of land uses involving residential and commercial activity in adjoining areas can contribute to lower travel demand than a development scheme with more 162 Page 9 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC the site would be consumed by infrastructure, this translates to approximately 1.92 net acres or about 23 total dwelling units. Single-family dwellings generate just under 1 peak hour trip per unit. The existing General Industrial designation in the County would generate approximately 7.26 trips per acre'. Assuming 13% of the site would be consumed for street development (Haskell Street only) 3.17 acres would be left for development, this would yield approximately 23 trips from the current zoning. Thus, the net trip effect of the proposed zone change is net 0 PM change to peak hour trips. Applicant's position is that since the net -trip impact is zero, it does not warrant a detailed transportation impact analysis. B. Access and Circulation: Access to the site is via Lindsey Court and Haskell Street, and along its frontage with Chicory Lane. If the annexation and zone change is approved, it is expected that future development access will occur as a result of extension of Lindsey Court through the subject property to a future extension of Haskell Street. 18. Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map Analysis: A. Historical Map Analysis: The subject property and surrounding area has a somewhat complicated map designation history. The site was designated as Industrial on the Comprehensive Plan. The City's 1987 zoning map showed the property as M-1 even though the property was still in the County and zoned General Industrial, The M-1 zone is the City's base industrial zone and allows for a wide variety of industrial and manufacturing uses. During this period, the land to the north and south was planned Industrial and the City's zoning map depicts M-2 to the north and M-1 to the south. In September of 1998, the City of Central Point did a large legislative amendment that included multiple ordinances. Those ordinances re -arranged land uses in the City's UGB and also amended the Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA) with Jackson County. Ordinance No. 1793 amended the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for this area as "Area 2" in that package of legislative amendments. The land uses were re -designated from Industrial to Low -Density Residential and High Density Residential. Most of this area was outside the City limits at the time, but the City adopted a new zoning map for this area that depicted the subject property and the land immediately to the south as R-3 with lands further to the South as R-1-6. During the adoption proceedings DLCD raised concerns and the City responded to those concerns as follows: DLCD Correspondence: The first statement made by DLCD staff is that industrial, commercial and residential acreages need to "balance" so that the city continues to have a twenty year supply of land for each use. Statewide Planning Goals 9, 10 and 14 are cited as the legislative requirements for a twenty year supply and it is pointed out that Central Point's proposal will 1 This rate is from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 7th Edition. This is CSA's most recent copy. A more rccent version is available but would not be expected to change the estimates enough to result in u different outcome- that the change in trip generation potential is de minimus. See also below analysis regarding net -to - gross factors for the site. 161 Page 8 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC 9. Land Uses on Abutting Properties and Surrounding Area: Overview of area: This area, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way and south of Pine Street has been in the process of being developed as a transit -oriented corridor. A variety of residential development exists in the area. East: The property abuts the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way on the east. Adjacent to the railroad right-of-way is the Highway 99 right-of-way. Highway 99 is a five -lane major arterial with four travel lanes and a center tum lane. North: To the north is a small development of single-family houses with ADU units constructed around 2010 on lots that range in size from 7,299 to 7,950 square feet. There is also a 9,892 square foot open space area. Beyond that is a large church property. West: To the west is a residential subdivision with medium-size lots ranging from .18 to .30 acres in size with single-family houses of various ages built out since the mid -70's. South: The property abuts one 4 acre rural residential property to the south and beyond is a small lot subdivision with lots ranging from .11 to .15 acres. 10. Topography: The subject property is essentially level, sloping very gently to the northeast. 11. Water Facilities and Services: There is a 12 inch waterline at the terminus of Haskell Street and an 8 inch waterline in Chicory Lane, see Exhibit 9A. 12. Storm Drainage Facilities and Services: Underground storm drainage lines are located in the railroad right-of-way where a 12 inch culvert drains the property from one side of the railroad to the other. There are also storm drainage lines in Haskell Street and Lindsey Court. These storm drain lines are available for connection, see Exhibit 9B. 13. Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Services: There are 8 inch RVSS sewer lines in both Chicory Lane and at the stub of Haskell Street that are available for connection, see Exhibit 9C. 14. Power and Natural Gas: Underground power is available from Pacific Power and underground gas is available from Avista Utilities for extension from Haskell Street. 15. Fire and Police Protection: The subject properties are located within and are served by Fire District No. 3. Police service is provided by the City of Central Point Police Department. 16. Wetlands, Streams and floodplain: The subject property does not contain any streams or floodplain. Preliminary determination of wetlands on the site is provided on Exhibit 10. 17. Transportation and Access: A. Zone Change (and precautionary Plan Amendment Findings): Applicant is requesting the City apply the TOD-LMR zoning with the base zoning of R-2. These zoning designations allow a density up to 12 units to the net acre. Assuming 41% of 7 -- 160 Page 7 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC IV FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts are established and found to be true with respect to this matter: 1. Ownership/Applicant: Tax Lots 8300 and 8400 are owned in fee simple by Bob Fellows Construction, LLC. Agent CSA Planning, Ltd. is submitting this application on behalf of the Property Owner/Applicant. 2. Location: The subject property is located on the east side of Chicory Lane, east of the terminus of Lindsay Court. The property is identified as Tax Lots 8300 and 8400 in Township 37 South, Range 02 West (W.M.), Section IIC. The site addresses are 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane, Central Point, OR. 3. Parcel Size: Tax Lot 8300 currently has 1.75 acres and Tax Lot 8400 currently has 1.89 acres. See, Exhibit 3. Total subject property size is 3.64 acres. Potential fixture development is likely to be laid out roughly according to table below: 4. Current Zoning: The property is currently under Jackson County jurisdiction and is zoned GI, General Industrial. See, Exhibits 5. 5. Proposed Zoning Map: Applicant requests the City apply the TOD LMR (R2) zoning to the subject property. 6. Existing Frontage and Access: The subject property has 520 feet of frontage on Chicory Lane along the western and southwestern boundary lines. In addition, the property has approximately 97 feet of frontage at the terminus of the northern portion of S. Haskell Street. 7. Lot Legality: Tax Lots 8300 and 8400 were originally part of Lot "K" of the Snowy Butte Orchard which was platted in 1910. In 1944 the North 5 acres of Lot "K" was sold leaving the subject property as one parcel. In 1956, what is now Tax Lot 8300 was partitioned off by sale, leaving the existing configuration of the subject property tract. 8. Existing Development: Each parcel currently has one residence with related accessory structures. 159 Page B Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. (Ord. 1989 §1 (part), 2014; Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006. Formerly 17.10.300(B)). OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12 SECTION 660-012-0060 (1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation syraern plan: (A) Allow land uses or levels of doveiopment that would result In types of ;evels of tri el or access that are inconsistent with tht3 functional classifica0on of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard Identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that Is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA 17.96.200 Initiation of amendments. A proposed amendment to tho comprehensive plan or urban growth boundary may be initiated by either: A. A resolution by the planning commission to the city council; B. A resolution of intent by the city council; or C. An application by one or more property owners, or their agents, of property affectr i by the proposed amendment. 17.96.300 Major revisions and minor changes. Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan, including urban growth boundary amendments, are categorized as either major or minor amendments as defined in Section 17.14.30 . Proposals for major revisions shall be processed as a Type IV procedure per Section 17.05.5W. Proposals for minor changes shall be processed as a Type III procedure per Section 17.05,40x. 17.96.500 Approval criteria. A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an application for an amendment to the comprehensive plan, or urban growth boundary shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address the following criteria: A. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals; B. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan; C. For urban growth boundary amendments findings demonstrate that adequate public services and transportation networks to serve the property are either available, or identified for construction in the city's publlc facilities master plans (major and minor amendments); and D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. Page 5 158 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC owners and the same Fraction shall be applied to the parcel's land mass and assessed value for purposes of the consent petition. If a corporation owns land in territory proposed to be annexed, the corporation shall be considered the individual owner of that land. 1.20.010 Generally. All proposals for annexation of real property to the city under the provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes 222.111 to 222.180, now in effect or as hereafter amended, shall be accompanied by a preliminary plat, an exterior boundary legal description and the annexation fee as in this chapter provided. (Ord. 1166 §1, 1974). 1.20.011 Application and review. Applications and review thereof shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 17.05 of the Central Point Municipal Code and all applicable laws of the state. Applications for annexation may be accompanied by other, concurrent applications, for amendment to the comprehensive plan, amendments to the zoning map and requests for withdrawal from special districts, provided that such concurrent applications meet all requirements therefor_ ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA 17.12.060 Zoning of annexed area. AN future annexations are expected to include only lands within the cty's urban growth boundary (UGB). The comprehensive plan of Central Point includes a plan for future land uses within the UGB area. The zoning map described in Section 17.12.030 is consistent with the comprehensive plan and will determine the disVtl into which a neMy annexed area is placed. The appropriate zoning district shag be applied to the area upon annexation. 17.10200 tnitladon of amendments. A proposed amendment to the code or zoning map may be Initiated by either A. A resolution by Ole planning commission to the city council; B. A resolution of intent by the city council; or for zoning map amendments; C. An application by one or more property owners (zoning map amendments only), or their agents, of property affected by the proposed amendment. The amendment shah be accompaNed by a legal desc ripbon of the property or properties affected; proposed findings of facts supporting the proposed amendment. jusffying the same and addressing the substantive standards for such an amendment as required by this chapter and by the Land Conservation and Development Commission of the state. (Ord. 1989 §1 (part), 2014). 17.10.300 Major and minor amendments. There are two types of map and text amendments: A. Major Amendments. Major amendments are legislative policy decisions that establish by law general policies and regulations for future land use decisions, such as revisions to the zoning and land division ordinance that have widespread and significant impact beyond the immediate area. Major amendments are reviewed using the Type IV procedure in Section 17.05.500. B. Minor Amendments. Minor amendments are those that involve the application of adopted policy to a specific development application, and not the adoption of new policy (i.e., major amendments). Minor amendments shall follow the Type III procedure, as set forth in Section 17.05.400. The approval authority shall be the city council after review and recommendation by the planning commission. (Ont. 1989 §1 (part), 2014; Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006). 17.10.400 Approval criteria. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a text or map amendment shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address the following criteria: A. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals (major amendments only); B. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan (major and minor amendments); C. If a zoning map amendment, findings demonstrating that adequate public services and transportation networks to serve the property are either available, or identified for construction in the city's public facilities master plans (major and minor amendments); and 157 Page 4 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The relevant substantive criteria prerequisite to approving an Annexation with a minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change under the City of Central Point Zoning Ordinance ("CPZO") is recited verbatim below: CITY OF CENTRAL POINT ZONING ORDINANCE (CPZO) Chapter 1.20 ANNEXATION PROCEDURE 222.111 Authority and procedure for annexation. (1) When a proposal containing the terms of annexation is approved in the manner provided by the charter of the annexing city or by ORS 222.111 to 222.180 or 222.840 to 222.915, the boundaries of any city may be extended by the annexation of territory that is not within a city and that is contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a public right of way or a stream, bay, lake or other body of water. Such territory may lie either wfnolly or partially within or without the same county in which the city lies_ (2) A proposal for annexation of territory to a city may be initiated by the legislative uody of the city, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the city by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed_ (5) The leg islalive body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS 222.120. 222.110 and 222.840 to 222.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation to the electors of the territory proposed for annexation arid, excepl when permitted under ORS 222.120 or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense with subm7tlinq the proposal for annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shay submit such proposal to the electors of the city. The proposal for annexation may be voted upon at a general election or at a special election to be held for that purpose. 222.120 Procedure for annexation without election; hearing; ordinance subject to referendum. (1) Except when expressly required to do so by the city charter, the legislative body of a city is not required to submit a proposal for annexation of territory to the electors of the city for their approval or rejection. (2) When the legislative body of the city elects to dispense with submitting the question of the proposed annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall fix a day for a public hearing before the legislative body at which time the electors of the city may appear and be heard on the question of annexation. (3) The city legislative body shall cause notice of the hearing to be published once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall cause notices of the hearing to be posted in four public places in the city for a like period. (4) After the hearing, the city legislative body may, by an ordinance containing a legal description of the territory in question_ (a) Declare that the territory is annexed to the city upon the condition that the majority of the votes cast in the territory is in favor of annexation; (b) Declare that the territory is annexed to the city where electors or landowners in the contiguous territory consented in writing to such annexation, as provided in ORS 222.125 or 222.170, prior to the public hearing held under subsection (2) of this section; or (7) For the purpose of this section, ORS 222.125 and 222.170, "owner' or "landowner' means the legal owner of record or, where there is a recorded land contract which is in force, the purchaser thereunder. If there is a multiple ownership in a parcel of land each consenting owner shall be counted as a fraction to the same extent as the interest of the owner in the land bears in relation to the interest of the other Page 3 156 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATIONS Applicant herewith submits the following evidence with its land use application: Exhibit 1. Completed application forms and Duly Executed Limited Powers of Attorney from Applicants and Owners authorizing CSA Planning, Ltd. to act on their behalf. Exhibit 2. These proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, demonstrating how the application complies with the applicable substantive criteria of Central Point' s Land Development Ordinance and applicable State Law and Municipal Code. Exhibit 3. Jackson County Assessor Plat Map 37 -2W -11C Exhibit 4. Current Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Exhibit 5. Current Zoning Map (County Zoning) on Aerial Photo Exhibit 6. Proposed Zoning Map Exhibit 7. Background and Historical Map and Ordinances A) 1987 Zoning Map (adopted in 1989) B) Ordinance 1793 and Related Information C) Ordinance 1815 and Related Information Exhibit 8. Annexation Petition Exhibit 9. Public Facilities Maps A) Waterline Map B) Storm Drainage Map C) Sanitary Sewer Map Exhibit 10. Wetlands Study Map Exhibit 11. Civil Analysis Exhibit 12. Preliminary Plat and Legal Description 155 Page 2 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE CHANGE FOR TWO PARCELS THAT ARE ADDRESSED AS 3428 AND 3470 CHICORY LANE, AND ARE LOCATED EAST OF CHICORY LANE AT THE TERMINUS OF LINDSAY COURT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AND IS MORE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS TAX LOTS 8300 AND 8400 IN TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST (WM), SECTION 11C. Applicant/ Owners: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd, ATTACHMENT"C" PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW NATURE OF THE APPLICATION Applicants' Exhibit 2 Applicants request a consolidated annexation and zone change for two lots totaling 3.64 acres east of Chicory Lane and the terminus of Lindsay Court. The subject property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of TOD Corridor. The Applicant requests the City rezone the property as part of the annexation request to City zone and specifically requests the TOD LMR (R-2). In addition to the zone change, the application includes a precautionary Comprehensive Plan Map amendment request in the event that the City (or the Courts on appeal) were to conclude that a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required for the requested zone change for the subject property. 154 Page 1 P 'vJF40 Traval Demand Mork -1 Primed *ji 7i3 IX )f) -&; a o 550 (2020 Detailed ,\Torwmk) a -,o -2-O P3 tl,i i d FM 153 Pago I Of I R"I PO Tm",Uj Demand Pniavi on ?/31;90 bt Is 41 45 41 YP tits I 11 M oS. 0 Scenario 550 (2020 Dewiled Network) -2� -2—o I d- 152 paga i oi I RVMPO Tprni Nal.ajid ,Aod,fl 714 jt II Lf Scowio I iO (2020 Com-mMd wiih fjpdai4,,d P&A) 151 RrLawd ui 73..GD I in lob KJ .114 Page i of L R Tra-,,,,l O --laid ?AoO.ji ?rujzd rn 7!31:00 Scenario 150 (2020 Cotnnuttcd with Updagzd MA) 7 -t,)2 --O A r -I 150 Central Point Transit Oriented Developamnt U - lop lie j 149 City of Central Point rransporlation System Plan, 2008-2030 CENTRAL POINT Legend C::' lrbarl Area Pdnci Arterial Collector . g Public Parks y Internodal Comteetor - - , Future Collector -+— Railroad � Minor Arterial — Local • • • Forane Minor Arterial _ — -- — E!pre 7.1 _ Functional C'lassifieatlon & Street Network Map 2008-2030 CHAPTER 7 - STREET SYSTEM PLAN Page 64 of 161 148 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated _ _ ^ 07/07/2017 Interval #2 Information Recording Siert Tame 710 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Ant PHF. Fellows Annexation ! ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 147 SimTraffic Report Page 2 1 2 3 4 -5 ,As-- --_ Vohs Entered - 2125 2163 2114 _ 2168 2172 2151 Vehe Exited 2164 2165 2139 2172 2171 2163 Staring Vehs 81 64 76 62 65 69 Ending Vehs 43 62 51 58 66 53 Travel DlaMM (mi) 706 710 689 70B 717 706 Treble! Tlnte MY) 40.6 42.2 41.0 423 43-0 41,9 Total Delay (hr) 13.6 14.9 14.7 15.17 15.4 14.7 Total ft" 2110 2172 2100 2237 2288 2184 Fuel Used (gatj 28.8 29.2 28.4 A:4 29.7 29,1 Fellows Annexation ! ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 147 SimTraffic Report Page 2 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 07/0112017 Summary of All Intervals tY 1 2 3 4 5 :A1 Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 65 TInm Recaded (min) 60 60 60 60 80 60 # of intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 2918 2978 2953 2978 2982 2960 Vehs Exiled 2936 2990 2969 2961 2982 2972 Starling Vehs 61 74 67 61 66 60 Ending Vehs 43 62 51 58 0 53 Travel Distance (mi) 978 987 978 987 995 985 Travel Tune (ho 58.7 804 60.7 60.4 61.0 602 Total Delay (hr) 21.0 22.5 23,2 22.4 226 22.4 Total Stops 3058 3138 3094 3160 3243 3139 Fuel Used (gal) 40.4 41.2 40.9 41.3 41.4 41.0 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start rum 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Vol rues ad)usted by PHF, Growth Factors. No dab recorded leis Interval. Interval #1 Information Record Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Vatitites adjusted by PHF, Growth Factat5. Run Number 1 2 3 4 .8.. Vehs Entered 792 815 839 810 810 817 Vehs Exited 772 825 830 809 811 800 Starting Vehs 61 74 67 61 66 60 Ending Vehs 81 64 76 62 65 69 Travel Distance (mi) 272 277 289 279 278 279 Travel Time (hr) 17.9 18.2 19.7 18.1 18.0 18.4 Total Delay (hr) 7.4 7.6 8.5 7.3 7,2 7,6 Total Stops 948 966 994 923 955 956 Fuel Used (gao 11.6 11.9 12.5 11.9 11.7 11.9 Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Southem Oregon Transportatlon Engineering 146 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour 07/07/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Moverrml SE SE NW NE NE Siad SW SW Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maxim n Queue (ft) 517 118 165 199 815 147 255 117 Average Queue (ft) 220 21 55 56 333 38 90 54 95th Queue (ft) 484 72 114 163 808 94 169 94 Link Distance (ft) 1332 1332 386 929 276 276 Upstream Btk Time (%) 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Storage Bay Dial (t) 100 100 Storage Blk Time (A) 1 37 1 7 Queuing Pon* (veh) 5 19 2 3 Zone Summary Zane wide Queuing Penalty: 29 Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 145 SimTrattk Report Page 3 SimTrafiic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour _. 07107/2017 Interval 02 Information Recording start Time 7:30 End lime 8:15 Total lira (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Fackn, Ang PHF Run Numto t 2 3 4 8 A Vshs Entered 2212 2105 21M 2189 2160 2170 Vehs Exited 2218 2162 2255 2206 2210 2209 Stadfrrg Vehs 91 124 119 109 97 106 Ending Vehs 85 67 55 72 47 66 Trac -el Distum (mi) 728 711 734 737 735 729 Travel Time {hr) 52.1 49.5 w 53.6 49.6 53.0 Total Delay (hr) 24.1 22.0 31AP 25.3 21.4 24.9 Total Siops 2649 2571 2893 2709 2558 2580 Fuel Used (gal) 32.0 31.1 33.9 32.6 31.8 32.3 Fdlows Annexellon 1 ZC Trafft Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 144 ShTrafflc Report Page 2 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour _ 07107/2017 Summary of All Intervals Run Number _ _ _ 1 _ 2 3. :1 !�- . 5 ` Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8 15 8:15 815 8:15 8.15 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 50 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vohs Entered 2999 2968 2963 2953 2944 2965 Vehs Exiled 2988 2954 3000 2955 2960 2982 Starting Vehs 74 83 92 74 83 76 Ending Vohs 85 67 55 72 47 66 Travel Dislance (mi) 996 999 991 1002 996 997 Travel Time (hr} 72.6 81.4 87.0 75.9 71.8 77.7 Total Delay (hr) 34.3 42.8 48.7 37.4 33.5 39.4 Total Stops 3702 3919 4085 3830 3644 3832 Fuel Used (galj 44.1 46.3 47.3 45.1 44.1 ss.e Interval #0 Information Seeding Stag Tmre 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volurrws wivved by PHF, Growth Factors No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recordin Slart Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Tnne (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Run Number 1 2 3 4 Vehs Entered 787 863 772 784 784 797 Vehs Edted 770 822 745 749 770 77t Starting Vehs 74 83 92 74 83 76 Ending Vehe 91 124 119 109 97 toe Travel Distarrce (mi) 268 288 257 266 261 268 Travel Time (hr) 20,5 32.0 26.7 22.3 22.2 24.8 Total Delay (hr) 10.2 20.8 16.8 12.1 12.2 14.4 Total Stops 1053 1348 1192 1121 1088 1162 Fuel Used (gal) 12.1 15.3 13.3 12.5 12.4 13.1 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 143 SimTraHic Repert Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 0710712017 c Critical Lane Group Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 142 NET Lane Configurations 1 it 4 1- M f I' Traffic Volume (vph) 405 17 50 1 13 115 50 375 16 39 160 183 Future Volume (vph) 405 17 50 1 13 115 50 375 16 39 160 185 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4,0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/blkes 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, pedbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,98 1.00 1,00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.88 1,00 0.99 1100 1,00 0,85 Flt Protected 095 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1622 1474 1487 1623 1685 1622 1549 1406 Fit Perm#Ad 0.70 1.00 1.00 0,61 1.00 0,27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (pein 1191 1474 1487 1041 1685 465 1549 1406 Peak-haataftr, P�-fF 0.85 0.85 0,85 0,85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 D.$5 0.85 Adi. Flow (vph) 476 20 59 1 15 135 59 441 19 46 188 218 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 64 0 0 1 0 0 0 140 Lane Grin Flow (vph) 476 51 0 0 87 0 59 459 0 46 188 78 Conti Putts. (#A)r) 7 25 25 l 3 40 40 3 Confl. Bikes Ohl 1 1 Heald Vdlidae (%) 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA berm NA Perm Prateded Phases 4 8 6 2 pemutted Phages 4 8 6 2 2 Adualed Green, G (s) 36.1 36.1 36.1 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24,6 Elftnt u w Grmwr, g (s) 38.1 38.1 38.1 24.6 24.8 24.6 2.4.6 24.6 AdudedyfCRabo 0.53 0,53 0.53 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0,36 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vd"E*nslor► a 2.5 2.5 2.5 25 2.5 25 2.5 2,5 Lane aP Gap (vph) 625 774 781 372 603 166 554 503 via Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.27 0.12 A Ratio Perm c0.40 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 v/c Rdo 0.76 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.76 0.28 0.34 0.16 Unftm Delay, d1 12.9 8.0 8.2 15.0 19.5 15.7 16.1 15,0 Progression Frim7r 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.4 0.7 0.3 01 Delay (a) 18.1 8.0 8.3 15.2 24.8 16A 16,4 151 Level of Service B A A B C B B B Approach Delay (s) 16,7 8.3 23.7 15.8 Approach LOS B A C B Inlasmon Summer HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 20M Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.7 Sum of last time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.1% ICU Level of Service 0 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 142 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 0710712017 %0 I)IL 0- *% f I Iff I -1k L / R+ Movnmern _ - SEL SET SER-- - - NWL - NWT. NM b. -Q_. _ _ jK- a LaneConfigura6ons - is 41 i-- �i•� f P Traffic Volume (vph l 405 17 50 1 13 115 50 375 16 39 160 185 Future Volume (vph) 405 17 50 1 13 115 50 375 16 39 160 185 Ideal Flaw (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 40 Lane LI6t Fedor 100 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Frpb, pWbikes 1,00 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 100 100 100 1, DO 0.98 1.00 1.00 Fri 1,00 0.89 0.88 1.00 0.99 1.00 140 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 100 0.95 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.DO Said. Flare (prof) 1617 1674 1471 1623 1685 1621 1549 1406 Fk Permitted 0.70 100 100 0.61 100 0.27 1.00 1,00 Said, Flow (Lean) 1187 1474 1471 1039 1685 462 1549 1406 Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.85 0.85 _ 0.85 0.85 0115 0.85 0.85 085 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.85 Act Flow (vqh) d76 20 59 1 15 135 59 441 19 46 188 218 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 64 0 0 1 0 0 0 140 Lane Group Flow (vph) 476 51 0 0 87 0 59 459 0 46 188 78 C4nfl Peds (6ftv) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Cordl. Bikes (0r) 1 1 Heavy Velvdes t%} 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 096 13% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA _2% Perm NA Perm NA _ Perm Prow" 4 8 6 2 Pmruitled Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Aduatied Grw, G (s) 36.5 36.5 38,5 24 7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 Effective Green, g (s) 36.5 36.5 36.5 24,7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24,7 Aduated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 ClearanceTime (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Eidension (s) 2.5 _ 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2,5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 626 777 775 370 601 164 552 501 vis Ratio Prot 0.03 cO.27 0.12 vis Ratio Perm cO.40 0.06 0.06 0.10 0,06 vlc Ratio 0.76 0.07 0,11 0.16 0.15 0.28 0,34 0,16 Uniform Delay, dl 12.9 8.0 8.2 15.2 19.7 15.9 16.3 15,1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Incremental Delay, d2 5,2 0.0 00 0.1 5.5 0.7 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 18.1 8.0 8.3 15.3 25.1 166 16.6 15.3 Level of Service B A A B C B B B Approach Delay (s) 18.7 8.3 24.0 15.9 Approach LOS B A C B interswWn Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69,2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fellows Annexation 1 ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 141 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Miti ated 0710712017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Aloe emerir SE N6 PE SW 'yV -AV Drections Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maxlmum Queue (lir) 363 78 90 176 368 117 174 117 Average Queue (ft) 145 20 36 38 133 29 69 s0 90 Queue (ft) 269 81 72 105 263 76 144 96 Unk Distance (ft) 1331 1331 373 929 276 276 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Siorrlge Bay Dist (iq 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 12 0 3 wing Pan* 010) 1 7 0 1 Zone Summary ?One wide (Xeu+►g Pef)*/ 0 Fellows Annexation 1 ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Trangmrtation Engineering 140 ShTrafiic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 2!!! 9n Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0710712017 Interval #2 Information Recording Strut Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 ToW Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Gmwth Factors, AM PHF, Run Nuftc - 1 2 3 4. .- 5 Vohs Entered 2102 212.1 2106 2112 2144 2135 Vohs Exkd 2106 2160 2202 2141 2151 -2153 Starting Vehs 69 81 85 91 73 78 Enang VeN 65 45 69 62 66 56 Travel Distal" (mi) 681 715 721 704 702 705 TraMel Time (hr) 40.5 43.3 42.8 42.8 419 42.3 Total Delay (hr) 14.2 15.7 15.0 15.7 14.9 15.1 Tota) Strips 2132 2153 2w 2170 2302 2196 Fuel Used @A 28.4 29.3 29,7 29.3 29 2 29.2 Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Southem Oregon Transportation Engineering 139 ShTraffic Report Page 2 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0710712017 Summary of All Intervals Run Nwid er 1 - 2 -- 3 4 -- - 5 f - Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 6:15 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 #of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vohs Entered 2926 2368 2984 2919 2941 2947 Vehs Exited 2926 3013 2995 2918 2938 2955 Starting Vohs 65 90 80 61 61 70 Ending Vohs 65 45 69 62 66 56 Travel Oislaixe (mi) 966 1006 992 979 974 983 Travel Tmre (hr) 60.3 63.3 60.2 60.8 59.2 60.9 Total Delay (hr) 23,0 24.5 21.9 23.1 21.8 22.9 TotalS€oos 3150 3192 3140 3114 3228 3166 Fuel Used (gal) 40.9 47..0 411 41.0 40.8 41.2 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Tena 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Tune (min) 5 Murnes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data rewcded this mIecy l Interval 01 Information Recor Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Tabd Time (Mn) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Rua NwOW t 2 3 4 5 _ _. J02 _ VeM Entered 624 844 798 807 797 815 Vehe Exited 820 853 793 777 765 805 Starting Vohs 65 90 80 61 61 70 Ending Vohs 69 81 85 91 73 78 Travel Distance (mil 285 291 271 275 272 279 Travel Time (hr) 1918 20,0 17.4 18.0 17.3 1815 Total Delay (hr) 8.6 8.7 7.0 7.4 6.8 7.8 Total Stops 1018 1039 933 944 926 973 Fuel Used (gal) 12.5 12.7 11.4 11.7 11.6 12.0 Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 138 SimTraffa Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year 2018 No -Build; AM Peak Hour _ 0710712017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Moveme L _, a9E—...M_ MN NE NE - 8W Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 514 133 119 200 758 126 226 103 Average Queue (ft) 218 24 51 63 311 35 83 51 95th Queue (11) 439 76 100 180 705 88 169 89 Link Distance (ft) 1332 1332 386 929 276 276 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (Rj 100 100 Storage 6ik rare (%) 0 39 1 6 Querying Pon* (veh) 2 20 2 2 Zone Summary Zone We Queuing Penally: 26 Fellows Annexation 1 ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 137 SirnTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 No -Build. AM Peak Hour _ 07/0712017 Interval 02 Information Recordin Stent Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Toil Time (min) 45 Volumes WOW by Growth Faders, Anti PHF, Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 A Vohs Entered 2150 2181 2199 2155 2184 2175 Vohs Eked 2188 2238 2245 2178 2184 2207 Starting Vehs 98 128 101 63 82 96 Ending Vehs 60 71 55 60 62 60 Travel Distance (mi) 730 726 744 718 730 730 TrAd Tune (hr) 49.4 51.7 541 520 61.1 53.8 Total Delay (hr) 21.4 23.8 26.0 24.5 32.9 25.7 Total Stops 2536 26M 2869 2710 2899 2780 Fuel Used (gal) 31.3 31.9 33.0 31.6 34.1 32.4 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 136 SimTraffic Report Page 2 SimTrafflc Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour _ _ _ 0710712017 Summary of All Intervals Interval #0 Information Seedii Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adiusted by PH F, Growmh {actors. No data Mccorrded this interval. Interval 01 Information Recordin Sari Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Start Time 7:10 710 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8-15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals ? 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 291' 2963 2982 2954 7.058 2956 Vehs Exited 2937 2983 2992 2%7 2941 2962 Starting Vohs 66 71 65 73 67 71 Endng Vehe 60 71 55 60 82 50 Travel Distance (mr) 994 988 1012 990 995 996 Travel Time Or) 732 79.2 75.9 75.7 80.6 ?7.0 Total Delay (hr) 35.1 41.2 37.0 37.6 42.4 38.7 Total Stops 3661 3852 3924 3878 3381 3837 Fuel Used (gat) Al 9 45.3 45.3 44.5 A. 5. g 15.0 Interval #0 Information Seedii Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adiusted by PH F, Growmh {actors. No data Mccorrded this interval. Interval 01 Information Recordin Sari Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Tune (mar) 15 Volumes adJusted by PHF, Growth Factors_ ownbef 1 _2 .3 Vehs Entered 761 802 783 799 T72 761 Vehs Exited 749 745 747 789 757 759 Starting Vohs 86 71 65 73 67 71 Ending Vohs 98 128 101 83 82 96 Travel Distance (mi) 263 262 268 272 265 266 Travel Time (hr) 23.8 27.5 21.3 23.6 19.7 23.2 Total Delay (hr) 13.7 17.4 11.1 13.2 9.4 13.0 Total Stops 1125 1218 1055 1166 982 1107 Fuel Used (gal) 12.6 13.4 12.3 12.9 11.7 12.6 Fellows Annexation 1 ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 135 SimTraffic Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 07/0712017 c Critical Lane Group Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, "ligated Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 134 W MM M W Be Lane Configurations L K "I t. 'V t r Traffic Volume (vph) 405 16 50 1 12 109 50 375 16 38 160 185 Future Volume (vph) 405 16 50 1 12 109 50 375 16 38 160 185 Idea( Flow (vphpQ 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost lime (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 Lane UtH. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pedJbikes 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, pedfbises 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.88 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 t.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prof) 1622 1471 1487 1623 1685 1622 1549 1406 F8 PermMed 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1207 1471 1486 1044 1685 468 1549 1406 Peak4tour fador, PHF 0.85 _ 0.85 D.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.05 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 476 19 59 1 14 128 59 441 19 45 188 218 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 61 0 0 1 0 0 0 140 Lane Group Flow (vph) 476 50 0 0 82 0 59 459 0 45 188 78 Cont Peds. (#Ar) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 ConA. Bikes {iflhrl 1 1 Heavy Vel4des % _ 2'% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 131E 3% Tum Type Perm NA Penn NA Perm NA Perm NA Porn Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Permifbd Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green. G (a) 35.6 35.6 35.6 24.4 24.4 24.4 24A 24.4 Effective Green, 9 (s) 35.6 35.6 35.8 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 Actuated qfC Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0,36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Eftision (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 631 770 _ 777 _ 374 604 167 565 504 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.27 0.12 vls Ratio Perm c0.39 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.76 0.27 0.34 0.16 Uniform Delay, di 12.8 8.0 8.2 14.8 19.2 15.5 15.9 14.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 5,2 0.6 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 17.6 8.0 8.2 15.0 24.4 16.1 16.2 14,9 Level of Service B A A a C B B B Approach Delay (s) 16.3 6.2 23.3 15.6 Approach LOS B A C B Intersection summar r���,---- HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCNI 2000 Leval of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, "ligated Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 134 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 07/07/2017 Movement NWL Lane Configurations 41 r- 11 1 Traffic Volume (vph) 405 16 50 1 12 109 50 375 16 38 160 t85 Future Volume (vph) 405 16 50 1 12 109 50 375 16 38 160 185 Ideal Flow (vphpQ 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1760 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Ut4. Fsotor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, p&/b" 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0,88 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0165 Flt Protected 0:95 1.00 f,00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1617 1471 1471 1623 1685 1622 1549 1406 Fit Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1203 1471 1471 IW3 1685 467 1549 1406 Peak -how factor, P1iF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.85 0;85 0.65 .". Flow ;v -hr 476 19 59 1 14 128 59 441 19 45 188 718 RTOR Redx6on (vph) 0 28 0 0 61 0 0 1 0 0 0 140 Lane Group Flow (vph) 476 50 0 0 82 0 59 459 0 45 168 78 C/xan Peds. (#N) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Cod. Bikes (fi/hr) 1 1 Ha I VeNdes (76) 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Penn NA Penn NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protectad Phases 4 8 6 2 Pem ted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 35.8 35,8 35.8 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 Effective Green, g (s) 35.8 35.8 35.8 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 Adueted g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 036 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 25 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2_5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 630 771 _ 771 374 604 167 555 504 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c027 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm o0.40 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 v/cRatio 0.76 0.06 0,11 0.16 0.76 0.27 0,34 0.16 Uniform Defy, d1 12.8 8.0 6.2 14.9 19.3 15.5 16.0 14.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 Decay (s) 17.7 810 8.2 15.0 24.5 16,2 16.3 15.0 Level of Service B A A B C 8 B B Approach Delay (s) 16.3 8.2 23.4 15.6 Approach LOS B A C B 17.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 20M Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 lntersec0on Cspaclty UtIlludon 75.7% ICU Level of Service 0 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 2 133 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 03/09/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. M"9ll M SE SE WV NE NE SW 5W Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R MaxNrwm Queue (ft) 170 71 72 53 224 122 290 115 Average Queue (ft) 84 7 28 10 92 47 133 62 95th Queue (ft) 146 39 61 39 174 109 251 105 Link Distance (ft) 467 386 455 276 276 Upstream Blk The (%) 0 Queuing Penally (vo-1) 2 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 100 100 Storage Olk T:w (%) 1 8 1 9 Ouauing Panay (veh) 0 1 2 7 Zone Summary Zone WO [,queuing Perwaky- 551 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 132 SimTraffic Report Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 0310912017 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movsxri t _ Directions Served me so ss 5B ;- fair_ us Link {hstance (S) TR Upstream ON Time (9b) 0lreetions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 224 323 304 122 167 118 92 136 242 125 162 244 Average Queue (ft) 160 184 158 53 s0 39 42 59 220 96 73 206 95th Qusus(ft) 262 375 308 101 138 100 74 109 262 168 127 279 Link Dfstanoe (ft) 316 316 327 327 222 222 221 221 Upetrattm Blk Time (%) 17 0 26 15 QueWng Penalty (veh) 69 1 78 49 Storape Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 150 100 Storage Elk Time (%) 32 0 0 0 54 1 26 Queuing Penally (veh) 62 0 0 0 73 2 83 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movenaer t . SW Directions Served TR Maximum Queue (A) 152 Average Queue (ft) 135 9% Queue (ft) 180 Link {hstance (S) TR Upstream ON Time (9b) 38 Chrev nng Penalty (veh) 290 Storage bay Dist (ft) 125 Storage Elk Time (") 15 QueUN Penalty (veh) 34 Intersection: 57: E Pine St & idOV M)w i8. NE NE- SW ZVY Directions Served R T TR T TR Maximum Queue (1t) 38 124 290 121 76 Average Queue (tt) 6 36 149 19 8 95th Queue (ft) 27 125 324 79 41 Link Dfsianoe (ft) 247 276 222 222 UWNW Bik Time (96) 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 30 % rap Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 19 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 58 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southam Oregon Transportation Engineering 131 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 03109/2017 Interval #2 Information Recordina stmt rrine 4:00 End Time 4;45 Total rims (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, And PHF Run Numgar — -- _ 1 2 _ VehsEnteref 2166 2239 2325 2132 2134 2202 Vohs Exited 2218 2245 2330 2141 2162 2M Starting Veli; 80 56 100 71 96 77 Ending Vehs 48 5o 95 62 Be 60 Travel Distance (mi) 676 685 713 653 671 679 Travel Time (hr) 50.6 54.2 67.6 45.4 60.2 55,6 Total Delay (hr) 24.3 27.7 40.1 20.1 34.3 29.3 Total 846 2898 2631 3414 26M 2792 2496 Fuel Used (gel) 31.3 32.6 36.4 29.3 33.4 32.6 Creekside Apartment Development Traf6o Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 130 SimTraffic Report Page 2 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 0310912017 of All Intervals PW Nufta f _m, : 1 2 3 4 _ `5 - .,.. Start Time 3:40 3:44 3.40 3:40 3:40 3:40 End Time 4:45 4:45 4:46 4:46 4:45 4:45 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 66 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 80 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # ori Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Enlered 3044 3026 3207 2969 2972 3042 Vohs Exited 3057 3042 3163 2975 2994 3047 Starting Vohs 61 66 51 68 90 65 Ending Vehe 48 50 95 62 68 80 Travel Distance (mi) 923 914 964 901 920 924 Travel Time MO 69.1 70,6 86.7 64.5 83.5 74.9 Total Delay (hr) 33.3 35.2 49.5 29.6 47.9 39.1 Total Stays 3979 371d 4496 3566 3943 3937 Fuel Used (gal) 42.1 43.4 48.1 40.9 46.2 441 Interval #0 Information Seedin Start Tare 3:40 End Time 3:45 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded !tris Interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Terme 3:45 End Time 410 Total Time (min) 15 Volimies adjusted by PHF, Growth Facers. R m Number 1 _ .2 � 3 4 � _- - � •, �� - Vehs Entered 858 787 882 837 838 &i1 Vohs Exited 839 797 833 834 832 828 Stw* Vehs 61 66 51 68 90 65 Enr9ng Vshs 80 56 100 71 96 77 Travel Distance (mi) 247 229 251 248 249 245 Travel Time (hr) 18.6 18.4 19.1 19.1 23.2 19,3 Total Delay (hr) 9.0 7.5 9.4 9.5 13.8 9.8 Total Stops 1081 883 1082 1028 1151 1043 Fuel Used (gal) 11.4 10.3 11.7 11.6 12.8 11.6 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 129 SlmTraff c Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 03!1212017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movojlwt N8 IVB MV NE NE SW SW - SIG[ Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 321 112 91 195 284 69 181 158 Average Queue (it) 156 20 35 36 136 27 80 59 95th Queue (11) 277 68 68 100 246 63 155 112 Link Distance (ft) 1331 1331 373 Queuing Penalty (VeM 929 276 276 Upstream Blk Time (%) Slora6p Bay Dist (ft) 50 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (vah) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 1 0 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 13 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 7 0 2 Intersection: 64: Front & Oak Movement N8 IVB W a W SW Directions Served T TR L T T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 13 38 53 14 30 62 Average Queue (ft) 1 1 18 1 1 39 95th Queue (ft) a 14 48 9 i4 64 Link Distanoe M 491 491 318 318 194 upstream Bilk Tana (%) Queuing Penalty (VeM Slora6p Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (vah) 1 0 Intersection: 66: Front & Manzanita uoventient NS NIB Sia S8 SS SW . Directions Served T TR L T T LR Maximum Queue (1t) 7 13 40 31 14 60 Average Queue (ft) 0 0 5 2 0 31 95th Queue (ft) 5 7 26 16 7 55 Link Distance (ft) 328 328 421 421 184 Upstream Ek Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Say Diet (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary _ Network "Qtmuing Penalty:140 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 5 128 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated _ 03/1212017 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movement .�- - 0 _ -0 Pa 33 $8 - 8B h_8 - NE w •l 96AM - - VP Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 220 271 206 108 185 136 69 200 273 296 191 226 Average Queue (ft) 102 73 64 37 83 37 35 87 162 208 82 140 95th Ono (ft) 188 169 131 88 143 98 65 171 255 299 150 246 Link Distance (ft) Intersection: 57: E Pine St & Amy 318 318 328 328 NE . NE 223 223 222 222 Upbtream Blk Time (%) TR 0 TR maximum Queue (ft) 35 73 87 82 2 7 0 3 Queuing Penaky (veh) 9 0 9% Queue (it) 28 47 61 44 34 7 33 0 6 Storage Bay Diet (ft) 200 Upsheem 9Nd Time (%) 200 150 100 Storage 81k Time (°k) 3 0 0 Storage 81k Time (%) 4 20 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 0 11 37 20 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front fit Sw- rxr a gPPAM TR lutapmum Queue (ft) 157 Average Queue (ft) 115 95th Queue (ft) 179 lank Distanns (ft) beam 8tk Time (x) Oueuing Remit) (veh) Storage Bay Died (ft) 125 Staxage Blk Time (%) 11 Queuing Renatty (veh) 12 Intersection: 57: E Pine St & Amy _ .. 'R®_ NE . NE ZN M Directions Servers R T TR T TR maximum Queue (ft) 35 73 87 82 48 Average Queue (ft) 7 12 16 9 6 9% Queue (it) 28 47 61 44 34 Link Distance (ft) 241 276 276 223 223 Upsheem 9Nd Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) stomps Be Diet (<t) Storage 81k Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 127 SimTraffic Report Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0311212017 Intersection: 48: E Pine St & 2nd i46aMtrrnl SE NW NE M1_ W SW Drecdl= Served LTR LTR LT TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 86 95 80 85 110 38 Average Queue (ft) 37 43 28 11 29 6 95th Queue (11) 66 74 70 48 75 30 Link Distance (ft) 354 346 234 234 259 259 Upetleam Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bey Dist (ft) Storage Bik Time (/a) Queuing Penally (veh) Intersection: 51: E Pine St & 1st Moverner8 SE NW, ME N_r SW SW Dirwttm Served LTR LTR LT TR LT TR fIdnwm Queue (ft) 54 82 75 80 101 132 Average Queue (R) 25 41 13 7 19 13 951h Queue (10 56 72 51 41 64 75 Link Distance (ft) 319 288 222 222 234 234 Upstream 81k Time (%) 0 Quedng Penalty (veh) 0 SbW Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) (wing Penalty (veh) Creekaide Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 126 SimTraMc Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 03/1212017 Interval #2 Information Recordina Start The 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Ana PHF. Run Number _ 1 2 _ 3 _ 4 Vehs'Enlere; 2100 2139 2122 2127 2235 2155 Vohs Eldted 2151 2213 2127 2155 2245 2479 Starting Vela 104 71 70 84 75 75 Ending Vohs 53 57 65 56 65 57 Travel Distance (mi) 712 729 701 713 750 721 Trate Time (hr) 44.4 45.4 41.5 44.0 45.6 44.2 fo,zn= DePay (hr) 17.0 17.2 14.6 16,6 16.8 16.4 Tclal Sro1rs 2271 2359 2155 2256 2379 221113 Fud Used (gal) 30.2 30.4 29.0 29-6 31.0 30.0 Creekside Apartment Development Traffle Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 125 Sim Traffic Report Page 2 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build. AM Peak Hour. Mitigated 0311212017 Summary of All Intervals Run. 11 wnber I 2 3 jW -6- _ _ AC - Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 710 710 7.10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8.15 8.15 Total Time (min) 55 65 65 65 65 65 Tine Recorded (min) 60 80 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 2952 3008 2950 2980 3014 2980 Vohs Exited 2986 3018 2967 2988 3017 2994 Starting Vehs 87 67 62 64 68 70 Ending Vehs 53 57 65 56 65 57 Travel Distance (m7 1408 1010 989 1014 1017 1008 Travel Time (hr) 54.8 63.6 60.6 64.7 63.2 63.4 Total Delay (hr) 25.9 24.7 225 25.6 24.1 24.6 TOW Stops 3337 3322 3160 3327 3308 3293 Fuel Used (gal) 43.0 42.3 41.5 42.6 42.4 42.4 Interval 00 Information Seedii Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total erns (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF. Growth Factors. No deta recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Record Start Time 7.15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Vokrmes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Humber - - - I 2 3 4 -6- _ _ AC - Vehs Entered 852 809 _ 828 _ 853 779 822 Vehs Exited 835 805 840 833 772 819 Starting Vehs 67 67 82 64 68 70 Ending Vehs 104 71 70 84 75 75 Travel Distance (mi) 297 280 288 301 267 287 Travel Time (hr) 20.4 18.2 19.0 20.6 17.6 19.2 Total Delay (hr) 9.0 7.5 79 9.0 7.3 8.1 Total Stops 1066 963 1005 1071 929 1008 Fuel Used (gal) 12.8 12.0 12.4 13.0 11.4 12.3 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 124 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build Isolated Intersection Evaluation, AM Peak Hour 03/13/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. ii htM _ SE NE 9 SW SAN STAB Directime Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 307 55 98 177 344 112 229 99 Average Queue (ft) 152 17 35 46 142 32 76 51 95th Queue (ft) 254 43 75 127 285 79 163 84 Link Distance (it) 1331 1331 386 929 1457 1457 Upstream t81c TWT (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 6" ow (it) 100 100 Storage E& Time (%) 0 15 0 4 Queuing Penalty (lith) 1 8 1 1 Network Summary Netwerkwide tXeuirog P&W,11 creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 123 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build Isolated Intersection Evaluation, AM Peak Hour 03/13017 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7;25 End Time 8;10 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Humtaer l 9 3 4 6 -AVR- Vehs Enterers 1023 1095 997 1040 895 1031 Vehs E)dted 1028 1108 1023 1058 1..010 1016 Slarting Vehs 38 43 47 47 50 45 Ending Veha 33 31 21 29 35 28 Travel Qistance (rni) 494 531 482 509 483 500 Travel lime (hr) 23.5 25.7 22.9 24.2 23.4 24.0 Total Delay (hr) 4.1 4.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.3 Tolal Stoic 837 A95 613 845 855 848 Fuel Used (gal) 16.9 182 16.5 17.4 16.9 17.2 Creekslde Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 122 SlmTraMo report Page 2 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build Isolated Intersection Evaluation, AM Peak Hour 03/13/2017 Summary of All Intervals Rua Number 1 Z. 3 4 5 _Jftl S?al Time 7:05 7:05 7:05 7:05 7:05 7:05 End Time 8:10 810 8.10 8110 8:10 8:10 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Reoorded (min) 80 60 60 66 60 80 #of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1444 1510 1441 1483 1458 1467 Vehs Exited 1462 1523 1472 1499 1459 1483 Starting Vehs 51 44 52 45 36 45 Ending Velis 33 31 21 29 35 29 Travel Distance (mi) 701 729 699 7 23 707 712 Travel TWO (hr) 34.1 35.8 34.5 35.1 35.3 35.0 Tort Delay (hr) 6.5 7.0 7.1 6.7 7.4 6.9 Total Stupe 922 975 943 948 990 955 Fuel U3ed (gal) N.3 25.0 24.3 21.E 24 u 24.6 Interval #0 Information Seedi Slat Time 7:05 End Time 7:10 ToW Ten (min) 5 Vdurnes adjuoW by PHF, GmMh Factors. No data reanded Itis interval. Interval #1 Information Record Slant rime 7:10 End Time 7:25 ToW Time (rrdn) 15 Voiunvs ad(usted by PIfF, Growth Faclars. Run NwnW i .. 4 _Jftl Vehs Entered 421 414 444 443 463 437 Vehs Exiled 434 415 449 441 449 439 Starting Vehs 51 44 52 45 36 45 Ending Vehs 38 43 47 47 50 45 Travel Distance (mi) 207 197 218 214 224 212 Travel Time (hr) 10.6 10.1 11.6 10.9 11.8 11.0 Total Delay (hr) 2.4 2.3 3.0 25 3.0 2.7 Total Stops 285 280 330 303 335 306 Fuel Used (gal) 7,3 6.9 7.8 74 8.0 7.5 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 121 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03!11/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Mpvewt_ S_= Sr _ 111W _ _ PLC NE._ _ SW - $,A, _ 3' f Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 795 175 116 199 723 134 257 151 Average Queue (ft) 317 30 43 62 296 33 89 59 951h Queue (ft) 762 167 86 172 671 84 189 113 Link Distance (ft) 1332 1332 386 Queuing Penalty (veh) 929 276 276 **earn Blk Time {°k) Stapp Bay DIM (R) 2 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 1 Storage Bay DW (ft) 1 0 100 100 Storage 8Ik Time (%) 1 40 0 10 Owing Penalty (veh) 4 21 0 4 Intersection: 64: Front & Oak AloreM" NO &a s$ Ss 19 - W -- - - - - DhK*M Served T TR L T T LR Maxhoum Queue (ft) 39 28 51 36 56 78 Average Queue (fl) 3 1 18 2 2 39 9% Queue(ft) 27 10 49 17 24 62 Link Distance (ft) 491 491 316 316 194 Upslrearn ek Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Stapp Bay DIM (R) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 Queuing Pal* (veh) 1 0 Intersection: 66: Front & Manzanita MMMW— -- ND - - Le - _59 58_ 58-- SYti -- - — -- - -'� � Directions Served T TR L T T LR Ma ft= Queue (R) 14 36 35 24 20 69 Averape Queue (ft) 1 1 4 1 1 29 9% Queue (ft) 9 16 21 13 9 55 Link D (4) 327 321 421 421 184 Llpetreern Blk Tine (%3 Queuing Penalty (veh) SbW Bay Dial (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) OAulng malty (veh) Network Summary_ Network wide Queuing Penalty: 572 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 120 SlmTraffic Report Page 5 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 0311x2017 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Iriotiernent :::.: Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Dirediarta Served —_a N8 tom- ate. _ A AD SBK Link Distance (R) w AE.—ft- TR Am Qireciians Served L T TR L - T - T R L T R L T Maidmum Queue (ft) 224 298 231 117 189 157 104 203 317 125 194 233 Average Queue (ft) 114 98 80 38 99 55 38 84 289 102 89 145 95th Queue(ft) 216 233 175 87 167 128 76 153 323 168 162 266 Link Distance (it) 316 316 327 327 222 222 221 221 Upstreen Bic Tirne (%) 1 0 0 39 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 1 178 0 8 Storage Say Dist (ft) 200 200 150 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 9 0 0 0 0 49 1 11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 0 0 0 0 112 7 18 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Dirediarta Served TR Maxxnum Queue (ft) 150 Average Queue (it) 112 95tlt awA (4) 176 Link Distance (R) TR Upstr w Bloc Time (%) TR Queuing Penalty (veh) 49 Stange 61Y Dist ((t) 125 Storage Bic Time (%) 10 Queukrg Penalty (veh) 11 Intersection: 57: E Pine St & OFTIM n� J& _ice SW SYr . DiredSms Saved R T TR T TR h%WMMQNWM 49 125 323 143 109 Average Queue (ft) 12 67 206 11 7 95th 0AW (11) 39 166 383 69 52 Link Distance (fl) 247 276 222 222 Upstroem Blk Tone (%) 8 0 0 Queuing Penally (veh) 76 1 0 8lorags Bay Dial (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 24 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 111 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 119 SimTraffic Report Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03/11/2017 Intersection: 48: E Pine St & 2nd klovameni SE N"N NE LT V4 M Directions Served LTR LTR LT TR LT TR MMdmum Queue (ft) 76 103 69 90 112 64 Average Queue (ft) 39 43 20 15 37 4 9% 0AW (ft) 61 79 54 63 85 29 Link Distance (ft) 354 346 233 259 259 Upstream 8k Time N QNL*+9 Ply (v4h) Storpe Say Bier (ft) 50 SE(rage Bk Time (°,b) 0 1 Qusu6p Pea* (veh) 1 2 Intersection: 51: E Pine St & 1st idpretgerlt SE RW NE SW Sw Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LT TR Modr xrrn Queue (ft) 60 103 168 93 125 Average Queue (ft) 28 44 28 22 15 95th Queue (ft) 56 61 106 67 74 Link Disfanoe (t) 313 295 221 233 233 Lo eam Sik Tune (5G] 0 0 Queuing Pero ty (veh) 0 0 Sturegs Bay Dist (ft) Storage FM Time (%) Qpeuing Penaky (YO) Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 118 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peals Hour 03111/2017 Interval #2 Information Recording StartTBne 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Vehs Entered 2094 2163 2156 2214 2199 2167 Vehs Exited 2133 2243 2177 2271 2268 2219 Starting Vohs 97 144 78 126 130 112 Ending Vohs 58 64 57 69 61 59 Travel Distance (mi) 721 736 724 764 760 741 Travel Time (hr) 53.4 51.9 48.0 72.3 58.9 56.9 Total Delay (hr) 25.7 23.6 20,1 42.9 29-5 28.4 Total Stops 2725 2639 2511 3090 2798 2756 Fuel Used W 31.9 32.1 31.0 37.7 34.6 33.5 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 117 SimTratfic Report Page 2 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03111/2017 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 - � �- Start Time 7:10 710 7:10 7:10 7:10 7.10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 9:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min) 65 65 65 65 65 66 Tare Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 k of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Enleved 2925 2995 2923 3027 3007 2974 Vohs Exiled 2947 3037 2941 3037 3023 2997 Starting Vohs 80 106 75 79 77 80 Ending Vft 58 64 57 69 61 59 Travei DMance (nab 1006 1012 996 1032 1029 '10115 Travel Time (hq T7 5 76.7 722 96:4 83.8 61.3 Total Delay (hr) 38.9 37.8 34.0 56.7 441 42.3 Total Stogy:, 3851 3846 3656 4245 3956 3907 Fuer Used (gal) 45.1 45.5 4.4.0 50.5 47.6 46.5 Interval 00 Information Seeding 5ta, TIM 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adiusted by PIHF, Growl. Fartor5. No data worded this n[erval Interval #1 Information Recording Start -Pm* 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run koter 1 .2 Vohs Enlerail 831 832 767 813 808 810 Vohs E CW 814 794 764 7818 M 780 Starting Vohs 80 106 75 79 77 80 Endklg Vs1rs 97 144 78 126 130 112 Travel Distara (rrd) 285 277 272 268 269 274 Tr" Time (hr) 24.1 24.8 24.3 24.1 24.9 24.4 Total Delay (hr) 13.1 14.1 13.8 13.8 14.6 13.9 Total Stops 1126 1207 1145 1112 1168 1152 Fuel Used (gal} 13.2 13.4 13.0 12.9 13.0 13.1 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 116 ShTraffic Report Page 1 HCM Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 03/13/2017 c Critical Lane Group Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 2 115 sa -SET SIR NWL hW WR_ Lane Configuratons 3 k 4o 14 111, 1F Traffic Volume (vph) 255 1 15 5 5 50 10 290 2 75 445 305 Future Volume (vph) 255 1 15 5 5 50 10 290 2 75 445 305 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1T50 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lame US. Factor 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pod/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.86 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 W. Flow (prat) 1614 1471 1494 1652 1681 1597 1889 1396 Flt Permitted 0,72 1.00 0.99 0.39 1.00 0.55 1.00 1,60 Said. Flow(Perm) 1216 1471 1481 683 1681 928 1899 1396 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 091 0.94 0.94 0,94 0:14 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 271 1 16 5 5 53 11 309 2 80 473 324 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 Lane Group Flow (vph) 271 6 0 0 28 0 11 311 0 80 473 151 Cw 1. Peds. SIM) 4 4 12 2 2 12 Corin. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles C16) 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 4% 0% 4% 3% 3% Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Pert NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 f crm.1ted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 14.2 14.2 19.3 19.3 19.3 19,9 19.3 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 14.2 14.2 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19,3 Actuated 9IC Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.47 0.47 OA? 0.47 .0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Exlerafon (a) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 416 503 506 317 781 431 790 649 vis Ratio Prot 0.00 0.18 &M vis Ratio Penn c0.22 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.11 vlc Ratio 0.65 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.40 0.19 090 0.23 Unifwn Delay, d1 11.6 9,0 9.2 6.0 73 6.5 8.2 6.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.1 Delay (s) 14.8 9.0 9.2 8.1 7.5 6.7 &3 0.8 Level of Service B A A A A A A A Approach Delay (a) 14.5 9.2 7.5 8.1 Approach LOS 8 A A A l - HCM 2000 Conlrol Delay 9.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 41.5 Sum of lost time (s) 8,0 Intersection Capadty Utilization 61.8°x6 ICU Level of Service 8 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 2 115 HCM Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 54: E Pine St & Front 0311312017 A, t �' 10 l j # ti Moverneni NOL N8T NOR SBL SWT Lane Configurations f;� `t ti P i T I' i fl. TraffecVofume (vph) 245 390 180 70 210 115 110 355 135 130 465 60 Future Volume (vph) 245 390 180 70 210 115 110 355 135 130 465 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 17U Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane UGI. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.96 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 F1 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 S4td. Fkm (pro() 1630 3053 1630 3260 1410 1630 1716 1428 16,.';0 3198 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 Satd. Flow rrn) 1630 3053 1630 3260 1410 492 1716 1428 440 3198 Peak-tour tactor. PHt= 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.9S 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adi Flow (vph) 255 406 188 73 219 120 115 370 141 135 484 52 RTOR ReducDon (vph) 0 37 0 0 0 91 0 0 83 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 557 0 73 219 29 115 370 58 135 539 0 Conti Peds (W) 14 14 14 14 1 1 1 1 Conn. Bikes (Or) 2 3 9 3 Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm pm+pt NA germ prnV WA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 8 Pemill6ad Planes 6 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.9 26.1 7.8 19.0 19.0 31.5 21 A 21.0 30.9 21.5 Effective Groan, g (s) 14.9 27.1 7.8 20.0 20.0 31.5 21.8 21.8 30.9 41.5 Actuated qfC Ratio 0.18 0.33 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.38 0.27 0.27 0.38 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 Vehicle Extension s 2.5 4.7 2.5 4.7 4.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 295 1007 154 794 343 323 455 379 301 837 via Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.18 0.04 0.07 0.04 c0.22 c0.05 0.17 vis Ratio Perm 0.02 0.09 0.04 012 We Ratio 0.86 0.55 0.47 0.28 0.09 0.36 0.81 0.15 0.45 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 32.6 22.5 35.2 25.2 24.0 17.2 28.2 23.1 18.3 26.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Inoremenlel Delay, d2 22.0 1.0 1.7 0.4 0.2 0.5 10.4 0.1 0.8 1.5 Delay (s) 54.6 23.6 36.9 25.5 24.2 17.7 36.8 23.2 19.1 28.4 Level of service D C D C C B D C $ C Approach Delay (s) 32.9 27.2 31.3 26.6 Approach LOS C C C C HCM 2000 Confrol Delay HCM 2000 Lanel of Service C 29.9 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.0% ICU Level of service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 114 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St 031a912017 ..N ti d r- '� f 3 )w rr lr 1 *,- c Critical lane Group Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportatlon Engineering Page 2 113 NY NY - NwR _ N& - - w _. -w ' Lane Configurafrons ;1 4. _ 1• I t P Traffic Volume (vph) 450 15 50 1 10 90 50 370 15 35 160 220 Future Volume (vph) 450 15 50 1 10 90 50 370 15 35 180 220 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 '1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane A Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1A0 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 100 100 1.00 0.97 Fob, peciftes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 0.88 1,00 0.99 100 1.00 0.85 F1tProhWad 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.01 1,00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1615 1462 1470 1623 1685 1620 1549 1405 Ft PermMed 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00 0,24 1.00 1,00 Said. Flow (perm) 1225 1462 1469 944 1685 408 1549 1405 Peaky factor, PHF 0.83 0.63 083 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 542 18 60 1 12 108 60 446 18 42 217 265 RTOR Redudim (vph) 0 27 0 0 48 0 0 1 0 0 0 174 Lane Group Flow (vph) 542 51 0 0 73 0 60 463 0 42 217 91 Go". Peds. (klhr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Confl. Bikes (4flhr) 1 1 Hea Vehides 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 096 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 PP.mdlted Phesas 4 8 6 2 2 Aclualed Green, G (s) 42.9 42.9 42,9 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 E((ecthre Green, g (s) 42.9 47-9 42.9 26.4 26.4 26.4 28.4 26,4 Ac lua6ad g!C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Eftnslonjs) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 _2.5 - 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 679 811 815 322 575 139 529 479 vis RaBo Prot 0.04 00.27 814 v1s Ratio Perm c0.44 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.06 vlc Ratio 0.80 0.06 0.09 0.19 0.60 0.30 0.41 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 13.7 7.9 8.1 17.9 23.1 18.7 19.5 17.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.3 0,0 0,0 0.2 7.8 0.9 0.4 0.1 Detay (s) 20.1 8.0 8.1 18.1 30.9 19.6 19.9 18.1 Level of Service C A A B C 8 8 8 Approach Delay (s) 18.5 8.1 29.5 18.9 Approach LOS B A C B HCM 2000 Castrol Delay 211 HCFA 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capedly ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Caps* Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical lane Group Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportatlon Engineering Page 2 113 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 54: E Pine St & Front 03/0912017 0) 4♦ j ? r It P( ti Movement NEIL NaT , 8$R ` ' 56518 Lam-. Configuraflons I f F ff v 10 11 p Traffic Volume (vph) 140 205 95 40 220 85 180 6110 225 150 210 45 Future Volume (vph) 140 205 95 40 220 85 180 510 225 150 210 45 Ideal Flow (vphpq 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1730 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Lane UBI, Factor 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,96 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0,98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Fob, pedA*es 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1568 2810 1511 3107 1359 1628 t699 1420 1568 3008 Fit Permitted 1195 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.54 100 1.00 0.16 1,00 Said, Flow (perm) 1568 2810 1511 3107 1359 930 11699 1420 262 3008 Peak-hourfacfior, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 OL83 0,83 0,83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 169 247 114 48 265 102 217 614 271 161 253 54 RTOR Reducti�xo (vph) 0 42 0 0 0 86 0 0 66 0 11 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 169 319 0 48 265 16 217 614 205 181 296 0 Cod, Peds. (f hr) 4 5 5 4 2 6 8 2 Confl. Bikes (AM 2 3 9 3 Heavy Vehicles 6% 13% 8% 10% 7% 7% 2% 3% 2% 6% Elf, 4% Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm pmfp11 NA Perm pm+pt NA Prohmted Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 a Permitted Phases 6 4 4 a Actuated Green, G (s) 14.1 21.9 7.0 14.8 14.8 53,2 41.2 41.2 63.4 41.3 Effective Green, 9 (s) 14.1 22.9 7.0 15.8 15.8 53.2 41.2 412 53,4 41.3 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.14 0.23 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.54 0-42 0.42 0.54 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5,0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 VO. trie Extension 2.5 4,7 2.5 4+7 4.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 222 648 106 494 216 583 705 589 300 1252 vis Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.11 0.03 0.09 0.05 c0.36 c0.07 0.10 vis Ratio Perm 0.01 0.15 0.14 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.49 0.45 0.54 0.08 0.37 0.87 0.35 0.60 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 40.9 33.1 44.3 38.3 35.5 12.3 26.6 19.8 16.6 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.7 1.1 2.2 1.9 0.3 0,3 11.3 0.3 2.9 0.1 Delay (s) 54.6 34,2 46.5 40.2 35.8 12.6 37.9 20.1 19.4 18.8 Level of Service D C D D D B D C 9 B Approach Delay (s) 40.7 39,8 28.5 19.0 Approach LOS D D C B 101araectlort Summary HCM 2000 CcntroI Delay 31.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 M, 111 - Hl�l • „a �!� , �.� � a � � :■||■ ■ - - �; - ■. s.- „ . §! a§ _ ®• � � _. s' :2 � � ■:, • , }\, ■f}� ,/) i ,� y. . ■ ! ,� § ! a � - � w ,�� ■ .,-�� p >�§- ■ _,�`, » © K §j �� ! �„■ 2 ) ! ! $ � � } ƒ 111 110 - ! ■ m 2 ; IT 2@ [TI -d� ■� E ■-. _ • � _■! ■ ■ 7 � ■ ! � • § �` ■ ■ ! ■ ■ � m : •, y: a.. , :� .� e .- .,. _, ■ ;, _ • .�• , 0. ;- � ,� ■°, ■ » �■- . ■.� ;. �_ ,. ;; •, . g • .■ ■ ! + � � !. ,#� ! � ■ � k,■ . ■ ! ■ m -, : . ;- .IT !, ■ �,�§ �� !�` ��- '!! � .■|� ■��� ��� �» i� ! 2 !« �� ■ ;• � ,■� ;a ;! : . ,r� ! ) § ) � k ) | |�l 110 GROWTH OEVELOPMENT: ODOT Fuhine Volum Tabic 2013 2035 G(owth Rata I Year OR e? Seenfc 7200 10,100 11015 OR 99 at Beall 14,400 20,100 1.013 TWIN GREEKS CROSSING IMPACT: Re-rnutwd�^Trafllc horn Twin Creeks Raifmad Crosyfny _ mak Hour. ' Approxr,r Lely 15% 913 m ease on OR 99 or 50 trips reduction on HaskeA unset at Pine (-M SBL) Apprnxlmalety 12% NO inert an OR 99 or 65 trip reduction an Pipe at HaskeA (-40 WMR. -25 WBT) PMI Peak Hour. AppmxbMely 12% 68 increase on OR Q$or 45 trip reduction on HaskW Streel at Pine (-45 SOL). Appmxhu taly 21% Nil increase on OFR 14 or 115 trip reduction on Pine at Haskelt (,85 WBR, -WVM 109 o o o o V1 ojjo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IO r-- 00 r1 O j d 010 0 0 0 0 Q C+J 00 M w "" v1 M C0 ,Or r Cl M N N rl O e^7 on O N rn as Y �r. v �o O M OP J J O O J o o o o V1 ojjo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IO r-- 00 r1 O j d 010 0 0 0 0 Q C+J 00 M w "" v1 M C0 ,Or r Cl M N N rl O e^7 on O N x a� m C/ llil � C)fIII`III r r Ij`I Cl I!I -r O o', Ci r i -,t Lr'i aw e d;2idjRI Q ad O'0 O �g�S$000�o�oSS $ �o�o�•coao�i c�a�`� o{OHO O O O�O pp O S 0 0 0 u� ri, Y rrA o { rrA w m C u v u u _u u au u _u w u u a C4 C4 -I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I- Ir, r•, .• n oo .•� q C11 CA C•11 o, ri c,a ra N N �i r*i .n en e+� rn rn en rn rn O O C �Q �C %c �o �o 47 �c �o 10 108 rn as Y �r. v �o O M J O C�1 •� v o o�-j 7; g a L rn 0 ro a '41 4-4 w , G m CC -++' en it Gt in M `� w 0.w] r y r �] L G O J rJ O x a� m C/ llil � C)fIII`III r r Ij`I Cl I!I -r O o', Ci r i -,t Lr'i aw e d;2idjRI Q ad O'0 O �g�S$000�o�oSS $ �o�o�•coao�i c�a�`� o{OHO O O O�O pp O S 0 0 0 u� ri, Y rrA o { rrA w m C u v u u _u u au u _u w u u a C4 C4 -I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I- Ir, r•, .• n oo .•� q C11 CA C•11 o, ri c,a ra N N �i r*i .n en e+� rn rn en rn rn O O C �Q �C %c �o �o 47 �c �o 10 108 S 107 shown in the table should be flagged for further analysis. Exhibit 4-1 Intersection Crash Rates tier MEV by Land TvDe and Traffic Control Source: Asscssmcu! !1-Si,ic)%ai, fna. i -:� wnw mak!% FHWA-OR-PD-18, Portland State University and Oregon State University, June 201 L Table 4. 1, p 47 A .�,t�;n,hh� t ihas been developed that implements the critical rate calculations for intersections. For additional information see pages 4-35 through 4-39 in HSM Volume 1. Example 4-2 illustrates the use of the Critical Rate method for urban area intersections. Example 4-2 HSM Critical Rate for Intersections As part of an urban street modernization project, a safety analysis needs to be done for Main Street. This street is a congested urban corridor with a mixture of unsignalized and signalized intersections with varying numbers of lanes. The project engineer has created existing year average daily traffic (ADT) volumes from available intersection counts. The ADT counts were converted into AADT using appropriate seasonal factors which are shown as daily total entering volumes in the figure below. In addition, intersection crash data for the past five years are shown in the table below, Data Needs: Existing Year Annual Average Daily Entering Traffic Volumes Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 4-5 Last Updated 12/2014 106 Rural Urban 11 No. of Intersections 3SG 3ST 4SG 4ST 3SG 3ST 4SG 4ST 7 115 20 60 55 77 106 60 Mean Crash Rate 0,226 0.196 0,324 6.434 0.275 _ 0.131 0,477 0.198 Median Crash Rate 0.163 0.092 0.320 0.267 0.252 0.105 0.420 0.145 Standard Deviation 0.185 0.314 0,223 0.534 0.155 0.121 0.273 0.176 Coefficient of Variation 0.819 1"-.464. 1,602 0.688 1.230 0.564 0.924 0.572 0.889 90"h Percentile Rate 0.475 0.579 1.080 0.509 0.293 0.860 0.408 Source: Asscssmcu! !1-Si,ic)%ai, fna. i -:� wnw mak!% FHWA-OR-PD-18, Portland State University and Oregon State University, June 201 L Table 4. 1, p 47 A .�,t�;n,hh� t ihas been developed that implements the critical rate calculations for intersections. For additional information see pages 4-35 through 4-39 in HSM Volume 1. Example 4-2 illustrates the use of the Critical Rate method for urban area intersections. Example 4-2 HSM Critical Rate for Intersections As part of an urban street modernization project, a safety analysis needs to be done for Main Street. This street is a congested urban corridor with a mixture of unsignalized and signalized intersections with varying numbers of lanes. The project engineer has created existing year average daily traffic (ADT) volumes from available intersection counts. The ADT counts were converted into AADT using appropriate seasonal factors which are shown as daily total entering volumes in the figure below. In addition, intersection crash data for the past five years are shown in the table below, Data Needs: Existing Year Annual Average Daily Entering Traffic Volumes Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 4-5 Last Updated 12/2014 106 1CL Q w 3 105 E; yY, •` Z 1? o C � U O CL s M v~i YI Za tl O Z LeJ V O Z O � l LL m W I"r lC till M N rl O asysejJ;o J"UMN 105 E; 110, ,oPd� I I � 584M3 P JagwnN o 104 I 103 P. T STOZ-AON STOZ-daS STOZ-Inf STOZ-AL-W STOZ-JeW STOZ-uef iTOZ-noN VTOZ-das momi 4TOZ-Inf YTOZ-Aen A VTOZ-JeVJ VTOZ-uef S ETOZ-AON o ETOZ-daS 0 0 ETOZ-Inf r _ fTOZ-MV4 v--- _ ETOZ-Jew �f 0 — ETOZ-uef M � IA W z a ZTOZ-AON Z G IA =1 ZTOZ-daS vZTOZ-Inf ZTOZ-Ae W ZTOZAIRVY ZTOZ-uef TTOZ-noN TTOZ-daS TTOZ-Inf TTOZ-AeW TTOZ-JeW TTOZ-ugf N N 00 4D � N O sayse,o jo JagwnN 103 P. T I t � gg� i if 11 it H I If If If 14 If 11 1 8 II if I I 1 H 4i I 3 $I3 3 a� g SSd €5�5 p� � Es9s 3 h? tog 19$ bi 11$ 3Sa M 195 M M lot 0��ao €5a is III ha 933 ida gg ajG G K Fey G 102 101 f � r t F ON 1.11 1a11 1.11 1,11 1.11 1.€11 It 3A9 499 baa 3a$ ,z ��,_ Al baa, dao X004 hat 11 gLt 113 hf4 ��ai 1ae Hill 101 SaAl�e+us l'9Kp�. JwiNepa+iotattws fwOi�er3�, EeG .Mede Ow 975104 North-South: OR 99 East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast. 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles (Thurs) File Name : E Pine—OR 99—AM Site Code ; 00000004 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No :2 6k 99 E. Pine St From Saute, From West APP Left Thr Rig Ped App LeftThr Rig Ped App. Int ToM u ht s rotalt u M s Total Total OR 99 OR go in . Po* NNW 07.1s AM U-1 E. Pure st __-•-- From North - stisnr 1?rw11 East Toru rtgM rods u. r- LCR Thr Rn _ Pod Time 14 1 hl 33 Peak Hour Anaysis From 0715 AM to 08:00 AM - Peak 1 of i 2 Peyk Hour for.h mains ?� 88 38 49 23 0 110 42 140 +0 mins. 7 35 17 0 59 37 47 5 0 NSIstkla 11 68 28 0 97 35 44 9 0 +30 rrrkw, 7 69 26 4 100 45 72 13 2 4,4$ mire 14 54 15 0 83 34 45 16 0 Tow vewne 39 216 85 4 344 151 208 43 2 %App Tart 11.3 62.8 24.7 1.2 374 51 5 306 06 PHF 896 .783 .759 250 819 839 722 672 ,250 File Name : E Pine—OR 99—AM Site Code ; 00000004 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No :2 6k 99 E. Pine St From Saute, From West APP Left Thr Rig Ped App LeftThr Rig Ped App. Int ToM u ht s rotalt u M s Total Total 100 OR go in . Po* NNW 07.1s AM U-1 stisnr 45 216 30 4 a ght Thru LM Pelle 89 32 43 14 1 90 33 94 36 2 165 88 38 49 23 0 110 42 140 62 1 246 132 41 60 31 2 134 04 116 67 0 217 95 28 .0 27 2 110 38. 1.Q4 466 3 _ 191 404 2105 139 444 In - Peak Noor. U715 AM 95 5 444 187 454 211 6 638 313 46.2 2; a 1 1 19.8 54.2 25.2 0.7 785 .819 AU ,764 ,625 62.0 773 All .147 500 .855 100 OR go in . Po* NNW 07.1s AM U-1 45 216 30 4 a ght Thru LM Pelle 4 1 r Peak Hour Data b mom � i w VN 4-1 r4 Lett iMu Riot Pods 1304 305 25 5 444 In - Peak Noor. U715 AM 100 North-South: OR 99 East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles (Thurs) saw O 5wwpwdaffiw &Ipkmbgp, AN .At 44*do Ow 97504 Groups Printed- Unshifi3ed File Name : E Pine—OR 99—AM Site Code : 00000004 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No : 1 99 OR 99 E. Pine St OR 99 E. Pine St From North From East From South From Infest Start Tame LOA Thru Rip Pada Left Thm mw Vada ,w ra Left Thu Rlla Pada Loll Tlru Fye, Ped? "'.0 M Tord 07:00 AM 3 28 116 0 47 21 37 4 0 62 19 30 19 0 68 17 72 27 1 117 294 07:15 AM 7 35 17 0 59 37 4T 5 0 89 32 43 14 1 90 33 94 36 2 165 403 07:30 AM 11 58 28 0 97 35 44 9 0 88 38 49 23 0 110 42 140 62 1 245 540 0T:45 AM 7 89 25 4 105 45 72 13 2 132 41 0 31 2 134. 67 0 37 M Total 28 190 86 4 308 138 200 31 2 371 130 162 67 3 402 _54 146 _110 422 192 4 f64 1648 08:00 AM 14 54 15 0 83 34 45 16 0 95 2R 53 27 2 110 3R uta 48 3 191 479 08:15 AM 9 40 21 1 71 37 40 11 0 88 16 55 27 0 98 34 74 30 1 139 396 08:30 AM 13 57 19 0 89 41 49 7 0 97 13 73 30 0 116 72 82 45 0 199 $01 Q8:�5..M 16 5 2s 4 99 52 56 11 1 122 24 85 29 0 11B 27 52 2S 1. 10$ 444 Total 52 209 80 1 342 164 192 45 1 402 B1 246 113 2 442 171 312 146 5 634 1820 CnndToM 80 399 166 5 650 302 392 76 3 773 211 428 200 5 844 317 734 338 9 1398 3665 Flpprch % 123 614 25.5 0A 39.1 50.7 9.8 0.4 25 507 237 0,6 227 52.5 24.2 0,6 Total % 22 10.9 4.5 01 177 82 107 2.1 01 211 5.6 117 5.5 0.1 23 86 20 9.2 0.2 38.1 99 Sard4M O4rap" - K&4Pv 4, VL 97504 North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West- E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles File Name : Haskell -Pine Site Code :00000005 Start Date . 2/23/2017 Page No :2 98 S. Haskell St E Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St 282 From North From East From Sra,Ir From West Slart Left Thru I:g1r Peds .,,., Left Thr Rig. Ped APP. Len Thr Rig Ped App Len Thr Rig Ped App. Int. Tov Mor111 3 u ht s Total u ht s Tolal r1 u ht s Total Total Peak Hour Analysts From 03.45 PM to 04 30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 4� * It Thru Riot Pq6 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at 401 In • Peak Hour: 03;45 PM k. ; a1A/PM 0&45 PM 01:0 PM s1+s�w +0 rrrr"s. • 66 0 6 0 72 25 105 72 1 203 0 2 15 0 17 2 66 1 2 71 +15 air=s. 63 0 3 2 68 18 706 64 2 190 2 1 13 0 16 3 65 0 0 68 +30 rruns. 55 1 4 2 62 14 102 72 4 192 0 0 9 0 9 69 0 0 70 00 rsuns 49 0 1 0 50 14 98 73 S 190 2 1 ,Q a j9 1 Q¢ 1 0 0 ror/vahm 233 1 14 4 252 71 411 281 12 775 4 4 47 0 55 7 266 2 2 277 1< k4 rept 92.5 0.4 5.8 1 6 92 53 36.3 16 73 73 85.5 0 2.5 96 0.7 0.7 PHF +783 250 583_ 500 875 710 969 .983 300 9S4 •500 5W0 783 000 80$ ,583 964 500 250 975 98 waw4 SI In Pea1r Nw, 00:46 PM 282 R4M Thu Len Peds Peak Hour Data CL ^; ? * nn ••aFP 3 Q Mor111 3 �ar r1 ISO1 C N 3 4� * It Thru Riot Pq6 401 In • Peak Hour: 03;45 PM k. 98 North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles s vaom 9aalwPoida uds &BFbMtin#' xw Als4"d, VL 97504 Groups Printed- UnshiRed File Name ; Haskell -Pine Site Code : 00000005 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No ; 1 97 S. Haskell St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St From North From East From South From West Stent Time Left Thou lapis Pada . ,.. Left Thru R#d Peds .,,, Left Th(u Hot Pads ■.r Left ThN Righl Peds_ w nr w Tar 02:00 PM 39 3 3 3 48 8 36 38 0 82 2 4 5 1 12 6 97 4 0 47 189 02:15 PM 91 t 14 25 132 9 61 70 1 141 2 1 8 3 14 6 54 1 2 63 350 02:30 PM 77 1 10 6 94 13 63 76 0 152 4 0 13 0 17 5 64 1 0 70 333 02:45 PM 80 0 3 0 63 19 62 58 0 139 4 3 11 2 20 2 51 9 4 57 279 Total 267 5 30 35 397 49 222 242 1 514 12 8 37 6 63 19 206 6 6 237 1151 M.fMl PM 44 7 1 2 4.9 R 73 4A 1 lift 7 2 13 n 17 2 57 1) 5 (34 260 03:15 PM 59 0 7 2 68 11 61 59 3 134 2 1 15 0 18 6 67 2 0 75 295 03:30 PM 52 1 3 1 57 22 79 54 1 156 1 2 % 0 19 0 76 2 0 78 910 03:43 PM 66 0 6 0. 72 25 105 72 1 703 0 2 15 0 17 2 68 1 2 71 Total 221 3 17 8 246 66 318 233 6 628 5 7 59 0 71 10 266 5 7 288 1228 04:00 PM 63 0 3 2 68 18 106 64 2 190 2 1 13 0 16 3 65 0 0 68 342 04:15 PM 55 1 4 2 62 14 102 72 4 192 0 0 9 0 9 1 69 0 0 70 333 04:30 PM 49 0 1 0 50 14 98 73 5 190 2 1 10 0 13 1 66 1 0 68 321 04:45 PM 42 0, 1 0 43 9 107 71 0 187 1 1 7 0 9 4 47 3 1 54, 293, Total 209 1 9 4 223 55 413 280 11 759 5 3 99 0 47 9 247 3 1 260 1289 05:00 PM 61 0 1 0 62 16 95 65 0 196 1 2 26 1 30 5 49 2 4 60 348 0515 PM 51 1 3 0 55 19 120 73 3 215 0 1 15 2 18 1 65 0 0 66 354 05:30 PM 56 0 2 3 61 15 88 89 5 197 3 0 14 0 17 2 65 2 0 69 344 05:45 PM 43 0 2 0 45 9 99 58 1 167 2 0 10 4 16 3 49 1 0 53 281 Total 211 1 6 3 223 59 402 305 9 775 6 3 85 7 81 11 228 5 4 248 1327 Grand Talal 908 10 64 47 1029 229 1355 toxo 27 2671 28 21 200 13 262 49 047 19 18 1033 4995 ApprCh % 68.2 1 62 46 8.6 507 397 1 10.7 8 76,3 5 47 917 1.8 1.7 Total % 182 02 1 3 09 206 46 27.1 21,2 0.5 535 06 0.4 4 0,3 5.2 1 19 0.4 0.4 207 97 S l�wgaw J'rarwepalrLafiiR F,�eAr�, � Ad*rd, & 97504 North-South: S. Haskell St East-West: E. Pine St Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles File Name : Pine-Haskell—Thursday Site Code :00000003 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No :2 S. Haskell S_ Haskell E. Pine St E. Pine St From South From We$ From N.90 Thr Rig Ftgm g* App- Lek T� Left Tiw Roy. Pea ti'_ Left Thu Rhtt P a TC�tal LsR Peace lour A7►e"i* From 07.19 AAA t0 08!00 AM -Peak 101`1 0 21 eN16AN 0 Peak hour For Each Approach Begins at. 83 3 23 0 26 17 90 4 0 4"w: 138 u,w 5 30 15 w iS tM 4mirk. 83 7 4 2 96 5 35 51 0 91 0 ►15 n*m 136 3 16 7 162 2 42 62 0 106 0 +30 003. 122 3 to 3 146 13 55 50 3 121 1 ►4l5aralna. �2 9 7 13 92 1Q 3Q 0 85 0 rearvo— 4,13 13 45 a5 496 30 .39 168 202 3 403 1 1&40 rayl 024 2d 9 1 5 7.4_ 41.7 50.1 0.7 1 PHF .759 .404 625 ,r1 705 .67 _764 .815 250 .833 .250 File Name : Pine-Haskell—Thursday Site Code :00000003 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No :2 S. Haskell E. Pine St From South From We$ 40 17 113 4 Rghl Ther Left Peds Thr Rig Red App- Lek Thr Rig Ped ' App. Int. U hl 5 Total j u ht s Total Total 2 19 0 21 eN16AN 0 73 1 0 83 3 23 0 26 17 90 4 15 138 1 23 5 30 15 92 3 23 133 1 17 2 20 7 4 2_ R 7 82 7 97 48 ..84, 339 12 40 439 7.2 8a 5 7.2 1.0.9 RZ; 2.7 9.1 583 .891 .950 fRq i06 ;921 _.750 A�15_ 925 96 In - Peak Whir 011 NAM A" 40 17 113 4 Rghl Ther Left Peds *] Lo Peak Hour Data j * ` 3x� �'� Ag' Nortll t -4.z L.1; f-11 � (per V /. ` rM Gell Thee RIM- Psis 1 7 82 7 67 an - Peak Hour' 07:15 AM 96 SNAM OUgm 9wwPoda uss fwgh"bI06 AC .444 at, O41697504 North-South: S. Haskell St File Name : Pine -Haskell -Thursday East-West: E. Pine St Site Code : 00000003 Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Start Date : 2/23/2017 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshftd 95 S. Haskell E. Pine St S. Haskell E. Pine St From North From East From South From West Start Tune Left Thru Rohl Peds 4. T" Left Tiuv_ Right Parris r. oho Left Thru : Right Peds p.r L_ett 11 ru "M Peds raw 07;00 AM 35 2 2 1 40 15 30 19 1 65 1 6 13 0 14 3 58 0 1 62 181 0716 AM 63 7 4 2 96 5 35 51 0 91 0 2 19 0 21 9 73 1 0 53 291 07:30 AM 136 3 16 7 162 2 42 62 0 106 0 3 23 0 26 17 90 4 15 126 420 47:45 AAA 122 3 18 3 146 13 55 50 3 121 1 1 23 5 30 15 92 3 23 Ip 4N To6d 376 15 40 13 444 35 162 182 4 383 2 6 78 5 91 44 313 8 39 404 t322 06:00 AM 72 0 7 13 92 10 36 39 0 85 0 1 17 2 20 7 84 4 2 97 294 08.15 AM 59 1 2 0 62 8 35 33 0 76 0 2 4.7 0 19 4 131 2 3 70 22? 06:30 AM 70 0 1 2 73 5 38 36 0 79 9 0 12 0 12 1 105 1 1 fW 272 08:45 AM 40 3 2 0 _ 4.5 21 53 36 0 110 2 0 10 0 12 1 59 1 1 02 = Total 241 4 12 15 272 44 162 144 0 350 2 3 56 2 63 13 309 8 7 337 1022 Gearo Total 617 19 52 28 716 79 324 326 4 733 4 9 134 7 1541 57 622 16 46 T41 2344 Apprrh % 66.2 2.7 7.3 39 108 44.2 44.5 0.5 2.6 5.8 87 45 7.7 6319 2.2 6.2 Tota) % 26.3 0.8 2.2 12 30.5 3.4 13.8 139 0.2 31.3 0.2 0.4 5.7 03 6.6 2.4 26.5 0.7 2 31.6 95 SOUM94M vrrFdM Sw w padaitiox bogee Atug4xdp Orr. 97504 North-South: S. Haskell Street File Name : Pine-Haskell—Wednesday East-West: E. Pine Street Site Code : 00000002 Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Start Date :2/22/2017 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No :2 94 S. Haskell St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St 462 From North From ESst 32 0 42.. 10 From South From West Start Left Tnru 4�� Frds 1eR Thr Rlg Ped App. L88 Ttlr Rig Pett App Lett Thr Rig Ped App. Int. Time North l u hl s Tola1 U hl s ToW r it hl s Tulal Tolal An Peak Hour alysis From 07:15 AM to 08:00 AM - Peak 1 of 1 �1 LeH Thru Rigltl, Pe4e Pool, Hour far Each Approach 9gyins at: y'2 In - Peak kaur. il'7:16 AMlAmd"d 11 O715AM 07 11MOl 15 AM Or IS AY +0 mins. 75 1 3 1 80 4 38 56 0 98 2 2 7 0 11 11 78 0 0 89 +15 mins. 1455 1 12 5 163 9 21 52 1 83 1 2 36 0 79 111 88 2 24 132 +30 mins. 118 3 13 6 140 11 68 59 3 140 1 3 18 0 22 1Q 91 1 14 116 +45 MirM. 114 1 4 4 99 115 41_ 32 0 811 0 0 9 1 1.9 3 85 2 5 95 Total V*xm 420 6 32 16 482 99 188 198 4 409 4 7 70 1 82 42 342 5 43 432 >V app TOM 888 1.2 6.6 3.3 9.5 41 t 48,4 9 4.9 6.5 65,4 1.2 97 79.2 12 10 PHF 73♦ 500 615 667 739 650 613 853 333 730 .500 .583 .486 250 526 ,563 940 625 446 ,818 94 I InOwl in - PonR 8au7 01'15 AM 462 32 0 42.. 10 Right Thru tell Peds 4- j Peak Hour Data isi ` _ 0 North l Unehifted ar r 4 �1 LeH Thru Rigltl, Pe4e .41 7 70 l y'2 In - Peak kaur. il'7:16 AMlAmd"d 11 94 North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles Soudan Owpon s aw6partdldos &V&wdMF, 2" .Attegnds V& 97504 Groups Printed- Unshifad File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Pine-Haskell—Wednesday 00000002 2/22/2017 1 93 S. Haskell St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St From North From East From South From West Start Tmma Left T1au Rigm Peds w +w I. ell fleu Right Pads "..r Left Tltu " Peds M r Led Thm --Roti Pads oe Tari 07:00 AM 43 0 2 1 40 9 35 19 0 63 0 d 14 14 3 49 1 0 53 176 0715 AM 75 1 3 1 80 4 38 56 0 98 2 2 7 0 11 11 78 0 0 89 270 07:30 AM 145 1 12 5 163 9 21 52 1 83 1 2 36 0 39 18 88 2 24 132 417 07:45 AM 118 3 13 6 140 11 tib 5@ 3 140 1 3 18 0 22 10 91 1 14 116 41-§ Total 381 5 30 13 429 33 162 185 d 384 4 7 75 0 86 42 306 4 38 390 1289 ❑8:00 Alk 90 1 4 4 99 15 41 32 0 88 0 0 9 1 10 3 85 2 5 95 292 08:15 AM 55 2 3 0 60 5 30 28 0 63 0 1 15 0 16 352 1 1 57 196 08.30 AM 66 0 5 1 72 8 33 22 0 63 1 1 11 1 14 0 61 0 4 65 214 06:45 AM 63 1 2 2 68 10 33 29 Q 72 1 0 B 3 12 3 54 1 3 61, 213 Total 274 4 14 7 299 36 137 111 0 286 2 2 43 5 52 9 252 4 13 278 915 Grand Tand 655 9 44 20 728 71 299 296 4 670 6 9 118 5 138 51 558 8 51 668 2204 App" % 90 1.2 6 2.7 10.6 44.6 442 0.6 43 6.5 855 36 7.6 83.5 1.2 7.6 Total % 29.7 OA 2 09 33 3.2 13.6 134 02 30.4 03 0.4 54 02 63 2.3 2S3 04 2.3 30,3 93 Soudan a"Fox J,fawwpaalaltie� F.irgil�rti�, ,@,BC A144,wd, o -L 975N North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles File Name : Pine -Haskell Tues Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 212112017 Page No :2 92 S. Haskell St E. Pine Sl S. Haskell St E. Pine St 39 .. 4 414 !� Fight Thru Left Pada From No(th From East From Squth Peak Hour Data From Wast Stag Left Tnne mart Pe4! ,..,, Leftu Tnr R:g Ped APP, Leff Thr Rfg Ped App. Lefl Thr Rig Ped APP. Int. T Cx ub M a Total 1, trt a Total u M 5 Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:15 AM to 08.00 AM - Peak 1 of Il SIG In - Palk Hour: 07 15 AM Peak Hour for Each ,approach Begft at +0 mins. A 15 MI 83 1 7 0 91 m 15 AM 4 37 52 1 94 of "Am 2 1 8 0 11 W:1! AM 12 82 0 1 95 +15 mins. 140 2 10 5 157 3 36 58 2 97 1 4 26 2 38 15 83 1 20 119 +30 mins. 120 2 13 5 140 19 tis 42 3 130 0 3 20 0 23 12 89 2 23 126 +46 (pins. 71 3 9 2 85 13 38 30 0 81 0 1 21 2 24 2 40 3 3 98 Told valine 414 8 39 12 473 39 177 180 6 402 3 9 77 4 93 41 341 6 47 438 Aop ToW 876 1 7 8.2 2.S 9.7 44 as y_ 1.5 3.2 9.7 52.8 4,3 9.4 766 1.4 107 PHF 739 687 750 600 753 513 670 .804 500 773, .375 563 .808 500 864 M3 .9% Sao ,511_ 8119 92 In - PM* Baer 07 15 AM 473 39 .. 4 414 !� Fight Thru Left Pada 4—' ► Peak Hour Data rr T J * _ + ]r S� ui ^h North Sc u $ Cx ub - a 1 —► On ThR EtIg0j. P40g 31 9 77' 4 SIG In - Palk Hour: 07 15 AM 92 North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles saadm a4t" spQ AM .A44"4 A6 97504 Groups Printed- Unshifted File Name : Pine-Haskell—Tues Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/21/2017 Page No ; 1 91 S. Haskell St E'Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St From North From East From South From West Staff Time lel! Thr, " Peas AVT" W4 ThN RV# Pada Awa Left ThFu Rqt Peas ,Rrw Left Th+u "4 Peds rtTdr 06:45 AM 35 1 2 0 38 12 25 20 1 58 0 U 10 0 10 1 53 1 0 55 161 Total 35 1 2 0 36 12 25 20 1 56 0 0 10 0 10 1 53 1 0 55 161 07:00 AM 45 0 1 3 49 6 37 16 0 59 1 0 14 0 15 6 69 1 0 76 199 07:15 AM 63 1 7 0 91 4 37 52 1 94 2 1 a 0 11 12 82 0 1 95 291 07:30 AM 140 2 10 5 157 3 38 56 2 97 1 4 28 2 35 15 83 1 20 119 408 u7:45 AM i20 2 i3 5 140 i9 65 42 3 i3G. u 3 20 u 2312 89 2 23 i26 419 Total 388 5 31 13 437 32 176 166 6 380 4 8 70 2 84 45 323 4 44 416 1317 08:00 AM 71 3 9 2 85 13 36 30 0 81 0 1 21 2 24 2 90 3 3 98 288 08:15 AM 69 0 1 2 72 9 35 30 0 74 3 2 7 1 13 2 59 1 1 63 222 06.30 AM 72 0 5 1 78 8 49 34 0 91 0 1 11 0 12 1 05 1 1 96 279 08:45 AM 47 2 3 0 52 20 44 27 2 93 3 2 12 1 18 1 52 1 3 67 220 Total 259 5 18 5 2a7 50 168 121 2 339 6 6 51 4 67 6 296 6 9 316 1049 Grand Tow 682 11 51 18 762 94 367 307 9 777 10 14 131 6 161 52 672 11 52 787 2187 ApWCh % 695 14 6.7 24 12.1 47.2 39.5 1.2 6.2 8.7 61.4 3.7 6.6 65.4 1 4 66 Total % 274 0.4 2.1 0.7 30.6 3.8 14.8 12.3 0.4 312 0.4 0.6 5-3 0.2 8.5 2.1 27 0.4 2.1 316 91 ATTACHMENTS 90 lane on W. Pine Street continues to adequately mitigate congestion between OR 99 and Haskell Street. Refer to the attachments for a full queuing and blocking report, Conclusions The findings of the traffic analysis conclude that the proposed annexation, zone change, and comprehensive plan map amendment resulting in the potential for 23 single family dwelling units can be approved without creating substantial impacts to the surrounding transportation system. Supporting factors include that Haskell Street has sufficient capacity to support proposed development, and the study area intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street operates acceptably (within City performance standards) with and without proposed development. The only issue noted in the traffic analysis is an existing queuing problem on W. Pine Street at Haskell Street during the a.m. peak hour. Queuing occurs on W. Pine Street at OR 99 (Front Street) in the eastbound direction during the a,m. peak hour because only one through lane is provided and this is not sufficient to handle the traffic demand. This eastbound queue length on W. Pine Street at OR 99 spills back past Haskell Street during the spike in traffic and impacts the signalized intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street. The solution for this is to provide a second easebound through lane on Pine Street, which was evaluated in this analysis and shown to mitigate congestion, but the logistics of this needs further investigation and should be pursued by the City to determine what options are available to provide such an improvement. Without the improvement, the study area intersection continues to operate at an acceptable level of service with and without the proposed development, but queuing on W. Pine Street will continue to affect Haskell Street approaches during the am. peak hour. This is expected to reduce when tate third railroad crossing at Twin Creeks is in place in November of 2017. It will be fully mitigated when a second eastbound through lane an Pine Street at OR 99 is implemented. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information regarding this I etter. Sincerely, P.A-- Kimberly Parl"i PE, PTOE SauT44an 0-kF6on TinHOUTf1TION 4;wa Jtm, LLC Attachments., Count Data, Crash Data Traffic Volume Development Synchro Output/SimTraffic Output Supporting Data Cc: Client ORIitGON �r�'nt^s t� .Southern Oregon Transportation F,ngineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I .lily 10, 2017 19 89 Design Year 2018 Build Conditions Design year 2018 build conditions represent design year 2018 no -build conditions with the addition of proposed development trips considered. Build conditions are compared to no -build conditions to determine what impacts and/or mitigation measures will result from proposed development. Design Year 2018 Build Intersection Operations The intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street was evaluated under design year 2018 build conditions during the a.m. peak hour to determine what impacts, if any, would result from proposed development trips. Results are summarized in Table 10 for build and mitigated build conditions. Table 10 — Design Year 2018 Build Intersection Operations, A.M. Peak Hour_ Intersection Jurisdiction Performance Traffic Year 2918 Year 2018 Standard Control Build Build-Miti=ated Haskell Street / Pine Street City of Central Point LOS D Signal B, 18.0 sec B, 17.9 sec LOS - Lcvcl ofScrvim scc = seconds Note: Exceeded performance slandards are shown in bold, italic Results of the analysis show the intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street continues to operate acceptably (withni performance standards) with additional traffic from the pmpo.wd develcipntent. Refer to the attachments for synchro output sheets. Design Year 2018 Build Queuing and Blocking Five simulations were run and averaged in SimTraffic to determine 95'h percentile queue lengths under design year 2019 build conditions. (queue lengths were rounded up to the nearest 25 feet (single vehicle length) and reported in Table I I for traffic movements during the a.m. peak hour under build and mitigated build conditions. Table I t — Design Year 2018 Build 95'h Percentile Queue Lengths —A.M. Peak Hour Available Link 95° Percentile 9e Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Queue Length (Feet) Build Build -Mitigated Haskell Street / W. Pine Street Southbound Left 375 475" 250 Southbound Through/Right 150 75 50 Northbound Left/ThrongWRight 525 125 75 Eastbound Left 150 175* loo Eastbound Through/Right 425 800* 250 Westbound Left 150 loo 75 Westbound Through 375 175 150 Westbound Right 275 100 100 Note' Exceeded gamic lengthy, arc shown in bold, italic " Queue lengths atlicted by downstream congestion at Pine Street / OR 99 Results of the queuing analysis show queue lengths at the intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street continue to operate much like they did under design year 2018 no -build and mitigated no -build conditions during the a,m. peak hour. Slight increases occur in the eastbound through -shared -right turn movement as a result of development trips, but the change is insignificant. The additional eastbound Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC I fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 201718 88 Trip Generation Trip generation calculations for proposed development trips were prepared utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 9"' edition. The ITE rate was used for land use code 210 — Single Family Residential. All trips were considered new trips to the transportation system. A summary is provided in Table 9. Table 9 — Development Trip Generations Land Use Unit size A et AM Peale Hour Ram PM Peau Hour Total (In) (Out) Total (In) (Out) 210—Single Fam/ly Residential DU� 23 0.75 17 4 13 — 1.00 23 T14 9 Net New Trips 17 4 t3 23 14 9 DU = dwdling unit y — Trip Distribution and Assignment Development trips were assumed to distribute a little over 50% to/Irom the north on Haskell Street. The remaining 50% was assumed to distribute to surrounding local streets such as Chicory Lane, Glenn Way, and Malabar Street to travel to/from the north, south, and west. At W. Pine Street, trips were distributed in accordance with existing traffic patterns with, one exception. The one exception was that trips weren't assumed to distribute to/frorn the west on W. Pine Street at Haskell Street because an assumption was made that trips wanting to travel to/from the west would more likely use an alternate route via Chicory Lane arid Glenn Way. Refer to the diagram below For percentage splits and distributions at Haskell Street and W. Pine Street, OavalgmTwt Trips, AM Peak Hour DwOop sw Trips. PM Peds Hnv 1 1 46% 1 1 47. 1 0 1 t 1 0 l) 1 0 "Assurnpliorr. 0 AM 0 0 PM 0 V% of development 0 Haskdl t Pine St 0 0 Heakell 1 Pine 5t 0 trips d0Abute tdfrom 0 7:15-8:15 am 1 a 3:454:45 pm 6 the north on Haskell OY. 0 1 1 6 54% (11% 0 1 1 4 W% Street and 50% toWom 2 7 7 1 5 the youth, north, and west 0% IU% 91ir 8% 6% 8476 on Chicory Ln. Glenn Wy. 4 it 1� {; and Malabar Street. 2 7 7 5 Traffic from proposed development trips can use several routes to travel to/from the north, south, and west. Haskell Street provides connectivity to and from the north. At some point in the future, Haskell Street is expected to extend further to the south, at which time it will provide a direct connection from the proposed development to the south. Chicory Lane, which borders the proposed development property on the west and south, provides connectivity to/from the south through an alley and indirectly to the west through Timothy Street. Timothy Street feeds Malabar Street and Glenn Way, which provide additional connections to/from the north and south. We assumed conservatively that at least 50% of development trips would use Haskell Street to travel to/from the north to W. Pine Street because this is the most direct route through a higher order street. The remaining trips were assumed to use other routes mentioned from surrounding local streets. Southern Oregon Transportation. Fngineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 17 87 Results of the analysis show the intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street continues to operate acceptably under design year 2018 no -build scenarios with and without mitigation on W. Pine Street, but the additional eastbound lane does reduce congestion considerably, which can be seen in the queuing analysis below. Refer to the attachments for synchro output sheets. Design Year 2018 Yo -Build Queuing and Blocking Five simulations were run and averaged in SimTraffic to determine 95" percentile queue lengths at Haskell Street and W. Pine Street under design year 2018 no -build conditions. Queue lengths were rounded up to the nearest 25 feet (single vehicle length) and reported in Table 8 for applicable movements during the a.m. peak hour under no -build and mitigated no -build conditions. Table 8 —Design Year 2018 No -Build 951° Percentile Queue Lengths — AM Peak Hour Available Link 95" Percentile — — Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length (Feet) AM No -Build W Percentile Queue Length AM Mitigated l mkell Street/ W; Pine Strect Southbound Lett 375 450* 275 Southbound Through/Right 150 75 50 Northbound LefiMrough/Right 525 100 75 Eastbound Lett 150 100* 100 Eastbound ThroughtRight 425 700" 275 Westbound Left 150 100 75 Westbound Through 375 175 150 Westbound Right 275 l00 100 Note: Exceeded queuc lengths are shown in bold, italic " Queue lengths nt%cted by downstream congestion at Pine Street I OR 99 As can be seen in Table 8, queue lengths continue to exceed link distances along W. Pine Street between Haskell Streel and OR 99 in the eastbound direction (arid southbound on Haskell Street as a direct result of the eastbound queue length) even with consideration of the third railroad crossing at Twin Creeks under design year 2018 no -build conditions. With consideration of an additional eastbound through lane on W. Pine Street east of Haskell Street (mitigated condition), all queue lengths are shown to stay within their available link distances during the a.m. peak hour. Full queuing and blocking reports are provided in the attachments. Southern Oregun Trunspurtutiun Engineering, LLQ' J Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 20171 6 86 Table 6 - Crash History by Type, 2011-2015 Intersection Colllsiun Type Severity Rear- Turning/ Fixed Other ped/ Non- Injury Fatal End Angle Object Bike I In]ury Haskell Street / W. Pine Street ' 3 6 1 0 0 1 10 0 0 There were ten reported collisions at the study area intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street within a five year period. Six of the ten collisions were turning collisions, which is common at intersections with permissive movements because drivers are required to yield and often do not. Three of the ten were rear -end collisions, all of which occurred during either the a.m. or p.m. peak periods likely as a result of congestion. Mone of the collisions resulted in injury. There were no pedestrian or bicyclist related collisions, nor were there any fatalities. The number of collisions at Haskell Street and W. Pine Street show an average of two per year, which is rnt l Qn$I[jt rP_.(1 exr_.egcivP, P_,Sne.Pially vA)ngidetring the hie traffir_. Spikes that are ghnwn in n�rllr dunning peak periods, but more importantly, the severity of collisions is low which reduces the safety concern. The intersection crash rate is significantly less than the O OT published W percentile crash rate, which is used as a measure to detertnine whether further investigation should be taken. Based on all of this, no further investigation is shown to be necessary.. Design Year 2018 No -Build Conditions Design year 2018 no -build conditions represent development build year conditions for the study area without consideration of proposed development trips. This condition is evaluated to determine how a study area will be impacted by area background grm*th. An annual growth rate was developed for traffic movements from the ODOT Future Volumes Table. Two locations were evaluated and averaged, which included OR 99 at Beall Lane and OR 99 at Scenic Ave. The average corresponding growth rate was 1.5% of growth per year through the future year 2035. Design year 2018 no -build conditions for this analysis also included re-routed trips from a third railroad crossing at Twin Creeks and in -process development trips from the previously approved Creekside Apartments. A spreadsheet with growth calculations and volume development is provided in the attachments. Design Year 2018 No -Build Intersection Operations The intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street was evaluated under design year 2018 no -build conditions during the a.m. peak hour to evaluate impacts from background growth, re-routing of trips through the planned third railroad crossing at Twin Creeks, and additional development on Haskell Street. A mitigated scenario (additional eastbound lane on W. Pine Street) was also evaluated for comparison purposes. Results of both scenarios are summarized in Table 7. Table 7 — Design Year 2018 No -Build Intersection Operations Intersection Jurisdiction performance Traffic AM Peak AM Peak Standard Control -- - No -Build Miti te8a d Haskell Street/ Pine Street City of Central Point LOS D Signal B, 17.0 sec B, 17.6 sec LOS = Level of Scrvice, see= seconds Note: Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, 1,1..0 I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 201715 85 provide two eastbound through lanes on Pine Street between Haskell Street and S. 2,,d Street. When two travel lanes are provided, the eastbound queue on Pine Street at OR 99 does not back up and impact the intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street. Table 4 summarizes queue lengths with mitigation in place. Table 4 — Year 2017 No -Build 95th Percentile Queue Lengths — Mitigated Available Link 95"' Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Exceeded (Feet) AM (feet) Haskell Street / W. Pine Street Southbound Left 375 275 No Southbound Through/Right 150 75 No Northbound Left/Through/Right 525 75 No Eastbound Left 150 100 No Eastbound Through/Right 425 250 No Westbound Left 150 75 No Westbound Through 375 150 No Westbound Right 275 100 No Note: Exceeded queue lengths am shown in bold, italic As can be seen in Table 4, when two travel lanes are provided eastbound on Pine Street at OR 99, queue lengths at the Haskell Street and W. Pine Street are similar to those that were shown as an isolated intersection, which means that they aren't atFected by downstream queuing. This mitigation was previottsly shown to be required in the year 2000 Central Point Transit Oriented Development Traffic fmpact Study prepared by JRH Transportation. This study evaluated the need and benefit of a third railroad crossing at Twin Creeks to the north, which reduces traffic on Haskell Street and preserves future capacity at the intersection with W. Pine Street. Construction of this third railroad crossing is scheduled for completion by November of 2017, which will occur before the proposed 50 -unit Creekside Apartments development builds out. For this reason, the year 2018 no -build and build analyses in this report assume re-routing of traffic froth Haskell Street to OR 99 through the Twin Creeks railroad crossing, consistent with what was shown to occur in model runs provided for the JRFI study. Crash History Crash data for the most recent 5 -year period was provided from ODOT's Crash Analysis Unit. Results were provided for the period of January I", 2011 through December 31", 2015. Intersection safety is generally evaluated by determining the crash rate in terms of crashes per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV) at intersections or Million Vehicle Miles (MVM) for segments. The details of crash data are examined to identify any patterns that could be attributable to geometric or operational deficiencies. A crash rate higher than the ODOT published 90'h percentile rate or trends of a specific type of crash may indicate the need for further investigation along a corridor. Data at the study area intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street showed ten collisions within a 5 - year period. Tables 5 and 6 provide a summary of results. Crash data is provided in the attachments. Table S - Study Area Intersection Crash Rates, 2011-2015 y Intersection 2011 2012 LOIS 2011 2015 Total Crashes AAt)t Crash ODOT Rate go," % Haskell Street/ W. Pine Street 0 1 2 5 2 10 14,900 0.37 1 0.860 Southern Oregon Transporration Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 201714 84 Table 2 — Year 2017 No -Build 95th Percentile Queue Lengths Available Link 95`h Percentile 951h Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Queue Length (Feet) AM (feet) PM (feet) Haskell Street / W. Pine Street Southbound Left 375 750* 150 Southbound Throught Right 150 175* 50 Northbound Left/Through/Right 525 100* 50 Eastbound Left 150 175* 50 Eastbound Through/Right 425 675* 175 Westbound Left 150 75 100 Westbound Through 375 200 250 Westbound Right 275 125 100 Note: Exceeded queue lengths are shown in bold, italic Queue lengths affected by downstream congestion at Pine Street I OR 99 Results of the queuing analysis show many exceeded queue lengths occurring under existing conditions during the a.m. peak hour as a result of downstream queuing on Pine Street at OR 99 (Front Street). In watching traffic in the field and verifying through modei simulations, the eastbowtd traffic volume on Pine Street at OR 99 exceeds the single lane capacity provided, and the amount of green tinte for that movement cannot support the demand_ This results in a queue length that backs up through the railroad crossing, Arty Street, and Haskell Street for approximately twenty minutes of the a.m_ peak period. When this occurs, the southbound left. eastbound through, and northbound right turn movements at Haskell Street and W. Pine Street have no place to go when they have a green light_ In order to properly show this, we evaluated the intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street as an isolated intersection. The queuing results are shown in Table 3. Table 3 — Year 2017 No -Build 95th Percentile Queue Intersection Movenxat Available Link Distance (Feet) — Haskel! / W. Pine Isolated 950 Percentile Queue Length AM (feat) Hoskall street / W. Pioe Street Southbound Left 375 250 Southbound Through/Right 150 50 Northbound LeftfThroughfRight 525 75 Eastbound Left 150 125 Eastbound Through/Right 425 250 Westbound Left 150 75 Westbound Through 375 150 Westbound Right 275 100 Note: Exceeded queue lengths are shown in bold, italic Exceeded No No No No No No No No What is shown in Table 3 is that the intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street does not have exceeded queue lengths during the a.m. peak hour when it isn't impacted by downstream queue lengths. The green splits provided for traffic movements are sufficient to handle the spike in traffic that occurs when school traffic and commuter traffic mix. The southbound left turn and eastbound through queue lengths are still shown to be long, but this is expected during the peak period, and both continue to stay within their available link distances. This confirms that the problem on the system is occurring downstream at Pine Street and OIL 99, Traffic signal timing adjustments were explored at the intersection of Pine Street and OR 99, but were not shown to solve the capacity problem occurring during the a.m. peak hour. The solution is to Southern Oregon Trunsportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 13 83 Street. The nearest higher order intersection with Haskell Street is currently its intersection with W, Pine Street to the north. In the future, Haskell Street will extend to the south where it connects to Beall Lane, but at this time the only higher order intersection is Haskell Street and W. Pine Street. This intersection experiences its largest spike in traffic during the a.m. peak hour as a result of commuter traffic and school traffic from Mae Richardson Elementary occurring simultaneously Monday through Friday. As a result of this, the a.m, peak hour was used as the critical peak hour in the analysis. Year 2017 No -Build Intersection Operations Manual traffic counts were gathered in late February of 2,017 at the study area intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street. Counts were gathered during the a.m. peak period (7:00-9:00 a.m.) for three consecutive weekdays in an effort to capture a morning commute with heavy school traffic. Manual counts were also gathered on Pine Street at OR 99 (Front Street) during the a.m. peak period and at Haskell Street and W. Pine Street during an extended p.m. peak period (2:00-6:00 p.m,) to capture both school traffic and the commuter peak. All counts were seasonally adjusted to reflect peak conditions and then evaluated to determine how facilities currently operate. Results were prepared in an earlier analysis for the Creekside Apartments (March of 2017) and are unchanged for this analysis. They are summarized in Table 1. Table l — Year 2017 No -Build Intersection Operations _ Perilormance 7vam Year 2917 Yar 2017 T IatereeeNoo Jurisdictka Studard costrol No-duild No4Mild A.M. Pak PAL Pak Haskell Street I W. Pine Street City of Central Point LOS D Signal C, 21.1 sec A, 9,2 sec Lr* = Love of Service, sec = sewn& Note: Fxceedcd performance standards are shown in bold, italic Results of the analysis show the intersection of Haskoll Street and Pine Street operating at a level of service (LOS) "C" under existing year 2017 no -build conditions during a.m. peak hour, which is shown to be significantly worse than the LOS "A" operation during the p.m. peak hour, Both operations are within the City's LOS "D" performance standard, but this verifies that the am. peak hour is the critical peak hour of the day. Refer to the attachments for synchro output sheets. Year 2017 No -Build Queuing and Blocking Queuing is the stacking up of vehicles for a given lane movement, and it can have a significant effect on roadway safety and the overall operation of a transportation system. Long queue lengths in through lanes can block access to turn lanes, driveways, and minor street approaches, as well as spill back into upstream intersections. As a result of this, the estimation of queue lengths is an important aspect of the analysis process for determining how a transportation corridor operates. Queue lengths are reported as the average, maximum, or 95�h percentile queue length. The 951, percentile queue length is used for design purposes and is the queue length reported in this analysis. Five simulations were run and averaged in SimTraffc to determine 95`h percentile queue lengths for a previous analysis for the Creekside Apartments (March of 2017) and are unchanged in this analysis. Queue lengths were rounded up to the nearest 25 feet (single vehicle length) and reported in Table 2 for applicable movements during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis i July 10, 2017 12 82 ATTACHMENT "13" I DUTY ,um On n om T Pptyf PD PTRT ION CtrGI NccpI NG, L L C 319 Eastwood Drive - Medford, Or. 97504 — Phone (541) 608-9923 — Email: Kwkpl@Q.com July 10, 2017 Matt Satnitore, Public Works Director City of Central Point 140 South Third Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 RE: Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis Dear Matt, Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC prepared a limited traffic analysis for a proposed annexation, comprehensive plan map arriendment, and zone change on property located east of Chicory Lartc xtrtd JViii a Vl ii73Jlicli Ji[cct Vli iUYV113111 J 7 J i�d[1�C L YV JCl L1UR 1 1 L lax IUIJ aJ V11 ilSld 84�iV. Background Access to the subject property is provided Froin Chicory Lane and f iaskcll Street Haskell Street is the higher order street that provides connectivity to W. Pine Street to the north. Other lower order streets around the site provide aEternaw connectivity to both the north and south. Malabar Street, Glenn Way, and Chicory Lane west of the site are all two-lane local streets with curb and gutter. Chicory Lane is unimproved north of Lindsey Court and is an alley south of the property. Haskell Street is a two-lane collector with curb and gutter in the vicinity of the site and terminates at the northeast corner of the property. Sidewalks and a park row wit] be added along the subject property frontage as part of development, connecting pedestrian facilities to the north and south on Haskell 81 EXHIBIT 6 CmSubject Lots City Zoning C -2(m) Tax Lots CIVIC -�-+- Railroad - EC County Zoning - GC LMR - M-1 MMR os R-1-6 R-1 -8 Proposed Zoning Map Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC N,�E 37-2W-1 1 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 s ® 300 150 0 300 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 80 gh Clem sity Neighborhood nvei��eRce Center =YYIRIT d ATTACHMENT "A" N� High GRANO AV G�oPf� nzer s CHENEY LP, N Parks and ripen space • c{� �kpLU ; J 'fes w MAC -CT LINDSEY CT +� IL�•��•�■ a TOD Corridor nMorrrY ST Low Densityi t cc LAVENDER LN TARA CR OO z! W• F r t' � OG � SJ JE851f,A CR4 O W Ix a re to W iC S S > 4 CM m e( J d 5 Low Density `rnN 1a �y'N� IPA Existing Comprehensive Plan Annexation / 7one Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC '�+� 37 -2W -11C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S 400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. U-27-2017 Sa rangy CSA Pln?Wno. ec dart Cmntv COS: Cliv n ■ n 79 City Comp Plan j Subiect Lots Neighborhood Convenience Center Tax lots r {'ity t imila TOD Corridor - High Density Res. 21100LUrban Growth ;;IIjIr9Qundary Low Density Res, Railroad Civic _Parks and Open Space 5 Low Density `rnN 1a �y'N� IPA Existing Comprehensive Plan Annexation / 7one Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC '�+� 37 -2W -11C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S 400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. U-27-2017 Sa rangy CSA Pln?Wno. ec dart Cmntv COS: Cliv n ■ n 79 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A recommendation to approve a minor amendment may include conditions and, in this case, staff advises that approval of the zone change be contingent upon approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" — Existing Comprehensive Plan Map and Proposed Zoning Map Attachment `B"—Traffic Findings, S. O. Transportation Engineering, LLC, July 10, 2017 Attachment "C" — Applicant's Findings of Fact, May 5, 2017 Attachment "D" — Applicant's Supplemental Findings, July 6, 2017 Attachment "E'— Resolution No. 846 ACTION: Open public hearing and consider the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, close public hearing and 1) recommend approval to the City Council; 2) recommend approval with revisions; or 3) deny the application. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of Resolution No. 846. Per the Staff Report dated September 5, 2017 and supported by Findings of Fact. 78 2. Committed Residential Density. The City of Central Point participates in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, a land -use planning effort undertaken by several cities in the Rogue Valley. The Regional Plan is incorporated as an element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and establishes goals and policies which affect future urban development. The Regional Plan Element lists performance indicators to determine the level of compliance with the Regional Plan. One performance indicator is 4.1.5 Committed Residential Density, which states that land currently within a UGB but outside existing City Limits, shall be built to a minimum residential density of 6.9 units per gross acre. Table 1.3. Prai'msed New Dewitt'. 2017-2037 ` Gross Land Use Classification VLRes LRes MRes HRes Average Density New Vacant Minimum Residential Gross Acres Density Needed 1.00 13 4.00 151 8.00 50 20.00 38 Minimum Baiid-Out (DUs) 13 605 403 756 7.03 252 1.7771 Table 1.3. Proposed New Density. 2017-2037 Comment: The Minimum Average Gross Density standard applies only to vacant lands within the City's urban area and is calculated on an average density basis. The above tables use the minimum densities and existing vacant residential acreage to analyze the impact of rezoning the Property. As illustrated in Table 1.3, the adjustment the 3.64 acres for the subject Property in the Medium Residential and Low Residential zones still exceeds the City's overall average density goal of 6.9 units per gross acre. The Applicant has demonstrated that the decrease in density due to the zone change will not significantly affect the City's ability to uphold its commitment to a residential density of 6.9 units per acre. 3. Traffic Impact. The subject property is currently designated General Industrial (GI) per Jackson County zoning maps, and is planned to assume the land use designation of TOD-MMR/R-3 zoning once annexed into the City. The Applicant is proposing a city zone change to TOD- LMR/R-2, a lower density residential zone, to more easily accommodate a subdivision for single- family dwelling units. Per the City's requirements for Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required as part of the application(s). Comment: Per the findings in the TLA, the nature of the zone change to decrease density requirements will not have an appreciable difference on traffic generation or impact, and may even alleviate projected traffic concerns (Attachment `B"). Adequate public services and transportation networks are available to serve the Property at the highest intensity its use. ISSUES: There are no issues relative to this application for minor Zone (Map) Change. t City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan; Regional Plan Element, 4.1.5. 77 Gross New Vacant Minimum Residential Minimum Gross Acres Build -Out Land Use Classification Density Y __Needed (DUs_) __ VLRes 1.00 13 13 LRes 4.00 155 619 MRes 8.00 47 374 HRes 20.00 38 756 Average Density 6A9 252 1.762 Comment: The Minimum Average Gross Density standard applies only to vacant lands within the City's urban area and is calculated on an average density basis. The above tables use the minimum densities and existing vacant residential acreage to analyze the impact of rezoning the Property. As illustrated in Table 1.3, the adjustment the 3.64 acres for the subject Property in the Medium Residential and Low Residential zones still exceeds the City's overall average density goal of 6.9 units per gross acre. The Applicant has demonstrated that the decrease in density due to the zone change will not significantly affect the City's ability to uphold its commitment to a residential density of 6.9 units per acre. 3. Traffic Impact. The subject property is currently designated General Industrial (GI) per Jackson County zoning maps, and is planned to assume the land use designation of TOD-MMR/R-3 zoning once annexed into the City. The Applicant is proposing a city zone change to TOD- LMR/R-2, a lower density residential zone, to more easily accommodate a subdivision for single- family dwelling units. Per the City's requirements for Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required as part of the application(s). Comment: Per the findings in the TLA, the nature of the zone change to decrease density requirements will not have an appreciable difference on traffic generation or impact, and may even alleviate projected traffic concerns (Attachment `B"). Adequate public services and transportation networks are available to serve the Property at the highest intensity its use. ISSUES: There are no issues relative to this application for minor Zone (Map) Change. t City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan; Regional Plan Element, 4.1.5. 77 City of Central Point, Oregon 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www.cen tralpointoreeon.eov 'A CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT September 5, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: File No. ZC-17001 Community Development Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director Consideration of a Zone (map) Change application from TOD Corridor Medium -Mix Residential (TOD- MMR) to TOD Corridor Low -Mix Residential (TOD-LMR) for 3.64 acres of property located at 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane. The Property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 11C, Tax Lots 8300 & 8400. Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC Agent: JCSA Planning, Ltd. STAFF SOURCE: Molly Bradley, Community Planner I BACKGROUND: The Applicant has requested a minor Zone Change for property that is in the UGB but has not yet been annexed into the City. This application was submitted concurrently with an application for Annexation (ANNEX -17001) and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (File No. CPA -17002). In considering the zone change there are three (3) components which need to be addressed: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Compatibility. The current Land Use Plan designation for the Property is TOD Corridor, (see Comprehensive Plan application, File No. CPA -17002), which allows those uses as illustrated in the following table: Comment: The current (TOD-MMR/R--3) and proposed (TOIL i,MR/R 2) zoning nre hoth consistent with the TOD Corridor land use designation. Per Table 2, the proposed zone change is compatible with the land uses set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 76 Land Use Summary —TOD Corridor Existing Comprehensive Plan and 'tonin Desl nations Optional TOD Corridor Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations Residential R-1-8 — Residential, Single Family District 8,OU0 s . ft. min. lot size TOD-MMR — Medium -Mix Residential R-2 — Residential, Two Family District 6,000 sq. ft. min. tot size TOD-LMR — Medium -Mix Residential R-3 — Residential, Multiple Family District 6,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) TOD-MMR — Medium -Mix Residential Commercial C-2 — Commercial -Professional TOD-HMR — High -Mix Residential C-3 — Downtown Business District TOD-EC — Employment Commercial C-4 — Tourist and Office Professional District TOD-EC — Employment Commercial C-5 —Thoroughfare Commercial District TOD-GC — General Commercial Industrial M-1 —Industrial District TOD-GC — General Commercial M-2 — Industrial General District TOD-GC — General Commercial Comment: The current (TOD-MMR/R--3) and proposed (TOIL i,MR/R 2) zoning nre hoth consistent with the TOD Corridor land use designation. Per Table 2, the proposed zone change is compatible with the land uses set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 76 CONSIDERAMN Or A ZONE CHANGE FROM TOO CORRIDOR MMI; TO TOO CORRIDOR LMR 75 "NE R Y S7A� ' 74 EXHIBIT" E3 " LJ- FRIAR & ASOCIAM P.0 EXHIBIT" FAX 54T1-772-2782 CONSULTING LAND SURVEYORS 541-772-6465 P.O. BOX 1947 JAMES E HIBBS, PLS PHOENIX, OR 97535 I,jfriar6charter.net LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginning at the Southeast corner of SNOWY BUTTE STATION, PHASE 4, according to the official plat thereof, now of record, in Jackson County, Oregon, said point being on the existing Central Point City boundary; thence along said City boundary and along the South line of said SNOWY BUTTE STATION, Phase 4, North 89°29'05" West, 649.42 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 94, said PHASE 4 also being on the West line of Lot "K" of SNOWY BUTTE ORCHARDS, according to the official plat thereof, now of record, in Jackson County, Oregon; thence continue along said City boundary and along the West line of said Lot "K", South 00001'22" East, 212.16 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot "K"; thence South 00001122" East, 20.00 feet to the Westerly prolongation of the South line of Chicory Lane; thence along said Westerly prolongation, the South line of said Chicory Lane and its Easterly prolongation, South 89°59'20" East, 308.73 feet to the Easterly line of Chicory Lane; thence along said Easterly line, North 00000'04" East, 10.00 feet to an angle point in the South line of said Lot "K"; thence leaving said City boundary along the South line of said Lot "K", South 89°59'20" East, 493.00 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot "K"; thence along the East line thereof, North 35°09'03" West, 264.76 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 161990 square feet or 3.72 acres, more or less. ANNEXED TRACT 372W11C TL'S 8300 & 8400 Bob Fellows Construction, LLC 17-140 August 29, 2017 73 CREGI STERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR ..Wi4% OREGON 1 JULY 17, 19$6 JAMES E_ HIBBS 2 .i3 RENEWAL DATE: B-30-19 ATTACHMENT " � RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO ANNEX 3.71 ACRES, LOCATED AT 3428 and 3470 CHICKORY LANE AND IDENTIFIED ON THE JACKSON COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP AS 37 2W 11C, TAX LOTS 8300 AND 8400. APPLICANT: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC. RECITALS: A. Bob Fellows Construction, LLC owns two tax lots at 3428 and 3470 Chickory Lane, and generally described by Exhibit A, which is not located within the City of Central Point city limits. The Central Point City Council (the Council) is authorized under ORS 222.120 to hold a public hearing for annexation proceedings without an election for annexation. B. On September 14, 2017 the Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the annexation application, at which time it reviewed the City staff report, heard testimony and comments on the application to annex the 3.71 acre property specifically described in attached Exhibits "A" Written Description and Exhibit "B" Annexation Depiction Map. C. The City Manager, or designee, will transmit a copy of this resolution to the Oregon Secretary of State, and this annexation is effective when filed with the Oregon Secretary of State pursuant to ORS. 222.180. D. This annexation is a full consent annexation as Bob Fellows has consented to the annexation. The City of Central Point resolves as follows. Section 1: The property at 3428 and 3470 Chickory Lane, described in the above recitals and set forth in attached Exhibits "A" and "B" is proclaimed to be annexed to the City of Central Point. Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this day of 2017. Mayor Hank Williams ATTEST: City Recorder Resolution No. 72 CL U) 0 U 5 5v vp ,q Q d 4T WID orb i f P r •UfG _ELo� Ond 'u.16 n. Pi -C a- I �. id Uig r CL 3 v 0 m CD o F $$� � `t K T O CD Lo 0o N HI o � coo 8 z C C LA z d oW � a C7 o w p w w C7 z z C7 w LUx r •UfG _ELo� Ond 'u.16 n. Pi -C a- I �. id Uig 7-I A Al ATTACHMENT " cl- " { !I 69 7- i; r,i It 19 ATTACHMENT it g ANNEXATION PETITION The undersigned hereby request and consent to the annexation to the City of Central Point, Oregon, of the real property contiguous thereto described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part of the within petition. By their signature hereto, the undersigned certlfythat they are either "owners" of land in the territory proposed to be annexed as described in Exhibit "A", or are "electors" registered in the territory proposed to be annexed as described in Exhibit "A". This petition, containing the request and consent to said annexation, must be filed with the Central Point City council on or before the date of the public hearing to be held upon the proposed annexation pursuant to ORS 222.120. "Owner" is defined by ORS 222.120 as meaning the legal owner of record or, where there is a recorded land contract which is in force, the purchaser thereunder. If there is multiple ownership in a parcel of land, each consenting owner shall be counted as a fraction of the same extent as the Interest of the owner in the land bears in relation to the interest of the other owners, and the same fraction shall be applied to the parcel's land mass for purposes of the consent petition. If a corporation owns land In a territory proposed to be annexed, the corporation shall be considered to be the individual owner of that land. "Elector" Is defined in said statute as an individual qualified to vote under Article Il, Section 2 of the Oregon Constitution, which in turn requires that the individual be 18 years of age or older, a resident of the area in question, and registered to vote as required by applicable state law. Furthermore, ORS 222.270(2) requires that electors petitioning for annexation be registered in the territory proposed to be annexed. 68 Elector or Name/Address _ Property0wner Signature f1aEe Bob Fellows Construction LLC T 2950 Phillips V4 iCentralPoint OR97502 i j rA;7�o� -7 Nope rriawr�r 68 �• 1� � �� T/ 11 i� � A ■ f r N�c� J Oakr \ • / 1 IT - / r _ 1 � F 06 / 7 Y- si s a 1 �'. n�� � I I I l 11 � � •�: � � . .004127. -Nil I II 11 'l l •+ - ; WrO 'a -L. lL 1� •ill 11 VLiL -ta. _l l TO le J. twouj11 . u[SLl•!�. � � L:C�y;J. 1 � � �� �J � ec •� iTJ./�1 � • ' • l f / r. � _-� ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A"- Graphic Illustration of the subject property Attachment "B"- Annexation Petition Attachment "C"- Infrastructure Maps (Exhibits 9A -9C) Attachment "D"- City Council Resolution No. _ Ordering Annexation Exhibit A: Written Description Exhibit B: Annexation Depiction Map ACTIONS: _ Open public hearing and consider the request to annex approximately 3.64 acres located at 37 2W 11 C Tax Lots 8300 and 8400, close the public hearing and 1) recommend approval to the City Council; 2) recommend approval with revisions; or 3) recommend denial the application. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of Annexation Request (File No. 1700 1) to the City Council per the Staff Report dated September 5, 2017. 66 Annexation Criteria: 1. Written Consents: The annexation application includes written consent to annex from 100% of the property owners and a majority of the electors within the annexation territory, who have signed the annexation petition, which is evidence of written consent to annexation (Attachment B). Accordingly, pursuant to ORS 222.125 and CPMC 1.24.020, the City Council may order the annexation without notice, hearing or election. Contiguous to City Limits: Pursuant to ORS 222.111, territory proposed for annexation must be contiguous to the City or separated from it only by a public right -of --way or a stream, lake or other body of water. The subject annexation area is contiguous to Central Point to the north, west and south. 3. Within Urban Growth Boundary (UGB): The annexation territory is within the Urban Growth Boundary of Central Point and is in compliance with the City -County Urban Growth Boundary and Policy Agreement of September 1984 and amended in 1998. Orderly Provision of Public Facilities: The City -County Urban Growth Boundary and Policy Agreement requires that, in considering an annexation, urban facilities and services must be adequate in condition and capacity to accommodate the additional level of growth allowed by the Comprehensive Plan within the annexation area prior to or concurrent with the development. Public Works and Rogue Valley Sewer Services have reviewed the existing public facilities and their proximity to the annexation area and concluded that public facilities can be provided or extended to the site. Any future enhancements of these facilities made necessary by development of the annexation area will be the responsibility of the developer and regulated through the City's land use application process. This will result in an orderly provision of public facilities to the annexation area. 5. Duly noticed and advertised notice of public hearing: Pursuant to ORS 222.120 notice of the hearing was published for the Planning Commission meeting on September 5, 2017 and for the City Council meeting on September 14, 2017, in the Mail Tribune newspaper and notice was posted in four (4) public locations. In addition, on August XX, 2017 notice was mailed to each property owner of record within 100 feet of the proposed annexation. ISSUES: There is one issue relative to this application: I . The City had hoped to encourage the two adjoining properties to the south to participate in this annexation but neither elected to do so. Letters were mailed to the adjoining property owners with an invitation to be included. Had one or the other decided to join the applicant, all would have been forced to participate and a `county island' could have been eliminated completely. 65 City of Central Point, Oregon 140 5 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www. c e n t ra l p o i n to repo n so v AGENDA ITEM: FILE NO: 17001 AOW4hk CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT September 5, 2017 Community Development Tom Humphrey, AiCP Community Development Director Annexation of 3428 and 3470 Chickory Lane comprising 3.64 acres. This application is accompanied by a comprehensive plan amendment and a zone change which will be considered separately. It is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W I IC Tax Lots 8300 and 8400, Applicant: Bob Fellows; Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. STAFF SOURCE: Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director BACKGROUND: The applicant would like to bring his property into the City and develop it for residential purposes. The property must be annexed in order to consider land use amendment, a zone change and subsequent development. The Planning Department sent a letter to area property owners to invite participation in this annexation. The two immediate properties that are still in the County have elected NOT to participate. The subject property is adjacent to the city limits along all property lines as illustrated by the site map, Attachment A. Currently the subject properties are each occupied with single family dwellings and zoned by Jackson County as General Industrial (GI). It is designated Residential on the City's Comprehensive Plan (Map) and Zoning Map. When annexed, the property will no longer have a County zoning classification. The existing buildings on each tax lot will be removed in order to redevelop the property. AUTHORITY: ORS 222.125 authorizes annexation of property contiguous to cities when all of the owners of land and a majority of electors consent. CPMC 1.20 vests the City Council with the authority to order the annexation of unincorporated territory in the Urban Growth Boundary into the City of Central Point. The Planning Commission is involved in the review of this annexation because it is associated with land use changes and staff wanted commission review before sending it to the City Council. This annexation is a `full consent annexation' since the property owner has consented in writing to the annexation. 64