The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSept. 5, 2017 PC PacketA CPOfNRTAL CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA September 5, 2017 - 6:00 p.m. I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members, Mike Oliver (chair), Tom Van Voorhees, Craig Nelson Sr., Kay Harrison, Amy Moore, John Whiting. IV. CORRESPONDENCE V. MINUTES Review and approval of the August 1, 2017 meeting minutes. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS A. Consideration of Resolution No. 844 approving the Housing Element, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan. (File No. CPA -17004, Applicant: City of Central Point) B. Consideration of a Class "C" Variance to the maximum density standard in the R-1-6 zoning district as necessary to partition a 0.22 acre site into two (2) parcels. The project site is located at 765 Ash Street, which has frontage on both Ash and Chestnut Street. The property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 11BA, Tax Lot 600. Applicant: Bryan and Lisa Herrmann. C. Annexation of 3428 and 3470 Chicory 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 11C Tax Lots 8300 and 8400. Applicant: Bob Fellows; Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. D. 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 37 2W 11C, Tax Lots 8300 and 8400. Applicant: Bob Fellows; Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. E. Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Clarification for two(2) parcels totaling 3.64 acres at 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane, from Jackson County land use designation Industrial to Central Point land use designation Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Corridor, and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 11C, Tax Lots 8300 and 8400. Applicant: Bob Fellows; Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd VIII. DISCUSSION IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS XI. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2017 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:04 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners, Mike Oliver, Tom Van Voorhees, John Whiting, Craig Nelson, and Kay Harrison were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Don Burt, Planning director, Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner, Molly Bradley, Community Planner, and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE III. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Fair Housing Council to Planning Commission commending the update of the Central Point Housing Element 2017-2037 Memorandum to the Planning Commission from City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer Mike Oliver added information from the City Attorney's memo regarding deliberating after a motion has been made and duly seconded rather than waiting to make a motion until after deliberations. He explained that should the motion be voted on and fail, a new motion can be made, or if the moving commissioner changes their mind they can withdraw the motion and make a new one. Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director informed the Planning Commission that there would be a study session with the City Attorney on August 14, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. regarding bias, conflict of interest and ex parte contact. IV. MINUTES Kay Harrison made a motion to approve the July 18, 2017 Minutes as presented. Craig Nelson Seconded. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Amy Moore, abstain; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; John Whiting, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES None VI. BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 2 A. Public Hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit application to operate a preschool in a residential neighborhood. The preschool, "Imagination Station", proposes to locate in an existing accessory structure in the Residential Single -Family (R-1-10) zoning district. The project site is located at 917 Mendolia Way, and is defined on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S2W10BB, Tax Lot 807. Owner: Jeanne Quigley Applicant: Kendra Marineau Planning Commission Chair Mike Oliver read the rules regarding quasi-judicial hearing procedure. No bias, conflict of interest or ex parte contact was declared. Molly Bradley said that The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate a preschool, "Imagination Station", in an existing 400ft2, detached accessory structure located in the rear yard of the Property at 917 Mendolia Way in Central Point. She said that Per CPMC 17.20.030(C), preschools are designated Conditional Uses in the R-1 zoning district, and require special consideration so they are properly located with respect to the objectives in the zoning title and their effect on surrounding properties. The operation of preschool facilities is regulated by the Early Learning Division in the Oregon Department of Education. She stated that the City's review will be limited to land use issues. Ms. Bradley continued, the Applicant proposes to open a Recorded Preschool, in Fall of 2017, and enroll six 4 -year old students, with the potential to increase enrollment in the future. She explained that a Recorded Preschool means a facility providing care for preschool children that is primarily educational for four hours or less per day. Hours of operation are proposed to be Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 9:00am-12:00pm, following the school district calendar. Access to the site will be from the public street, Mendolia Way, and off-street parking is provided in the driveway of the project site, per the Applicant's Findings. There is a gate to the backyard, accessed from the driveway, which will serve as the main access to the preschool. Restroom facilities will be available to the preschool children inside the primary residence. The Property is surrounded by Single -Family Residential (R-1-10) properties. Ms. Bradley stated that there are three issues relative to the proposed preschool. The first is Parking Requirements. She said that Per CPMC 17.64.02B, a Preschool requires one off-street parking space per employee, plus 1 space per 5 children the facility accommodates. Based on the Applicant's proposal to have one employee and six students, a total of two off-street parking spaces would be required to meet the code standard. The proposed parking plan illustrates two covered off-street parking spaces for the single-family residence, and three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. As shown on the Applicant's site plan, use of two of the uncovered parking spaces will cause intermittent disruption of the access to covered spaces provided in the garage during the hours designated for drop-off and pick-up, causing a potential conflict with the covered parking spaces. She said that the potential conflict with the covered parking spaces is considered minor and can be mitigated by the Applicant through coordination of ingress/egress for the covered parking to avoid drop-off and pick-up times. Staff finds that because of the unique characteristics of this application in regards to proposed preschool attendance and the Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 3 intermittent disruption of access to the covered garage parking spaces, that the potential conflict can be prevented through an agreement between the Applicant and property owner. Ms. Bradley said that the second issue regarding the application was Enrollment. The Applicant's Findings state that enrollment may be increased in the future. The State does not determine enrollment standards for Recorded Preschool Programs; therefore, the number of students permitted to occupy the preschool will be dictated by the off-street parking spaces available at the preschool site. Per CPMC 17.64.02B, a Preschool requires one off-street parking space per employee plus 1 space for every 5 students. On this basis, where the maximum number of off-street parking spaces available is three, the maximum number of students that can be accommodated is ten. She said that staff recommends that, per Condition of Approval #4, the Applicant be limited to maximum enrollment of ten students at the proposed preschool. Ms. Bradley stated that during the public comment period, two letters of opposition were received from property owners adjacent to the project site. She summarized the concerns raised in the letters. The first concern involved Alternative zoning districts. Both letters raised concerns about the compatibility of a preschool within the residential zoning district, and recommend finding an alternative zoning district to locate the operation. She said that per the current municipal code, preschools are classified as a conditional use in the Residential Single -Family (R-1), Residential Two -Family (R-2), and Residential Multiple -Family (R-3) zoning districts. Preschools are not identified as a permitted use or as a conditional use in any other zoning district. Because preschools may pose potential impacts to the livability or desired character of an area, a conditional use permit is required to identify these potential impacts, and to apply conditions that will address identified concerns. This Application has been conditioned per the approval criteria in CPMC 17.76.040 to mitigate the potential impacts that a preschool may pose to the surrounding neighborhood. The second concern was about child safety and liability. One letter asked if the City could be held responsible for incidents of child negligence or inadequate supervision that might put a child in danger. Ms. Bradley said that child safety and liability are addressed through the State's operation requirements and are regulated by the Early Learning and Child Care Division in the Oregon Department of Education. The proposed preschool is classified as a Recorded Preschool Program, which means it must be recorded with the State but is exempt from licensure. Per OAR 414-450-0030, the two requirements for Recorded Preschool Programs are 1) Complete a background check on all staff and volunteers 18 years of age or older who have contact with children in the program; and 2) Post a notice where it is visible to parents that the preschool is recorded with the Child Care Division and is legally exempt from licensure. The proposed preschool operation is subject to both sanctions and denial of application by the State if it is found to be in violation of regulations per applicable OAR. Through Condition of Approval #2, the City also has authority to revoke the conditional use permit and business license if the Applicant Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 4 violates any State Rules for Recorded Programs, or any conditions of approval that are set forth in this report. The City is not liable for potential negligence that occurs at a privately run preschool on private property. The third concern was Noise. The letters of opposition from the adjacent property owners state concerns regarding the potential impact to their quality of life due to noise from preschool students that could disrupt surrounding neighbors during the hours of the preschool's operation. She said that the preschool is proposing to operate in the 400ft2 accessory structure in the backyard of the Property, with activities occurring both inside and outside the structure. The Applicant has stated in her findings that a 6 -foot fence surrounds the back yard of the Property, and four tall trees stand next to the rear yard fence, which may help to contain or buffer noise from the preschool. The Conditional Use Permit process provides an opportunity to mitigate potential impacts, such as noise, from a proposed use. In response, staff recommends Condition of Approval #4 which prohibits the Applicant from operating the preschool outside the hours of 9:OOam - 12:OOpm on Monday, Wednesday and Friday during the school year, and limits the number of preschool student enrollment to ten. Ms. Bradley read the conditions of approval: 1) Prior to commencing operation of the preschool, the Applicant shall obtain a business license with the City of Central Point. 2) Prior to issuance of a business license, the Applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with an active program record for the proposed preschool, "Imagination Station", issued by the State of Oregon Child Care Division per ORS 329A.255. 3) The proposed preschool shall comply with all state and local laws, including State regulations for Recorded Preschool Programs. Failure to comply with these regulations will result in the City revoking the conditional use permit and business license for the proposed preschool. 4) The preschool shall not operate outside the hours of 9:OOam—12:OOpm, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, excluding drop-off and pick-up times which may occur within 15 -minutes of the hours of operation. The preschool shall be limited to the enrollment of ten students. Any changes to the proposed use (i.e. increasing enrollment or hours of operation, etc.) are subject to CPMC 17.09, Modifications to Approved Plans and Conditions of Approval. 6) Prior to issuance of a business license, a Change of Occupancy Permit is required per the condition stated in the Building Department letter, dated June 26. Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 5 7) A sign permit shall be obtained by the Applicant and approved by City staff prior to installation. The sign face shall be limited to 4 -feet by 2 -feet in area. The Commissioners requested confirmation that the hours would be 9:00 to noon three days per week and would follow the schedule for the School District with no classes on holidays or during summer months. Additionally they discussed the fact that enrollment was limited by the availability of off street parking. Mr. Oliver asked if there was a limit of square footage per student and Ms. Bradley responded that the Building Code requires 36 square feet per child. The Public Hearing Was Opened. The Applicant read a statement including a brief history of her life in the neighborhood, and her qualifications. She stated the hours of operation would be Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The Commissioners asked whether there was a restroom for the children and the Applicant replied that they would use the restroom in the main house. Her grandmother would be available to help her or the children could all go when they washed their hands for snack. The Commissioners asked if there were fire extinguishers available at the location. The Applicant said there were. There Commissioners asked how many employees might be employed and Ms. Bradley responded that the number of employees would be limited to the availability of parking. She added that if necessary the Applicant could enter into a shared parking agreement with the owners of the home across the street which was her family's home. Todd Marineau — Applicant's father. Mr. Marineau said he was the owner of the home across the street and he would be happy to sign a shared parking agreement. He said that he believed that most people dropping off their children would be parking briefly on the street and not actually pulling into the parking spaces. He added that there was a lot of street parking available. Jeannie Quigley - Applicant's grandmother. Ms. Quigley stated that she intended to be available during all preschool hours to assist the Applicant in any way necessary. She would not be an employee. She said that she has worked as a teacher for many years and was fully qualified to assist. She stated that she believed the Applicant was very qualified and that the preschool would be a benefit to the community. Mary Cadman. 912 Mendolia way. SMs. Cadman stated she has lived there for 17 years and watched the neighborhood grow. She said that it was not a retirement community but a neighborhood and the sound of children playing was a natural and enjoyable occurrence. She added that if noise was an issue, she would like the Commissioners to take into account the sounds of loud music, dogs barking, skateboards and Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 6 basketball in the neighborhood. She said that the preschool hours were only 3 hours per day, three days per week. She added that she had known the applicant for 17 years was definitely in favor of allowing her to start the preschool. John Pastorino 330 Meadowlark Way. Mr. Pastorino stated that the Commissioners had received his letter regarding the application and that it was included in the packet. He read a statement saying he and his wife had moved to Central Point from Alaska and had attended several planning commission meetings since locating in the City. He stated that his observation was that the City was impersonal and did not make their decisions based on people but rather on rules and regulations. He enumerated his concerns regarding the preschool's proximity to his home and the impact it would have on his quality of life. He stated that he was a retired teacher and did not wish to have the noise of the preschool disturbing his retirement years. Dale Petrosic 320 Meadowlark Way. Mr. Petrosic stated that his main objection to the preschool was the noise. He handed a letter to the Commissioners. He said that he was in favor of young people starting a business, but that the noise impact would be too close to his property. Using an aerial photo from Ms. Bradley's presentation he showed the location of his property. He felt the noise impacts have not been mitigated sufficiently. He said that ten children would make quite a bit of noise and he felt the existing fence and trees were not sufficient to mitigate that noise. He requested that the application have a condition of approval limiting the preschool to 4 children as that would be a level of noise that might be reasonably expected if an average size family resided there. Jennifer Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell said she has lived in Central Point for 17 years. Said she is a school teacher and a parent of 3 children. She said that the applicant had worked for her as a teaching assistant and she felt that the Applicant was extremely qualified to teach young children. She explained that a preschool was more than just watching children. She went on to explain that when children are engaged in a learning environment the noise level is quite different than when they are just free playing. She stated that as a community member, she believed the preschool would be a benefit to the everyone. Cindy Pastorino . 330 Meadowlark Way. Ms. Pastorino stated that she had submitted a letter to the Planning Commission. She stated that her understanding was that this application was a land use issue and she had spent a lot of time reading the Municipal Code. She said that per the Municipal Code she had legitimate claims to object to the granting of the application. She stated that neither the City staff report nor the conditions of approval sufficiently address her concerns. Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 7 Ms. Pastornio said she had several questions. The first of which was: Why is City Staff recommending that the Planning Commission grant approval of the application over denial of the application? She stated that although this meeting is about the municipal code it is also about the people who chose to make Central Point their home and whose quality of life would be directly impacted by the preschool. She said that she and her husband had chosen to live in Central Point after retiring from teaching for many years in Alaska. She added that they would never have chosen their property if it had been close to an existing daycare, preschool, elementary or high school. She and her husband believe that the preschool will have a negative impact on their quality of life and would change the dynamic of the neighborhood. She cited CPMC 17.76.010. Question 2. What is the positive effect that this business will have on their property and their quality of life? She stated she had signatures from other neighbors who agreed with her position and would submit those signatures for the record. Ms. Pastorino said that all the living areas of their home faced the proposed location of the preschool and thus would make it difficult to get away from any noise impacts to their property. She asked if the Planning Commissioners would agree to a site visit to her home so they could see the location for themselves. She asserted that 4 year old children make a lot of noise and that noise multiplied by 10 children would have an extreme impact. Additionally, she added that the assumption that most people would be awake during the proposed hours of the preschool was not relevant as the sleeping habits of the neighbors should not have to be dictated by the noise of the preschool. Also, the assumption that most people would be at work during the hours of operation was incorrect as retired people were not taken into account. She said that the applicant had handed out flyers for her proposed business several weeks ago. She felt it was inappropriate for the applicant to be advertising her business with flyers prior to the application being approved. She said that she believed the fence and trees were not sufficient to mitigate any noise from the children. She stated there were several windows facing their property and wondered how the noise from the windows would be mitigated. Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 8 Question No. 3. Why is the City Staff recommending approval for 10 children when the Notice of Land Use Application indicates 6. She asked why the size was dictated by the available parking rather than the effect the business would have on her quality of life. Ms. Pastorino said that Municipal Code section 17.60.190 states home occupations can only generate up to 10 trips per day and the applicant's business will generate more than that. She went on to say that the staff report indicates that a preschool is not a permitted use in this zoning district and she requested denial of the application. She submitted the list of signatures of other neighbors who agreed with her position. George Fletcher 921 Mendolia. Said that with regard to the complaints about noise, he has neighbors who play music loudly at night and on the other side of him is a pool where kids play. He stated that he enjoys hearing children playing. He added that he is always up by 9:00 in the morning and he is home most of the day. He said that he thought three hours per day would not be a significant impact and he also believed that the Applicant would be able to engage the children enough so that noise would not be a problem. Mark Northrup. Fire District Three. Asked if anyone had any questions regarding fire safety and the preschool location. He stated that he had done an inspection and found no fire hazards. at all. In response to a question from the Planning Commission he added that the single exit in the square footage of the space complied with the Code The Applicant stated there were several home occupation businesses in the neighborhood. Tom Humphrey elaborated that home occupations were permitted in the neighborhood and there were three in the immediate vicinity. Craig Nelson asked what percentage of time the children would be outside. Applicant answered that it would be dependent on the weather. But her best guess would be that on a good day it would be approximately 80% outside. Tom Humphrey asked if the applicant would allow for a condition of approval that might limit the number of children in order to satisfy the concerns of the neighbors. Mike Oliver asked if 4 students would be ok. Applicant answered that she would be agreeable to 6 students and if the enrollment ever went over 8 students she would move the preschool. 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 9 Molly Bradley summarized that the Applicant submitted a land use application based on the current code standards. She said that a preschool is considered a conditional use in the R-1 District. She added that Staff evaluated the application against the approval criteria in the Municipal Code and that based on that criteria and the Applicant's compliance with that criteria, staff made a recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve the application with certain conditions of approval. She added that the Planning Commission had the authority to modify any conditions of approval in order to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood. Public Hearing Closed Kay Harrison made a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit application to operate a preschool in a residential neighborhood located at 917 Mendolia Way in Central Point. As conditioned. There was no second. The motion died. Craig Nelson made a motion to continue the Public Hearing in order for the Planning Commission to make a site visit to the Pastoring's property. Tom Humphrey said that that would be considered Ex parte Contact and the visit would probably have to be noticed and the record may need to be left open because that would be additional evidence. He said that if the Commissioners wanted to visit the site the record could be left open and he would consult with the City Attorney. There was discussion regarding the procedures and reasons for a continuation of the hearing and a site visit. Kay Harrison said that the Planning Commission needed to make their decision based on the criteria set forth in the municipal code. She said that a site visit would bring an emotional element to the table and that was not appropriate. John Whiting made a motion to approve the application as conditioned with the exception that condition no. 4 be modified to limit the amount of children to 6. Tom Van Voorhees seconded. John Whiting stated that he believed it to be important not to continue the hearing as the applicant was intending to follow the school year as far as enrollment and continuing it would put her at a disadvantage timewise. The Commissioners discussed the issue of proximity in a neighborhood and various types of noises that would be normal and expected. They resolved that capping the number of students at 6 was reasonable and that the limited hours and following the school year was also reasonable. 11 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 10 Mike Oliver stated that the Motion to approve Conditional Use Permit application to operate a preschool in a residential neighborhood. Stood as moved and seconded with the condition of a limit of 6 students. Roll Call: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Craig Nelson, no; John Whiting, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion Passed. Mike Oliver called a 5 minute break at 7:57 p.m. 8:00 p.m. John Whiting left. Meeting resumed at 8:05 p.m. B. Public Hearing to consider the Housing Element, city of Central Point comprehensive Plan. Don Burt stated that on April 11, 2017 the Citizens Advisory Committee discussed the draft Housing Element and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council and Planning Commission to accept. At the May 2, 2017 meeting the draft of the Housing Element was discussed by the Planning Commission. Since the May 2nd Planning Commission the draft Housing Element has been distributed for review and comment. He said the attached final draft includes comments from the Department of Land Conservation and Development and 1,000 Friends of Oregon. Mr. Burt gave an overview of the Housing Element. He stated that the change in population from 2016 — 1036 to 2017 - 2037 had affected the final results regarding population, acreages and final density. He added that there would be some minor editorial changes. He said that the current preferred housing type for Central Point is Single family detached, owner occupied housing, however in the future the preferred housing type may be attached single family or multifamily because of affordability. He said that the average density per gross acre has increased 37%. Taking into account the population growth during the period 2017- 2037, the estimated number of gross acres needed to accommodate new housing is 260 which does not include adjustments for future recreation use which would be 50 acres. Mr. Burt said that the Hosing Implementation Plan would include types and cost of housing constructed, average density of new development, vacant land inventory, household income and procedural and regulatory strategies, monitoring and evaluation. He added that it would be updated and maintained in coordination with the State's population updates 12 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2017 Page I1 He said that housing affordability is typically measured as a percentage of household income. And he reviewed charts depicting historic household characteristics such as tenure, householder age, household size and household income. The commissioners asked about government assisted housing and Mr. Burt replied that was contained in the Low income category. Mr. Burt explained that the Regional Plan Element establishes new minimum average Goss density requirement of 6.9 by the year 2036 that will increase to 7.9. He said that Land currently within the URA or UGB but outside of the City Limits shall be built, at a minimum, to a density of 6.9 units per gross acres. This requirement can be offset by increasing the residential density inside the City Limits. He added that currently platted lots would not be subject to the density requirement. He discussed the residential demand of needed acres vs. available acres for the 2017 — 2037 period and housing affordability. The Commissioners asked how mobile home parks and tiny homes would be accounted for. Mr. Burt replied that those would be a building code issue. Mr. Burt reviewed the Housing Goals and Policies Goal 1. To provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the diverse needs of the City's current and projected households. Goal 2.To encourage the development and preservation of fair and affordable housing. Goal 3. To maintain a timely supply of vacant residential acres sufficient to accommodate development of new housing to serve the City's projected population. Goal 4. To ensure that a variety of housing will be provided in the City in terms of locating, type, price and tenure, according to the projected needs of the population. Goal 5. To ensure that municipal development procedures and standards are not unreasonable impediments to that provision of affordable housing. Goal 6. To develop and maintain a Housing Implementation Plan that includes programs that monitor and address the housing affordability needs of the City's low and moderate income households. Goal 7. To assure that residential development standards encourage and support attractive and health neighborhoods. 13 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 12 He recommended that the Planning Commission either close the public hearing tonight and direct staff to prepare a favorable resolution for consideration at the September 5, 2017 meeting or continue the public hearing and discussion to the September 5, 2017 meeting. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Larry Martin- 2763 Taylor Road said that he was in favor of continuing the Housing Element to the September 5, 2017 meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the Housing Element for consideration at the September 5, 2017 planning commission meeting. Kay Harrison Seconded. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes Amy Moore, yes Craig Nelson, yes Kay Harrison, yes, john Whiting, yes. Motion passed VII. DISCUSSION Community Development Director Tom Humphrey informed the Commissioners that there had been no appeal of the Smith Crossing Application. He also gave an update on the Microdevices project and said that Costco was continuing to build on schedule. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Craig Nelson made a motion to adjourn. Kay Harrison seconded. All members said "aye". Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the August 1, 2017 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of, September, 2017. Planning Commission Chair 14 HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 15 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM VII -A AOP%L CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT September 5, 2017 Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator Consideration of Resolution No. 844 approving the Housing Element, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan. (File No. CPA -17004, Applicant: City of Central Point) STAFF SOURCE: Don Burt, Planning Manager BACKGROUND: At the August 1, 2017 Planning Commission meeting a public hearing was held to take input on the proposed 2017-37 Housing Element. After opening and closing the public hearing the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare the final Housing Element for consideration and recommendation to the City Council. ISSUES: No known issues. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" — Housing Element with comments Attachment `B" — Resolution No. 844 ACTION: Consideration of Resolution No. 844 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the Housing Element. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 844. Page 1 of 1 16 ATTACHMENT "A" i I�YwIKMay�� Housing Element 2017-2037 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. DLCD Acknowledged 2017-37 Housing Element Page 1 17 ATTACHMENT "A" Contents 1 Summary ..................................................................................................................................4 2 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 5 3 Purpose.................................................................................................................................... 7 4 Household Characteristics....................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Household Tenure............................................................................................................ 8 4.2 Age of Householder......................................................................................................... 8 4.3 Household Size................................................................................................................. 9 4.4 Household Income.......................................................................................................... 10 4.5 Summary, Household Characteristics............................................................................ 11 5 Special Needs Housing.......................................................................................................... 11 5.1 Elderly Residents............................................................................................................ 11 5.2 Handicapped Residents.................................................................................................. 11 5.3 Poverty and Low Income Residents............................................................................... 11 6 Housing Characteristics......................................................................................................... 12 6.1 Housing Age................................................................................................................... 12 6.2 Housing Type................................................................................................................. 13 6.3 Housing Value................................................................................................................ 15 6.4 Summary, Housing Characteristics................................................................................ 16 7 Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning............................................................................... 16 7.1 Housing Density............................................................................................................. 17 7.2 Land Use and Housing Type.......................................................................................... 19 7.3 Summary, Housing Density........................................................................................... 20 8 Buildable Residential Lands.................................................................................................. 20 8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands......................................................................... 22 9 Housing Affordability............................................................................................................ 23 9.1 Renter Households......................................................................................................... 23 9.2 Owner Households......................................................................................................... 23 9.3 Summary, Affordability................................................................................................. 24 10 Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Need ........................................................ 24 10.1 Future Housing Tenure............................................................................................... 27 10.2 Future Housing Types................................................................................................ 27 11 Housing Goals and Policies............................................................................................... 28 2017-37 Housing Element Page 2 18 ATTACHMENT "A" 1 Summary During the next twenty year planning period (2017-37) the physical and demographic characteristics of the City's housing and housing needs are not expected to significantly change. Single-family detached owner -occupied housing will continue to be the preferred housing type, followed by multiple -family rental housing. Aside from the Great Recession (the "Recession") the most significant influence on the City's housing program was the adoption of a minimum development density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre'. The relevance of this new density standard becomes apparent when compared to the City's 1980 — 2016 average gross density of 5.31 dwelling units, a 37% density increase. To achieve the new average density standard it is necessary that the City's residential land use classification distribution and the current minimum densities be modified. Table 1.1 illustrates the change in distribution of residential land use classifications, which is minimal and will not affect the City's built landscape. Table 1.2 illustrates the changes in density. As illustrated in Table 1.2 the New Minimum Average Density will be 7.05 vs. the 1980-2016 density of 5.31. Table 1.1 City of Central Point Residential Development by Land Use Classification Note: 1 Based on Net Acres adjusted 25% for public right -0f --way. Table 1.2. Current Maximunn, Actual Gross Density vs. New Minimum Gross Density 1e►►' V:tCnnt Percentage of Residential Developed Developed Acreage E,Iaximuttt Residential Acres, Distribution. Land Use Classification 1980m2021-6 2017-2037 VLRes 2% 5% LRes 63% 60% MRes 17% 20% HRes 18% 15% Total Percentage 10011/0 100' 0 Note: 1 Based on Net Acres adjusted 25% for public right -0f --way. Table 1.2. Current Maximunn, Actual Gross Density vs. New Minimum Gross Density *Assumes Build -Out 1 City of Central Point Regional Plan 2017-37 Housing Element 19 Page 4 Actual Current Developed E,Iaximuttt Gross Gross Density, 2008- Nen Minimuttt Laud Use Classification Densih` 2016 Gross Density VLRes 1.00 1.51 1.00 LRes 6.00 3.91 4.00 MRes 12.00 6.00 8.00 HRes 25.00 10.08 20.00 Average Densit'► 10.95 5.31 7.Uh *Assumes Build -Out 1 City of Central Point Regional Plan 2017-37 Housing Element 19 Page 4 ATTACHMENT "A" During the 2017-37 planning period it is projected that 1,780 new dwelling units will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth. At an average density of 6.9 units per gross acre the City will need an estimated 260 acres of gross residential land (Table 1.3). After taking into consideration the City's current inventory of residential land (136 acres) there is a need for an additional 190 gross acres. Table 1.3. Proposed New Density°, 2017-2037 Housing affordability will continue to be an impediment for many households, improving and declining as a function of the economy. Housing affordability is not an issue that the City can effectively influence other than as a participant in the development of regional strategies addressing affordability. To this end the Housing Element includes policies calling for the development of a Housing Implementation Plan (the "HIP"). The specific purpose of the HIP will be to monitor housing affordability in the context of regional efforts by local governments and the private sector to address the affordability issue, and to put into action those strategies that have the most impact on affordability. The City does have control over a very critical resource in the affordability equation — the availability of vacant land necessary to meet market demand for housing. The primary objective of this Housing Element is the continued assurance that sufficient land is available for housing and that zoning standards are flexible and take in to account all housing types. 2 Introduction The City's Housing Element was last updated in 1983 and stated as its purpose that: "The role of the housing element is not aimed at seeking precise solutions to the housing problem. Both national and regional trends are the greatest influence on the housing market. Attempts to resolve these fluctuating conditions at the local level are usually ineffective. Therefore, the purpose or objective of this element is open to an avenue of communication between private industry and local public officials in seeking an improved housing environment. " Ironically, the 1983 Housing Element was completed just after the 1980's Real Estate Crash. Its purpose statement reflects local government's frustration in its inability to offer timely, meaningful and sustainable solutions to needed housing as "... usually ineffective." This 2017-37 Housing Element Page 5 20 Gross New Vacant Minimum Residential Minimum Gross Acres Build -Out Land Use Classification Density Needed (DUs) VLRes 1.00 13 13 LRes 4.00 151 605 MRes 8.00 50 403 HRes 20.00 38 756 Average Density 7.05 252 1,777 Housing affordability will continue to be an impediment for many households, improving and declining as a function of the economy. Housing affordability is not an issue that the City can effectively influence other than as a participant in the development of regional strategies addressing affordability. To this end the Housing Element includes policies calling for the development of a Housing Implementation Plan (the "HIP"). The specific purpose of the HIP will be to monitor housing affordability in the context of regional efforts by local governments and the private sector to address the affordability issue, and to put into action those strategies that have the most impact on affordability. The City does have control over a very critical resource in the affordability equation — the availability of vacant land necessary to meet market demand for housing. The primary objective of this Housing Element is the continued assurance that sufficient land is available for housing and that zoning standards are flexible and take in to account all housing types. 2 Introduction The City's Housing Element was last updated in 1983 and stated as its purpose that: "The role of the housing element is not aimed at seeking precise solutions to the housing problem. Both national and regional trends are the greatest influence on the housing market. Attempts to resolve these fluctuating conditions at the local level are usually ineffective. Therefore, the purpose or objective of this element is open to an avenue of communication between private industry and local public officials in seeking an improved housing environment. " Ironically, the 1983 Housing Element was completed just after the 1980's Real Estate Crash. Its purpose statement reflects local government's frustration in its inability to offer timely, meaningful and sustainable solutions to needed housing as "... usually ineffective." This 2017-37 Housing Element Page 5 20 ATTACHMENT "A" reaction is understandable given the circumstances in 1983. At the housing peak in 1978 over 4 million homes across the U.S. were sold. Then, over the course of the next four years housing sales dropped over 50%. With interest rates in excess of 15% housing affordability was a major issue. It wasn't until 1996, almost two decades later, that the national housing market recovered to its 1978 level. Since the Recession we once again confront the issue of housing affordability. Housing demand and supply, as with most commodities, varies with changing demographics and economic cycles. Demographic changes can affect the long-term (generational) demand for housing and is predictable and easily factored into the supply side of the housing equation. Economic cycles, unlike demographic changes, are more whimsical, less predictable, and can be very disruptive to the shorter -term demand and supply for housing. The recent Recession had, and still poses, a significant impact on housing, both on the demand and the supply side of the equation. Prior to the Recession demand for housing was high and with sub -prime lending practices housing was affordable. By the end of 2007 the housing bubble had burst — the Recession had arrived. Unemployment skyrocketed (16%), mortgage foreclosures reached historic levels, and housing prices tumbled. Overnight housing production of all types virtually ceased. Without jobs homeownership was out of reach for many households. The Recession did not reduce the real demand for housing; people still needed a place to live. Consequently, the demand for rental units increased, but due to the failure of the financial system, real estate lending for all housing types dried up, the short-term housing supply plateaued. With the increase in the demand for rental housing rents began to escalate. Today, unemployment and interest rates are at all-time lows, wages are increasing (although slowly), and lending practices are easing, all of which are improving the supply and affordability of housing, but affordability still remains a challenge. As the economy continues to improve the question remains — will housing affordability continue to improve, or will additional measures be needed before sustainable solutions to the affordability issue are realized? Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals, Goal 10, Housing, offers a venue to address not only housing needs in general, but also the broader spectrum of housing — its affordability. The stated purpose of Goal 10 is to "... encourage adequate numbers of needed housing at price ranges and rent levels commensurate with the financial capabilities of the City's households". The City of Central Point's Housing Element focuses on housing need, with a primary emphasis on assuring (Goals and Policies) that adequate land is available to accommodate/encourage the supply side of the housing equation. It is at this level that the City has the most direct influence on addressing needed housing. As we've seen from recent history the scope of what is defined as "needed housing" can change significantly in a shorter period than the typical 20 -year planning timeframe. It is for this reason that this Housing Element will not only encourage adequate numbers of needed housing, but also includes a secondary emphasis — the continuous monitoring of housing activity as it relates to need and affordability, and the development of strategies and actions addressing housing affordability. It is for this reason that the Housing Element introduces the creation of a Housing Implementation Plan, a dynamic working document that monitors housing activity within the City and coordinates with other communities in the development and implementation of affordable housing at both the local and regional level. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 6 21 ATTACHMENT "A" 3 Purpose Over the course of the next twenty years (2017-37) the City's population is projected to increase by 4,420 residents2. With an average household size of 2.5 persons there will be a need for 1,770 dwelling units. The types, density, and land required to meet the projected housing demand will be addressed in this Housing Element. On the demand side the Housing Element will monitor the demand for housing and make necessary adjustments in land supply and encourage and support the financing and construction of a wide array of housing types. The purpose of this Housing Element has been modified only slightly from the previous purpose statement, and now reads as follows: To assure that the City's land use policies, support a variety of housing types at densities and locations that provide and encourage opportunities for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels commensurate with the financial capabilities of the City's households. It is also the purpose of this element to open and maintain communication between private industry and local public officials in seeking an improved housing environment within the Greater Bear Creek Valley Region. In addressing the purpose of the Housing Element, both now and in the future, there are six basic, but dynamic, indicators of housing need that are the basis of this Housing Element: 1. Household Characteristics 2. Housing Characteristics 3. Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning 4. Buildable Residential Lands 5. Housing Affordability 6. Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Needs The conclusions, and goals and policies of this Housing Element are derived from the current status of each indicator. As part of the Housing Implementation Plan it is expected that each indicator be monitored and tracked annually for changes that affect this Housing Element. 4 Household Characteristics One of the factors in determining housing demand, other than population growth, is an understanding of the characteristics of our households. As defined by the U.S. Census a household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit (such as a house or apartment) as their usual place of residence. There are two major categories of households, "family" and "nonfamily." For purposes of this Housing Element the term "household" includes both "family" and "non -family" households. The following describes those household characteristics pertinent to an understanding the City's 2 City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element 3 City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element 2017-37 Housing Element Page 7 22 ATTACHMENT "A" housing needs. 4.1 Household Tenure By definition tenure refers to the distinction between owner -occupied and renter - occupied housing units. For the City of Central Point owner occupied housing has been historically the dominant form of tenure, representing 70% of all households (Figure 4.1). Renter occupied units have typically been less than half of owner occupied units (35%). As a result of the Recession and its impact on jobs and income the owner occupied percentage declined 8% as foreclosures forced many to abandon their homes and seek rental housing. Since the Recession, as jobs and wages gradually improved, there has been a steady movement back to ownership as the preferred tenure. At the county and state level, although slightly lower, similar percentages and changes occurred in tenure. Figure 4.1. Housing Tenure 69% 70% 1990 ■ Owner ■ Renter 30% I---- 2000 62% 63% 2010 2015 4.2 Age of Householder A householder is a person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned or rented. If there is no such person present then any household member 15 years old and over can serve as the householder. As illustrated in Figure 4.2 the dominant householder age has been within the 35 to 64 category. As a result of the Recession, and the subsequent loss in jobs and income, householders in this age category experienced a reduction numbers. Since the recession, as job conditions improved this age category as returned to its pre -recession level. The age category 65 plus was not affected by the Recession. Householders in this category are typically retired, and therefor insulated against the income induced impacts (jobs) of a recession. The increase on householders in this age category is the product of the aging of the Baby Boomer generation. Unlike the other two age categories the 15 to 34 category experienced an increase as a result of the Recession. Since the recovery the housing participation of this category has 4 U.S. Census Glossary 2017-37 Housing Element 23 Page 8 ATTACHMENT "A" dropped below 20%, possibly as a result of relocation for employment purposes. Figure 4.2. Household Age Characteristics ❑ Age 15 -34 ■ Age 35 - 64 ■ Age 65 Plus 54% 53% 22% 23°x6 i I f 1990 2000 49% 7% __I -1-t 23% 2010 53% 2015 4.3 Household Size The average household size is computed using the occupied housing and the total population. Until the Recession the average household size had been continually declining, and projected to level -out at 2.5 persons per household. Since the Recession the average household size has actually increased. The increase in household size also occurred at the state and county. The primary cause for the increase in average household size is again due to the Recession as many younger adults moved in with their parents or cohabitated for affordability reasons. It is anticipated that as the economy improves that the average household size will continue its downward trend. Figure 4.3 identifies the average household size. The Population Element identified an average household size of 2.5 for planning purposes over the next twenty years. 2.75 2.7 2.65 2.6 �- 2.55 j- 2.5 �- 2.45 L 2.4 �-- 2.35 — 2.3 2.25 i-- 2.2 '- Figure 4.3 Average Household Size, 1990 -2015 2017-37 Housing Element 1990 2000 2010 24 2015 Page 9 ■ City ■ County ATTACHMENT "A" 4.4 Household Income Since 1990 median household income has steadily increased, peaking in 2010 at $50,631. Since the Recession household incomes have declined. As of 2015 the median household income was $48,984 (Figure 4.4). A similar trend has been exhibited at the county and state level. Figure 4.4. Median Household Income $50,631 $48,984 $40,622 $35,000 1990 2000 2010 2015 Pending continued improvement in the economy it can be expected that the median household income will continue to improve, which in turn should improve housing affordability. During the Recession the most financially impacted household income group was the $35,000 to $49,999 category. This group has almost recovered to pre -Recession levels (Figure 4.5). The $50,000 to $74,999 income group is the largest group representing approximately 25% of all households. 4.5. Household Income Distribution 30.00% — — 25.00% -- 20.00% --- 15.00% --- 10.00% - - 5.00% a 0 SW r 0.00 /o - -- - _ - - 7 0 o a o 0 -- — — 2000 2010 2017-37 Housing Element 25 A a s N 00 0` o• 2015 Page 10 ATTACHMENT "A" 4.5 Summary, Household Characteristics The City has a higher percentage of owner occupied units that at the county and state level. The median household income is higher than the county and the state. Although the average household size increased this is expected to be a reaction to the Recession, and will return to lower levels in the future as housing affordability improves. 5 Special Needs Housing Certain minority groups within the general population have unique problems or needs that deserve consideration as part of this Housing Element. Often these groups are ignored because they represent a small portion of the total population. However, it is the responsibility of local government to ensure that all citizens have an opportunity for safe and decent housing. The City's most significant contribution to addressing special housing is assurances that the City's zoning and building regulations are not impediments and that the City works collaboratively with other organizations to assure that special needs housing is not left behind. 5.1 Elderly Residents r The Baby Boom Generation is the fastest growing segment of the population at both the national, state, and local level. By 2014 it is projected that nationally one in eight persons will be at least 75. In 2014 that figure was one in sixteen. Among individuals aged 80 and over more than 75% live in their own homes, making "aging in place" the preference of most of the elderly population. However, as this older demographic continues to grow, they will find themselves in housing that is not suited or "... prepared to meet their increasing need for affordability, accessibility, social connectivity, and well-being." As people age, their physical needs change. Climbing stairs and turning doorknobs can become more difficult impacting the ability to "age in place" becomes more difficult. The majority of elderly residents are retired and living on pensions or other forms of fixed income. As the costs of maintaining a household increase over time the elderly are typically spending an increasing percentage of their income on housing. As people age, they need housing that is structurally and mechanically safe and that is designed to accommodate people with disabilities. Given the widely varying circumstances of older adults, meeting their housing and housing -related needs requires a range of responses. 5.2 Handicapped Residents Residents who are physically handicapped suffer many of the same problems as the elderly, such as fixed incomes and in ability to maintain property. 5.3 Poverty and Low Income Residents The federal government defines the 2015 poverty level for a family of four (4) at $24,250 and below, and the low income level ($48,258) between the poverty level and 199% of the poverty level. As with all communities a percentage of the City's households are within either the poverty or low income category. In 2015 8.8% of all families within the City were classified at or below the poverty levels, while approximately 49% were considered low-income. As illustrated in Figure 5. 1, the percentage of households that 5 Based on a family of four 2017-37 Housing Element Page 11 26 ATTACHMENT "A" were categorized as poverty and low income has increased since the Recession. Figure 4.7. City of Central Point Poverty Level and Low Income Households 60% 50% - — - - 41% 40% 30% — 20% 10% fz°o 0% - 2000 49% 2010 2015 ■ Poverty ■ Low Income 6 Housing Characteristics The City's housing stock is comprised of over 6,000 dwelling units of various type, ages, and value. In 1980 the City's housing inventory totaled 2,2916 dwelling units. By the end of 2016 the housing unit inventory reached 6,321 dwelling units. The following describes the characteristics of the City's housing stock by age, type, tenure, and value. 6.1 Housing Age Based on the age of the City's housing stock Central Point is considered a young community. Most of the housing was constructed after 1980 (67%). The older housing stock (pre -1949) is concentrated in the original central area of the City. Because of its age most of the City's housing stock is in very good physical shape. 6 City of Central Point Housing Element 2017-37 Housing Element 27 Page 12 ATTACHMENT "A" Figure 6.1. Age of Housing Stock 80% - - - 70% 67% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Built 1980 or later Built 1979 - 1950 Built 1949 or earlier 6.2 Housing Type The City's housing stock is comprised of seven (7) housing types as follows: 1. Single -Family Detached; a dwelling on a legally defined property designed to be occupied by only one family. 2. Single -Family Attached; a dwelling on a legally defined property designed to be occupied by only one family, but has a common wall with other single-family attached dwelling(s); 3. Duplex/Triplex/Apartments; a group of dwellings on a legally defined property having 2, 3, and 4 or more dwelling units with separate entrances. This includes two-story houses having a complete apartment on each floor and also side-by-side apartments on a single legally described lot that shares a common wall Apartments that have accessory services such as food service, dining rooms, and housekeeping are included within this definition; 4. Manufactured Homes; a dwelling on a legally defined property that is constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities intended for residential purposes and that is constructed on a foundation in accordance with local laws and federal manufactured construction and safety standards and regulations. 5. Manufactured Homes in Mobile Home Parks; a group of dwellings located on a legally defined property (Mobile Home Park) that are constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities intended for residential purposes and that is constructed on a foundation in accordance with local laws and federal manufactured construction and safety standards and regulations and 2017-37 Housing Element Page 13 28 ATTACHMENT "A" 6. Government Assisted, housing that provides the occupants with government sponsored economic assistance to alleviate housing costs and expenses for needy people with low to moderate income households. Forms of government assisted housing include direct housing subsidies, non-profit housing, public housing, rent supplements and some forms of co-operative and private sector housing The City's housing policies and zoning regulations allow for all of the above housing types. The current distribution of housing type by land use category is illustrated in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 City of Central Point rious►ng inventory Dy r e ana Lana use uasstttcanon Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Mobile Total SFR SFR Mobile Total Government SFR SFR Detached Attached Du lex Mobile Home Government Housing Land Use Class Detached Attached Duplex Triplex ApartmOt Home Park Assisted Valts VLRes 75 - - - 127 44 75 LRes 3,391 - 6 3 4 8 76 180 3,488 MRes 1,003 54 90 15 20 l - - 1,183 HRes 727 54 193 27 659 75 288 137 2.160 Residential Units 5,196 108 289 45 683 84 364 1376906 Percentage Distribution 71% 2*�. 4% 19h IIS io 11/4 5% 2°n. 111110A Source: City of Central Point Buildable Lands Inventory At 75% of the total housing stock the single-family detached home is the preferred housing type, followed by apartments (10%) and Duplex/Triplex (6%). Table 6.2 illustrates the shifting of preferences in new residential construction between 2006 and 2016. As a percentage of new construction single-family detached represented 63% of the housing types constructed during that period. For the duplex housing types it was 5%, and for apartments it was at 25%. The point is that during any given time span the housing inventory will respond with variations in the housing type mix. Table 6.2 City of Central Point Housing Inventory by T fpc and Land Use Classification, 2006 - 2016 Dwelling Units Mobile Total SFR SFR Mobile Home Government Housing Land Use Class Detached Attached Du lex Triplex Apartment Home Park Assisted Units VLRes 1 1 LRes 173 173 MRes 127 44 18 189 HRes 114 30 18 180 1 15 358 Residential Units 415 74 36 180 1 15 r 721 [Percentagt Distribution 58% 10% 5% 0'„ 25% 0% 0% 2% 1. 're Source: City of Central Point Buildable Lands Inventory The reasoning for the decline in single-family detached was the loss of jobs and the subsequent reduction in income occurring as a result of the Recession. When measured between 2010 (post recession) to 2016 the preference for single-family detached homes 2017-37 Housing Element 29 Page 14 ATTACHMENT "A" improved, whether or not it will continue improving to its post -Recession levels remains to be seen. Table 6.3 City of Central Point Housing Inventory by ilype and Land Use Classtlicatton, 2006 - 2016 Dwelling Units Mobile Total SFR SFR Mobile Home Government Housing Land Use Class Detached Attached Duplex Triplex artment Home Park Assisted Units VLRes _ _ _ - LRes 65 - - - 65 MRes 64 10 14 - 88 'el 68 30 16 15 129 Residential Units 197 40 14 16 15 282 Percentage Distribution 70% 14"/ 5%a 0% 6% 0% 0% 5% 1001/6 Source: City of Central Point Buildable Lands inventory It is worth noting (Table 6.1) that a significant number of single-family detached units are located within the higher density land use classifications (24%). The reason for this is r<rimoril<r l�io+nrin onrl rom<lo4nr<r l�/1nn<r ni+l,o nlr�or C1HRlo_F mil<r rlo�onl,orl „ ;r.l,l,., �nnar. l.ra �iiauiuy uaJ wiiv uuu •vbuiuwa y. ••iuuy vi uiv viuva J111�1 V-1u11aJ1,' uvuvuvu uea�ai�vlalvvuo have been designated as medium density (MRes) to encourage infill development. On the regulatory side it was not until 2006 that new single-family detached dwelling units were prohibited in both the MRes and the HRes classifications as an acceptable housing type. This practice was suspended in 2006 with amendments to the zoning code requiring minimum densities in all residential zones, and the exclusion of single-family detached dwellings in the medium and high density residential districts. 6.3 Housing Value Prior to the Recession the median owner occupied housing value increased substantially reaching a peak value of $233,000. These early value increases were indicative of the demand and affordability of housing. Jobs were plentiful and easy financing was accessible. With the on -set of the Recession the real estate bubble burst causing a 22% reduction ($181,200) in the 2010 median house value. Since 2010 owner occupied housing values have been increasing, but not to pre -Recession levels. By 2016 the estimated median housing value, at $192,8727, resumed its upward movement and by 2017 is expected to reach and exceed its 2010 peak. 7 Zillow, 2016 City of Central Point 2017-37 Housing Element Page 15 30 ATTACHMENT "A" 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% - 5% 0% Figure 6.2 Median Owner Occupied Value $250.000 --- -r $33-3,000-- - --- - --- - - $150,000 $18-1;20 $1- 72 $100,000 $65,0( $50,000 $- 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 2015 2016 Figure 6.3. Housing Values, 2015 a 0 m 2015 ®Less than $50,000 ® $50,000 to $99,999 x- $100,000 to $149,999 ■ $150,000 to $199,999 ® $300,000 to $499,999 0 $500,000 to $999,999 ■ $1,000,000 or more The latest housing value distribution$ (Figure 6.3) places 59% of the City's owner occupied inventory in the $150,000 to $199,999 or less category (median value). 6.4 Summary, Housing Characteristics The City's housing inventory is typical of the region reflecting the western region's preference for single-family detached housing. The housing stock is young and heavily concentrated in the single-family detached category. The cost of housing is slightly on the high side for the region, but typical for the state. 7 Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning In 2012 the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan was approved by Jackson County. Shortly U.S. Census 2015 American Community Survey 2017-37 Housing Element 31 Page 16 ATTACHMENT "A" thereafter the City of Central Point adopted its component of the Regional Plan as an element to the City's Comprehensive Plan. In the City's Regional Plan Element it was agreed that all new residential development within the UGB would be constructed at an average minimum density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre, and after 2036 the minimum density would increase to 7.9 dwelling units per gross acre. 7.1 Housing Density In the 1983 Housing Element only maximum densities were addressed, not minimum densities, in the hopes that residential development by the private sector would pursue the higher density development. This did not come to pass. Since 1983 the actual built densities have been far below the maximum densities set in both the Housing Element and the City's zoning ordinance (Table 7.1). In 2006 the City amended its zoning ordinance setting mandatory minimum density standards and housing types for all residential zoning districts. Until then the higher density zoning districts were allowed to build at much lower single-family detached densities. Table 7.1 C itvof Ci-ntrnl Pnint � „_ --______ _ „___ Maximum Allowable Densities vs. Actual Built Densities, 1983-2016 *Assumes Build -Out Table 7.1 identifies the City's average density by both land use classification and housing type for housing built between 1980 and 2016. The Maximum Allowable Density column represents the maximum densities established in the 1983 Housing Element. The Average Gross Density column represents the average gross density of all residential development between 1980 and 2016. The period between 1980 and 2016 was used for the following reasons: • The last Housing Element was based on 1980 Census information; and • The period 1980-2016 covered two recessionary periods and as such provides a balanced view of housing demand and supply. After the zoning code was amended in 2006 establishing minimum density standards, the City's gross density for this period increased significantly (Table 7.3) from 5.05 to 7.08 dwelling units per gross acre. The result of the minimum density code revisions is most evident in the MRes 2017-37 Housing Element Page 17 32 Average Gross Maximum Density by Allowable Land Use Land Use Classification Densitv* Class VLRes 1 1.50 LRes 6 4.08 MRes 12 7.50 HRes 25 8.79 ,Average Net Density by Housinjg Type 10.79 5.08 *Assumes Build -Out Table 7.1 identifies the City's average density by both land use classification and housing type for housing built between 1980 and 2016. The Maximum Allowable Density column represents the maximum densities established in the 1983 Housing Element. The Average Gross Density column represents the average gross density of all residential development between 1980 and 2016. The period between 1980 and 2016 was used for the following reasons: • The last Housing Element was based on 1980 Census information; and • The period 1980-2016 covered two recessionary periods and as such provides a balanced view of housing demand and supply. After the zoning code was amended in 2006 establishing minimum density standards, the City's gross density for this period increased significantly (Table 7.3) from 5.05 to 7.08 dwelling units per gross acre. The result of the minimum density code revisions is most evident in the MRes 2017-37 Housing Element Page 17 32 ATTACHMENT "A" and the HRes land use classifications. When looked at by zoning district (Table 7.4 and 7.5) the same pattern is revealed - in the higher density districts (R-2 through HMR) the density has improved. Table 7.2 City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Housing Type and Land Use, City Limits, 1980-2016 Table 7.3 City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Housing Type and Land Use, City Limits, 2006-2016 Averse Gross Density by Housing Tvpe Gross Denim :tverxgr Gross Mobile Density SFR SFR Mobile Rome Government by Toning Average Detached Attached Duplex Triplex MFR Home Park Assisted j :lvrrty,e R -L 1-51 GVos.S i G ro>} 1.51 R-1-10 Mobile vmdty Mobile SFR llen4i iy SFR SFR by Land Zuni Mobile Home Government hvLsnd Zoning Detached Attached Duplex Triplex MFR Home Park Assisted Oc ciats VLRes 1.51 - - 7.34 8.35 15.61 8.96 1.51 LRes 4.05 7.34 8.35 - 22.00 - 2.07 11).5' HRes •1.0(+ MRes 6.64 11.99 9.04 LMR 20.19 - - 12.84 7 e 1 HRes 7.83 19.67 10.75 13.4 1 15.85 6.39 6-38 8.78 AverMe Net Densi tv by Housi ng Tvpe 4.48 13.37 10.09 13.41 16.73 5.56 6.38 12.84 5:05 Table 7.3 City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Housing Type and Land Use, City Limits, 2006-2016 Table 7.4 identifies the densities for development between 1980 and 2016 that occurred in each zoning district. Table 7.4. Housing Density by Housing Type and Zoning, 1980-2016 Averse Gross Density by Housing Tvpe Gross Mnisit . :tverxgr Gross Mobile Density SFR SFR Mobile Rome Government by Toning Average Detached Attached Duplex Triplex MFR Home Park Assisted Diserlet R -L 1-51 GVos.S 1.51 R-1-10 Mobile vmdty SFR SFR Mobile Home Government by Land Zuni Detached Attached DuLtex Triplex MFR Home Park Assisted [:se Class VLRes 1.65 - - l 77 1-65 LRes 4.83 7.34 8.35 15.61 8.96 4.98 MRes 8.60 12.44 9.36 - 22.00 - 12.84 11).5' HRes 8.40 17.99 1426 18.00 619 LMR 13.9" Ave rag a Net Densi ty by Housi n2 Type 5.47 12.98 10 19.16 6.18 12.84 1 %08 Table 7.4 identifies the densities for development between 1980 and 2016 that occurred in each zoning district. Table 7.4. Housing Density by Housing Type and Zoning, 1980-2016 2017-37 Housing Element 33 Page 18 Averse Gross Density by Housing Tvpe ^. :tverxgr Gross Mobile Density SFR SFR Mobile Rome Government by Toning Zoni ng Detached Attached Duplex Triplex MFR Home Park Assisted Diserlet R -L 1-51 1.51 R-1-10 3.26 3.26 R-1-8 3.70 2.78 3.70 R-1-6 4.11 - l 77 4.09 R-2 6.02 15.61 8.96 - - 634 R-3 7.83 - 1075 13.41 15.76 6.39 6.38 8.66 LMR 5.30 7.34 8.35 - - - 537 MMR 10.78 11.13 12.88 20.19 12.84 13.08 HMR 19.67 18.21 - 19.08 Average Net Density by flowinTv pe 4.48 1337 10.09 1 13.41 1 16.73 5.56 6.38 12.84 5.05 2017-37 Housing Element 33 Page 18 ATTACHMENT "A" Table 7.5. Housing Density by Housing Type and Zoning, 2006-2016 7.2 Land Use and Housing Type The City has four (4) residential land use classifications and seven residential zoning districts. These classifications accommodate differing densities and housing types. Each land use classification has assigned zoning districts. Within each residential land use classification/zoning district certain housing types are allowed as follows: Land (.:se SFR SFR Duplex Triplex Apt Mand. Mobile Class Derarlled Attached [Ionic Home Park V . des Average Gross Density by Housin2 Type Average Gross Yes Mobile Density I SFR SFR Mobile Home Government by Zoning Zoni Qg Detacbed Attached Duplex Triplex MFR Home Park Assisted District R -L 1.65 R-1 1.65 R-1-10 - No No Yes Noyes T INI Res R-1-8 4.30 a .� F , _ _ y _ _ ., R-2 430 R-1-6 4.82 No No Yes Noyes L NIR 4.82 R-2 7.45 15.61 9.36 Yes Mayes Noyes !� - 8.16 R-3 8.40 - 14.26 18.00 6.18 1559 LMR 5.70 7.34 8.35 Yes Yeti yes - 6.06 MMR 10.03 8.85 Yes Yes 22.00 No 12.84 12.82 HMR 17.99 �' es N'es No. No 17.99 �' Av eNetDew!tvbv ousi a 5.47 1298 loss- 18.16 6.18 84 12.US 7.2 Land Use and Housing Type The City has four (4) residential land use classifications and seven residential zoning districts. These classifications accommodate differing densities and housing types. Each land use classification has assigned zoning districts. Within each residential land use classification/zoning district certain housing types are allowed as follows: Land (.:se SFR SFR Duplex Triplex Apt Mand. Mobile Class Derarlled Attached [Ionic Home Park V . des R -L Yes No No No No Yes Neyog I,Res R-1 Yes No No No No Yes Noyes T INI Res a .� F , _ _ y _ _ ., R-2 No Yes Yes No No Yes Noyes L NIR Yes Yeti Yes Ye. Yes Mayes Noyes !� HRes No Ye,, y e Yeti Yes Yeti yes MMR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No HMR No 'Yes Yes �' es N'es No. No The maximum and minimum density for each of the land use classifications and zoning districts is illustrated in Table 7.7. 2017-37 Housing Element 34 Page 19 ATTACHMENT "A" Table 7.7 City of Central Point Maximum and Minimum Gross Densities 7.3 Summary, Housing Density Since 1980 the City's average gross density, at 5.31 is considerably lower than the 6.9 minimum density required in the Regional Plan Element. Depending on the time period selected to calculate density the results vary, often significantly. 8 Buildable Residential Lands The 2016 BLI identifies a total residential land inventory within the City's urban area of approximately 1,530 net acres that are zoned and planned for residential use (Table 8. 1), representing 52% of the City's total area. The City's residential lands are distributed over four residential land use categories and nine zoning districts. The largest of the residential classifications is the LRes at 55% of all residential lands (Table 8.1). The four (4) residential land use classifications and their related zoning districts are: 1. Very Low Density Residential (VLRes); a. Very Low 2. Low Density Residential (LRes); a. R-1-6 b. R-1-8 c. R-1-10 Medium Density Residential (MRes); a. LMR b. R-2; and 4. High Density Residential (HRes). 2017-37 Housing Element 35 Page 20 Maximum Minimum Allowable Allowable Gross Gross Land Use Classification Density Density VLRes 0.8 N.A. R -L N.A. 2.3 LRes 4.8 N.A. R-1-6 4.8 3.2 R-1-8 4 2.4 R-1-10 3.2 1.6 MRes 9.6 N.A. R-2 9.6 4.8 LMR 9.6 4.8 HRes 20 N.A. R-3 2i) 11.2 MMR 2 5. 6 11.2 HMR N,A. 24 7.3 Summary, Housing Density Since 1980 the City's average gross density, at 5.31 is considerably lower than the 6.9 minimum density required in the Regional Plan Element. Depending on the time period selected to calculate density the results vary, often significantly. 8 Buildable Residential Lands The 2016 BLI identifies a total residential land inventory within the City's urban area of approximately 1,530 net acres that are zoned and planned for residential use (Table 8. 1), representing 52% of the City's total area. The City's residential lands are distributed over four residential land use categories and nine zoning districts. The largest of the residential classifications is the LRes at 55% of all residential lands (Table 8.1). The four (4) residential land use classifications and their related zoning districts are: 1. Very Low Density Residential (VLRes); a. Very Low 2. Low Density Residential (LRes); a. R-1-6 b. R-1-8 c. R-1-10 Medium Density Residential (MRes); a. LMR b. R-2; and 4. High Density Residential (HRes). 2017-37 Housing Element 35 Page 20 ATTACHMENT "A" a. R-3 b. MMR; and c. HMR Table 8.1 City of Central Point Urban Land Inventory by Land Use Designation Table 8.2 identifies the City's residential land allocations by zoning district. Table 8.2. City of Central Point Urban Land Inventory by Zoning zoning Total Cite Acre .. Total UG8 Ac .es.. - Total Urban Area mrgs Percentage R -L 45.87 21.86 67.73 of Total R-1-6 Total City Total UGB Total Urban. Residential Coin reheiigive Plan Desl-' ation Acres Acres Acres- Acres VLRes 45.87 21.86 67.73 4.4% LRes 802.95 39.28 842.23 55.1% MRes 245.23 48.45 293.67 19.2% HRes 301.28 23.68 324.96 21.3% I.Re,iidential acres 1,305.33 .26 1 5 $ Gt} 100% Table 8.2 identifies the City's residential land allocations by zoning district. Table 8.2. City of Central Point Urban Land Inventory by Zoning zoning Total Cite Acre .. Total UG8 Ac .es.. - Total Urban Area mrgs Percentage a Total R -L 45.87 21.86 67.73 4.4% R-1-6 375.95 5.92 381.87 25.0% R-1-8 393.31 11.25 404.56 26.5% R-1-10 33.69 22.12 55.81 3.7% LMR 136.72 48.45 185.16 12.1% R-2 108.51 - 108.51 7.1% R-3 193.85 - 193.85 12.7% MMR 72.66 23.68 96.34 6.3% HMR 34.77 - 34.77 2.3% Residential acres 1-395.33 1336 1,52$.60 100101;0 As of the end of 2016 there were approximately 136 acres of net buildable residential land within the City's urban area. The vacant acreage in each land use classification is illustrated in Table 8.3. The vacant acreage available in the single-family VLRes and LRes land use classifications is 2.6% and 18.5% respectively of the total vacant land use inventory. The bulk of the City's net buildable residential acreage is in the MRes (31 %) and HRes (47%) classifications, representing over 78% of the City's net buildable vacant residential acres (107 acres), a disproportionately high number given the historic development in those two classifications (18%) since 1980. 2017-37 Housing Element Page 21 36 ATTACHMENT "A" Table 8.3 City of Central Point Net Buildable Vacant l ! Total (less)Envir. Constrairsed Acres Total Gross fless) Public Lands Net (pltts)Total Wei. acres, Total Net Buildable AMO Percentage of I Gross (less) Envir. Buildable (less) Ball dable (plus) Total Net Total Net R-1-6 Vacant Constrained Vacant Public Vacant Redevlopment Buildable Buildable Zoning Acres Acres Acres Lands Acres Acres Acres Acres VLRes 4.25 0.00 4.25 1.06 3.19 0.34 3.53 3% LRes 17.87 0.12 17.76 4.44 13.32 11.81 25.13 19% MRes 41.51 4.82 36.69 9.17 27.52 14.83 42.34 31% HRes 75.15 4.02 71.13 17.78 53.35 11.47 64.81 48% Vacant Residential Acres 1 138.79 896 129.83 32.46 9737 38.45 135.82 100% Table 8.4 City of Central Point Buildable Land Inventory by Zoning Zoning Total Gross V:3 gat .Acres (less)Envir. Constrairsed Acres Total Gross Buildable Vacant Acres fless) Public Lands Total Net BuiI(tab le .acres (pltts)Total Wei. acres, Total Net Buildable AMO Percentnre of Total Net Bnildoble acres R -L 4.25 - 4.25 1.06 3.19 0.34 3.53 3% R-1-6 10.88 0.09 10.79 2.70 8.09 5.58 13.67 10% R-1-8 3.86 0.02 3.84 0.96 2.88 5.42 8.29 6% R-1-10 3.13 0.00 3.13 0.78 2.35 0.82 3.17 2% LMR 37.99 4.82 33.17 8.29 24.88 7.98 32.86 24% R-2 3.52 - 3.52 0.88 2.64 6.85 9.49 7% R-3 15.44 - 15.44 3.86 11.58 3.06 14.64 11% MMR 46.21 0.37 45.84 11.46 34.38 6.75 41.13 30% HMR 13.50 3.65 9.85 2.46 7.38 1.66 9.05 7% Total 138.79 8.'J4 129.83 32.46 07.37 38.45 1 135.82 1001!il While the higher density land use classifications account for the greater majority of the vacant residential land (78%) it is out of sync with the demand side of the equation (20%). 8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands The City's net buildable residential land inventory is overly represented in the higher density residential land use classifications (MRes and HRes). Going forward this disparity will need to be taken into consideration. It is unlikely that these higher density lands will be re -designated and rezoned to lower density residential land use, and netted -out off the need equation. Table 8.5 illustrates the required new gross acreage needed by land use category. 2017-37 Housing Element 37 Page 22 ATTACHMENT "A" Table 8.5 City of Central Point a iNew tsunaaate vacant xesiaentau Lann Zoailx" _ VLRes LRes MRes HRes Vacant Residential Acres 2016 Total Net Buildable — -acres 3.53 25.13 42.34 64.61 135.62 Source: City of Central Point Buildable Lands Inventory Required Gross Acres 7.80 156.00 57.20 39.00 260.00 Surplus or (4.27) (130.87) (14.86) 25.61 Net Required New Gross Acres 4.27 130.87 14.86 N.A. 149.99 9 Housing Affordability Housing affordability, whether renter or owner occupied is typically measured as a percentage of household income. A standard benchmark for affordability is when housing costs are less than or equal to 30% of total household income. 9.1 Renter Households As illustrated in Figure 9.1 the Recession had a significant impact on housing affordability for renter households as the percentage of renter households paying more Figure 6.1. Renter Households Paying 30% or More of Income on Housing 50% 53% City ■ 2000 ® 2010 ❑ 2015 61% 55% 44% i ,1 1, County 51% 48% State than 30% increased from 37% to 50% by 2010 and by 2015 had further increased to 53% of all renter households. At the county and state level the experience was much the same except that by 2015 there was a drop in the number of renter households paying more than 30%. 9.2 Owner Households To a lesser extent the rate of affordability in owner households followed the pattern of 2017-37 Housing Element 38 Page 23 ATTACHMENT "A" renter households. Since the Recession the price of housing has been exceeding the increase in wages. As of March 2017 average hourly wages are up 2.7% year over year, while the median sales price of a previously owned home was up 7.7%9. Prior to the Recession 25% of owner households exceeded 30% of household income for housing (Figure 9.2). Figure 9.2. Owner Households Paying 30% or More of Income on Housing ■ 2000 ■ 2010 ❑ 2015 44% 33% 33% 31% 25% 25% I i 34% City County State 9.3 Summary, Affordability The question of housing affordability, especially since the Recession, is without question a social issue that needs addressing. The demand and supply mechanics of housing affordability are easily understandable, but the solutions; either demand or supply side, are extremely complex, especially at the local level. The only solutions that this Housing Element offers regarding affordability are: 1. Provide an inventory of vacant residential lands sufficient to accommodate the need for all housing types. 2. Prepare and maintain a Housing Implementation Program that annually tracks the demand and supply of vacant residential lands and housing construction by type of housing. 3. Collaborate at the regional level in the identification, prioritization, and development of solutions addressing housing affordability. 10 Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Need Based on the Population Projections prepared by PSU it is projected that by 2037 the City's population will have increased by 4,420 residents. The City's average household size is 2.5 2017-37 Housing Element 39 Page 24 ATTACHMENT "A" persons per household10 requiring an additional 1,770 new dwelling units to accommodate the projected population growth. At a density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre,, the City will need 26012 acres of residentially planned lands to accommodate 1,770 new dwelling units. It is expected that new residential construction will follow a similar land use distribution pattern as experienced between 1980 and 201613 (Table 10.1). Table 10.1. Housing Units Built by Land Use Category, 1980 - 2016 *Figures rounded The "Adjusted Percentage" in Table 10.1 is an adjustment for all the single-family detached development that occurred prior to 2006 within the MRes and the HRes classifications. In Table 10.2 the current minimum density allowed in each residential land use classification and the resulting gross acreage needed to accommodate future housing demand is identified. Based on today's minimum densities for each of the land use classifications allocated by housing types the average projected gross density would be 4.33 dwelling units per gross acre, which is not an acceptable average gross density. Table 10.2 Average Projected Density based on Current Minimum Densities Great 11Rlnin►n� Land Use Classiftcation I Density Projected Dweliing Units VLRes Housing 0.75 15 LRes Projected 3.75 Units Percentage ' Housing 75 Constructed by Land Use Adjusted { Demand Land Use Class 1980-2016 Class Percentage 2017-37* VLRes 30 1% 1% 15 LRes 2,503 58% 78% 1,370 MRes 715 17% 4% 75 HRes 1,051 1 24% 17% 290 Total 4,299 100% 100% 1,750 *Figures rounded The "Adjusted Percentage" in Table 10.1 is an adjustment for all the single-family detached development that occurred prior to 2006 within the MRes and the HRes classifications. In Table 10.2 the current minimum density allowed in each residential land use classification and the resulting gross acreage needed to accommodate future housing demand is identified. Based on today's minimum densities for each of the land use classifications allocated by housing types the average projected gross density would be 4.33 dwelling units per gross acre, which is not an acceptable average gross density. Table 10.2 Average Projected Density based on Current Minimum Densities Great 11Rlnin►n� Land Use Classiftcation I Density Projected Dweliing Units VLRes 0.75 15 LRes 3.75 1,370 NfRes 11.20 75 HRes_ 24.00 290 1,750 _ Averaazce Density �y m, 20 365 7 12 404 0.75 3.75 11.20 24.00 4.33 io City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element, 2016-36 11 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element L2 Rounded figure L3 , Adjusted for the high occurrence of single-family detached construction in the MRes and the HRes land use classifications, 2017-37 Housing Element Page 25 40 ATTACHMENT "A" To achieve the minimum density standard it is necessary to either re -allocate the distribution of housing by land use classification, increase the minimum density requirements for each land use classification, or a combination of both. To avoid major disruptions to the built landscape a strategy of using both land use reallocation and density modofications. Table 10.3 Needed Residential Acreage (2017-37) By adjusting both the mix and density of the various residential land use classifications (Table 10.3) results in an average gross density of 6.96 dwelling units per gross acre. The justification for the density and allocation adjustments is illustrated in Table 10.3, and explained as follows: • VLRes — The allocation of very low density lands has increased from 1 % to 5%. The allocation increase was based on the finding that the low demand for large lot development was due to a lack of developable land. The increase in density went from .75 to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre, a minor increase in density adjusting for the conversion of net acreage to gross acreage. LRes — The allocation of low density residential lands has been reduced from a previous 78% (adjusted) to 60%. Historically the LRes has been the preferred land use category, with an emphasis on single-family detached housing. The single-family detached preference is likely to continue into the future. Consequently, this land use classification experienced the most quantitative changes in density and allocation. The density went from 3.75 to 8 dwelling units per gross acre. Viewed from a lot size perspective the minimum lot size went from approximately 12,000 gross sq. ft. per lot to 5,500 gross sq. ft. per lot. MRes — The allocation of medium density residential lands increased from 4% (adjusted) to 22%. The density increased from 11.2 to 14. A minimum density of density of 14 units per gross acre is consistent with the TOD MMR zoning designation. • HRes — The allocation of the high density residential lands was reduced from 17% (adjusted) to 15%. The minimum density increased slightly with the conversion from net density to gross density. As illustrated in Table 10.3 the revised mix of residential land use categories and changes in 2017-37 Housing Element 41 Page 26 Proposed i Percentage Projected Minimm ofLmd Use New Gross Mlaimm Gross Class by Dwelling Acres Gross Land Use Classiticalimi Deist ty ; Gross Acres Units Needed Dessioy 7R 1.00 3% 10 8 1.28 LRes 4.00 60% 620 156 3.97 I- Res 7.00 22% 400 57 6.99 HRes 20.00 15% 780 39 2000. Average Deal 100% 1.810 260 1 6.96 By adjusting both the mix and density of the various residential land use classifications (Table 10.3) results in an average gross density of 6.96 dwelling units per gross acre. The justification for the density and allocation adjustments is illustrated in Table 10.3, and explained as follows: • VLRes — The allocation of very low density lands has increased from 1 % to 5%. The allocation increase was based on the finding that the low demand for large lot development was due to a lack of developable land. The increase in density went from .75 to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre, a minor increase in density adjusting for the conversion of net acreage to gross acreage. LRes — The allocation of low density residential lands has been reduced from a previous 78% (adjusted) to 60%. Historically the LRes has been the preferred land use category, with an emphasis on single-family detached housing. The single-family detached preference is likely to continue into the future. Consequently, this land use classification experienced the most quantitative changes in density and allocation. The density went from 3.75 to 8 dwelling units per gross acre. Viewed from a lot size perspective the minimum lot size went from approximately 12,000 gross sq. ft. per lot to 5,500 gross sq. ft. per lot. MRes — The allocation of medium density residential lands increased from 4% (adjusted) to 22%. The density increased from 11.2 to 14. A minimum density of density of 14 units per gross acre is consistent with the TOD MMR zoning designation. • HRes — The allocation of the high density residential lands was reduced from 17% (adjusted) to 15%. The minimum density increased slightly with the conversion from net density to gross density. As illustrated in Table 10.3 the revised mix of residential land use categories and changes in 2017-37 Housing Element 41 Page 26 ATTACHMENT "A" density result in a minimum build -out density of 6.96 dwelling units per gross acre. The City currently has an inventory of 136 net buildable acres (Section 8, Buildable Residential Lands) of residential land. The assumption is that the 136 acres is properly allocated and supports the relevant housing demand by type. Table 10.4 identifies the current vacant land, need, and where there is a shortage, the additional needed acreage by land use classification. Of the overall 252 acres needed to satisfy the future demand a total of 143 new gross acres are needed to supplement the existing inventory. The projected need is dedicated to the two low density residential land use districts; VLRes and LRes. As discussed earlier the MRes and the HRes land use classifications already have an excess supply of vacant land. Rather than re- designate the excess acreage, and having to address appropriateness of location and the takings issue, it was decided that it will remain as currently designated. Table 10.4 City of Central Point Renuired New Buildable Vacant Residentail Land E Net I Required 2016 Total Required New Net Buildable Gross Surplus or Gross Zoning Acres Acres (Shortage) Acres VLRes 3.53 7.80 (4.27) 4.27 LRes 25.13 156.00 (130.87) 130.87 MRes 42.34 57.20 (14.86) 14.86 HRes 64.61 39.00 25.61 N.A. Vacant Residential Acres 135.62 260.00 149.99 Source: City of Central Point Buildable Lands Inventory As previously noted the current net buildable residential land inventory is 136 gross acres distributed across four residential land use classifications. When considering the current vacant acreage inventory it needs to be recalled that there is a significant over allocation to the higher density residential districts. Rather than reclassify these higher density lands to a lower density classification they will remain as excess net buildable acreage. To meet its 20 -year supply of buildable residential land the City will need to add, at a minimum, an additional 143 gross acres, primarily in the LRes land use category (Table 10.4). 10.1 Future Housing Tenure It is expected that the mix of owner (70%) and renter (30%) occupied will remain in the long run as it was prior to the Recession. Tenure should not be confused with housing type and density, which are components of affordability. 10.2 Future Housing Types For the foreseeable future the preferred housing type will be the single-family detached dwelling. The only impediment to this choice will be affordability, which will rise and fall with changes in the economy. It is expected that attached single-family will continue to improve as a housing choice. The City's current land use regulations provide for a wide variety of housing types. Over the course of time the City needs to monitor, through it HIP, any changes in housing type 2017-37 Housing Element Page 27 42 ATTACHMENT "A" demand against deficiencies in land supply, and where appropriate make adjustments. 11 Housing Goals and Policies Goal 1. To provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the diverse needs of the City's current and projected households. Policy 1.1. Continue to support new residential development at minimum residential densities. Policy 1.2. Develop a Housing Implementation Plan that is regularly updated based current market conditions. Policy 1.3. Provide an efficient and consistent development review process. Policy 1.4. Work with regional partners to develop and implement measure that reduce upfront housing development costs. Policy 1.5. Support UGB expansions and annexations that can be efficiently provided with urban services and that will in a timely manner meet the City's housing needs. Policy 1.6. When properly mitigated support higher density residential development within the Downtown and older surrounding residential area, capitalizing on availability of existing infrastructure and supporting revitalization efforts. Goal 2. To encourage the development and preservation of fair and affordable housing. Policy 1.1. Obtain local, state, and federal financial resources and incentives that support the development and preservation of affordable housing. Policy 1.2. Through a Housing Implementation Plan explore and promote programs and incentives that support new affordable housing. Policy 1.3. Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan's program addressing regional housing strategies, particularly as they apply to affordable housing Policy 1.4. Support regional efforts addressing homelessness and housing, medical and social services to special need households. Goal 3. To maintain a timely supply of vacant residential acres sufficient to accommodate development of new housing to serve the City's projected population. Policy 1.1. Provide a sufficient inventory of residential planned and zoned vacant land to meet projected demand in terms of density, tenure, unit size, accessibility, and cost. 2017-37 Housing Element 43 Page 28 ATTACHMENT "A" Policy 1.2. Throughout the 2017-2036 planning period the City's new vacant residential land use mix shall support an average density of not less than 6.9 dwelling units per gross. Policy 1.3. Update the Housing Element's vacant acreage needs every four -years consistent with the PSU Population Research Centers update of population. Policy 1.4. To avoid speculation the City shall, when expanding the UGB establish procedures that give priority to lands that will be developed in a timely manner. Policy 1.5. Monitor residential in -fill development activity and develop and enact programs that encourage the expanded use of in -fill as a component to the City's residential land use inventory Goal 4. To ensure that a variety of housing will be provided in the City in terms of i 4-__. piCca-A *.+- 4-w..V%-4- a A- .c4- . - i.4:-- loca4ivu, Lyyc, iiu Lcilulc, aCCOM111r, w Luc PlJAecu necuC5 vi uic YvpuiaLivu. Policy 1.1. Residential land use designations on the General Land Use Plan and the Zoning Map shall be compliant with the residential land use needs identified in the Housing Element. Policy 1.2. Based on the findings of the Housing Implementation Plan incentivize housing types that are needed but not being provided in adequate numbers by the market forces. Policy 1.3. In larger residential developments encourage a mix of densities and housing types to accommodate a variety of households based on age and income levels. Policy 1.4. Support programs that encourage the ability of older residents to age in place by making existing housing more age friendly and accessible. Goal 5. To ensure that municipal development procedures and standards are not unreasonable impediments to the provision of affordable housing. Policy 1.1. As part of a Housing Implementation Plan periodically evaluate development procedures and standards for compliance with the goals of this Housing Element and modify as appropriate. Goal 6. To develop and maintain a Housing Implementation Plan that includes programs that monitor and address the housing affordability needs of the City's low- and moderate - income households. Policy 1.1. Support collaborative partnerships with non-profit organizations, affordable housing builders, and for-profit developers to gain greater access to 2017-37 Housing Element Page 29 44 ATTACHMENT "A" various sources of affordable housing funds. Policy 1.2. Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan's program addressing regional housing strategies. Policy 1.3. Address the special housing needs of seniors through the provision of affordable housing and housing related services. Goal 7. To assure that residential development standards encourage and support attractive and health neighborhoods. Policy 1.1. Encourage quality design throughout the City that acknowledges neighborhood character, provides balanced connectivity (multi -modal), and integrates recreational and open space opportunities. Policy 1.2. Provide flexible development standards for projects that exceed minimum standards for natural resource protection, open space, public gathering places, and energy efficiency. Policy 1.3. Where appropriate encourage mixed uses at the neighborhood level that enhance the character and function of the neighborhood and reduce impacts on the City's transportation system. Policy 1.4. Support minimum parking standards for multiple family development served by public transit. Policy 1.5. Maintain and enforce Chapter 17.71 Agricultural Mitigation ensuring that all new residential development along the periphery of the Urban Growth Boundary includes an adequate buffer between the urban uses and abutting agricultural uses on lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). 2017-37 Housing Element 45 Page 30 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 844 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT 2017-2037 HOUSING ELEMENT WHEREAS, the latest version of the Housing Element was adopted in 1983 and needs to be updated to reflect the latest population projections and housing needs; and WHEREAS, the City of Central Point has received and accepted the Coordinated Population Forecast 2015-2065, Jackson County, Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) & and Areas Outside UGBs (PRC Forecast) prepared by the Population Research Center, Portland State University in accordance with ORS 195.033, Area Population Forecasts, Rules; and WHEREAS, the PRC Forecast for the City of Central Point has been used to update the City of Central Point 2016 Population Element; and WHEREAS, by Ordinance 1964 the City adopted the Regional Plan Element, City of Central Point, establishing minimum residential standards; and WHEREAS, given the projected population growth, new density requirements, and need for vacant residential lands the City has prepared an updated Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2017, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted a duly - noticed public hearing at which time it reviewed the City staff report (File No. 17004) and heard testimony and comments on the draft City of Central Point 2017-37 Housing Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Central Point Planning Commission by Resolution No. 844 does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the 2017-37 Housing Element as presented in Attachment "A". PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5a' day of September, 2017 Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Planning Commission Resolution No. 844 (09/05/2017) W. CLASS "C" VARIANCE TO THE MACIMUM DENSITY STANDARD IN THE R-1-6 ZONING DISTRICT AS NECESSARY TO PARTITION A 0.22 ACRE SITE INTO 2 PARCELS. 47 City of Central Point Ore on 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 CENTRAL 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 INT www.centralpointoregon.gov Oregon STAFF REPORT September 5, 2017 ITEM: File No. VAR -17001 Community Development Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director Consideration of a Class "C" Variance to the maximum density standard in the R-1-6 zoning district as necessary to partition a 0.22 acre site into two (2) parcels. The project site is located at 765 Ash Street, which has frontage on both Ash and Chestnut Street. The property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 11BA, Tax Lot 600. Applicant: Bryan and Lisa Herrmann. STAFF SOURCE: Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner BACKGROUND The Applicant is requesting approval of a Class C Variance to the maximum density standard in the R-1-6 zone as necessary to obtain final plat approval to partition a 0.22 acre lot into two (2) parcels. The property has previously received tentative plan approval (File No. PAR -17001) subject to conditions addressing density and agency requirements. The tentatively approved parcels are within the minimum/maximum range for lot size and width, but exceed the maximum density standard (i.e. 6 units per acre) in the R-1-6 zone (Attachment "A"). The requested variance would increase density commensurate with the minimum lot size allowed in the R-1-6 zone. The project site is a through -lot with frontage on both Ash and Chestnut Street. Per the tentative plan, the through lot will be split so each parcel will have frontage on a public street consistent with residential development permitted in the R-1-6 zone and most surrounding properties. Although the lot configuration would be similar to other properties and meets the minimum lot size, the maximum density yield is 1.3 units. Based on the Applicant's Findings (Attachment "C") and the Planning Department supplemental Findings (Attachment "D"), staff recommends the variance is justified on the basis that it complies with CPMC 17.13.500(C) variance criteria and is necessary to permit reasonable and permitted single family residential development that would otherwise be prohibited by strict application of the maximum density standard. ISSUES The subject property is unique in its narrow width when compared to most properties in the neighborhood. Additionally the public right-of-way along Ash and Chestnut Street exceeds the standard width for retrofit residential streets. When the excess right-of-way area is considered in the density calculation for the 0.22 acre site, the yield is 1.5 units (See Table 1). Mathematical rounding would result 140 South Third Street - Central Point, OR 97502 • 541.664.3321 • 541.664.6384 48 City of Central Point. Oregon A 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 CENTRAL �lTRAL 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 POINT www.centralpointoregon.gov ire- yore STAFF REPORT September 5, 2017 ITEM: File No. VAR -17001 Community Development Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director Considerakion of a Class "C" Variance to the maximum density standard in the R-1-6 zoning district as neces+#rtition a 0.22 acre site into two (2) parcels. The project site is located at 765 Ash Street, 10 which hag frontage on both Ash and Chestnut Street. The property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 11BA, Tax Lot 600. Applicant: Bryan and Lisa Herrmann. STAFF SOURCE: Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner BACKGROUND The Applicant is requesting approval of a Class C Variance to the maximum density standard in the R-1-6 zone as necessary to obtain final plat approval to partition a 0.22 acre lot into two (2) parcels. The property has previously received tentative plan approval (File No. PAR -17001) subject to conditions addressing density and agency requirements. The tentatively approved parcels are within the minimum/maximum range for lot size and width, but exceed the maximum density standard (i.e. 6 units per acre) in the R-1-6 zone (Attachment "N'). The requested variance would increase density commensurate with the minimum lot size allowed in the R-1-6 zone. The project site is a through -lot with frontage on both Ash and Chestnut Street. Per the tentative plan, the through lot will be split so each parcel will have frontage on a public street consistent with residential development permitted in the R-1-6 zone and most surrounding properties. Although the lot configuration would be similar to other properties and meets the minimum lot isize, the maximum density yield is 1.3 units. Based on the Applicant's Findings (Attachment "C") and the Planning Department supplemental Findings (Attachment "D"), staff recommends the variance is justified on the basis that it complies with CPMC 17.13.500(C) variance criteria and is necessary to permit reasonable and permitted single family residential development that would otherwise be prohibited by strict application of the maximum density standard. ISSUES The subject property is unique in its narrow width when compared to most properties in the neighborhood. Additionally the public right-of-way along Ash and Chestnut Street exceeds the standard width for retrofit residential streets. When the excess right-of-way area is considered in the density calculation for the 0.22 acre site, the yield is 1.5 units (See Table 1). Mathematical rounding would result 140 South Third Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • 541.664.3321 • 541.664.6384 49 in a density of 2; however, there are no policy statements in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code that address rounding requirements relative to density. Comment: This is a policy consideration regarding how the Planning Commission would like to address rounding. This has been addressed in the Housing Element and will be addressed in forthcoming amendments to the Land Use Element and Residential Single Family zones in a manner that aligns the minimum lot size and density requirements. FINDINGS The Class "C" Variance application to the maximum density standard in the R-1-6 zone for the Tentative Plan at 765 Ash Street has been evaluated for compliance with the Class "C" Variance criteria set forth in Chapter 17.13.500(C) of the Central Point Municipal Code and found to comply, as evidenced by the Applicant's Findings (Attachment "A") and the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (Attachment "D"). ATTACHMENTS Attachment "X'— Tentative Plan Map Attachment `B" — Applicant's Project Narrative Attachment "C" — Applicant's Findings Attachment "D" — Planning Department Supplemental Findings Attachment "E" — Example Resolution No. 847 based on Staff's Recommended Action ACTION Consider the Applicant's request for a Class "C" Variance to the maximum density standard in the R-1-6 zone and 1) approve; 2) approve with revisions; or 3) deny the application. RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution No. 847 granting a Class C variance to the maximum density standard commensurate with the minimum lot size standard in the R-1-6 zone based on the Staff Report dated September 5, 2017 including Attachments "A", `B" ,"C", and "D" thereto. 50 m0 0 C90 W Z m j Z 7`.j ^n a� �0.7W ¢Fm wm Om -W m`_nz¢c�ao ATTACHMENT "A" OVON NVw338-4 I z ° _ a Z a is r (n of F I I— U�WO LW N U cl a a e o� Ld Amon OL Jam_ � Oz°O = om 7^_ Q} W�U�- O N o � EnXEno ?mi ---- jo V v 31Wco °mQ� 0 n, Wv� p w V. 4 p�WY � mW NO a� - m iii- I-agU Q ;(L W W " �zW z s m V OO J l N W Z N z i5 i W m0 0 C90 W Z m j Z 7`.j ^n a� �0.7W ¢Fm wm Om -W m`_nz¢c�ao ATTACHMENT "A" 51 OVON NVw338-4 I a� a is r F I N C7 'n W a e o� OL g ¢ cL jOf Z zC, U, NKW N Nnm � EnXEno ?mi ---- o ?. V v 31Wco °mQ� 0 n, S z p w V. 4 I ('n W �^_ - m L J ;(L lb s m V rc 4t N W ¢ EL N z i5 i a U 4 Q O m 51 I 0 a is r a u I F m X W _ a e o� cL Eli< ti > 3 I r------� I ---- 04 I Y o bOZ p w V. I N L J lb s m 4t ? 6 t W i W O 4 O m � v 00'Ob a_ awl �ayom �g LC LLZL=I'ANI r b LVgLZL=M7Rl o bZOLZSdO I I tY _ m o� r � U- G J x ,o e ❑' OL W O p J rca W a J E W � 0 m m W 51 Fall rKen lky,14•r0-3N Bryan & Lisa Herrmann July 26, 2017 City of Central Point Attn: Planning Department 140 South 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: 765 Ash Street, Central Point, Oregon 97502 1 R-1-6 Zoning To Whom It May Concern: In February 2005 we purchased the above -reference property as an investment property. Given the unique through lot aspect from Ash Street to Chestnut Street and the large level lot, we felt eventually it would be ideal for dividing into two lots. In 2008 we hired Farber Surveying to survey our lot. After surveying the lot, Herb noted that our lot size was approximately 282 square feet too small to meet the current code regulations to divide into two parcels. Herb suggested a vacation of 10 feet of right-of-way on each side of Ash Street, which currently has an 80 -foot right of way, based on the original town plat of 1889. In the process of surveying, staff recommended a 56 right-of-way on Ash Street between 7th Street and Freeman Road, which we agreed to pursue. The Central Point Planning Department, at that time, was fully supportive of our submission and plans. In the end, the surrounding neighbors did not wish to acquire land and opposed the possibility for additional taxes as a result of the right-of-way vacation. The Central Point City Council denied our request based on the potential increased land value and tax increase to the residents abutting our property. The City of Central Point code has recently been amended to decrease the minimum lot size from 5,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet. We submitted a land division application on June 01, 2017, in anticipation of dividing the lot into two parcels. Currently, a condition of 1he final plat approval is to obtain a variance to the maximum density requirement in the zone consistent with the minimum lot size in the R-1-6 zoning, as the maximum density was not adjusted in the recent code amendment. We respectfully request this variance be granted. Approval would allow us to move forward with dividing our lot into two parcels, ultimately allowing an affordable single family home construction with similar characteristics and size as the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Sincerely, -� Bryan Hemnann Enclosure C)�L_ Lisa Herrmann 52 ATTACHMENT "C" Narrative Statement: Class C Variance Request Bryan & Lisa Herrmann 765 Ash Street, Central Point, Oregon 97502 Applicability CPMC 17.13.500(A). Class C variance requests are those that do not conform to the provisions of Sections 17.13.300 and 17.13.400 (Class A and Class B), and that meet the criteria in subsections (A)(1) through (4) of this section. Class C variances shall be reviewed using a Type III procedure, in accordance with Chapter 17.05. 1. The Class C variance standards apply to individual platted and recorded lots only. Finding: The variance request is for a lot platted as part of the original town plat of 1889. Conclusion: The request is consistent with this standard. 2. The Class C variance procedure may be used to modify a standard for three or fewer lots, including lots yet to be created through a partition process. Findin : The variance request is to modify the maximum density standard for a parcel proposed as part of the Ash Street Partition (Expedited), which was tentatively approved with conditions of approval on July 20, 2017. The File number is PAR -17001. Conclusion: The variance request is for lots to be created through a partition process consistent with this standard. An applicant who proposes to vary a standard for lots yet to be created through a subdivision process may not utilize the Class C variance procedure. Approval of a planned unit development shall be required to vary a standard for lots yet to be created through a subdivision process where a specific code section does not otherwise permit exceptions. Finding: The variance request is for a lot yet to be created through the partition process and not the subdivision process. Conclusion: The variance request complies with this standard of applicability. 4. A variance shall not be approved that would vary the "permitted uses" or "prohibited uses" of a zoning district. Finding: The variance request would modify the maximum density requirement in the R-1-6, Residential Single Family zone to match the minimum lot size. Currently, the existing lot is developed with a single-family home that will remain on the site. The proposed lot to be created will be developed with a single family home with similar characteristics and size as the surrounding homes in the neighborhood, consistent with the R-1-6 permitted uses and development standards. Conclusion: The proposed variance does not vary the permitted or prohibited uses in the R-1-6 zone. 53 Approval Process CPMC 17.13.500(B). Class C variances shall be processed using a Type III procedure, as governed by Section 17.05.400, using the approval criteria in subsection C of this section. In addition to the application requirements contained in Section 17.05.400, the applicant shall provide a written narrative or letter describing his/her reasoning for the variance, why it is required, alternatives considered, and compliance with the criteria in subsection C of this section. Finding: The Class C Variance request has been submitted and is being processed using the Type III procedures, as shown by the submittal of a cover letter explaining the reasons for the request and alternatives considered, and the narrative herein explaining how our request is consistent with the approval criteria for Class C Variances. In addition, we had a Pre -Application Conference with City staff as required for all Type III applications. Conclusion: Our proposed variance complies with the procedural requirements for Class C Variances as stated above. Approval Criteria CPMC 17.13.500(C). The city shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on all of the following criteria: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; Finding: The proposed variance is to align density with minimum lot size. Given this and the fact that the proposal would allow division of our property consistent with other properties in the vicinity, it will not be detrimental to other properties, the purposes of the City's code or other applicable policies and standards. Conclusion: The requested variance is consistent with the requirement. 2. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity (e.g., the same zoning district); Finding: The requested variance will benefit our property at 765 Ash Street, which is a through lot. There is substantial vacant right -of way adjacent to both Ash and Chestnut Streets, which is unique to our lot when compared to properties in the vicinity that are developed with frontage on both Ash and Chestnut Street. Conclusion: The request is consistent with this standard. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and city standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; Finding: The proposed use is consistent with equivalent minimum lot size allowed in the R-1-6 zone and the existing lot size and density in the neighborhood. It does not vary the permitted or prohibited uses in the R-1-6 zone. Granting the variance will allow us to partition our lot similar to other properties in the neighborhood, a reasonable economic use of the land. Conclusion: The variance request is consistent with this criterion. 54 4. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks, will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject code standard; Findingy: There are no natural features that will be adversely affected. Conclusion: The request is consistent with this standard. 5. The hardship is not self-imposed; Findin : The hardship exists because our lot, while sufficient to meet the minimum lot size requirement for the proposed partition (File No. PAR -17001), is too small to meet the maximum density allowed per code. This hardship exits because the right-of-way along Ash Street and Chestnut Street is wider than the City's standard for residential streets, and because the code standard for minimum lot size does not align with maximum density. Both circumstances are beyond our control and are not self-imposed as evidenced by our previous efforts to vacate right-of- way along Ash Street and to split the lot consistent with the minimum lot size permitted in the R-1- 6 1- 6 zone. Conclusion: The request is consistent with this standard. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship. Finding: The variance requested would be the minimum variance and allow Tax Lot 600 to be divided into two separate parcels. Conclusion: The requested variance is the minimum necessary to align the maximum density with the minimum lot size, consistent with this standard. 55 ATTACHMENT "D" PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Herrmann Variance (765 Ash Street) File No. VAR -17001 September 5, 2017 Applicant: ) Findings of Fact Bryan and Lisa Herrmann ) and 4629 Cloudcrest Drive ) Conclusion of Law Medford, OR 97504 ) PART 1— INTRODUCTION The Applicant is requesting a Class C Variance per Section 17.13.500 of the City of Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC). The purpose of the variance is to allow a two (2) lot partition in the R-1-6 zone that meets the minimum lot size but exceeds the maximum density standards in the zone. The R-1-6 district, Section 17.20.050, allows a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet and a maximum density of 6 units per acre. The applicant is requesting a lot sizes that are 4,857 square feet and 4,861 square feet, which exceeds the current density by 2.9 units per acre (see table below). The variance request is deemed necessary to comply with the minimum lot size standard in the R-1-6 zone and to permit single family residential development allowed in the zone. The property is located at 765 Ash Street and has frontage on Ash and Chestnut Street (Figure 1). Including this introduction, these findings will be presented in three (3) parts as follows: 1. Introduction 2. Approval Criteria, Section 17.13.500(C) 3. Summary Conclusion 56 Proposed Area Area Maximum Maximum No. Proposed Difference s.f. Acres Density No. Units Units Density I Parcel l 1 48577 0.1.1 6, 0.67 1 8, ()I 8.9 2.9 Parcell 4861 0.11 b 0.67 TOTALS 9718 0.221 61 1.14 2j 8.9 . 2.9 _ The variance request is deemed necessary to comply with the minimum lot size standard in the R-1-6 zone and to permit single family residential development allowed in the zone. The property is located at 765 Ash Street and has frontage on Ash and Chestnut Street (Figure 1). Including this introduction, these findings will be presented in three (3) parts as follows: 1. Introduction 2. Approval Criteria, Section 17.13.500(C) 3. Summary Conclusion 56 Figure 1 j CENTRAL POINT Project Location fUap t 765 Ash Street (PAR -17001) - Legetau - BCG =B.. Cle 61-Y - 0,20W) = C:l-lel -Tedi®1 D -e Wd sy ® C-4=To sta cffiw ® C-9-TFn m..Com.urda CN = He�hbahood Cort.eBdeF • _ _ - Chin a0cm - EC . Employment Can.e.ertld {7CD) ® GC -C-1 Commedel {T013) MMtn!-High Ma RM Wd d.lCanro WCFCD) 17M Ask Slmd a«Fsr 0 LMR = L W. R -,de W(TC4) Ny-I.bnahW I WIR - M.LW- W. R®d-ti.f (TOD) - R-3-MWt0le Femgy R-i&.di.F 1 -R-2=T FmWtRei&d IW R-1-0-SFR.M-d6e1-6.000 ASFy{y ai OFt-t$-:FintlsrYsl•[.]90 - - -- H MR.r-10.$V 4ubWW.10-700 R -L- Lek Or+arr 4."6 M MAP FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY 57 Page 2 of 6 Figure 2 ExaEDi7�D TENTATPVE 111NOR PARIInON 765 ASH STREET MORMMsr eve p1ARTTR av aFCTkW It. soon+, t x�E4q�t CENTERLINE —ESTNUT S?R£ET Me1Mf[T16 YERlWAN, CITY OF "Nor di.'n�Al >'ONIr, BRYAN and LISA HERRMANN t�v,e Iry w. .P �i I, n.+w1 � raxr?u.c I� ASN SMES ll• nrru� PA~ & SGNM N1C. go" ii �o GAflBSLW4EHNC OBA f[r� Jlb. p11nK a!a r%Av 1]�n 9Mt 2&a PART 2 — CLASS C VARIANCES CPMC 17.13.100 Variance Purpose This chapter provides standards and procedures for variances, which are modifications to land use or development standards that are not otherwise permitted elsewhere in this title as exceptions to code standards. This chapter cannot provide standards to fit every potential development situation. The city's varied geography, and complexities of land development, require flexibility. This chapter provides that flexibility, while maintaining the purposes and intent of the code. The variance procedures provide relief from specific code provisions when they have the unintended effect of preventing reasonable development in conformance with all other codes. The variance procedures are intended to provide flexibility while ensuring that the purpose of each development standard is met. Finding 17.13.100. The purpose of the City's variance section acknowledges the challenge in writing standards that cover all situations and that it is the intent of Section Page 3 of 6 58 17.13.100 to provide flexibility in the administration of zoning standards to avoid the unintended effect ofpreventing reasonable development to occur. Conclusion 17.13.100. The requested variance to the maximum density represents an example of a unique situation where the strict application of standards will have the unintended consequence ofprohibiting reasonable and allowed single family residential development with frontage on a public street. CPMC 17.13.500(A), Applicability Class C variance requests are those that do not conform to the provisions of Sections 17.13.300 and 17.13.400 (Class A and Class B), and that meet the criteria in subsections (A)(1) through (4) of this section. 1. The Class C variance standards apply to individual platted and recorded lots only. Findine 17.13.500(A)(1). The property in question is a platted and recorded property. - - - Conclusion 17.13.500(A)(1). Consistent, 2. The Class C variance procedure may be used to modify a standard for three or fewer lots, including lots yet to be created through a partition process, Finding 17.13.500(A)(2). The property in question is for two lots that have been tentatively approved subject to conditions of approval, including a condition to resolve the maximum density standard through a Class C Variance prior to final plat approval. The parcels are yet to be created through a partition process. Conclusion 17.13.500(A)(2). Consistent. 3. An applicant who proposes to vary a standard for lots yet to be created through the subdivision process may not utilize the Class C variance procedure. Approval of a planned unit development shall be required to vary a standard for lots yet to be created through a subdivision process where a specific code section does not otherwise permit exceptions. Finding 17.13.500(A)(4). The proposed variance will not alter a standard for lots yet to be created through a subdivision process. Conclusion 17.13.500(A)(4). Not applicable. 4. A variance shall not be approved that would vary the "permitted uses" or "prohibited uses" of a zoning district. Finding 17.13.500(A)(5). The proposed variance does not vary the "permitted " or "prohibited" uses in the R-1-6 district. Page 4 of 6 59 Conclusion 17.13.500(A)(5). Consistent. CPMC 17.13.500(C), Approval Criteria The city shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on all of the following criteria: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district. Finding I7.13.500(C)(1). The Residential Single Family (R-1-6) zone permits a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet. The variance request allows a maximum density commensurate with the minimum lot size requirement, which is consistent with the purpose statement for the R-1 zone. Conclusion 17.13.500(C)(1). The proposed variance does not present a detrimental impact on the health, safety, or general welfare of the surrounding neighbors, or the community at large, and does not establish an unacceptable precedent to the maximum density for properties in the R-1-6 zone. 2. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity (e.g. the same zoning district). Finding 17.13.500(C)(2). The applicant's findings address(StaffReport dated September 5, 2017, Attachment "C) the unique lot size and right-of-way conditions on Ash Street and Chestnut Street. This lot is 23% more narrow most other properties between Ash and Chestnut Street. Additionally, the right-of-way for both Ash and Chestnut Street exceeds the required amount for residential (retrofit) streets, which applies to existing streets. When these two factors are considered, the project site has a unique condition that precludes its ability to develop lots consistent with other lots in the neighborhood (i.e. lots with frontage on a public street) and that meet the maximum density standard. Conclusion .77.13.500(C)(2). The proposed variance is consistent with this standard. 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and city standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land. Finding 17.13.500(C)(3). The proposed use is single family residential consistent with the requirements of the Residential Single Family district per CPMC 17.20. Conclusion 17.13.500(C)(3). Consistent. Page 5 of 6 60 4. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks, will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject code standard. Finding 17.13.500(C)(4). As noted in the applicant's findings the proposed tentative plan variance to the maximum density, is or a site that will not impact any existing physical and natural systems, traffic, drainage, or parks. Conclusion 17.13.500(C)(4). Not Applicable. 5. The hardship is not self-imposed. Finding 17.13.500(C)(5). The Applicant's Findings (Staff Report dated September 5, 2017, Attachment "C') indicate that the existing lot size and excessive right-of-way conditions on Ash and Chestnut Street are not self-imposed. This is further evidenced by the code provision allowing lots that are 4,500 sf. in area. Conclusion 17.13.500(C)(5). Consistent. 6. The variance request is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship. Finding 17.13.500(C)(6). The variance request is to permit a maximum density commensurate with the minimum lot size. Since density is calculated as the number of units allowed per acre and there are 43,560 s.f per acre and the minimum lot size allowed in the R-1-6 zone is 4,500 s.f., the maximum density requested is 9 units per acre. Conclusion 17.13.500(C)(6). The variance request to the maximum density is the minimum necessary to permit a minor partition with lot sizes commensurate with the minimum lot size in the R-1-6 zone. PART 3 — SUMMARY CONCLUSION The requested variance has been evaluated against all six (6) of the criteria set forth in 17.13.500(C). Per the findings set forth herein the requested variance has been found to be compliant with said criteria and therefore justified as an exception to the maximum density limitation set forth in Section 17.20.050. Page 6 of 6 61 ATTACHMENT "E" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 847 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CLASS "C" VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE R-1-6 DISTRICT PER CPMC 17.13.500(C). Applicant: Bryan and Lisa Herrmann (File No: VAR -17001) WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application for a Class "C" variance to increase the maximum allowable density commensurate with the minimum lot size standard in the R-1-6 zone per CPMC 17.20.050 to allow a minor two(2) lot partition on 0.22 acres located at 765 Ash Street City of Central Point, Oregon; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 2017, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Central Point Planning Commission considered the Applicant's request for a Class "C" Variance to the maximum allowable density per CPMC 17.20.050; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as part of the Class "C" variance application has considered and finds that adequate findings have been made demonstrating that issuance of the variance is consistent with the criteria set forth in Section 17.13.500(C). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Central Point Planning Commission by Resolution No. 847 hereby approves the Ash Street Class "C" variance request based on the Planning Department Staff Report dated September 5, 2017, including the following attachments: Applicant's Project Narrative (Attachment `B"), Applicant's Findings (Attachment "C") and the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (Attachment "D") herein incorporated by reference. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5`h day of September, 2017. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Planning Commission Resolution No. 847 (09/05/2017) — Example based on Staff s Recommended Action per the Staff Report dated September 5, 2017 62 ANNEXATION OF 3428 AND 3470 CHICORY LANE 63 City of Central Point, Oregon 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www.centralpointoregon.gov AGENDA ITEM: FILE NO: 17001 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 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. 2. 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. 4. 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. 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. There is one issue relative to this application: 1. 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 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. M. L _ _ _ _ I Subject Lots 2012 Aerial 300 -Foot Suffer Tax Lots L._. J City Limits -i— i i Railroad 300 -Foot Radius Map Annexation 1 Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC W+E 37 -2W -I 1 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 s ® 200 100 0 200 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 67 ATTACHMENT 9` F7, 79 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 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 I!, 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 Property Owner Signature pate Bob Fellows Construction LLC 950 2entPlPoi r� Point CentralPointOR9]502 Pro Owner PertY _AJ�� ' �� 68 W x W LL L (13Y C co C Qj U ATTACHMENT Ag 69 C 1 F x W 19 All U) — 0 - FD Ln I cBin m C)w p � < LU n -IV os Bin. AC U) > CE (if ai > oal iii CD Lc) 00 ca 0 C� a) Ln CD 30 - Lo 8 z Cd O N 6 v WCL C) C� C5 LU :Ea - U; U) Z) ZZ LL ui ul lQin, jcLpi? vo , z - w e I CL Lj w ti Bin. PVC w w in. AC 0 CL 9 m U) Mn. PVC 0 Sk gel (n 2 0 0 ca m AS fibC 7 O 0 0 IL dr ov U) o U) CL L6 0 > of 0 N U7i P co dL <4 71 ATTACHMENT " .� 11 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 LJ- FRIAR & ASSOCIA s P.0 EXHIBIT"PHONE FAX 541E 772 2782 CONSUL TING LAND SURVEYORS 541-772-8465 P.O. BOX 1947 JAMES E HIBBS, PLS PHOENIX, OR 97535 IfilriardIchartennet 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 89029105" 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 00001122" 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 89059'20" East, 308.73 feet to the Easterly line of Chicory Lane; thence along said Easterly line, North 00°00'04" 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 89059'20" East, 493.00 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot "K"; thence along the East line thereof, North 35009'03" 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 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR � � OREGON JULY 17, 1986 JAMES E_ HIBBS 2234 RENEWAL DATE: 6-30-19 19 CHICORY LANE R CHICORY STREET rl 74 EXHIBIT" R " R 8 R � o CONSIDERATION OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM TOO CORRIDOR MMR TO TOO CORRIDOR LMR sa 75 City of Central Point, Oregon 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www. c en t ram o i n rorego n _goy 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 I IC, 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 (TOD-LMR/R-2) zoning are both 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 7and ng Comprehensive Plan Zonis Designations Optional TOD Corridor Comprehensive Plan and "Zoning Designations Residential R-1-8 — Residential, Single Family District 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size TOD-MMR —Medium -Mix Residential R-2 — Residential, Two Family District 6,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) TOD-LMR — Medium -Mix Residential R-3 — Residential, Multiple Family District (6,000 s . 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 — Em to ment 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 (TOD-LMR/R-2) zoning are both 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 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'. Fable 1.3. Prolmsed New Density, 2017-2037 Table 1.3. Proposed New Density, 2017-2037 Gross New Vacant Minimum Residential Minimum Gross Acres Build -Out Land Use Classification Density Needed (DUs) VLRes 1.00 13 13 LRes 4.00 151 605 MRes 8.00 50 403 HRes 20.00 38 756 Average Density 7.03 252 1,TT7 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 TIA, 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. ' 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 Needed (DUs) VLRes 1.00 13 13 LRes 4.00 155 619 MRes 8.00 47 374 HRes 20.00 38 756 Average Density 6.99 252 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 TIA, 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. ' City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan; Regional Plan Element, 4.1.5. 77 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 CV LAgnilr P 73,ATTACHMENT "A" L H19 0 -GRAND AV. HitDensity De Neighborhood Vp_ Neigh h od ConYerii�nCe Center; ivensence Center Ir T Y. Li L "Y' —CHENEY-L T Parks and Onen Space 7 MAG CT -F - 'PA A EA -- - . ;' —TIMOTHY X, Low Density I TOD Corridor I COW Density 7L�LAEETD ENDER LN TARA CR AN 01 0- I 00 JESSI;jj-j� R 0 W C) X u' --T a: L Subject Lots Tax Lots L "ty 1 lm't' 21111 L Urban Growth ;eigoFBoundary Railroad City Comp Plan Neighborhood Convenience Center TOD Corridor High Density Res. Low Density Res, Civic Parks and Open Space Existing Comprehensive Plan Annexation / 7one Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC W+ E 37 -2W -11C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S a400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 79 GC I -MR y� �r M-1 CIVIC I C"� SAND kN � 0��n MAC CT R-t-fi In„ � � f ukase r Proposed TOD LMR {R-2); o V Subject Lots City Zoning C -2(m) Tax Lots ` Civic -F--} Railroad - EC County Zoning GC LMR - M-1 MMR os R-1-6 R-1-8 It1., I i.1 1111 !J LAVENDER LN LMR 4 0 -� a Q X z iU 7" EXHIBIT 6 NW -1 Proposed Zoning Map Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC WE 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 s a300 150 0 300 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. __.. 80 ATTACHMENT "B" f our I imy Up-com Tun L L C 319 Eastwood Drive - Medford, Or. 97504 — Phone (541) 608-9923 — Email: Kwkp1@Q.com July 10, 2017 Matt Samitore, 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 traffc analysis for a proposed annexation, comprehensive plan map amendment, and zone change on property located east of Chicory 7 — .J _ _iL _Til --1._11 nL_. _ T_____ _3_' _ — is _ Larte Z-1 1d soituh VI nUSKG11 all MA VII I V W1IJ1fIP .J 13 ICaI1gC 2 W JCL:LLVIl 1 I I i.ax lois b.Jvil and 84iJV. Background Access to the subject property is provided from Chicory Lane and Haskell 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 alternate 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 will be added along the subject property frontage as part of development, connecting pedestrian facilities to the north and south on Haskell 81 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 2017 at the study area intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street. Counts were gathered during the a.m. peak period (7:04-9;01) 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 1— Year 2017 No -Build Intersection Operations Performance 'i mfnc Year 2917 Year 2917 Intersection Jurisdiction Standaeard Control Na$utld ttla_$aild A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Haskell Street 1 W. Pine Street City of Central Point LOS D Signal C, 21.1 sec A, 9.2 sec i.C)`S = Level of Service, sec = seconds Note: Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Results of the analysis show the intersection of Haskell 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 a.m. 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 SimTraffic 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 Table 2 — Year 2017 No -Build 95'h Percentile Queue Lengths _ Available Link 95'h Percentile 951° Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Queue Length (Feet) AM (feet) PM (feet) Haskell Street W. Pine Street Southbound Left 375 750 150 Southbound Through/Right 150 175* 50 Northbound Left/Through/Right 525 100* 50 Eastbound Letl 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 / OR 99 Results of the queuing analysis show many exceeded queue lengths occurring under existing conditions during the am. peals hour as a result of downstream queuing on Pine Street at OR 99 (Front Street). In watching traffic in the field and verifying through model simulations, the eastbound traffic volume on Pine Street at OR 99 exceeds the single lane capacity provided, and the amount of greed time for that movement cannot support the demand. This results in a queue length that backs up through the railroad crossing, Amy 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 95te Percentile Queue Lengths — Haskell I W. Pine Isolated Available Link 95"1 Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Exceeded (Feet) AM (Feat) Haskell St reel / W. Pine Street Southbound Left 375 250 No Southbound Through/Right 150 50 No Northbound LeWThrough/Right 525 75 No Eastbound Left 150 125 No Eastbound'rhrough/Right 425 250 No Westbound Left 150 75 No Westbound Through 375 150 No Westbound Right 275 100 No Note: Exceeded queue lengths are shown in bold, italic 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 OR 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 Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 13 83 Im 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 951h Percentile Queue Lengths — Mitigated Available Link 95a' Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Exceeded (Feet) AM (feet) Haskell Street / W. Pine Street Southbound Left 375 275 No Southbound Through/Right t50 75 No Northbound Left/Through/Right 525 75 No Eastbound Lei 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 are 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 affected by downstream queuing. This mitigation was previously shown to be required in the year 2000 Central Point Transit Oriented Development Traffic Impact Study prepared by .IRH 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 from Haskell Street to OR 99 through the Twin Creeks railroad crossing, consistent with what was shown to occur in model runs provided for the JRH 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 st, 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 9& 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 5 - Study Area Intersection Crash Rates, 2011-2015 Intersection 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total AADT Crash ODOT Crashes Rate 901° % Haskell Street/ W. Pine Street b 1 2 5 2 10 14,900 1 0.37 0.860 Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 201714 84 Table 6 - Crash History by Type, 2011-2015 Intersection Collision Type Severity Rear- Turning/ Fixed Other Ped/ Non Injury Fatal End Angle Object Bike I injury 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. None 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 not noncidered e.xreccive ecnerially enncirle,rina the, hioh tralTin cnike,c that arP chnuvn to nrraor diirino 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 ODOT published 90t1' percentile crash rate, which is used as a measure to determine 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 growth. 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 Trak AM Peak AM Peak Standard Control No -Build Mitigated Haskell Street/ Pine Street City of Central Point LOS D Signal B, 17.0 see B, 17.6 sec LOS = Level of Service, sec = seconds Note: Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 15 85 M 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 No -Build Queuing and Blocking Five simulations were run and averaged in SimTraffic to determine 95`h 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 95th Percentile Queue Lengtbs — AM Peak Hour Available Link 95" Percentile 95th Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Queue LgwVh (Feet) AM No -Build AM Mitigated Haske11 Strect I W. Pine Strect Southbound Leff 375 450* 275 Southbound Through/Right 150 75 50 Northbound Lef (Mrough/[tight 525 100 75 Easthound Left 150 100* 100 Easthound Through/Right 425 700* 275 Westbound Left 150 100 75 Westbound Through 375 175 150 Westbound Right 275 100 100 Note- Exceeded queue lengths are shown in bold, italic * Queue lengths affemted by downstream congestion at Pine Street / OR 99 As can be seen in Table 8, queue lengths continue to exceed link distances along W. Pine Street between Haskell Street and OR 99 in the eastbound direction (and 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 Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 201716 86 Trip Generation Trip generation calculations for proposed development trips were prepared utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 9h 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 Peak Hour ate PM Peak Hour Total (In) (Out) Total ¢n) (Out) 210—Single Family Reesidendai TSU 23 0.75 17 4 13 1.00 23 14 9 Net New Trips 17 4 13 23 14 9 DU = dwelling unit Trip Distribution and Assignment Development trips were assumed to distribute a little over 50% to/from 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/from 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 and Glenn Way. Refer to the diagram below for percentage splits and distributions at Haskell Street and W. Pine Street. Daveloerrrent Trips, AM Peak Hour Development Trips, PM Peds H" 1 1 4G% 1 0 1 0 0 AM Haskell I Pine St 7:15-0:15 am 0 0 0 0 1 0'/ 0 1 6 541% 3:454:45 pm 2 0% 2 kf/ 7 90% 7 Development Trips, PM Peds H" 1 4% 1 0 1 0 " Assunoion: 0 PM 0 50'/ of development 0 Haskell I Pine St 0 trips distribute tdFnam 0 3:454:45 pm 6 the north on Haskell DY. 0 1 1 4 9G/. Street and 50% tdfrom 7 1 the sotAh, north, "west 8% 87. 84% on Chicory Ln. Glean Wy, 4 and Malabar Sheet. 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 Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 201717 87 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 2018 Year 2018 standard Control Build Build -Mitigated Haskell Street / Pine Street City of Central Point LOS D Signal B, 18.0 sec 13, 17.9 sec LOS = Level of Service, see = seconds Note: Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Results of the analysis show the intersection of Haskell Street and W. pine Street continues to operate acceptably (within performance standards) with additional traffic from the proposed development. 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 95th percentile queue lengths under design year 2018 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 95u' Percentile Queue Lengths —A.M. Peak Hour Available Link 950'Percentile 950' Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Queue Length (Feet) Build Build -Mitigated Haskell street 1 W. pine street Southbound Left. 375 475* 250 Southbound Through/Right 150 75 50 Northbound Left/ThrougWRight 525 125 75 Eastbound Left 150 175* too Eastbound Through/Right 425 800* 250 Westbound Left 150 too 75 Westbound Through 375 175 150 Westbound Right 275 too 100 Note: Exceeded queue lengths are shown in bold, italic * Queue lengths affected 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, 2017 18 88 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. fine 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 eastbound through lane on Piste 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 a.m. peak hour. This is expected to reduce when the third railroad crossing at Twin Creeks is in place in November of 2017. It will be fully mitigated when a second eastbound through lane on fine Street at OR 99 is implemented. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information regarding this letter. Sincerely, 14& P'k_ Kimberly Par ucici PE, PTOE SOuuan Op-com Tlt NSPOATl3TION lmi lw imc, LL( Attachments, Count Data, Crash Data Traffic Volume Development Synchro Output/SimTraffic Output Supporting Data Cc: Client ,`,� PRO,��' t;r' t NR S � 0 53 UP r ' OREGOK Y ws I 1 Southern Oregon Tronsportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 19 89 ATTACHMENTS 90 North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles s a ffwwpm e05, wee ACUY411144 VL 97504 Groups Printed- Unsh+fted File Name : Pine -Haskell -.Tues Site Code : 00000001 Start Hate : 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 Start Ttma Left Thru Ro; i Peas Am Tar Lett Thru itgq Peas An, Left Thru I?4V Peas „R xmi Lett Thru RW'4 Peds A..�w W..T w 06 45 AM 35 1 2 0 38 12 25 20 1 56 0 0 10 0 10 1 53 1 0 55 _ 161 Total 35 1 2 0 38 12 25 20 1 58 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 83 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 36 56 2 97 1 4 28 2 35 15 83 1 20 119 408 07.47 AM 120 2 13 5 140 19 66 42 3 130 0 3 2G 0 23 12 89 2 23 726 419 Total 388 5 31 13 437 32 176 166 6 380 4 8 70 2 84 45 323 4 44 416 13V 08:00 AM 71 3 9 2 85 13 38 30 0 81 0 1 21 2 24 2 90 3 3 98 288 0815 AM 69 0 1 2 72 9 35 30 0 74 3 2 7 1 13 2 fig 1 1 63 222 08:30 AM 72 0 5 1 78 8 49 34 0 91 0 1 11 0 12 1 as 1 1 98 279 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 5 287 50 166 121 2 338 6 6 51 4 V 6 296 6 8 316 1009 Grand Total 682 11 51 18 762 94 367 307 9 777 10 14 131 6 161 52 672 11 52 787 2487 Appn:h % 89.5 14 6.7 24 12.1 47.2 39.3 1.2 6.2 8.7 81.4 3.7 6.6 55.4 14 68 Total % 27.4 OA 2.1 0.7 30.6 3.8 14.8 12.3 0.4 31.2 0.4 0.6 5-3 0.2 6.5 2.1 27 0.4 2.1 316 91 swmp"awan awm"ifv, ,CIBC .AWf a+rd, VL 97504 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 : 2/21/2017 Page No :2 S Haskell St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St 473 From North From East 39 6 414 12 From South F"ght Thru Oat( Pads From West Start Left Thru Rsu1.t Peds „ ,. Left Thr R:g Ped App. left Thr Rig Red App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int. Time .o 9 u h1 s Total 4 u ht s Total u ht s Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:15 AM to 08:00 AM - Peak 1 of 1 CE r a c v n - m w Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at 1 —► Len, Thru, 8101 POO +0 mins. w 15m 83 1 7 0 91 0715AM 4 37 52 1 94 6' �,hY 2 1 B 0 11 07; I5 AM 12 82 0 1 95 +15 mins. 140 2 10 5 137 3 36 56 2 97 1 4 28 2 33 13 83 1 20 119 +30 mens. 120 2 13 5 140 19 88 42 3 •130 0 3 20 0 23 12 89 2 23 126 +45 mins. 71 3 9 2 85 13 38 30 0 81 0 1 21 2 24 2 90 3 3 98 Tow Vdmw 414 8 39 12 473 39 177 180 6 402 3 9 77 4 93 41 344 6 47 438 ,4 AFp Tow 87.5 1 7 8.2 2.5 9.7 44 448 1.5 3.2 9.7 82.8 4.3 9A 78.5 1.4 107 PHF 739.C.67 750 ..800 753 513 670 .804 .900 .773 .375 563 :888.500 684 .683 .956 .590 .511_ 8B9 S. keH st In -Peak Hour 07:15 AM 473 39 6 414 12 F"ght Thru Oat( Pads 1= ► Peak Hour Data .o 9 w ► North 4 C a m CE r a c v n - m w 1 —► Len, Thru, 8101 POO 3] 9 77 4 @3 In - Psak Hour: 07 15 AM Soulli ew (gam A&4044, A& 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 : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted 93 S. Haskell St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St From North From East From South From West Start Time Left Thru "rd Peds w v, Left nru PqN Peft A� ,y„ Left rhru Rio meds Am T w , Left , Th.ru Right Peds py A- m j- 07:00 AM 43 0 2 1 46 9 35 19 0 63 0 0 14 0 14 3 49 1 0 53 176 07:15 AM 75 1 3 1 80 4 38 56 0 98 2 2 7 0 11 11 78 0 0 89 278 0730 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 68 5@ 3 140 1 3 18 0 22 10 91 1 14 116 418 Total 381 5 30 13 429 33 162 185 4 384 4 7 75 0 86 42 906 4 38 340 1289 08:00 AM 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 53 0 1 15 0 16 3 52 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 08;45 AM 63 1 2 2 68 10 33 n 0 72 1 0 8. 3 12 3 54 1 3 61, 213 rola! 274 4 14 7 2914 38 137 111 0 26-6 2 2 43 5 52 9 252 4 13 278 915 Grand ictal 655 9 44 20 728 71 299 296 4 670 6 9 118 5 138 51 558 8 51 668 2204 Appreh % 90 12 6 2.7 10.6 44.6 442 0.6 4.3 6.5 85.5 36 7,6 83.5 1.2 T.6 7alal % 29.7 04 2 09 33 3.2 13.6 134 02 30.4 0.3 0,4 5.4 0.2 6.3 2.3 253 04 2.3 30.3 93 saameNs a gwmpodaffax enow"L4, 2" .Ate4nd, VL 97504 North-South: S. Haskell Street 07.15" 75 File Name : Pine -Haskell_ Wednesday East-West: E. Pine Street 80 Site Code :00000002 Weather: Overcast, 45 deg 0 Start Date '2/22/2017 Veh Type: All Vehicles 7 Page No : 2 S. Haskell St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St From North From East From South From West start Left Thru nynt plats w ,., Left Thr Rig Ped App, Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int. Time u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:15 AM to 08:00 AM - Peak 1 of 1 36 0 Peak Hato for Each Approach Begins at - 1S 88 2 to mins. 07.15" 75 1 3 1 80 07 13 AM 4 38 56 0 98 07 15 Ad 2 2 7 0 11 0T 15" 11 78 0 0 89 +15 mins. 145 1 12 5 163 9 21 52 1 83 1 2 36 0 39 1S 88 2 24 132 +30 mins. 118 3 13 6 140 11 66 58 3 140 1 3 18 0 22 10 91 1 14 116 +45 mins, 90 1 4 4 99 15 41, 32 0 88 0 0 9 1 10 3 85 2 5 95 Tow Vohmm 428 6 32 16 482 39 168 198 4 409 4 7 70 1 82 42 342 5 43 432 9L App TcRw 88.8 1.2 6,6 3.3 9.5 41.1 48.4 1 41 8.5 854 1.2 97 79.2 12 10 PHF _738 500 .615 .667 739 650 618 853 333 .730 500 ,583 .486 250 $26 .563 .940 625 446 618 94 Sr Ifit5l l kt - Peak Hour: 0"5 AM 482 32 6 320, 16 Right Thru pert Peds Peak Hour Data + b j+ a North ro un>;nifted _' g � .x �._ �`r, CE a1 w a - � J N C � � Crl Thor F001. pees 41 7 70 a In - Peak Hour: 07:15 AM 94 Saadi"A eug" ywmpedtatim &Iqi"8d4q6 AM AU4axd, Vc 97504 North-South: S. Haskell St File Name : Pine-Haskell—Thursday East-West: E. Pine St Site Code : 00000003 Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Start Date : 2/2312017 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshltted 95 S. Haskell E. Pine St S. Haskell E. Pine St From North From East From South From West Start Time Left Thru FNN Peds eF T" Left Thru Wt Pads Lett Thr RWR Peds Am Td Lett Thru Rip Peds yw s xTow 07:00 AM 35 2 2 1 40 15 30 19 1 65 1 0 13 0 14 3 58 0 1 62 181 07:15 AM 83 7 4 2 96 5 35 51 0 91 0 2 19 0 21 9 73 1 0 83 291 0730 AM 136 3 16 7 162 2 42 62 0 106 0 3 23 0 26 17 90 4 15 126 420 0745 AM 122 3 18 3 146 13 55 50 3 121 1 1 23 5 30 15 92 3 23 133 430 Total 376 15 40 13 444 35 162 162 4 383 2 6 78 5 91 44 313 8 39 404 1322 08:00 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 17 0 19 4 61 2 3 70 M7 06:30 AM 70 0 1 2 73 5 38 36 0 79 0 0 12 0 12 1 105 1 1 108 272 08.45 AM 40 3 2 0 45 21 53 36 0 110 2 0 10 0 12 1 59 1 1 62 229 Total 241 4 V 15 272 44 162 144 0 350 2 3 56 2 63 13 309 6 7 337 1022 Grand Total 617 19 52 28 716 79 324 326 4 733 4 9 134 7 1541 57 622 16 46 741 2344 Appreh % 06.2 2.7 7.3 39 108 442 44.5 0.5 2.6 5.8 87 45 7.7 63.9 2.2 6.2 Total % 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 SGUAUM a .AU4md.. OJT. 97504 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 :2 S. Haskell E. Pine St S. Haskell E. Pine St From North From East From SouthFro_ m West Start Left Thr Rig Ped App' Left Thr Rig Ped APp- Left Ttr Pig Ped App. Int, Time Left Thru it9tr Peds "'"' u ht s Total u hi s TG131 u ht s Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07.15 AM to 08:00 AM • Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hw for Each Approach Segms at. 96 0 15" HMd Qr:!5ala In - Peak Harr 57,15 AM w 15 AAA 496 0715 Ar 40 17 4113 25 +0 mins- 83 7 4 2 96 5 35 51 0 91 0 2 19 0 21 9 73 1 0 83 +15 ming. 136 3 16 7 162 2 42 62 0 106 0 3 23 0 26 17 90 4 15 126 +30 mins. 122 3 i8 3 146 13 55 50 3 121 1 1 23 5 30 15 92 3 23 133 +45 mins- 72 0 7 13 92 10 36 39 0 85 0 1_ 17 2 20 7 84 4 2 97 Toutvaiume 413 13 45 25 496 30 168 202 3 403 1 7 82 7 H7 4 339 12 46 439 !! ►pp ravel 83-3 2.6 9 1 5 7.4 41.7 501 0.7 1 7.2 84-5 7.2 10.9 77.2 2.7 9.1 PHF 759 .464 .$25 481 765 ,577 -764 .615 250 933 .250 ,583 .191 350 .808 706 .921 ,-750_,435 -825 96 HMd In - Peak Harr 57,15 AM 496 40 17 4113 25 Right Thru Left Peds H Peak Hour Data is 4 C A til e: North v s .Mq 0 41Cr 2� Y CL fLnsnired rs v CL a N 41 i� 4e11 Thto Right Peds 1 7 62 7 97 In - Peak Hour: 07:15 AM 96 North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles SGUMCAW a .T weopwldaffox Ca9buering, 2M .Afe4nd, vt 97504 Groups Printed- Unshifted 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 Start Time Left Thor ftm pads Left ThTu Ri a Peds m, T� Left Thru a.3nr P®da : — Left Thru R49 Peds ..PTm w T.W 02:00 PM 39 3 3 3 48 8 36 38 0 82 2 4 5 1 12 6 37 4 0 47 189 02:35 PM 91 1 14 26 132 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 60 0 3 0 63 19 62 58 0 139 4 3 11 2 20 2 51 0 4 57 279 Total 267 5 30 35 337 49 222 242 1 514 12 8 37 6 63 19 206 6 6 237 1151 03'0n PM 44 2 1 7 4.9 R 73 4R 1 110, 2 2 13 n 17 7 .r,7 n N " 7Fn 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 16 0 19 0 76 2 0 78 310 03745 PM 56 0 6 0. 72 25 105 72 1 203 0 2 15 0 17 2 66 1 2 71 363 TOW 221 3 17 5 246 66 318 233 6 623 5 7 59 0 . 71 10 263 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 0415 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 0 613 321 04'45 PM 42 0 1 0 43 9 107 71 0 187 1 1 7 0 9 4 47 2 1 54 293 Tntal 209 1 9 4 223 55 413 280 11 739 5 3 39 0 47 9 247 3 1 260 1289 05:00 PM 61 0 1 0 62 16 95 85 0 1961 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 8 3 223 59 402 305 9 775 6 3 65 7 M 11 228 5 4 248 1327 Grand Total 908 10 64 47 1029 229 1355 1060 27 2671 28 21 200 13 262 49 947 19 18 1033 4995 Appreh % 88.2 1 62 4.6 8.6 507 39.7 1 10.7 8 76.3 5 4.7 917 1.8 1.7 Total % 18.2 0.2 1.3 0.9 206 4.6 27.1 21.2 0.5 535 0,6 0.4 4 0,3 5.2 1 19 0.4 0.4 207 97 sow varn SwMpodastba 9, AM Ae4oa.. AL 975M 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 252 S. Haskell St E. Pine St 14 1 7'39 4 From North R%M Tleu Left Peds From Eas! From South From West Start Left Thru Right Pees .,, ra, Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App LER Thr Rig Pad App. Int. Time C4 = UnShiHed u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 03:45 PM to 04:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 3 N H + I ! Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: R_. Thru Rot Pmt_. . 9t_ 4 47 OMS PM a-45 PM 00:45 PN Pr +0 rrmns. 66 0 6 0 72 25 105 72 1 203. 0 2 15 0 17 2 w 1 2 71 +15 mins. 63 0 3 2 68 18 106 64 2 190 2 1 13 0 16 3 65 0 0 68 +30 mins.. 55 1 4 2 62 14 102 72 4 192 0 0 9 0 9 1 69 0 0 70 +45 mfns. 4.9 0 1 0 50 14 98 73 5 190 2 1 _1 Q 1 @6 1 4 w TOW Vd.M 238 1 14 4 252 71 411 281 12 775 4 4 47 0 .12 55 7 286 2 2 277 x App rota 92.5 0.4 5.6 1.6 9.2 53 36.3 15 73 73 85.5 0 2.5 96 0.7 0.7 PHF 883 250 563 .500 875 710 969 .982 .600 954 .500 500 T63 .000 .809 .563 964 .500 .25O975 _. 98 S. Hadm FA In Peels Now 03,45 PM 252 14 1 7'39 4 R%M Tleu Left Peds Peak Hour Data M CL ^ ? p - m 3 V NorlA Sam 4 2 i t C4 = UnShiHed y .x 3 N H + I ! R_. Thru Rot Pmt_. . 9t_ 4 47 In - Peak Hour. 03;45 PM 98 North-South: OR 99 East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles (Thurs) S"dow c Uup" 9'Ka"Pedau" fagi e"kq', .GCC AIe4"do 0v. 97504 Groups Primed- UnshiRed File Name : E Pine OR 99 AM Site Code :000006-04 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No : 1 99 OR 99 E. Pine St OR 99 E. Pine St From Horth From East From South From West Start Time Left ThrU RqN Pads b rar Left Thr, R1gM Peds w. — Left Thru RIgH Peas ,e. Left Thrr Rwpl Pees Yf M bR TtW 07:00 AM 3 28 16 0 47 21 37 4 0 62 19 30 19 0 68 17 72 27 1 117 294 0715 AM 7 35 17 0 59 37 47' 5 0 89 32 43 14 1 901 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 07.46 AM 7 69 25 4 105 45 72 13 2 132 41 ¢0 31 2 134 . _54 11667 67 0 237 608 Total 28 190 B6 4 308 1 38 200 31 2 371 130 182 87 3 402 146 422 192 4 764 1845 08:00 AM 14 54 15 0 83 34 45 16 0 95 2R 53 27 2 lin 3R UM 4R 3 191 4717 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 0 199 501 Q8:45 AM 16 5$ 20 0 99 52 58 11 1 122 24 65 29 0 118 52 25 1, IG5 444 Focal 52 209 80 1 342 164 192 45 1 402 B1 246 113 2 ..27 4d2 171 312 146 5 634 1820 Grand Tara) 60 399 166 5 650 302 392 76 3 T3 211 428 200 5 844: 317 734 338 9 1398 3665 Apprch % 123 614 25.5 0.8 39.1 507 9.8 0.4 25 507 237 06 227 52.5 24.2 0,6 T:7Sal% 22 10.9 4.5 01 177 82 107 2.1 01 211 5.8 117 5.5 0.1 23 86 20 92 0.2 38.1 99 Soudm Vwf" .TWMF0dWM &WwodnFj "e Awyagd, 04 97504 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 I.O fhfij Righr Pkdy 1 3� 20,; W; 44-1 In -Peak How. 07.15 AM — - ngw 100 OR 99 if _15in-e- St 3" OR 99 E. Pine St North Mgftl ThrU LON Peds From East, From South - 41 ► From West start Left Thr. RqN pees Left Thc Mg Pod App. Left Thr Rig Ped App i Left Thr Rig Ped App. lint. Time elm U ht s ToW w u Int s Total U ht s Total Total Peak How Ana" From 07:15 AM to 08:00 AM - Peak I of I Asok Hour fix _Epo A 07-15AU 'IsAm 07:15 AM i mins_1 7 35 17 0 59 37 47 5 0 89 32 43 14 1 90 33 94 36 2 165 +15 mins. 11 58 20 0 97 35 44 9 0 88 38 49 23 0 11110 42 140 62 1 245 +30 mins. 7 69 26 4 105 45 12 13 2 132 41 60 31 2 134 54 116 67 0 237 +45 mins 14 54 15 0 83 3.4 45 16 0 95 28 53 27 2 1110 38 104 46 3 191 Tow nee me 39 M 85 4 344 151 208 Q 2 404 139 205 95 5 444 W 454 211 6 838 AM TOW 113 62.8 247 12 374 516 10.6 0.5 31.3 462 2t.4 1 1 19.9 54.2 25.2 0.7 PHF 696 .783 759 250 819 339 122 872 .250 M 8.48 .654 .760 .025 820 773 611 787 500 .855 I.O fhfij Righr Pkdy 1 3� 20,; W; 44-1 In -Peak How. 07.15 AM — - ngw 100 OR so In - Poak Hapr: 07- IS AM 3" 85 216 39 4 Mgftl ThrU LON Peds - 41 ► Peak Hour Data I f T 7 os F x elm - - ----------- -- 2 w I.O fhfij Righr Pkdy 1 3� 20,; W; 44-1 In -Peak How. 07.15 AM — - ngw 100 I : + F } { f i � � s @ all x s� r j$G y k 5ie 8 hki iiia hfs MN hit ��a! 101 pe d I 102 rr z ssr a z s yAy sg t Sof[ 1. If �e111.11,1 4_Fi 9.111a1I I -Ell 1.11 1.91 1.g 3Sa aka aka aka 3oa �� mee �: �eee �aee =P J A �eev ao_� �o� k G 111 G 142 L 1� F L ZEE ¢¢iaa EE '€aa e�fSE day +SE has jp�EE pqq�aa s#4 �3dy �3 pp3 3 3 3 3 �g sIk 9h 3s sh In 196 102 STOZ-noN . STOZ-daS STOZ-Inr STOZ-AeW STOZ-JeIN STOZ-Uer 6iOZ-noN a --- - VTOZ-daS VTOZ-Inf - - - VTOZ-Aeyy VTOZ-Jew VTOZ-Uer ETOZ-AON ETOZ-daS ETOZ-Inf k ETOZ-Ae V4 ETOZ-Jeal £TOZ-uef I ZTOZ-AoN ZTOZ-daS ZTOZ-Inf ZTOZ-AelN ZTOZ-Jeal ZTOZ-Uer I { TTOZ-noN 1 TTOZ-daS V �I TTOZ-Inf 1 TTOZ-AeIN TTOZ-Jeyy i i TTOZ-Uer O i O� U7 'tN 0 d O O saysea:);o JagwnN 103 a ti 0 I IIy O I I � d% G No I� lG u9 qr M N N O sayseJ„o jagwnN 104 Go, Pd a r+ N � N O o n o_ I m I nc a u Z a Z 1 4_ - --I O al 00 1� l0 1n M N a--1 O sa4sej3 jo jagwnN 105 shown in the table should be flagged for further analysis. Exhibit 4-1 Intersection Crash Rates per MEV b • Land Tvpe and Traffic Control Source: Asschsmciit OVStatcw•idc itit i_NcLi, u. 6ic&% I'c�fur�li.uic4, FHWA-O'R-PD-18, Portland State University and Oregon State University, .lune 2011. Table 4. 1, p. 47. A st,rcadAwei calrttiatm has 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 illustives 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 I Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 4-5 Last Updated 12,/2014 106 Rural Urban 3SG 3ST 4SG 4ST 3SG 3ST 4SG 4ST No, of Intersections 7 115 20 60 55 77 106 60 Mean Crash Rate 0.226 0.196 0.324 0.434 0.275 0.131 0.477 0.198 Median Crash Rate 0.163 0.092 0.320 0.267 1 0.252 0.105 0,420 1 0.145 Standard Deviation 0.185 0,314 0.223 0.534 0.155 0.121 0.273 1 0.176 Coefficient of Variation 0.819 1.602 0.688 1.230 0.564 0.924 0.572 0.889 90` Percentile Rate 0.464 0.475 10.579 1,080 0.509 0.293 0.860 0.408 Source: Asschsmciit OVStatcw•idc itit i_NcLi, u. 6ic&% I'c�fur�li.uic4, FHWA-O'R-PD-18, Portland State University and Oregon State University, .lune 2011. Table 4. 1, p. 47. A st,rcadAwei calrttiatm has 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 illustives 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 I Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 4-5 Last Updated 12,/2014 106 P 107 OG MMMT,'nc"M�. C- M � ON M C•1 => M �1l. gsd`dddd'd!dddddd AIAAAAAAfAAAAAA i ✓' o r ccloi0000,000000 z,J� ��o�, +�� to G G G I G G O 0 O 0 G o G G G G O O o 0 c 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O A .n C) -D0 't rn r- tri �o m r Et 00 Ch r r u o oo -� O O M r .. 40 10 CN N O Ln �-+ �O 00 M ON oo � r Nr --i ,--� .--i N - - - N m o o C) O O O G G O Q C-0 e P,] r 00 '-/1 MC �O -0 ID •r vl --r M ,hit CO � C1, C14 r - �, O N r'1 00�0 O ®� C> O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O o O 0 C o O 0 O 0 O 0 O N � r � qtl- O� m m ✓) -T r '11. O .N-iM-� M 00 -V r C4 N + rn n 0 1 co � M C> � x cd Cd Co mal > 4Z Q v: a cnadLd v� cn a �v]14� C6-1 ° �,��GQ�� Z ao=+x ' w �Ii wwwu,., W46 o••4e,..4 �4. w �PE0 " -`' x `' w 0 w G c�. o o `r' ci.. w y w o 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m F+� cC to ,, ��++ FS w ct +n cd in cd u rn m W cd cd o O O O o O 0 O a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pp G• U 4S ro to U U U {f C 60 u 0 0 _U (. _7u 70 _U N G Lr, O H q, r) G G •--� m B C,4 O N G G *-� G .-i .- O O v) O N O N O w) V O O N O N O N O N O N O x x c tr, -r �o �c r•i t-.-- m t--- o a0 O M N +O d 00 lzr ., rn t- r �1 C� �±+ O M C-0 Ln G a\ r-- r- cl ^t tri o I:r r Irl M �. r oo N 4t c•i -t ni rf �O t-- t Tt a> -t Dt d c Lr, hr v,, ri er rS to 00 CS Cs - .-+ - - S`1 C,4 Cd �o \10 CJ t0 C -a %b C'1 1p C,C'1 �D DC7 M �O M �O M �D M M Mm M M M M M�p M YCS� J O O G O O G G •O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C G O xi 108 GROWTH DEVELOPMENT: ODOT Future Volume TaNe 2013 2035 Growth Rate / Year OR 99 at Scenic 7200 10,100 1.015 OR 99 at Beall 14,400 20,100 1.015 TWIN CREEKS CROSSING IMPACT: Re-routed Traffic from Twin Creeks Railroad Crossing AM Peak Hour. Approximately 15% 513 increase on OR 99 or 50 trips reduction on Haskell Street at Pine (-50 S8L) Approximately 12% NB increase on OR 99 or 55 trip reduction on Pine at Haskeli (-40 WSR, -25 WBT) PAA Peak Hour Approximately 12% SS increase on OR 99 or 45 trip reduction on Haskell Street at Pine {45 SBLJ Approximately 21 OA NS increase on OR 99 a 115 trip reduction on Fina at Haskell (-85 WS R. -50 WBT) 109 mul ■■ ! § !2 §; ■); §a r :§e !, §P @e -: ;� , §r ■2 ■�}� !)] Kz}|� §| �! �� | ■: :e ,! ! §»§ .m; :2: My R ■ a 2 ! ! en �■ �< .m s ,, g & ! ■ ■ 2 | : e ,. :2 ;; _ -� - §2 ;■ m;|\§ a■&&l �§; - ! R ; q��: al�� 2■ §- ,� a: !�; !!. �-<2 ■ `R &■® ,gin a; ; Jr _ �1 . ■2 � a2 !!m „!_� | ■| !=5 , § ~,}� ^ �■ \° �� ..�� .�|\` | \ \ } ) ! \§ 7 f J i k2if � - mul ; © ; n � E ■ �_� ,■■ �., !»a ©�■«� !!|�§ zk'� r!■`k .. � e! ■ ; ®• , !- §» jj � !§» ■ - � ƒ � 2 E - � a ' � . ■ ! �, ! «.. �, -mf E. -� ��■ � E! �! � -! a■� ■ ,! } | � , ■ . ,& | , 22�;° H-- ■|/� a2/ / §,;� � §® , � ;■ ��.2 � - e ■ i � , a � !r; e■ nw ,�| % !n l�,i�' ! �,§�� _�;� ! e■¢ > ��.■ ��- ��-§ ��-r e2 � ' ) i ! 2 4 � k HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 54: E Pine St & Front 03/0912017 A, t r 10 4 'W/ 4 j" t. Movement NBL N8T NBR. Sn. SK SBR NEL NET I . SWL WT SNIR Lane Configurations !1• t1 't f r t114 Traffic Volume (vph) 140 205 95 40 220 85 180 510 225 150 210 45 Future Volume (vph) 140 205 95 40 220 85 180 510 225 150 210 45 Ideal Flow(vphpq 1750 4750 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 4.0 4.0 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, peftikes 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 100 1.00 Flpb, ped4xkes 1.00 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 Fh 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 1699 1420 1568 3008 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 Satd, Flow(perm 1568 2810 1511 3107 1359 930 1699 1420 262 3008 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 169 247 114 48 265 102 217 614 271 181 253 54 RTOR Reducton (vph) 0 42 0 0 0 86 0 0 fib 0 11 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 169 319 0 48 265 16 217 614 205 181 296 0 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 4 5 5 4 2 6 6 2 Confl. Bikes (#Ihr) 2 3 9 3 Heavy vehicles f°Io] 6% 13% 8% 10% 7% 7% 2% 3% 2% 6% 8% 4% Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm pm+pt NA Penn pm+pt NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.1 21.9 7.0 14.8 114.8 53.2 41.2 41.2 53.4 411.3 Effective Green, g (s) 14.1 22.9 7.0 15.8 15.8 53.2 41.2 41.2 53.4 41.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.23 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.54 0.42 0.42 0.5+4 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 Vehicle Extensni p 2.5 4.7 2.5 4.7 4.7 2.5 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 00.11 c0.11 0.03 0.09 0.05 c0.36 c0.07 0.113 v!s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.15 0.14 0.25 We 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 1s.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 B B Approach Delay (s) 40.7 39.8 28.5 19.0 Approach LOS D D C B intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control 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 69,11% 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 Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering ISS Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 03/0912017 Movement SEL SET SER NWL W NWR NEL NET RER SWL SWr M Lane Configurations R t. 4. 5 io R T r Traffic Volume (vph) 450 15 50 1 10 90 50 370 15 35 180 220 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 Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 100 100 1,110 0.97 Flpb, pedlbikes 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 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1615 1462 1470 1623 1685 1620 1549 1405 Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (germ) 1225 1462 1469 944 1685 408 1549 1405 Peak -�our factor. PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.63 Adj. Flow (vph) 542 18 60 1 12 108 60 446 18 42 217 265 RTOR Reduction (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 Conn. Peds. (#!hr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Confl. Bikes (*hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Pxmittp.d PhagPq 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.9 42.9 42.9 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 Effective Green, g (s) 42.9 42.9 42.9 26.4 26.4 25.4 26.4 26.4 Actuated 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 Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.52.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 679 811 815 322 _ 575 139 529 479 vls Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.27 0.14 vis Rano Perm c0.44 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.06 vlc Ratio 0.80 0.06 0.09 0.19 0.80 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 Delay (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 B B B Approach Delay (s) 18.5 8.1 29.5 18.9 Approach LOS B A C B HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.20/a 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 Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 113 Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 54: E Pine St & Front 03/13/2017 M t r 4 l j 1 $' r Ae t. Movement NBL NST NBR SK SST SSR NEL NET NER $WL SVVT SWR Lane Configurations 'i 'tf• 'f tt P f r* 'i fl. Traffic Volume (vph) 245 390 180 70 210 115 110 355 135 130 466 60 Future Volume (vph) 245 390 180 70 210 115 110 355 135 130 465 60 Ideal Flow (vphpo 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 4,0 4.0 Lane Uhl. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 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 Fri 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Fft Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1630 3053 1630 3260 1410 1630 1716 1428 1630 3198 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 Said. Flow(perm) 1630 3053 1630 3260 1410 492 1716 1428 440 3198 Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 Adj. Flow (vph) 255 406 188 73 219 120 115 370 141 135 484 62 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 37 0 0 0 91 0 0 83 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 557 0 73 219 29 115 370 58 135 539 0 Conti Peds. (##1hr) 14 14 14 14 1 1 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#€!hr)2 3 9 3 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm _ pm+pt NA Perm pm+pl �NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.9 26.1 7.8 19.0 19.0 31.5 21.8 21.8 30.9 21.5 Effective Green, g (s) 14.9 27.1 7.8 20.0 20.0 31.5 21.8 21.8 30.9 21.5 Actuated g1C 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 Extensian Ls) ` 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 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0,18 0.04 0.07 0.04 c0.22 c0.05 0.17 v1s Rio Perm 0.02 0.09 0.04 012 v/c 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 Progresslon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Inaemental Delay, d2 22.0 1.0 17 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.0.4 0.1 0.8 1,5 Delay (s) 54.6 23.6 36.9 25.5 24.2 17.7 38.6 23.2 19.1 28.4 Level of Service D C D C C 8 0 C 6 C Approach Delay (s) 32.9 27.2 31.3 26,6 Approach LOS C C C C Intasection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C 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 Analysls Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering IME Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 03113/2017 Movement SEI. SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations 'f 1� c0.28 4� c0.22 'i I. 0.02 '1 T r 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 1750 1150 Total Lost time (s) 4,0 4.0 7.5 6.7 4.0 6.8 4.0 4.0 A 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 Approach Delay (s) 1.00 9.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Frpb, peftikes 1.00 0.98 A 1.00 A 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 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Safd. Flow (prot) 1614 1471 1494 1652 1681 1597 1599 1396 Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.99 0.39 1.00 0.55 1.00 1,00 Satd. Flow (perm)_ 1216 1471 1481 683 1681 928 1699 1396 Peak•hourWor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adi. 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 Confl. Peds. kOr) 4 4 12 2 2 12 Confl. Bikes (Who 1 1 Heavy 'dehides M) 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 4% 0% 4% 3% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Permiticd Phages 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 14.2 14.2 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 14.2 14.2 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 Actuated g/C natio 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 416 503 506 317 781 431 790 649 vis Ratio Prot 0.00 0.18 c0.28 v1s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.11 We Ratto 0.65 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.40 0.19 0.60 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 11.6 9.0 9.2 6.0 7.3 6.5 8.2 6.7 Progression Factor 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 6.1 7.5 6.7 9.3 6.8 Level of Service B A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 14.5 9.2 7.5 8.1 Approach LOS B A A A 2r'�* htt.WM,I HCM 2000 Control 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 Capacity Utilization 61.8% 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 Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 115 Synchro 9 Report Page 2 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03/11/2017 Summary of All Intervals Run Ntrmtaer 1 2 3 4 5 A Start Time 7:10 7.10 7,10 T10 7:i0 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 2 Vehs Entered 2925 2995 2923 3027 3007 2974 Vehs Exited 2947 3037 2941 3037 3023 2997 Starting Vehs 80 106 75 79 77 80 Ending Vehs 58 64 57 69 61 59 Travel Distance (mi) 1006 1012 996 1032 1029 1015 Travel Time (ho 77.5 76.7 72.2 96.4 83.8 81.3 Total Delay (hr) 38.9 37.8 34.0 56.7 44.1 42.3 Total Stops 3851 3846 3656 4205 3966 3907 Fuel Used (gal) 45.1 45.5 44.0 50.5 47.6 46.5 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Record S€art Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Humber 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 831 832 767 _ 813 _ 808 810 Vehs Exited 814 794 764 766 755 780 Starting Vehs 80 106 75 79 77 80 Ending Vehs 97 144 78 126 130 112 Travel Distance (mi) 285 277 272 268 269 274 Travel 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 Taal 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 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03/1112017 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Nimbef 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 2094 2163 2156 2214 2199 2167 Vehs Exited 2133 2243 2177 2271 2268 2219 Starting Vehs 97 144 78 128 130 112 Ending Vehs 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 23.6 201 42.9 29.5 28.4 Total Stops 2725 2639 2511 3093 2798 2756 Fuel Used (gal) 31.9 32.1 31.0 37.7 34.6 33.5 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Ism SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 -No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03/11/2017 Intersection: 48: E Pine St & 2nd Intersection: 51: E Pine St & 1st Mo. -amall SE mvq NE KE - SW SNr 12 Directions Served LTR LTR LT TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 78 103 69 90 112 64 Average Queue (ft) 39 43 20 15 37 4 95th Queue (ft) 61 79 54 63 85 29 Link Distance (ft) 354 346 233 259 259 Upstream $Ik im)e (%) 0 0 Queuing Penally (veh) 5iiorage Bay Dist (ft) 50 SWrage Bik Time (%) 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 Intersection: 51: E Pine St & 1st Mo. -amall SE NW NE SW SW Direclions Served LTR LTR LTR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 60 103 156 93 126 Average Queue (ft) 28 44 28 22 15 951n Queue (ft) 56 81 108 67 74 Link Distance (tt) 313 295 221 233 233 Upstream 81k Time 0 0 Queuing Penally (veli) 0 0 Slorage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veli) Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southem Oregon Transportation Engineering 118 SimTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03/11/2017 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Nlovemesrt NS - NB---- IVB_ _ _88 _ S8 S$ 58 Ne NE WhIffo TR SW Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum 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 76 153 323 168 162 256 Link Distance (ft) 316 316 327 327 222 222 221 221 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 39 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 1 178 0 8 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 150 100 Storage Btk 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 INoker wl Sw Directions Served TR Maximum Queue (ft) 150 Average Queue (ft) 112 9% Queue (ft) 178 Link Distance (ft) TR Upstream Blk Time (°k) 49 Queuing Penalty (veh) 323 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 Storage Btk Time (%) 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 Intersection: 57: E Pine St & Amy Movement n5 NE NE W., SW Directions Sewed R T TR T TR Maximum Queue (9) 49 125 323 143 109 Average Queue (ft) 12 67 206 11 7 95th Queue (it) 39 166 383 69 52 Link Distance (ft) 247 276 222 222 Upstream Blk Time (°Jo) 8 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 78 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 24 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 111 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering HE SimTraffic Report Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03111/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement S= sc I'!4U NE NE SIN SW 3Vr 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 95th Queue (ft) 762 167 86 172 671 84 189 113 Link Distance (ft) 1332 1332 386 L ink Distance (ft) 929 491 276 276 Upstream Blk Time CA) 194 Upstream Btk Time (%) 2 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Stmge Bay test (ft) 100 100 Storage Bik Time (%) Storage Blk Time (%) 1 1 40 0 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 4 21 0 4 Intersection: 64: Front & Oak Movement ir'B Na SB SS fib SVV Directions Served T TR L T T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 39 28 51 36 56 78 Average Queue (ft) 3 1 18 2 2 39 95th Queue (ft) 27 10 49 17 24 62 L ink Distance (ft) 491 491 316 316 194 Upstream Btk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Say Dist (ft) 50 Storage Bik Time (%) 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 Intersection: 66: Front & Manzanita iuovement NB NS S8 SB SB SW Directions Served T TR L T T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 14 36 35 24 20 69 Average Queue (ft) 1 1 4 1 1 29 95th Queue (ft) 9 16 21 13 9 55 Link Distance (ft) 327 327 421 421 184 Upstream Elk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 572 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 120 SimTraffic Report Page 5 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build Isolated Intersection Evaluation, AM Peak Hour 03/13/2017 Summary of All Intervals RM ibin6er - - ? _ _Z. 3, 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 421 Start Time 7:05 7:05 T:05 _ 7:05 7:05 7:05 End Time 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 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 Vehs Entered 1444 1510 1441 1483 1456 1467 Vehs Exited 1462 1523 1472 1499 1459 1483 Slatting Vehs 51 44 52 45 36 45 Ending Veils 33 31 21 29 35 29 Travel Distance (mi) 701 729 699 723 707 712 Travel Tune (hr) 34.1 35.8 34.5 35.1 35.3 35.0 Total Delay (hr) 6.5 7.0 7.1 6.7 7.4 6.9 Tata} 922 975 943 948 990 955 Fuel Used (g�) 24.3 25.0 G4.3 24.8 24.8 24.6 Interval #0 Information Seeding SW The 7:05 End Time 7:10 Tata) Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recordin Start rime 7:10 End Time 7:25 Total Tlme (Mn) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF. Growth Factors. Run Number - - 1 2 - 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 421 414 ._ 444 443 463 437 vers Exit ea 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 2.5 3.0 2.7 Total Stops 285 280 330 303 335 308 Fuel Used (gal) 7.3 6.9 7.8 7.4 8.0 7.5 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southem Oregon Transportation Engineering IPJ SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build Isolated Intersection Evaluation, AM Peak Hour 0311312017 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:25 End Time 8:10 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, And PHF. Rurlumher 1 2 3 4 5 - Ayaj— _ Vehs Entered 1023 1096 997 1040 _. 995 1031 Vehs Exited 1028 1148 1073 1058 1010 1045 Starting Vehs 38 43 47 47 50 45 Ending Vehs 33 31 21 29 35 29 Travel Distance (mi) 494 531 482 509 483 500 Travel Time (hr) 23.5 25.7 22.9 24.2 23.4 24.0 Total f7etay (hr) 4.1 4.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.3 Total Stops 637 695 613 645 655 648 Fuel Used (gal) 16.9 18.2 16.5 17.4 16.9 17.2 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 122 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build Isolated Intersection Evaluation, AM Peak Hour 0311312017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement SE SE N+N NE N9 Sw SW Sw Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Ma)dmum 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 75 127 265 79 163 84 Link Distance (ft) 1331 1331 386 929 1457 1457 Upstream Bk rime (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 15 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 8 1 1 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 11 creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 123 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 03112/2017 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time 7:10 7:70 7:10 7:10 710 7:10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min) 65 85 65 65 65 65 Tine 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 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 (mi) 1008 1010 989 1014 1017 1008 Travel Time (hr) 64.8 63.6 60.6 64.7 63.2 63.4 Total Delay (hr) 25.9 24.7 22.5 25.6 24.1 24.6 Total Stops 3337 3322 3160 3327 3308 3293 Fuel Used (gal) 43.0 42.3 41.5 42.6 42.4 42.4 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF. Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recordi Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run (dumber 1 2 3 4 5 Vehs Entered 852 809 828 853 779 822 Vehs Exited 835 805 840 833 772 819 Starting Vehs 87 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 7.9 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 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build. AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 03/12/2017 Interval ##2 Information Recordirn Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Nun ober 1 2 $ 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 2100 2199 2122 2127 2235 2159 Vehs Exited 2151 2213 2127 2155 2245 2179 Starting Vehs 104 71 70 84 75 75 Ending Vehs 53 57 65 56 65 57 Travel Distance (mi) 712 729 701 713 750 721 Travel Time (hr) 44.4 45.4 41.5 44.0 45.6 44.2 Total Delay (hr) 17.0 17.2 14.6 16.6 16.8 16.4 Total Stops 2271 2359 2155 2256 2379 2283 Fuel Used (gal) 30.2 30A 29.0 29.6 31.0 30.0 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southem Oregon Transportation Engineering 125 SimTraf iic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 03/1212017 Intersection: 48: E Pine St & 2nd Movement SE NW NE NE SV! SW Directions 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 (ft) 66 74 70 48 75 30 Unk Distance (ft) 354 346 234 234 259 259 Upstream Blk Time (°10) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 51: E Pine St & 1 st Movement SE Nw NE NE SW SW Directions Served LTR LTR LT TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 54 92 75 80 101 132 Average Queue (ft) 25 41 13 7 19 13 95th Queue (ft) 55 72 51 41 64 75 Link Distance (4) 319 288 222 222 234 234 Upstream Blk Time 1%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Stnrage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 126 SlmTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 03/1212017 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movement _ _ _ r_tB _Ns N5_ S9 SB a $8 NE NE NE _ SW SW_ 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 Queue (ft) 188 169 131 88 143 98 65 171 255 299 150 246 Link Distance (ft) Intersection; 57: 318 318 328 328 143 WE 223 223 222 222 Upstream Elk Time (%) T 0 T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 35 73 87 2 7 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 0 6 95th Queue (ft) 28 47 61 44 7 33 0 6 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 223 Upstream Bilk Time (%) 200 150 100 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bilk Time (%) 3 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 0 0 4 20 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 0 11 37 20 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movement StV Dirprfinris Seavp1 TR Ma)dmum Queue (ft) 157 Average Queue (ft) 115 95th Queue (ft) 179 tsnk Dk;lance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (96) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 Storage Bilk Time (%) 11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 12 Intersection; 57: E Pine St & Amy Movement 143 WE NE S+N SW Directions Served R T TR T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 35 73 87 82 48 Average Queue (ft) 7 12 16 9 6 95th Queue (ft) 28 47 61 44 34 Link Distance (ft) 241 276 276 223 223 Upstream Bilk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Bilk Time (%) Queuing Penaity (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 03/1212017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement SE SE N Y SEE NE SW SW SW Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 321 112 91 195 284 69 181 158 Average Queue (ft) 156 20 35 36 136 27 80 59 95th Queue (ft) 277 68 68 100 246 63 155 112 Link Distance (ft) 1331 1331 373 929 276 276 Upstream Bilk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 13 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 7 0 2 Intersection: 64: Front & Oak Movement 1ND NB S8 S8 SB SW Directions Served T TR L T T LR Maximum Qum (ft) 13 38 53 14 30 82 Average Queue (ft) 1 1 18 1 1 39 95th Queue (ft) 8 14 48 9 14 64 Link Distance (ft) 491 491 318 318 194 Upstream Bilk rime (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (vett) 1 0 Intersection: 66: Front & Manzanita Movement NB NB SB SB SB SW Directions Served T TR L T T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 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 Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty; 140 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southem Oregon Transportation Engineering 128 SimTraffic Report Page 5 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour Summary of All Intervals 03109/2017 Run Humber 1 2 3 4 5 AN Start Time 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 End Time 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 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 Vehs Entered 3044 3026 3207 2969 2972 3042 Vehs EAW 3057 3042 3163 2975 2994 3047 Starting Vehs 61 fib 51 68 90 65 Ending Vehs 48 50 95 62 68 60 Travel Distance (ml) 923 914 964 901 920 924 Travel Time (hr) 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 Stops 3979 3714 4496 3566 3943 3937 Fuel Used (gall 42.7 43.0 48.1 40.9 46.2 44.2 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 3:40 End Time 3:45 Tota! Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recol Start Time 3:45 End Time 4:00 Total Time (rrdn) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 _ _Avg Vehs Entered 858 787 882 837 638 841 Vehs Exited 839 797 833 834 832 828 Starting Vehs 61 66 51 68 90 65 Ending Vehs 80 56 100 71 96 77 Travel Distance (mi) 247 229 251 248 249 245 Travel Time (hr) 18.6 16.4 19.1 19.1 23.2 19.3 Total Delay (hr) 9.0 7.5 9.4 9.5 13.6 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 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 03109/2017 Interval #2 Information Recordin Start Time 4:00 End Time 4:45 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Run Numoer 1 2 3 4 5 A Vehs Entered 2186 2239 2325 2132 2134 2202 Vehs Exited 2218 2245 2330 2141 2162 2220 Starting Vehs 80 56 100 71 96 77 Ending Vehs 48 50 95 62 68 60 Travel Distance (mi) 676 685 713 653 671 679 TravP! 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 TOW Stops 2896 2831 3414 2538 2792 2896 Fuel Used (gal) 31.3 32.6 36.4 29.3 33.4 32.6 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 130 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 0310912017 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movemem N3 NE NB 5B S8 $B S8 AE NE NE SW Sy'1 Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue (111) 224 323 304 122 167 118 92 136 242 125 162 244 Average Queue (ft) 180 184 158 53 80 39 42 59 220 96 73 206 95th Queue (ft) 262 375 306 101 138 100 74 109 262 168 127 279 Link Distance (ft) Intersection: 57: E Pine St & Am 316 316 327 327 95 222 222 304 221 221 Upstream 81k Tune (°k) TR 17 0 Maximum Queue (ft) 38 124 290 121 26 Average Queue (ft) 6 15 Queuing Penalty (veh) 19 69 1 27 125 324 79 41 78 247 49 storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 Upstream Sk Time (%) 200 5 150 Queuing Penalty (veh) 100 36 Storage Blk Time (%) 32 0 100 0 0 Storage Blk Time (%) 54 1 28 Queuing Penalty (veh) 62 0 58 0 0 73 2 83 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movement STN Directions Served TR Maximum Queue (ft) 152 Average Queue (it) 135 95th Queue (ft) 180 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 15 Queuing Penalty (veh) 34 Intersection: 57: E Pine St & Am Movement ''No' 95 8I: 304 Directions Served R T TR T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 38 124 290 121 76 Average Queue (ft) 6 36 149 19 8 95th Queue (ft) 27 125 324 79 41 Link Distance (ft) 247 276 222 222 Upstream Sk Time (%) 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 $Wage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 19 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 58 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 3 131 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 03/09/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement SE SE NW NE NE SW SW Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum 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 1311kTime (%) 0 Queuing Penally (veh) 2 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 8 1 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 2 7 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 551 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 132 SimTraffic Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 07/0712017 Movement SEI. SET SER_ NWL NWT NVVR NFL NET NER SVVL. _SWT tiYR Lane Configurations '1 f 2 Permit#ed Phases 4 'S i• 6 't t 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 (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4,0 4.0 2.5 2.5 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 771 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane UGI. Factor 1.00 1,D0 Ws Ratio Prot 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 0.06 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, pedlblkes 0.99 1.00 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 1,00 8.0 1.00 1.00 19.3 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.99 Incremental Delay, d2 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.3 0.1 1.00 17.7 0.95 1.00 15.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (proO 1517 1471 A A 1471 C 1623 1685 B 1622 1549 1406 Flt PermiEted 0.71 1.00 15.6 1,00 Approach LOS 0.61 1.00 A 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1203 1471 1471 1043 1685 467 1549 1406 Peak -hour iofor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. fminty (1rkhl d7F in 69 1 14 128 59 441 19 ¢S 188 218 RTOR Reduction (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 45 188 78 Coni#. Peds. (#)hr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Confl. Bikes (#Ihr) 1 1 Heavy Veh�des f%) 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Penn Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Permit#ed Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 35.8 35.6 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 24.5 245 Actuated g1C 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 Extension (s) 2.5 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 Ws Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.27 0.12 vis Ratio Perm cO.40 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 vlc Ratio 0.76 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.76 0.27 0.34 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 12.8 8.0 8.2 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 Delay (9) 17.7 8.0 82 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 Intersection Summ HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 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 Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 133 Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 17.6 HCM 2000 Level 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 07/07/2017 .-W ti r, W" f I "W - All k. iilloveirtent SEL SET SER NWL NWT MR NEL NET NER SWL SVVT SWR Lane Configurations R ;• •} '1 1. 't T ?I 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 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, pedlhikes 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Fob, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Fit 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 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1622 1471 1487 1623 1685 1622 1549 1406 Fit Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (peN 1207 1471 1486 1044 1685 468 1549 1406 Peak -hour or, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 476 19 59 1 14 128 59 441 19 45 188 218 RTOR Reduction (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 45 188 78 Conn. Peds. (#Ihr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Conff. Sikes (#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles % 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 35.6 35.6 35.6 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 Effective Green, g (s) 35.6 35.6 35.6 24.4 24A 24.4 24.4 24.4 Actuated g1C 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 Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 631 770 777 374 604 167 555 504 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.27 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm ci1.39 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 Unfform 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 B C B B B Approach Delay (s) 16.3 8.2 23.3 15.6 Approach LOS B A C B Intersection Summ HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCM 2000 Level 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, Mitigated Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 134 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Desion Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 07/07/2017 Summary of All Intervals Run Number - 1 2 3 4 5 .Avg Start Time 7:10 - 7:10 7:10 ^—_ 7:10 _--- 7:10 7:10 End Time 8115 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 Vehs Entered 2911 2983 2982 2954 2956 2956 Vehs Exited 2937 2983 2992 2967 2941 2962 Starting Vehs 86 71 65 73 67 71 Ending Vehs 60 71 55 60 82 60 Travel Distance (mi) 994 988 1012 990 995 996 Travel Time (hr) 73.2 79.2 75.9 75.7 80.6 77.0 Total Delay (hr) 35.1 41.2 37.0 37.6 42.4 38.7 Total Stops 3661 3852 3924 3876 3881 3837 Fuel Used rfa11 A1.0 n{ z 45 445 i5 -a 45 n Interval #0 Information Seedii Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recor Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (rnm) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Ayg Vehs Entered 761 802 783 799 T72 781 Vehs Exited 749 745 747 789 757 759 Starting Vehs 86 71 65 73 67 71 Ending Vehs 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 / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 135 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 0710712017 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Run wummr 1 2 Vehs Entered 2150 2181 Vehs Exited 2188 2238 Starting Vehs 98 128 Ending Vehs 60 71 Travel Distance (mi) 730 726 Travel Time (hr) 49.4 51.7 Total Delay (hr) 21.4 23.8 Total Stops 2536 2634 Fuel Used (gal) 31.3 31.9 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 136 2199 2155 2184 2175 2245 2178 2184 2207 101 83 82 96 55 60 82 60 744 718 730 730 54.7 52.0 61.1 53.8 26.0 24.5 32.9 75.7 2869 2710 2899 2730 33.0 31.6 34.1 32.4 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 0710712017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement SE SE W NE NE SW_ 3W SW 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 (ft) 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 (ft) 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 39 1 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 20 2 2 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 26 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 137 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 07107/2017 of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Av Start Time 7:10 710 0 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 #oflotervaIs 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 2926 2968 2984 2919 2941 2947 Vehs Exited 2926 3013 2995 2918 2936 2955 Starting Vehs 65 90 80 61 61 70 Ending Vehs 65 45 69 62 66 56 Travel Distance (mi) 966 1006 992 979 974 983 Travel Time (hr) 60.3 63.3 60.2 60.8 59.2 60.8 Total Delay (hr) 23.0 24.5 21.9 23.1 21.8 22.9 Total Stops 3150 3192 3140 3114 3228 3166 Fuel Used (gal) 40.9 42.0 41.1 41.0 40.8 41.2 Interval #0 Information Seedi Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Trine (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF. Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval Interval #1 Information Recor Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (rain) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Rijn NumW 1 2 3 3 5_ Avg Vehs Entered 824 844 798 807 797 815 Vehs Exited 820 853 793 777 785 805 Starting Vehs 65 90 80 61 61 70 Ending Vehs 69 81 85 91 73 78 Travel Distance (mi) 285 291 271 275 272 279 Travel Time (hr) 19.8 20.0 17.4 18.0 17.3 18.5 Total Delay (hr) 8.8 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 / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 138 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0710712017 Interval #2 Information Recording _ Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Run Number t 2 3 5 Avg Vehs Entered 2102 2124 218E _4 2112 2144 2135 Vehs Exited 2106 2160 2202 2141 2151 2153 Slanting Vehs 69 81 85 91 73 78 Ending Vehs 65 45 69 62 66 56 Travel Distance (mi) 681 715 721 704 702 705 Travel Time (hr) 40.5 43.3 42.8 42.8 41.9 42.3 Total Delay (hr) 14.2 15.7 15.0 15.7 14.9 15.1 Total Stops 2132 2153 2207 2170 2302 2196 Fuel Used (gal) 28.4 29.3 29.7 29.3 29.2 29.2 Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 139 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 07107/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. view 5E SEHW NE NE SW SIN SW Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 363 75 90 176 368 117 174 117 Average Queue (ft) 145 20 35 38 133 29 69 50 95th Queue (ft) 269 51 72 105 263 76 144 96 Link Distance (ft) 1331 1331 373 929 276 276 Upstream Elilk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 12 0 3 Queuing Penally (veh) 1 7 0 1 Zone Summa Zone wide Queuing Penalty 9 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 140 SimTraffic Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 0710712017 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 626 5 L SET SER NWL NV1r1 MrK NFL NET NER ML SW Lane Configurations c0.27 1► 0.12 + 14 0.06 R t IN Traffic Volume (vph) 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 Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 25.1 16.6 4.0 15.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 CO 4.0 Lane W. Factor 1.00 1.00 Approach Delay (s) 16.7 1.00 8.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, peftikes 1.00 0.96 C 0.97 B 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flph, pedbkes 0.99 1,00 HCM 2000 Control Delay 1.00 18.0 1.00 1.00 B 0.98 1.00 i.00 Fri 1.00 0.89 0.88 1A0 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1.00 76.1% 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (pmt) 1617 1474 1471 1623 1685 c Critical Lane Group 1621 1549 1406 Fit Permitted 0.70 1.00 1.00 Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour 0,61 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm)__1187 1474 1471 1039 1685 462 1549 1406 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 4.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.83 0.85 AM Ftnw NO) 4715 ?0 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 Confl. Peds. (Mr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Confl. Bikes ffto 1 1 Heavy Vehides l j 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA _ Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.5 36.5 36.5 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 Actuated g/C Ratio 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 Vehicle Extensions 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 c0.27 0.12 vls Ratio Perm c0.40 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 vlc Ratio 0.76 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.76 0.28 0.34 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 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 52 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.5 0.7 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 18.1 8.0 8.3 15.3 25.1 16.6 16.6 15.3 Level of Service B A A B C B B B Approach Delay (s) 16.7 8.3 24.0 15.9 Approach LOS B A C B Intersection Sunirn8fy 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 I ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 fiul HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 0710712017 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations c0.27 1. 0.12 4. `4 T_ 0.06 t r Traffic Volume (vph) 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 Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 24.8 16A 4.0 15.1 4,0 4.0 4,0 4,0 4,0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 Approach Delay (s) 18.7 1.00 8.3 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 C 0.98 B 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes t.00 1.00 HCM 2000 Control Delay 1.00 17,9 1.00 1.00 B 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.88 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0,85 Fft Protected 0.95 1.00 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1,00 76.1% 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1622 1474 1487 1623 1685 c Critical Lane Group 1622 1549 1406 Fit Permitted 0.70 1,00 1.00 Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0,61 1.00 Synchro 9 Report 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1191 1474 Page 1 1487 1041 1685 465 1549 1406 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 7.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. 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 Croup Flow (vph) 476 51 0 0 87 0 59 459 0 46 188 78 Confl. Peds. (Whr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Confl. !tikes (#lhr) 1 1 Hea Vehicles f " 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.1 36.1 36.1 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 Effective Green, g (s) 36.1 36.1 36.1 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 Actuated g1C Ratio 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 Vehicle Extension s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 625 774 781 372 603 166 554 503 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.27 0.12 v/s Ralio Perm c0.40 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.76 0.28 0.34 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 12.9 8,0 8.2 15.0 19.5 15.7 16.1 15.0 Progression Factor 1.00 i.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 0.1 Delay (s) 18.1 B.0 8.3 15.2 24.8 16A 16.4 15.1 Level of Service B A A B C B B B Approach Delay (s) 18.7 8.3 23.7 15.8 Approach LOS B A C B Interseciton Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17,9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.7 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 / ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 142 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour 07/0712017 Summary of All Intervals Run Number I -2 . 3_ - � :4, 5 Mg-- - -- - Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8:15 815 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 2 Vehs Entered 2999 2968 2963 2953 2944 2985 Vohs Exiled 2988 2964 3000 2955 2980 2982 Starting Vehs 74 83 92 74 83 76 Ending Vohs 85 67 55 72 47 fib Travel Distance (mi) 996 999 991 1002 996 997 Travel Time (hr) 72.6 81.4 87.0 75.9 711 77.7 Total Delay (hr) 34.3 42.8 48.7 37.4 33.5 39.4 Total Stops 3702 3919 4085 3830 3644 3B32 Fuel Used (gal) 44.1 46.3 47.3 45.1 44.1 45A Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (Mn) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recordi Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Run Number 1 2 3 4 - 5 -- Mg-- - -- - Vehs Entered 787 863 772 784 784 797 Vehs Exited 770 822 745 749 770 771 Starting Vehs 74 83 92 74 83 76 Ening Vehs 91 124 119 109 97 106 Travel Distance (mi) 268 288 257 266 261 268 Travel Time (hr) 20.5 32.0 26. i 22.3 22.2 24.8 Total Delay (hr) 10.2 20.8 1fi.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 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour 07107/2017 Interval #2 Information Recordin Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Run Numbw _ 1 2 3 4 5 Avg_,.- Vohs Entered 2212 2105 2191 2169 2160 2170 Vehs Exited 2218 2162 2255 2246 2210 2209 Starting Vehs 91 124 119 109 97 106 Ending Vehs 65 67 55 72 47 66 Travel Distance (mi) 728 711 734 737 735 729 Travel Time (hr) 52.1 49.5 60.2 53.6 49.6 53.0 Total Delay (hr) 24.1 22.0 31.9 25.3 21.4 24.9 Total Stops 2649 2571 2893 2709 2556 2660 Fuel Used (gal) 32.0 31.1 33.9 326 31.8 32.3 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 144 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour 07/07/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movemeni* SE SE NVV NE NE M MY, $W Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum 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 94 189 94 Link Distance (ft) 1332 1332 386 929 276 276 Upstream Blk Time (%} 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 37 1 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 19 2 3 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 29 Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 145 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0710712017 Summary of All Intervals Run Humber 1 2 9 4_-- 5 Avg Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:19 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 2 Vehs Entered 2918 2978 2953 2978 2982 2960 Vehs Exited 2936 2990 2969 2981 2982 2972 Starting Vehs 61 74 67 61 66 60 Ending Vehs 43 62 51 58 66 53 Travel Distance (mi) 978 987 978 987 995 985 Travel Time (hrj 58.7 60.4 60.7 60.4 61.0 60.2 Total Delay (hr) 21.0 22.5 23.2 22.4 22.6 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 Seedi Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded Ibis interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Km IVt ydw 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vohs Entered 792 815 839 810 810 817 Vehs Exited 772 825 830 809 811 809 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 (gal) 11.6 11.9 12.5 11.9 11.7 11.9 Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 146 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 21318 Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitiqated 07107/2017 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Flufi Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 2126 2163 2114 2168 2172 2151 Vebs Exited 2164 2165 2139 2172 2171 2163 Starting Vehs 81 64 76 fit 65 69 Ending Vehs 43 62 51 58 66 53 i'raval Distance (mi) 706 710 689 708 717 706 Travel Time (hr) 40.8 42.2 41.0 423 43.0 41.9 Total Delay (hr) 13.6 14.9 14.7 15.1 15.4 14.7 Total Stcps 2110 2172 2100 2237 2288 2184 Fuel Used (gal) 28.8 29.2 28A 29.4 29.7 29.1 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 147 SimTraffic Report Page 2 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 CENTRAL POINT rte+., � = � � .' • � :. S 4 �� ngr.unYr•u.r�yrr�.nrf _A. )k / �•1 M:W� til r.•vw. .09111 .... ••i Legend +r'r ti lhban Area .... principal Alterial + Collector Q Public Para im Intermodal Connector - - Future Collector — Radrotrd 0000000� Minor Arterial —Local Future Minor Arterial Figure 7.1 _ Functional Classification & Street Network Map 2008-2030 CHAPTER 7 - STREET SYSTEM PLAN Page 64 of 161 148 40 Central Point Transit Oriented Development p" cu L U- �� 7 ib 149 9Wi Page 1 of L R : MPC 'fraval i sand ?viodol Prveted ,ill V31/00 acenaria 150 (2020 Committed with Updated P&A) 2-02--c Po -- 16'v4_41A AP --t 150 ��r l�Ac 1,L�� :a'S •q, »ti � ' •� � r'ea �� `�` >i' ...no- •,a t fl � •`�', des acenaria 150 (2020 Committed with Updated P&A) 2-02--c Po -- 16'v4_41A AP --t 150 ,!«I kVMm Travel >m� and « « 7/3 100 � I � . � � � . . � ! ƒ 2 ¢ « > � y ~ I # 2 � � # , � �y. ` / , � n «. ®- � IT : � -114 �. - � � � t Scenario 150 Ay onm+Rork m& �',, C�-o tea — to 151 Pap 1 of A RVMPO Travel Demand Mc," prultC ! on 7/3 LIDO I Scetpario 530 (2020 Retailed Network) a--o2c> cwt! r- At -A 152 Page lVMmm¥Demand Model Pjink_mGn , y SccnaTi,ao(2 » Detailed @*ork) 2-40-2-0 OVA�tep FM 153 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. 0 154 Page 1 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 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 1.213 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 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 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 legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS 222.120, 222.170 and 722.840 to 222.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation to the electors of the territory proposed for annexation and, except when permitted under ORS 222.120 or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense with submitting the proposal for annexation to the 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. 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 156 Page 3 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. All future annexations are expected to include only lands within the city'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 district into which a newly annexed area is placed. The appropriate zoning district shall be applied to the area upon annexation. 17.10200 Initiation of amendments. A proposed amendment to the code or zoning map may be initiated by either- A. itherA. A resolution by the 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 shall be accompanied by a legal description of [he property or properties affected; proposed findings of facts supporting the proposed amendment, justifying 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 111 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. (Ord. 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 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 system plan: (A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification 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 the 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 affected 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 17.10.300. Proposals for major revisions shall be processed as a Type IV procedure per Section 17.05.500. Proposals for minor changes shall be processed as a Type I€I procedure per Section 17.05.400. 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 public 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 lU 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 11C. The site addresses are 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane, Central Point, OR. 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 future 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 6 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 turn 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 160 Page 7 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 -I 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 -I 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 7`h Edition. This is CSA's most recent copy. A more rceent version is available but would not be expected to change the estimates enough to result in a 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 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 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 Develonment (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 the option to 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 "full 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 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 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 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. 166 Page 13 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) 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 wholly or partially wilhin n without the same county in whirh the rity lies. (2) A proposai for annexation of territory to a city may be initiated by the legislative body 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 legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS 222.120, 222.170 and 222.840 to 222,915 to do so. the proposal for annexation to the electors of the territory proposed for annexation and, except when permitted under ORS 222.120 or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense with submitting the proposal foi annexation to the 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 under ORS 222.120 below and concludes based upon the same 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 public 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 (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 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. 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 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). 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. Conclusions of Law: The City concludes it has properly applied the procedures specified 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 APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR ZONE CHANGE Chapter 17.10 ZONE CHANGE 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); 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 application. B. 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 transportation networks to serve the property are either available, or identified for construction in the city's public facilities master plans (majnr and minor 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. Z 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 TOD-LMR (R-2) can be explained as an appropriate amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. 169 Page 16 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 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 adapted transportation system plan: (A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation €acuity; (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. 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 that generate materially more traffic than the existing designation so nothing e 170 Page 17 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. 0 171 Page 18 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC Im 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 urbaii growth boundary shall be based on written rindings and conclusions [hat address the Following 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 for brevity] 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. 172 Page 19 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 ... [balance omitted for brevityl 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 agricultural lands._. jbalance omitted for brevity] 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 forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture ... (balance omitted 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 ... lbalance 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 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, rules 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 resources; or (3) threaten the availability of such resources. ..(balance omitted for brevity] Conclusions of Law: Based upon the Findings of Fact in Section IV, 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...[balance omitted for brevity] 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. Goal 8: Recreational Heeds To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to pravide for She siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts ...[balance omitted for brevity] 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 9: 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 development, and based thereupon, the City concludes that the have no meaningful effect on the City' ability to achieve Goal 9. 174 categories of residential proposed amendment will Page 21 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: a 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. e 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 neaded housing now rather than forcing a zoning 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 fixture. 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 Services To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development...[balance omitted for brevity] 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 ... [balance omitted for brevity] 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 map 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 e 175 Page 22 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 brevity] 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 From Tura€ to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for €ivable ccmmunilies...(balance omitted for breviW 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. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan; 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. 176 Page 23 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 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 public facilities master plans (major and minor amendments); and Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the proposed amendment does not concern a UGB amendment. D. The amendment wmpfies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. 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. VII 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] O 177 Page 24 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 178 Page 25 I I � i 1 O iii/ s'tWl M'. GE Avls tis � mw u iac.w oe 179 z� 3N -14-w wd ES BYf 9LOLs7lSC -Iva SIS ,Subject Lots Tax lots rMM) L w City Limits 11111111LUrban Growth :he*1F:Baundary - 0 Railroad EXHIBIT 4 islty 1,GR/ �7ya Neighborhood Convenience Center ILI EY -LP y GN La i ��L_.L �+� a.r� �!� F 1 r• r• rf t• � it �- TOD Corridor l.ow Density �Y^ off` LAVENDER LN j jj 1 -� O�- 0 - _ U3 2; 0- - Lu -- x - of o ©� — �T -1 Lug ® Neighborhood Convenience Center TOD Corridor High Density Res. Low Density Res, _ Civic -Parks and Open Space Existing Comprehensive Plan Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC W+E 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S ® 400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 180 �0- S Density ghborhood �y nience Center ,Subject Lots Tax lots rMM) L w City Limits 11111111LUrban Growth :he*1F:Baundary - 0 Railroad EXHIBIT 4 islty 1,GR/ �7ya Neighborhood Convenience Center ILI EY -LP y GN La i ��L_.L �+� a.r� �!� F 1 r• r• rf t• � it �- TOD Corridor l.ow Density �Y^ off` LAVENDER LN j jj 1 -� O�- 0 - _ U3 2; 0- - Lu -- x - of o ©� — �T -1 Lug ® Neighborhood Convenience Center TOD Corridor High Density Res. Low Density Res, _ Civic -Parks and Open Space Existing Comprehensive Plan Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC W+E 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S ® 400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 180 EXHIBIT 5 2012 Aerial Existing Zoning on Aerial Annexation / Zone Change Bob Fellows Construction, LLC 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 ® 400 200 0 CSA Planning, Ltd. 181 400 Feet City Zoning _ _ r I Subject Lots C -2(m) t-- City Limits Civic Tax Lots GC LMR —r—+ Railroad M-'1 County Zoning MMR os R-1-6 R-1-8 R-3 2012 Aerial Existing Zoning on Aerial Annexation / Zone Change Bob Fellows Construction, LLC 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 ® 400 200 0 CSA Planning, Ltd. 181 400 Feet r - GC LMR M_'� CIVIC tp N 'IV R=-1-6 MAC, CT IPA rIA Proposed TaD LMR Gi OR, EXHIBIT 6 LAVENDER LN z i Lm R O I � a° wLU a _ 21 -� to u{ Subject Lots City Zoning C -2(m) Tax Lots r Civic +-�- Railroad EC County Zoning GC LMR - M-1 MMR os - R-1-6 R-1-6 Proposed Zoning Map Annexation / Zone Change Bob Fellows Construction, LLC 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 Im300 150 0 CSA Planning, Ltd. 182 I: N W+E s 300 Feet 01101NANCE NO. V-1 T3 EXHIBIT 7S AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TI -113 CENTRAL POINT C(')MPRf_,I-II:,NSIVI PLAN FOR ARTA #k 2 RECITALS: I. 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 Goats. 2. The City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with ORS 197.040(2)(e) 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 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 PONT, 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 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, 1 - Ordinance No. 1-1 3 (091798) 184 Section 2. The City C:'omlirchensive t'lan and Dolling Map are hereby anlellclecl ns set North on Exhibits "A" & 13".including all nlaps and attacillne1lts to shell CXIaIbItS, whlell are attached hereto and by this reference incorporatc(f llereill. Sectio❑ 3 The City Administrator' is directed to conduct post acknowledgment procedures defined in ORS 197.6[0 el sCq. upon adoption of the ('onlpi'CllenS1VC flan Amendment and changes to the Zoning Mal), Section 4. Tliis update being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Central Point, ()recon, and based Upon the nCc(j to conclude associated comprehensive plan amendment procedures. second reading, of this ordinance is hereby waived and an emergency is declared to exist, and this ordinance shalt be in full force and effect Immediatety 111)011 its message by the Council and approval by the Mayor. Passed by the Council and signed by Ilae in authealticataon of its passage tJlis day of�S 1998. mayoa' l Linty Gr"alit ATTEST: -'ZL City Representative Approved by tale this .1 8Vk day of 1998. 2 - Ordinance No. J`Ag3 _ (091198) 185 Mayor Rusty McGrath EXHIBIT A Comprehensive Plan amendments include the redistribution of certain land uses within the 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 hollows :For Area It 2: Change the land use designation and zoning of Arca 2 on the attached snap from Light Industrial (M-1) to Low Density Residential (R -1-E), High Density Residential (R-3) and General Commercial (C-4). 186 187 EXHIBIT 13 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHIi,NSIVE PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (SECTION VI) HISTORY OF CENTRAL POINT THE RAILROAD The impact of the railroad on the community4m+ems was significant 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 sitiee the 1880s. The railroad wry remains important to the wood products itidtt oty and other industries located along it but to a lesser extent today than in the past, afid-- 41-0 -` 'e. POI�IQIFS EQ9 NOISE REDUCTION P l'cies: 3. The City shall rely heavily require property owners to masterplan the 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) PLANK, NG AND REGULATION oI'cies: 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 1-5 Freeway and the airport related to industrial development, and Pine StreetlHead Road for commercial, office -professional and tourist development.) Pg. IX -24 188 ENERGY UTILIZATION & CONSERVATION (SIECI'ION X) 4 - TRAM AI'ION- Z ,LATE L-NERO ONal7,RVA I U& olicies: 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 df highways and airports ertet�reieftt-mi} freight4ranapaTt• Pg•X_21 CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION (SECTION XI) QUER FACILITIES RAILROAD Paragraphs I & 2 The Central. Oregon & Pacific Railroad (formeriv 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 tic) 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 Mnifieant role in the area's economy and serve the industries that are located along its route, mostly within the present City limits. Previous �} Prriou v studies have 1ldi1V; a that t LLLUI in-taR ratt I P.–E, k—+tefs hwn made rt�! ustige more eompe6tive with t3 ctnvelt. Policies: 15. M-ax-imize Retain the iridttst-ri al potential of the existing industrial land uses along railroad facilities as proposed in this Comprehensive Plan, CORRECTIVE MEASURES TOPEC P&C�LLI .JIS MVIACTION OF NOISE A summary of some of the major considerations are; 189 Ensuring that rte residential neighborhoods that are located 4btrke4kftly acijacecit to the railroad right -of =way satisfy safety requirements and accepted inelrrslra� slcrrzcfcrr ds /br noise mitigation. LAND USE (SECTION XII) "�., %16% 14. Where residential development is proposed on parcels adjacent to a railroad, a subarea master plan will be required by the City which could result 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. Policies: Maximize t Retain existing industrial development potential -of along the Highway 99188 `' erti n_e"f- railroad corridor through the City by Providing ds to ific year 2000, itieluding adequate f=lexibility for industrial expansion. bey end 2000: 190 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 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 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 660-08410). 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 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 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 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 identified Area 1 as perhaps one of the best sites in the region for rail - oriented industrial development. 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 emphasize 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 and 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. Page 123 192 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 Raillssues 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. Page 124 193 EXHIBIT 7G ORDINANCE NO. 181S AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING 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, therefore; THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. At its public hearing on November 30, 2000, the City Council received the findings of the 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 information received, the City Council adopts the findings and conclusions set forth in the TOD CPAIZC 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. Section 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 are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 1 - Ordinance No. < 1r (113000) 194 mUk: A poi f Des., �,- uzldd-,stQ, 1e • �W • A Z�O�Yk� (�0� �'�et a�1d AAap 195 PURPOSE For a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zoning Cade 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 -and Corridor are to: • Use land efficlently; • 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 sensitive 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: 1. 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 WATMM 196 Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page - 1 1 1 t c G H t �1. i t CRY Of cafti Point Legend Vicinity Map * CRY Ha— � Cky Lina d, 2OW 9dwd stra.b I= TOD DhWW aw M a Uhrary RaWoW TOD Carfdor Creak Taalola Central Paint 197 I Figure 1 ORDINANCE 1815 ADOPTED DECEMBER 14, 2000 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 protect 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 parks 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 entrance 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 code 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 introdums the TOD design concept. Please refer to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map in Figure 2 and the draft plan text in Exhibit A — Central Point Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Central Point 198 Draft TOD CPAIZC Proposal Page - 3 i i t i i t Zoning Code Amendments Land Use Desinnations and Procedures The proposed Zoning Code amendments include new code sections containing requirements and standards for the new zoning designations for the TOD 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 �i 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 B, Design Standards Proper design and orientation of development becomes increasingly important as densities increase and different uses are closer together. In addition, much of the success to alternative transportation modes, 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 amendments. 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 techniques 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. Central Point Draft TOD CPA/ZC Proposal Page - 4 199 Im ltral PC wnnnd �� r �� 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 offices, and daycare to the residents of Central Point. The parks and open spaces are planned to be an integral part of the TOD District. All residents of the TOD will be able to walk or ride a bicycle 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, TOD-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 Points 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 B to 30+ units per acre. TOD-LMR - Low Mix Residential Zone TOD-MMR - Medium Mix Residential Zone TOD-HMR - High Mix Residential/Commercial Zone • Employment (TOD) — Comprehensive Plan Central Point 202 Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page - 7 .2 0 i 0 K" a F. i i 0 s i a 1 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 1 Land Use Summary — TOD District Zone Designation 1 Acreage 1 (TOD) klLe,,ntial LMR MMR HMR Emplovntont EC GC civic C Open Smios OS 129 53 53 37 27 VA [:] Density Units/Aare 6-12 16-32 30+ N/A WA NIA N/A Residential TOD TOD-LMR - Low Mix Residential Location The TOD-LMR designation is proposed to be located in the north, west, and southwest portions of the TOD District (Figure 3). The lower density in these areas is intended to Central Point 203 Draft TOD CPAIZC Proposal Page - 8 provide a suitable transition between the district and the low density residential uses outside of the district. Land Uses and Buildings Types The TOD-LMR designation will allow single-family detached dwellings, single-family dwellings with 0 -foot setbackIN s, and lower density multiple family dwellings. Commercial or industrial uses are not allowed in this zone. Density 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 LNIR 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 The TOD-MMR designation will.allow single-family dwellings with 0 -foot setbacks, and a full range of multiple family dwellings. Commercial or industrial uses are not allowed in this zone. Density The required density range will be 16 to 32 units per acre. TOD-HMR - Hiah Mix Residential/Commercial 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 a section of Manzanita and Oak Street (Figure 3). Land Uses and Building Types I 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, professionai offices, and daycare are permitted in addition to multiple family residences. Central Point Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page - 9 204 Density The required density will be a minimum of 30 units per acre. Employment (TOD) TOD-EC — Emalovment 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 a 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 commercial/residential 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. ICentral Point 205 Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page - 10 Civic (TOD) 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 TDD -C designation is also located in the vicinity of Pine Street between North 6th and 7t' and along Oak Street between 2"d 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 Jackson Creeks as well as the north -central portion of the TOD District. TDD -OS is also located in downtown Central Point between Laurel and Manzanita 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 and protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The uses allowed are proposed to be compatible with and complement the residential neighborhoods that generally surround them. 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 be 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 bras 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. Central Point 206 Draft TOD CPA/ZC Proposal Page -11 0 f1 t t i 11 i V k 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 Condor is not proposed to have the TOD Civic or Open Space designations. The existing zoning designations and the corresponding opti4nai TOO Corridor zoning riistricts are lister{ 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 ooptionastandards 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. Central Point 207 Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page -12 Table 2 Land Use Summary — TOD Corridor Existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations Residential R-1-8 — Residential, Single Family District (8,00D sq. ft. min. lot size) R-2 — Residential, Two Family District (6,0D0 sq. ft. min. lot size) R-3 — Residential, Multiple Family District (6,000 sq. ft. min, lot size) Commercial C-2 — Commercial - Professional C-3 - Downtown Business District C-4 — Tourist and Office Professional District C-5 — Thoroughfare Commercial District Industrial M-1- Industrial District M-2 — Industrial General District Optional TOD Corridor Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations TOD-MMR Medium Mix Residential TOD-LMR — Medium Mix Residential TOD-MMR — Medium Mix Residential TOD-HMR High Mix Residential TOD-EC Employment Commercial TOD-EC — Employment Commercial TOD-GC — General Commercial TOD-GC — General Commercial TOD-GC — General Commercial Central Point Draft TOD CPAfZC Proposal Page - 13 208 .,4 ij 0 u a i s 0 i 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. By their 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 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. 209 Eledur or Name/Address Pfoperiy0wner Signature safe _ Bob Fellows Construction U 295(IPhillips Wy �CentrA Point OR 97502 Properlyowfler 209 EIIBIT "N' A 4 page 1 of 3 A m"ear il t I e Van Of Th, IFLO WFYFam!7V After recording return h+ BOB I-LLLUWS CONS 1 RUCTION, LLC. AN OREGON LIMITED _LI_.A131LfrY C_0__MP_A_N1' 2950 PHILLIPS Central Point, OR 97502 I Intil a change is requested all tax statemenis shall be sent to rhe following address: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION. LLC, AN GRC•GON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 2950 PHILLIPS _Central Pobit, OR _97502 Escrow No. AP0764707 THIS SPAC'F RFSF.RVI I",1 U 1 .;,:nly _err""a' R,,,.o:'Js 2004-038981 R -WO a 94!=I0 ..:,t r:riG:A7r08/2004 02:30:00 Pnn 5, n!) S5 uo S I I no Total:S21,00 IIII�II Illlul 11111 IN I III III Ill 1111 01041993200400309910010011 uh mer my nnemmam eeNniva ner<m re..c.Nea m my cu,!. <CON. Kathleen i BecMell Ccw!ly Clerk STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED LOLA V. ALBRIGHT, Grantor(s) hereby convey and aarranl to BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION. LLC, AN OREGON LINI ITED LIABILITY COMPANY. Grantee(s) the following described real properly in the County of JACKSON acrd State of Oregon, free of oicumbmnces except as specifically scl forth herein: .cnuut'vCirq a_ 0e ,ortherst corner of Lot K Snowy Butte Jrchards, Jackson County, --regor, a:-cordtnq tc the offlciat plat thereof, now of record, which said point is In Ure So�.ah,•ae.='.er?�; ziq'r. of way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad; thence run tilt 1-43' F.�t-f alanq- said right of way line 528.6P feet to a 1" iron pin for the :,.le point �f thence North 89'27' :Vest 300.77 feet; thence South 0°61' :+lest2s...:4 Leet:, more ur less, to the So=ath boundary line of said lot; thence s;�•r_lo ,8' cast 459.04 feet, more or Jess, tc the Southwesterly right of way line ,,f 'he scurlt�r:: Pacific F-ailrcad; thence North 35'08' West 264.58 feet along said -i•7ht ,,f may .-ne to the r_rue point of beginning. Wap Ptr,. 37i'WLLC, Tax I.oe 6400, Account `to- 1-017632-8, Code 6-28) The above-described property is free of encumbrances except all those items of record, if any, as of the date of this deed and diose shown below, if any: Subject in the 2004-05 real properly taxes, a lien not yet due and payable I he hue and actual consideration for this conveyance i4ml� HIIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPFRTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLIC•ABLF LAND USE LAWS .AND REGULATIONS BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE Pf RSON ACQUIRING FFF TITt E. rG fHE PROPERTY SIIOULD CHECK WITH TIIE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND 1-0 DLTERIMINE ANY LIMITS ON LA W SINTS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. Dated (llisf-'r t� day of Zt! _// _f{rii�t.- _ J . �� i]FFtr:IAL•�EAC- t .. NO7AP.' FIDFM UHC G6hl { r r �"� r'tJMMrSsHltf NU 350206 r Lt'-�c.G!_ .,w f Y G � MY C0�lMf59ti;}N E]ff Ilif3 JUNE 10. 20CId State of0regon County of JACKSON rhes uislrunient was acknowledged before nic on � �•. 2004 by Lola V. Albright. INutary Public rcgon] / Yly commission expires 210 'EXHIBIT IT t tA" A page 2 of 3 Amen itle Part QfThe JELa-WtNFs (1y After recording return to: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability L'ornvany 2950 Phillips Waw_ y` Cengal Point, OR 97502 Until a change is requested all tax statements shall be sent to The following address: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCI10N, LLC, an Ore on Limited i!ZConngemy Com 2930 Philips Way Central Point, OR 97502 —� Jecksen County Official Records 2005-072911 R -WD Cnl=1 Sln=4 SHAWBJ 1710172006 08:00:00 AM $1000$500$1100 Total:S26.00 NIIIIHI�IIIIII`1I00I I9P100 )021 THIS SPACE RES8R1I.K„Mn s e.,w.n.c.unlycl.r%I.,J h—c.wev.01.9.n cMly th.t th. lmt ,d K Wod h.r. m n rd.d I, th. Cl,rh ,.,-d. Kalman S Beckett - County Clerk Escrow No. AP0763998 Title No. 0763998 (] ` STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA Y. FRO HRElCFI, TRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS INTRUST UNDER THE FROHREICII LOVING TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, 1996, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, Grantor(s) hereby convey and warrant to BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Campatty, Grantee(%) Ilan fullowing described real property in the County ofJACKSON and State ofOragon free of cnruntbrnnrea except as specificxlf y set fonh herein: SEE EXHIBIT A WHICH IS MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE Tim 4150ve4mcribcd Praperey is free aFencumhrances except sit Ihosc items orrecord, irany. as of ole date oF:llis alecd and ,host shown Wow. if any: 7i10(— and actual consideration for thin conveyance is PURSUANT TO AN IRC 1431 TALC DEFERRED EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF GRANTOR/GRANTEE. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS [NSTRUMF,NT 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 FARMII j OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. Dated thin_ 2005 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 THERF7{1 BY. W AL"rER II. FROJHI EICH, TRUSTEE I •+��i - ■ at_ 4.. =OFRCM SEAL A V. FROIIREICII, TRUSTEE. JX. HOFFAANN 40TARv PI)BLh: REOON G0IIAlltl6610N NO 566109 Stale oforegon IIrY COMksiss101 immites JURE t0, R009 County of JACKSON This instrument was acknowledged before me on�_ 2005 by WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA V. FROHREICH, TRIJSTFF.S OF THE FROHRE[C VINE TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, 1996,. j t� �tN.�Publrl. regon) My commission expires��Q order No. 0763998 Page 4 EXHIBIT "A" page 3 of 3 Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot "K" of Snowy Butte orchards, 3aakeon County, Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record, which maid point is on the Southwesterly right-of-way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad; thence run South 35'08' East along said right-of-way Line 526,60 to a 1" iron pin; thence Mortle 89'27' Nest 300,77 feet for the true point of beginning; thence North 89'27, Went 356.83 feet more or less to the westerly boundary 1108 of said Lot 'K"; thence South 0001' Watt 212,24 feet, more or Leas. to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot "K"; thence South 89'56' Bast 357,85 feet to a point which bears North 69156' West 454.04 feet from the Southeast corner of said Lots thence North 0001, east x22.24 feet, more or Legs to the point of beginning, IP4ap No. 372W11C. Tax Lot a300, ACGount No, 1-017631-0, Code 6-2) �� QM 213 y� S 0 n (i U) L C E L- 0 O V J c 0 a L 214 e 0 a z W W V �1 W Vin. C n OT _r ryq L �Iti" C Sin.. AC &n C _Vie d OD OWN c Din. CrPP _ pit+ or 80, PVC $in. AG UGlld 'urg_,., r" a r^ DA U?8 u:A PVC j ..... a 0. JAd "49 &n. PVC c$ U - Ad �8 Div -ale 4 w 7 215 N - L) eN � m�: Q a` ) s a 17 o � J O U a m� Y 6 c z� v 5 _ g c u) > l!7 _ z a: �o � $m � ) m o c� in c 16 M,� O 8 z O N "i o S WK w w Q o o xt J 0 0 -z �p Q LL N 2. � C D o U Y a` ) s � J O � c g � � � m J g O CIO U Y S m o E a� Co Lo N (� JENSEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS May 3, 2017 CSA Planning Public Utility Analysis - 37S 2W 11 C Tax Lots 3470 & 3428 EXHIBIT 11 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 Systems 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 Systems 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. )IM E. Jensen, E. 310 RICHARD WAY, JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 TEL. 541-779-4352 Cell 541-727-1330 eMail:jei42843@gmaii.com 217 P®R IR CA 4 3NV I A N031HJ 9 a_ 133&S A 12Owj jo s a_ 133&S A 12Owj jo LEGAL DESCRIPTION 372W11C, Tax Lot 8400 Amenhtle Pnrtof rh,IF.I.D-WEN family Aflcr recording return to: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY _2950 PIIILLIPS Central Point, OR 97502 Until it change is requested all tax statements shall be sent to 'I he following address: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 2950 PHILLIPS Central Point, OR 97502 Escrow No. AP0764707 Jackson County Official Records 2004-038981 R -WD Cnl=1 '31=10 CUTTiNGA07/08/2004 02:30:00 PM $5005500 5i I o0 Total:S21.00 IIIlIII 111111 till illl I IIIIIIIINIIIIIIIiIIIII 01041963200400389010010011 THIS S11ACF., RFS F,RVII Isalme,ns o,,k on c_ly cle,k car J.�k, ,roomy.a eron Wiry Ihrl Ins IiuWme�l �asnldika ne mW.,- .'o ed In Ih•Cl,,x -.rd. Kathleen S Beckett Counly Clerk STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED LOLA V. ALBRIGHT, Gramor(s) hereby convey and warrant to BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Granice(s) the following described real property in the County of JACKSON and Slate of Oregon, free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein: Cc-mntencing at the Northeast corner of Lot K of Snowy Butte Orchards, Jackson County, Gregor, ae:cutding to the official plat thereof, now of. record, which said point is 11ri the So,,thwesterly right of way tine of the Southern Pacific Railroad; thence run ,ouLh 351-)8' East along said right of way line 528.68 feet to a 1" iron pin for the ,;rue point of beginning; thence North B9°27` West 300.77 feet; thence South 0°01' West 222.24 feet, more or less, to the South boundary line of said lot; thence South 89°58' Fast 454.04 €eet, more or less, to the Southwesterly right of way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad; thence North 35°08' West 264.58 feet along said right of way lane to the true point of beginning. (Map No. 372WIIC, Tax Lot 8400, AccounL No. 1-017632-8, Code 6-28) The above-described property is free ofencumbrances except all those items of record, if any, as of the date of this deed and those shown below, if any: Subject to the 2004-05 real property taxes, a lien not yet due and payable The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is M11=1 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 INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH TIIE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DE'T'ERMINE ANY LIMITS ON f.A WSI'ITS AGAINST FARMING i OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. 12 C� _ Dalcd ibis day 0f �iili�' ZOU �F UFFICIAL SEAL J.4. HDFMANN f CCMIAIFRIUtf Hr1 350100 0M08Sit]N t ><f f8r JUNE 113, 2809 4AV.AL0RI(;II'r_ State of Oregon County of )ACKSON This insUoment was acknowledged before me on+I\J-Z-7'r .2004 by Lola V. Albright. N / (Notary Public I. resod) My commission expircz -/L� •t) lC' 219 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 372W11 C, Tax Lot 8300 Afthlitle Pvt O/raelUD-wW o'"lly Atter recording return to: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an .-Oregon Limitcd LiabilityCom an 2950 Phillips Way Cenlral Point OR 97502 Until a change is requested all tax statements shell be sent to The following address: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Com an 2950 Phil he! Wa Central Poin OR 97302 Jackson County Official Records 2005-072911 ++� R -WD Cnl=1 Sin -4 SHAWBJ 12/0112005 00:00:00 AM $1000$500$1100 Total:$26.00 11111111111111111MU11llitlllIl 11902001 THIS SPACE RESERI 1, e.lhw.n s. a,akNt, c.uMy calx W rwk— c only, 0,.pn, enll/y IMI M. MiNUMn11d�MnN hM.M w.=n<OIEN In Ih. Clnk fKOfa' KaMenS Beckett -County Clerk Escrow No, AP0763998 Title No. 0763998 -rlo STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED 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, Grankn(s) hereby convey and warrant 10 13O FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LJ C, an Oregon Limited Llsbillty Company, Gnntee(s) the following Itcsrribtd TCA property in the County of JACKSON and State or Oregon free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein: SEE EXHIBIT A WHICH 1S MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE The above-described property is free of encumbrances except all those items of record, if any, as of the date of this deed and those shown below, if any: The tragi andaetuet consideration for this conveyance is PURSUANT TO AN IRC 1031 TAX DEFERRED 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 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 30.930, Dared 1hkAQ7- day of weft r,..v� 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: Atl Y✓�• uToK. .%";? rL WALTER H. FROHREICH, TRUSTEE y B s VKNOZR�v RA V,FROHREICH,TRUSTEE PVJ9UU-OR8G4N38iOtt NO. 36�>;OtiSlate ofOregon PIRES JUNE IQ 2000 County of JACKSON This inefrument was acknowledged before me on A 2005 by WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA V. FROHREICH, TRUSTEES OF THE FROHREIC L 1NG TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, 1996,. 71- Notary Public r regon) My commission expires n . 220 Order No, 0763996 Page 4 WMXDIT W Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Lot "Kl- of Snowy Butte Orchards, Jackson County, Oregon, according to the Official plat thereof, now of record, which said point is on the Southwesterly right -at -way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad; thence run South 35°081 east along said right-of-way line 528.68 to a V' iron pin; thence North 89°271 west 3nfl.77 feet For the true point of beginning; thence North 09°27' West 356.$3 feet more or less to the Westerly boundary line of amid Lot ^K thence South Voi- wast 222.24 feet, more or less, to the SOuthweatcrly corner of said Lot Wj thence South 89°50, Bast 357.05 feet to a point which bears North 89058, West 454.04 feet from the Southeast corner of maid Lot; thence North 0011 Eil9t 222.24 feet, more or lens to the point of beginning. (MOP No. 3721111C,,Tax Lot 8300, Account No. 1-017631-0, Code 6-2) a 221 Subject Lots 2012 Aerial 300 -Foot Buffer I _ Tax Lots City Limits - --�-- Railroad 300 -Foot Radius Map Annexation 1 Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC W+E 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S U200 100 0 200 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 222 ATTACHMENT "D" July 6, 2017 City of Central Point 140 S. 3111 Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Files Annex -77001, CPA -77002, and 2C-17001 Dear Mr. Humphrey: CSA Planning, Ltd 4497 Brownridge, Suite 101 Medford, OR 97504 Telephone 541 779,0569 Fax 541 .779.0114 Jwi@C-SAO[anning.net GSA 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: 1. Pre -Application Issue: The Pre -Application meeting was held on June 28. 2017. Attendees were Tom Humphrey, Matt Samito.re, 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 submitted under cover of this letter_ 3. Committed Residential Density Issue: The City's May 171 letter 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 Density Calculation Clay of Central Point Zonluo PlOrlef Nit.Nel netdh min -Gr. 13eat16y' Groes Veetuf Acres in UrbasAre* % Dlllrlhultcn Build -Out DV Yleld Fdl ows Adjusted Gr.Acrn reltur.. Adjusted Boild•Out DUVIrld RL 1 1.25 4.2.5 3% 5 4.25 5 R-1.6 4 5 10.88 8% 54 10.88 54 R•1-8 3 3.75 3,86 3110 14 3.86 14 K-1.10 2 2.5 30 2% 8 3.13 8 9-! 6 7.5 37.99 27e/ 285 37.99 285 R-3 14 17.5 3.32 3% 62 3.52 62 ANIK 6 7.5 15.44 ll% 116 19.08 l43 NNX 14 17.5 46.21 33% 809 42.37 745 '1111fit - 30 37.5 131V kO% 106 13.50 506 138.79 _ 100% 1,159 13879 _ 1,!=3 Avrlaae Gr. Deniliv 1}.40 IM11 Min Net OeneAy eclasled by 125 M ROW Same: Cny A Central Pohl 9eMade Lamb InwMary 223 (Sk City of Centra! Point Housing Construction by Housing Type anti Zoning, City Limits 1980-2016 19" 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 Section 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 Point Page 2 224 _ I_ia_Y Units— Mobile Total SFR SNR Mobile Home Care Rousing %of 7,0"i NuOto Aulaebed Duplex M8R HOMO park Facilii V Total R -L 30 - •Tri�t. - 30 1% R-1-10 71 - - 71 2% R-1-8 896 - 2 - 898 21% R-1-6 1,145 - 3 1,148 27% R-2 426 4 68 498 12% R-3 334 171 12 222 65 221 1,025 24% LMR 370 4 12 - - - 386 9% 161[MR 113 12 2 75 - 15 217 5% NMR 16 1026 •70 1% DWWI _ 1a d 6 12 30-7 22 75 4 99 Prrecald sf'CWta1 78.7% 037 5.91 03% 7.1% 1.6% 5.1% OJ% 100% 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 Section 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 Point Page 2 224 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 moving this key infrastructure 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 market demand 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. /�A- a) Harland Principal Applicant Reserves the right for his attorney to argue this provision is inapplicable 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 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 11C, 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-LMR/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 day of September, 2017. Planning Commission Resolution No. 846 Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Chair 226 CONSIDERATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CLARIFICATION FOR 2 PARCELS TOTALING 3.64 ACRES AT 3428 AND 3470 CHICORY LANE 227 AF%kk City of Central Point, Oregon CENTRAL 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 POINT 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 r www.centralpointorezon.gov STAFF REPORT September 5, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: File No. CPA -17002 Community Development Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Clarification for two (2) parcels totaling 3.64 acres at 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane, from Jackson County land use designation Industrial to Central Point land use designation Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Corridor, and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 11C, Tax Lots 8300 & 8400 ("Property"). Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC. Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. STAFF SOURCE: Molly Bradley, Community Planner I BACKGROUND: The Applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan (Map) amendment/clarification in preparation for a subsequent zone change application for the above referenced Property (File No. ZC-17001). The Applicant has also filed an application for annexation of the Property (File No. ANNEX -17001). The Property is currently outside of City Limits but inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and its Comprehensive Plan designation when annexed to the City is TOD-Corridor (Attachment "A"). In accordance with the City/County Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA) (Attachment "B"), the Property retains its County land use and zoning designations until annexation into the City, which are Industrial and General Industrial (GI), respectively (Attachment "C"). Upon annexation, the Property will be subject to the TOD-Corridor land use classification. For purposes of this report it will be assumed that the Property has been annexed and the City's TOD-Corridor land use classification applies. In Ordinance No. 1815 adopting the TOD-Corridor, Table 2 of Exhibit "A" identifies the land uses allowed in the TOD-Corridor. Existing conventional zoning designations remain in the TOD Corridor as underlying zones, and TOD designations represent optional standards that could be applied to development at the property owner's discretion. As illustrated in Table 2, the TOD Corridor allows a broad range of land uses, including medium density and multi -family residential, commercial and industrial uses. The determination of land use was established based on the underlying conventional zoning designations. The Property is currently zoned TOD-MMR with an underlying zone of R-3, which is consistent with Table 2. Land Use Summar• —TOD Corridor Existing Comprehensive Plan Optional TOD Corridor Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations _ and Zoning Designations Residential R-1-8 — Residential, Single Family District TOD-MMR— Medium -Mix Residential (8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) R-2 — Residential, Two Family District TOD-LMR — Medium -Mix Residential (6,000 w. ft. min. lot size) R-3 — Residential, Multiple Family District TOD-MMR — Medium -Mix Residential 6,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) 228 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 — Em to ent Commercial C-5 — Thoroughfare Commercial District TOD-GC — General Commercial Industrial M-1 — Industrial District TOD-GC — General Commercial M-2 — Industrial General District I TOD-GC —General Commercial The Applicant is requesting that the Property maintain the land use designation of TOD Corridor when it is annexed, but apply a different zoning district than what is currently planned. To ensure that the proper procedures are followed, the Applicant submitted an application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to clarify that the subsequent zone change is acceptable under the land use designations. The Applicant is requesting a zone change from TOD-MMR/R-3 to TOD-LMR/R-2, which is consistent with the allowed uses within the TOD-Corridor, per Table 2. The Applicant has submitted a set of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps and Findings of Fact (Attachment "D") along with relevant approval criteria for the City's consideration. It is recommended that the Commission disregard the Applicant's findings for the Land Use Plan Map amendment, and instead find that the TOD-Corridor land use designation is sufficiently clear in its scope of allowed uses to support the Applicant's proposed zone change. ISSUES & NOTES: There are no issues with this application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Although a recommendation for a decision to approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment may include conditions, staff has not identified the need to impose any conditions at this time. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" — Existing Comprehensive Plan Map and Proposed Zoning Map Attachment "B" — Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA) Attachment "C" — Jackson County Comprehensive Plan Map Attachment "D" — Applicant's Findings of Fact, May 5, 2017 Attachment "E" — Applicant's Supplemental Findings, July 6, 2017 Attachment "F" — Traffic Findings, S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC, July 10, 2017 Attachment "G" — Resolution No. 845 ACTION: Open public hearing and consider the proposed amendment/clarification to the Comprehensive Plan, close the 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. 845 to the City Council per the Staff Report dated September 5, 2017, and supported by Findings of Fact. 229 Sy�p IP z� . F" 5� gh Density Neighborhood nvenience Center — \• Parks r Subject Lots Tax Lots City Limits 21111LUrban Growth ;i I I I r Boundary + Railroad EXHIBIT 4 ATTACHMENT "A" GRANA. AV— niertCe Csnterl ;— -T # C14ENEr-LP,--- en Space � LQ _ " 1 w. MAC CT Nl 1 UNDSEyC7_, �r �/. TCD Corridor F. Low 11 nstty J1 VE�JUrR LN 2i _ 1 ❑} o. CR z F. - --- I .a City comp Plan Neighborhood Convenience Center TOD Corridor - High Density Res. Low Density Res, Civic -Parks and Open Space i f \ A ` r Law density, Existing Comprehensive Plan Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC w+E 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S ® 400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 230 EXHIBIT 6 C-2tmy (n L.MRJT il�; lig (,II - d, M-1 j Civic �, o MAC CT �C 9 U �rOPOSed TOD LMR (R'2) Subject Lots City Zoning C -2(m) Tax Lots Civic t-+- Railroad - EC County Zoning GC LMR - M-1 MMR - os - R-1-6 R-1-8 I� I I I I I• LAVENDER LN u LMR X �g s; 0 ' _` � o ❑ Y x W W UJ ❑ �++ z m 40 -k u. J. ►i a Proposed Zoning Map Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC WE 37-2W-1 1 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 s ® 300 150 0 300 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 231 ATTACHMENT "B" AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON (CITY) AND JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON (COUNTY) FOR THE JOINT MANAGEMENT OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY WHEREAS, under ORS 190.003 to 190.030, and 197.175, et seq. City and County are authorized to enter into intergovernmental agreements and are required to prepare and adopt Comprehensive Plans consistent with Statewide Planning Goals; and WHEREAS, under ORS 197 - State Land Use Goal 14, Urbanization, the "Establishment and change of the boundary shall be a cooperative process between a city and the county or counties that surround it"; and WHEREAS, City and County have adopted a Regional Plan which necessitates revisions to the previous agreement; and WHEREAS, City and County recognize the importance of providing an orderly transition of urban services from County to City jurisdiction and administration as the Urban Reserve transitions from a rural to an urban character; and WHEREAS, ORS 190.003, et seq. requires that an intergovernmental agreement relating to the performance of functions or activities by one unit of local government for another shall be adopted and shall specify the responsibilities between the parties; NOW, THEREFORE, the City and County adopt the following urban growth policies which shall serve as the basis for decisions pertaining to development and land uses in the area between the City limits of Central Point and its urban -growth boundary, and other lands that are of mutual interest or are of significant importance to Central Point's long-range growth and development. DEFINITIONS Area of Mutual Planning Concern: A geographical area lying beyond the adopted urban growth boundary in which the City and County have an interest in terms of that area's types and levels of development, land uses, environment, agriculture, and other unique characteristics. The area is not subject to annexation within the current planning period but may be in the path of longer -range urban growth. Therefore, the City and County will fully coordinate land use activity within this area. 2. BOC: Jackson County Board of Commissioners. 3. Comprehensive Plan: State -acknowledged comprehensive plan adopted by City or County. 232 4. Contract Annexation: A process whereby the City, County, and other involved parties enter into a contract that permits: A) The parties to administer urban land use regulations on the development of property following an annexation decision while the property remains under County jurisdiction; and B) The City to annex property developed to City densities and uses, with the improvement to appear on the County tax rolls prior to the effective date of annexation, resulting in a greater benefit to the tax base of the community. 5. Council: City of Central Point City Council 6. Develop: To bring about growth or create new opportunities for growth; to cause the expansion of available lands; to extend public facilities or services; to construct, alter or expand a structure; to conduct a mining operation; to make a change in the use of appearance of land; to divide land into smaller parcels; to create or terminate rights of access, etc. 7. LDO: Jackson County's Land Development Ordinance. 8. Non -Resource Land: Land that is not subject to the statewide Goals listed in OAR 660-004-0010(1)(a) through (g) except subsections (c) and (d). 9. Planning Services: Legislative activities, such as adoption and amendment of comprehensive plan text and maps, adoption and amendment of land use regulations, and quasi-judicial processing of land use actions. 10. Resource Land: Land that is subject to the statewide Goals listed in OAR 660- 004-0010(1)(a) through (g) except subsections (c) and (d). 11. Subdivide or Partition Land: The act of dividing the legal ownership of land into smaller units, as set forth in Oregon Revised Statutes 92.010. 12. Urban/Public Facilities and Services: Basic facilities that are planned for and provided by either the private or public sector, and are essential to the support of development in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Such facilities and services include, but are not limited to, police and fire protection, sanitary facilities, public water and storm drain facilities; planning, zoning, and subdivision controls; health services; recreation facilities and services; energy and communication services; and community governmental services including schools and transportation. 13. Urban Growth Boundary: A site specific line on the Official Plan and Zoning Map of Jackson County, which identifies and encompasses urban and urbanizable lands within the County, including: 2 233 A) URBAN LAND: Residential areas generally comprised of parcels smaller than one acre, or highly developed commercial and industrial areas which are within incorporated cities or which contain concentrations of persons who reside or work in the areas, including land adjacent to and outside cities, and which have supporting urban public facilities and services. B) URBANIZABLE LAND: Areas within an officially adopted urban growth boundary which are needed for the expansion of that urban area, and which have been determined to be necessary and suitable for development as future urban land and which can be served with necessary urban public facilities and services. 14. Urban Reserve Areas (URA): Land outside of a UGB identified as highest priority (per ORS 197.298) for inclusion in the UGB when additional urbanizable land is needed in accordance with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 14. INTENT AND PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT The intent and purpose of this Agreement is for City and County to: 1. Enhance long-range planning in the Urban Growth Boundary and the Urban Reserve. 2. Maintain and improve coordination and communication between City and County. 3. Develop consistent policies and procedures for managing urban growth and development within the Urban Growth Boundary. 4. Minimize impacts to property owners, local governments and service providers related to the transition of property from within the Urban Growth Boundary to within the City Limits. URBAN GROWTH POLICIES 1. The City of Central Point shall have primary responsibility for all future urban level development that takes place within the City and urban growth boundary area. Additionally: A) All urban level development shall conform to City standards, shall be consistent with the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, and shall meet all appropriate requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and Map. 234 B) The term "urban level development" shall be generally defined, for purposes of this agreement, as any commercial or industrial development, and any residential development, partitioning, or subdivision that creates actual or potential densities greater than allowed by the City's Residential Low-density District (R -L). The expansion or major alteration of legally existing commercial or industrial use shall also be considered urban level development. C) Urban level development proposals submitted through County processes must be accompanied by a contract to annex to the City. 2. A change in the use of urbanizable land from a use designated on the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map to uses shown on the City Comprehensive Plan shall occur only upon annexation or contractual intent to annex to the City. Additionally: A) Development of land for uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan shall be encouraged on vacant or underdeveloped lands adjacent to or within the City limits prior to the conversion of other lands within the urban growth boundary. B) Urban facilities and services must be adequate in condition and capacity to accommodate the addiLlotial level of growth, as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan, prior to or concurrent with the land use changes. C) The City may initiate annexation and zone changes of lands outside the City limits and within the UGB that are under a County "Exclusive Farm Use" designation or otherwise enjoying farm -related tax incentives when such lands are needed for urban development. 3. City annexation shall only occur within the framework of the City's Comprehensive Plan and within the Urban Growth Boundary. 4. Except as provided in Policy 11 of this agreement, specific annexation decisions shall be governed by the City of Central Point. The City will provide opportunities for the County and all affected agencies to respond to pending requests for annexation with the response time limited to sixty days to minimize any unnecessary and costly delay in processing. 5. The establishment of the Urban Growth Boundary does not imply that all lands within the Boundary must be annexed to the City. 6. Jackson County shall retain jurisdiction over any land use decisions, other than annexations, within the unincorporated urbanizable area, in conformance with these adopted policies. Additionally: M 235 A) The City shall be requested to respond to pending applications for land use changes in the unincorporated urbanizable area. If no response is received within fourteen days, the County will assume the City has no objections to the request B) The City will request that the County respond to pending applications for land use changes within the incorporated area which could affect land under County jurisdiction. If no response is received within fourteen days, the City will assume the County has no objections to the request. C) Recognizing that unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Boundary could ultimately become part of Central Point, the City's recommendations will be given due consideration. It is the intent of the County to administer a mutually adopted City/County policy in the urbanizable area until such time as the area is annexed. 7. Lands in the vicinity of the Seven Oaks Interchange, as delineated on Map I attached, are considered unique because of the transportation facilities present. The I-5 Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) for Exit 35 addresses the unique characteristics of the area and recommendations from the plan will be incorporated into the City and County Comprehensive Plans. Portions of this area are in Central Point's Urban Reserve while the remainder is designated an Area of Mutual Planning Concern and shall be protected from premature development. Additionally: A) The County shall ensure that the area remains in a rural character so that a priority is placed on urban development within the UGB, as planned. B) The Seven Oaks Interchange Area of Mutual Planning Concern shall retain its present County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designation, or similar "rural" designation, until such time as the area can be shown to be needed for the City's urbanization, in accordance with the seven urbanization factors of Statewide goal 14 and the provisions of this agreement that pertain to City -initiated comprehensive plan amendments. 8. Lands in the vicinity of and including Forest/Gibbon Acres west of Table Rock Road, as delineated on Map 2 attached, are considered remote to Central Point at this time. Although located outside of any Urban Reserve, this area is designated an Area of Mutual Planning Concern and shall be protected from premature or more intense development. Additionally: A) The County shall ensure that the area remains in a rural character so that a priority is placed on urban development within the UGB and URAs, as planned. 236 B) The Forest/Gibbon Acres Area of Mutual Planning Concern shall retain its present County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designation, or similar "rural" designation, until such time as the area can be shown to be needed for the City's urbanization or for inclusion in Medford or in White City should it incorporate. Inclusion in a planning area will occur in accordance with the seven urbanization factors of Statewide goal 14 and the provisions of this agreement that pertain to City -initiated comprehensive plan amendments. 9. Lands under the ownership of Jackson County between Gebhard Road and Interstate -5 north of Pine Street, including the Jackson County Expo (fairgrounds) and property in the ownership of Jackson County adjacent to the Expo as delineated on Map 3 attached, are designated an Area of Mutual Planning Concern and shall be protected from uncoordinated land use development. Additionally: A) The County shall ensure that all land use planning that occurs will be coordinated with the City so that a priority is placed on urban development within the UGB and URAs, as planned. B) The Jackson County Expo Area of Mutual Planning Concern shall retain its present County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designation, or designations unique to the fairground master plan, until such time as the area can be shown to be needed for the City's urbanization, in accordance with the seven urbanization factors of Statewide goal 14 and the provisions of this agreement that pertain to City -initiated comprehensive plan amendments. C) During the first coordinated Periodic Review process for the Regional Plan, Jackson County shall consider including the land occupied by the Jackson County Expo to the City of Central Point Urban Reserve Area. D) The impacts of County development upon City and Regional infrastnicture shall be assessed and mitigated in order to obtain a mutually beneficial outcome to both entities. 10. Lands within the urbanizable area which currently support a farm use shall be encouraged, through zoning and appropriate tax incentives, to remain in that use for as long as is "economically feasible". A) "Economically feasible", as used in this policy, shall be interpreted to mean feasible from the standpoint of the property owner. Implementation of this policy will be done on a voluntary basis. B) "Exclusive Farm" or other appropriate low -intensity rural zoning designation shall be applied to areas within the UGB by the County for the 0 237 purpose of maintaining agricultural land uses and related tax incentives until such time as planned annexation and urban development occur. C) "Suburban Residential" or other zoning designations that would permit non-agricultural land uses to develop prematurely could result in obstacles to future planned and coordinated growth and, therefore, should be restricted to only those areas that are already developed to such levels. D) Agricultural zoning policies contained herein apply only to areas identified by the City or County as agricultural lands within the UGB, URA's or Seven Oaks Area of Mutual Planning Concern and shall not be used as a standard to review other land use applications within these areas. 11. The City and County acknowledge the importance of protecting agricultural lands. Therefore: A) While properties are in agricultural use, the City will apply the below standards when adjacent lands are proposed for urban residential development: i. To mitigate the potential for vandalism, the development's design should incorporate the use of visible public or semipublic open space adjacent to the agricultural lands. ii. To mitigate nuisances originating from agricultural noise, odors, irrigation run-off, and agricultural spray drift, the development's design should incorporate: a. The use of landscaping and berms where a positive buffering benefit can be demonstrated. b. The orientation of structures and fencing relative to usable exterior space such as patios, rear yards and courts, such that the potential impacts from spray drift, dust, odors, and noise intrusion are minimized. C. The design and construction of all habitable buildings, including window and door locations, should be such that the potential impact of spray drift, noise, dust, and odors upon interior living/working areas will be minimized. d. Physical separation between agricultural lands and urban development shall be utilized to the greatest extent possible to minimize adverse impacts. Site design emphasizing the appropriate use of open space areas, streets, and areas not 7 238 designed specifically for public recreation or assembly shall be considered. B) The City and County mutually agree herewith that the buffering standards established by the Jackson County Regional Plan and adopted by the City of Central Point have or can and will be met, prior to annexation or urban development of lands. C) The City and County mutually agree to involve affected Irrigation Districts prior to annexation or when contemplating urban development of lands. 12. The City, County, and other affected agencies shall coordinate the expansion and development of all urban facilities and services within the urbanization area. Additionally: A) Provisions for urban facilities and services shall be planned in a manner limiting duplication in an effort to provide greater efficiency and economy of operation. B) A single urban facility or service extended into the urbanizable area must be coordinated with the planned future development of all other facilities and services appropriate to that area, and shall be provided at levels necessary for expected uses, as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 13. All County road construction and reconstruction resulting from new development, redevelopment, or land division, in the urbanizable area shall be to urban standards, except that the term "reconstruction" does not include normal road maintenance by the County. 14. Except for URAs, no other land or non-municpal improvements located outside the Urban Growth Boundary shall be permitted to connect to the water line serving Erickson unless it is first included in the Urban Growth Boundary or a "reasons" exception is taken to applicable Statewide Land Use Planning Goals which allows such connection. The owners of such benefited property must sign an irrevocable consent to annex to the City of Central Point. AMENDMENTS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY The procedure for joint City and County review and amendment of urban growth boundary and urbanization policies are established as follows: 239 MAJOR REVISIONS Major revisions in boundary or policies will be considered amendments to both the City and County comprehensive plans and, as such, are subject to a legislative review process. A major revision shall include any boundary change that has widespread and significant impact beyond the immediate area, such as quantitative changes allowing for substantial changes in population or significant increases in resource impacts; qualitative changes in the land use itself, such as conversion of residential to industrial use, or spatial changes that affect large areas of many different ownerships. Any change in urbanization policies is considered a major revision. Major revisions will be considered by the City and County at periodic intervals in accordance with the terms of the mutually adopted urban growth boundary agreements between the County and each municipal jurisdiction. It is the intent of the governing bodies to review the urban growth boundary and urbanization policies for consistency upon completion of the City and County Comprehensive Plans. A request for major revision can be initiated only by the County or City governing bodies or their respective planning commissions. Individuals, groups, citizen advisory committees, and affected agencies may petition the County or appropriate City in accordance with the procedural guidelines adopted by the jurisdiction for initiating major legislative amendments. The party who seeks the revision shall be responsible for filing adequate written documentation with the City and County governing bodies. Final legislative action on major revision requests shall be based on the factors stated in each mutually adopted urban growth boundary agreement. Generally these are: A) Demonstrated need to accommodate unpredicted population trends, to satisfy urban housing needs, or to assure adequate employment opportunities; B) The orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; C) Maximum efficiency of land uses within the current urbanizable area; D) Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; E) Compatibility of the proposed change with other elements of the City and County comprehensive plans; and, F) The other statewide planning goals. Major revision proposals shall be subject to a mutual City and County review and agreement process involving affected agencies, citizen advisory committees, and the general public. The review process has the following steps: 240 A) CAC and planning commissions review and make recommendations to the City Council and Board of County Commissioners; B) Proposal mailed to the affected agencies and property owners; and, C) Proposal heard and acted upon by City Council and Board of County Commissioners. MINOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS Minor adjustments to an urban growth boundary line may be considered subject to similar procedures used by the City and County in hearing zoning requests. A minor amendment is defined as focusing on specific individual properties and not having significant impacts beyond the immediate area of the change. Application for a minor boundary line amendment can only be made by property owners, their authorized agents, or by a City or County governing body. Written applications for amendments may be filed in the office of the Jackson County Department of Planning and Development on forms prescribed by the County. The standards for processing an application are as indicated in the mutually adopted urban growth boundary agreement. Generally these are the same factors as for a major urban growth boundary amendment. CORRECTION OF ERRORS A. An error is generally considered to be a cartographic mistake, or a misprint, omission, or duplication in the text. They are technical in nature and not the result of new information or changing attitudes or policies. B. If the City Council and Board of County Commissioners become aware of an error in the map(s) or text of this mutually -adopted urbanization program, both bodies may cause an immediate amendment to correct the error, after mutual agreement is reached. C. Corrections shall be made by ordinance, following a public hearing conducted by both governing bodies, but hearings before the planning commissions shall not be required when an amendment is intended specifically to correct an error. REVIEW, AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. This Agreement may be reviewed and amended at any time by mutual consent of both parties, after public hearings by the Council and the Board of Commissioners. 10 241 B. Any modifications to this Agreement will be consistent with City and County comprehensive plans and state law. C. Staff from City and County will attempt to informally resolve any disputes regarding the terms, conditions, or meaning of this Agreement. For any disputes not resolved through this informal process, the Council and the BOC will meet jointly in an attempt to resolve those disputes. Either party may request the services of a mediator to resolve any dispute. D. This Agreement may be terminated by either party subsequent to dissolution of a URA or an Area of Mutual Planning Concern. Such termination shall proceed through a properly noticed public hearing process. This agreement supersedes the prior agreement between the parties on the same subject matter approved by the County on , 20___, and by the City on 20 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Hank Williams, Mayor DATE Doug Breidenthal, Chair DATE APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Counsel ATTEST: ATTEST: City Administrator Recording Secretary 11 242 ATTACHMENT "Cr 4E WF- 1, JACKSON COUNTY JACKSON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP 2E j� IJ - 30 COUNTY �nlnm?real �� -lrtan rZ=_slrls+�nal >giiw�ttw-ai .�� — - - ' r- ._ L1n;11=C Ilse ,.rile _ily Urran Re,ltlmlial .c..str�l =pen gJ;acz • ,r• Ulul �nf _RgEI. ' ��e W,,i., i �urel Regtlentlal � nyueJale Ru.,u,se 1 ( � I � e`ii. �.Ye"`"i.ree�tlea.a. --'��,r;le��m,ii�n�rP•=rarac,�nn,�«rie�.n�a�� , - k. 31 1W� �••ia. _ i i -y �.� 2W- CI _��•i, 4W 3W 32 �-m 2 33 33 34 F - A + _ ' �Z j i I: _�- �l -.,ter. 34 r ;;_- _ �,.; ..�•.::,�t �;.__ - fir• }.-�- 35, 35 36 _� -.. - - •i 7-i-'. }I'�.`'. _ ..ins - - �� = _ - • 36 ��,-__.; F�1i.�.. -;7.. _ `=fir �_ .r:-, - -.. ' - _ - - •- I+•r.w. 4 V.._ .t. ter=-_: RQ 37 37 Ao tt 38� - 38 3 l -r CL - k, -.L - .-.I L � Y,~ I f- -� it •J�f�:-I 39 F. 7. 41 4W 3W 21N41 1 W 1E 2E 3E 4E 243 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 "D" 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. 244 Page 1 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 -I IC 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 � - •J 245 Page 2 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 olhef 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 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 legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS 222.120, 222.170 and 222.840 to 222.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation to the electors of the territory proposed for annexation and, except when permitted under QRS 222.120 or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense with submitting the proposal for annexation to the 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. 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 hvo 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 246 Page 3 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. All future annexations are expected to include only lands within the city'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 district into which a newly annexed area is placed. The appropriate zoning district shall be applied to the area upon annexation. 17.10.200 Initiation of amendments. A proposed amendment to the code or zoning map may be initiated by eilher. A A resolution by tha planning cnmmissinn M the rity Mi ncil; 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 shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property or properties affected; proposed findings of facts supporting the proposed amendment, justifying 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. (Ord. 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 247 Page 4 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 system plan: (A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification 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 idenli5ed in the TSP or comprehensive plan_ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA 17.96.200 Initiation of amendments. A proposed amendment to the 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 affected 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 17.10.300. Proposals for major revisions shall be processed as a Type IV procedure per Section 17.05.500. Proposals for minor changes shall be processed as a Type III procedure per Section 17.05.400. 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 public facilities master plans (major and minor amendments); and D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. 248 Page 5 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 11C. 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 future 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. 249 Page 6 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 turn 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 250 Page 7 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 7`" Edition. This is CSA's most recent copy. A more recent version is available but would not he expected to change the estimates enough to result in a different outcome- that the change in trip generation potential is de minimus. See also below analysis regarding net -to - gross factors for the site. 251 Page 8 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 Page 9 252 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 T ransit 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 the option to 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 alter the TOD Corridor was created, the laird 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 eslablislunent from a quantitative standpoint. IIowever, the prior amendments that redistributed land uses in the City contemplated the subject property 253 Page 10 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. 254 Page 11 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 12 255 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. 256 Page 13 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) When a proposal containing the terms of annexation is approved in the manner provided by the charier 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 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 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 legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under UfRS 222.1217, 222.1 rU and 222.840 to 222.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation to the electors of the territory proposed for annexation and, except when permitted under ORS 222.120 or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense with submitting the proposal for annexation to the 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 under ORS 222.120 below and concludes based upon the same 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 public hearing before the legislative body at which time the electors of the city may appear and be heard on the question of annexation. F� 257 Page 14 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 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. 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 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). 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. Conclusions of Law: The City concludes it has properly applied the procedures specified 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). ************ 258 Page 15 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR ZONE CHANGE Chapter 17.10 ZONE CHANGE 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); 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. B. 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 transportation networks to serve the property are either available, or identified for construction in the citys public facilities master plans (major and minor 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. z 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 TOD-LMR (R-2) can be explained as an appropriate amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. 259 Page 16 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 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 dassification system; or (c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation system plan: (A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification 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 perormance 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. 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 N 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 that generate materially more traffic than the existing designation so nothing 260 Page 17 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. 261 Page 18 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC a 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 If 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 II 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 following 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 for brevity] 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. 262 Page 19 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 ... [balance omitted for brevity] 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 agricultural lands.../balance omitted for brevityl 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 forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture ... (balance omitted 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 ... lbalance 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. 263 Page 20 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, rules 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 resources; or (3) threaten the availability of such resources ... [balance omitted for brevity] Conclusions of Law: Based upon the Findings of Fact in Section IV, 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 ... lbalance omitted for brevilyl 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. Goal 8: Recreational 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 facilities including destination resorts ... @alance omitted forbrevityj 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 9: 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. 264 Page 21 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 forcing a zoning 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 Services To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development ... [balance omitted for brevity] Conclusions of Law: Based upon the Evidence in Section II and the Findings of Fact in Section N, 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 ... (balance omitted for brevity] 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 map 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 265 Page 22 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 brevity] 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 from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities ... [balance omitted forbrevh'y] 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. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan; 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. 266 Page 23 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 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 public facilities master plans (major and minor amendments); and Conclusions of Law: The City concludes the proposed amendment does not concern a UGB amendment. D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. 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 etiect 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. VII 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] ************ 267 Page 24 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 268 Page 25 z > G ail �Lr•wn.n I � v . Y _ tR IR M w •3.]Iy3nV •i L.� 8 _ y ff 1rTlaCi3 T LU _ a r Zi I - d ". 45V Urdu c1 3 d' tJ 7i _ I<• i :iti3.11 la3als 11:111SVH � co, z I 1 ! Z J - r h, $ g • _ 3n18u ruvonuuns, :cl YU91 .NL:FdYlY S35 ' UUUI .N[1[ov113) 3N-IV'W 'Nd£5:86£OLOZ/871LO 269 VLV0 SO pp L.ti Aga fgh i Snglty Nelg borhood overil\ence Center Parks TA1?A.CR ,Subject Lots Tax Lots L City Limits 26"'LUrban Growth ;i111r Boundary i Railroad r' i� Z �t J MAC CT Low Density -,11L - City Comp Plan Neighborhood Convenience Center TOD Corridor - High Density Res. Low Density Res, Civic -Parks and Open Space Civic I=vu1Q1r n i Cd1Center s r I a f Density 11�i f Existing Comprehensive Plan Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC w+ 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S ® 400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 270 EXHIBIT 5 2012 Aerial Existing Zoning on Aerial Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC N+F 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 s ® 400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 271 City Zoning i i Subject Lots 0-2(m) City Limits Civic Tax Lots GG LMR -f----+ Railroad M-1 County Zoning MMR Os R-1-6 R-1-8 R-3 2012 Aerial Existing Zoning on Aerial Annexation / Zone Change N Bob Fellows Construction, LLC N+F 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 s ® 400 200 0 400 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 271 z W LM14 I �I Ci111C MAC CT 1<1P Prd TQDLMR (R-2) G{ CIO Subject Lots City Zoning - C -2(m) Tax Lots Civic -+—r Railroad - EC County Zoning ' GC LMR M-1 MMR LMR - os - R-1-6 R-1-8 EXHIBIT 6 Proposed Zoning Map Annexation / Zone Change Bob Fellows Construction, LLC 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 Im300 150 0 CSA Planning, Ltd. 273 N w4—F 300 Feet I { LAVENDER - LN --� LMR Ce F — — 6 u� Q a W ? I i I Proposed Zoning Map Annexation / Zone Change Bob Fellows Construction, LLC 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 Im300 150 0 CSA Planning, Ltd. 273 N w4—F 300 Feet I ORDINANCE NO.' 1 T3 EXHIBIT 7S AN ORDINANCE AMENDING "1'I- E CENTRAL POINT COMPIRI:'s1-II:,NSIVI PLAN FOR AREA tl 2 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 City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with ORS 197.040(2)(e) 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 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 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. 1 - Ordinance No. ITIt3 (091798) 274 section 2. The C"Ity C'omprchensive flan and Zoning; Map are hereby amended ns scl forth on Exhibits "A" &, 13", including all maps mid aUachilie, nts to such exhibits, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3, The C:ily Administrator is directed to conduct post acknowledgment procedures defined in ORS 197.610 et secl. upon adoption oC the C omprehensivc Plan Amendment and changes to the Zoning Mali, Section 4. This update beim necessary 601- the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare; of the City of Central Point, Orcoon, and bused upon the need to conclude associated comprehensive plait amendment procedures, second reading of this ordinance is hereby waived and an cmergency is declared to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect Immediately upon its Massage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. ��assed by the Council and signed by me: in authentication of its passage this day ofS� 998. Mayor Rusty. W.Grath A,rTEST: City Representative Approved by nye this Z8 4k day of , 1998. Mayor Rusty McGrath l - 0i'dinanc:e No.— (091798) 275 EXHIBIT A Comprehensive flan amendments include the redistribution of certain land uses within the 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 /12: 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). 276 N 277 E N u vo EXHIBIT 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 community4tas-beery meas significant 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 since the 1880s. The railroad is still very remains important to €13e wood products it3dtr3try and other industries located along it but to a lesser extent today than in the past, atm# -will -tie. POUCIES FOR RE -DUCTION Ps&_k,x: 3. The City shall rely heavily require property owners to master plan the 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) PLANK TG SND REGULATION 1Cles; 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, ftn4 the I-5 Freeway and the airport related to industrial development, and Pine Street[Head Road for commercial, office -professional and tourist development.) Pg. TX -24 278 ENERGY UTILIZATION & CONSERVATION (SEC"PION X) 4 - TRA IORTATION-171LATra r NR�Y C4NSrltV'J[)N fid: Policies: 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, -arta the City will also encourage industrial development in the vicinity of highways and airports-energrt— fleiem-mil fie lat trartspr� . Pg.X-21 CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION (SECTION XI) OTHER FACILITIES RAILROAD Paragraphs I & 2 The Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (formerly Southern Pacific Railway) serves the Central Point area and parallels Highway 99 through the cummunity. 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*ifieant role in the area's economy and serve the industries that are located along its route, mostly within the present City limits. Previous studies Itay..:_4.eat.,a that the _ fete4i-tiei that exist are not being used to their tential. Also, reeent ehange� irrzai4-rates€e Mpetitive with uek transptirt. Roli. cies: 15, Max4trtize Retain the industrirai potential of the existing industrial land uses along railroad facilities as proposed in this Comprehensive Plan. CORRECTIVE MEASURES TO SPFC� ._BI,U,IIS }ZUCTION OI NOISE A summary of some of the major considerations are: 279 Ensuring that" residential neighborhoods that are located imme Crit y adjacent to the railroad right-of-way .satisfy safety requirements and accepted inclu,stry .startdrrr ds fljr noise mitigation. LAND USE (SECTION XII) RESIDENTIAL LAND USE Policies: 10. Where residential development is proposed on parcels adjacent to a railroad, a subarea master plan will be required by the City which could result 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. Policies, Ma-xirnize the Retain existing industrial development potet* -e£ along the Highway 99/Sett ,_ern n :t: railroad corridor through the City by providing meds to the year 2009, itteluding adequate flexibility for industrial expansion. beyond 2000,- 280 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 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 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. 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 ttwougliout the plawu ing period, Recent attempts to develop industrial land west of Interstate 5 have met with significant local opposition. Page 122 281 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 #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 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 identified Area 1 as perhaps one of the best sites in the region for rail - oriented industrial development. 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 emphasize 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 and 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 PM10 (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. Page 123 282 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. Page 124 283 EXHIBIT 7G+ ORDINANCE NO. /8/5- AN 8/S AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING 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 City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with ORS 197.040(2)(e) 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 City has 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, therefore; THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. At its public hearing on November 30, 2000, the City Council received the findings of the 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 information received, the City Council adopts the findings and conclusions set forth in the TOD CPAIZC 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. Section 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 are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 1 - Ordinance No. %$ (113000 ) 284 Section 3. The City Administrator is directed to conduct post acknowledgment procedures defined in QRS .19'7.61.0. et seq. upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and changes to the Zoning Map. Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this Wk day of SL., 2000. Mayor Bill Walton ATTEST: —Za City Representative Approved by me this IV A_ day of 2000. (Mayor !Bill Walton 2 - Ordinance. No . 1_gj r (113000 ) 285 in 286 PURPOSE For a Comprehensive Plan 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 (UG13). The purposes of the TOD District ,and, 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 sensitive 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: 1. 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 287 Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page -1 1 11 11 FIJI Jlw L� 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 parks 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 furtherenhance transit service lin 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 code 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 Pian 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 Comprehensive Plan Map in Figure 2 and the draft plan text in Exhibit A — Central Point Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Central Point 289 Draft TOD CPA/ZC Proposal Page - 3 0 i F-1 a i t i Zoning Code Amendments Land Ilse Desionations and Procedures The proposed Zoning Code amendments include new code sections containing requirements and standards for the new zoning designations for the TOD 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 B. Design Standards Proper design and orientation of development bpr .rune; increasingly important as densities increase and different uses are closer together. In addition, much of the success to alternative transportation modes, 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 amendments. 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 techniques 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. Central Point 290 Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page - 4 Im 1� TOD DISTRICT Development Concept The concept for the proposed development is a Transit Oriented Development (TDD). 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 offices, and daycare to the residents of Central Point. The parks and open spaces are planned to be an integral part of the TOD District. All residents of the TOD will be able to walk or ride a bicycle 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. TDD -MMR, TOD-EC, and TDD -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 4 designations for the TOD District are: • Residential (TOD) This category would include three residential designations with densities ranging from 6 to 30+unitsI. per acre. TOD-LMR - Low Mix Residential Zone TOD-MMR - Medium Mix Residential Zone TOD-H.MR - High Mix Residential/Commercial Zone • Employment (TOD) — Comprehensive Plan Central Point 293 Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page - 7 r: 0 E� t 1 a F� 7 a i r 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 I Land Use Summary - TOD District Zone DesignationI Acreage (TOD) 1 Residential LMR MMR HMR Emplovment EC GC Civic C Ooen Saace OS 129 53 53 37 27 56 60 Density Units/Acre 6-12 16-32 30+ N/A NIA N/A N/A Residential TOD TOD-LMR - Low Mix Residential Location The TOD-LMR designation is proposed to be located in the north, west, and southwest portions of the TOD District (Figure 3). The lower density in these areas is intended to Central" Point 294 Draft TOD CPAIZC Proposal Page - 8 y provide a suitable transition between the district and the low density residential uses outside of the district. Land Uses and Building Types The TOD-LMR designation will allow single-familydetached 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 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 The TOD-MMR designation will allow single-family dwellings with 0 -foot setbacks, and a full range of multiple family dwellings: Commercial or industria this zone. l uses are not allowed in Density The required density range will be 16 to 32 units per acre. TO(D-HMR - Hiah Mix Residential/C.ommerclal 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 a section of Manzanita and Oak Street (Figure 3). Land Uses and Building Types I 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. Central Point Draft TOD CPA/ZC Proposal Page - 9 295 J W Density h: The required density will be a minimum of 30 units per acre. Employment ( (TOD) TOD-EC — Emplovment 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. I Land Uses and Building Types Commercial uses are the primary permitted activities. Multiple family uses are also 0, 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 commercial/residential 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 CPA2C Proposal Page -10 296 Civic (TOD) 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 6tn and 7t" and along Oak Street between 2""and 3rd (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 similaruses. 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 Jackson Creeks as well as the north -central portion of the TOD District. TOD-OS is also located in downtown Central Point between Laurel and Manzanita Streets and North a and North 71n Streets (Figure 3). Land Uses and Building Types 'Fhe intent of this designation is to provide necessary open space for the community and protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The uses allowed are proposed to be compatible with mid complement the residential neigliborhoods that generally surround them. 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 be 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. Central Point 297 Draft TOD CPA/ZC Proposal Page -11 E ki a �i n t a a i 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 transitibus 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 districts 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 witl 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. Centrad Point 298 Draft TOD CPA2C Proposal Page - 12 Table 2 Land Use Summary - TOD Corridor ,Existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations Residential R-1-8 -- Residential, Single Famlly District (8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) R-2 - Residential, Two Family District (8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size) R-3 - Residential, Multiple Family District [5,000 sq. ft. ruin, lot size] Commercial G2 - Commercial - Professional C-3 - Downtown Business District C4 - Tourist and Office Professional District C-5 - Thoroughfare Commercial District Industrial M-1 - Industrial District M-2 - Industrial General District Optional TOD Corridor Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations TOD-MMR - Medium Mix Residential TOD-LMR - Medium Mix Residential TOD-MMR - Medium Mix Residential TCO -HMR High Mix Residential TOD-EC Employment Commercial TCD -EC- Employment Commercial TOD-GC -- General Commercial TOD-GC - General Commercial TOD-GC - General Commercial Central Point Draft TOD CPArL.0 Proposal Page -13 299 a kl N a k i fl 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. By their 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 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 11, 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. 300 Sector or Name/Address PropertyOwner Si ature D* Bob Fellows Construction OL _ 2950 Phillips Y4 Central Point OR 91502 Pro Owner 300 EXHIBIT "N' „-t,<,,, I,..rlly Dfrl•al Rroo-rl5 2004-038981 / � page 1 of 3 R -WD nl- ,In -,II _ i rrlr;c, P7/08/2004 02:30:00 PM A c--ooss0115t1on Total:$21.00 A�menTitite HIE IIIIII II111111 11111411111111 01041963200400389810010011 Q111R1 01 TIII S SPACE. RES FRVI l{, lire„n$ a..x,n r, nunry elerx mr , raon cornh n, opo•, rt, ly th,t In, --r— herein we,-,ca,tl,d I n Ili, Clerx After recording relit° In. Kathleen S eeckell Coumy Clerk BOB FELLOWS ('ONS 1 RUCTION, LL(', AN OREGON LIMITED LLABILITY COMP A_NY 2950 PHILLIPS Central Point, OR 97502 Until it change is requested all tax statements shall be sent to The following address: C� BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 1, 295011111 LLIM p il;litraI PoillL OK 97502 1 Escrow No. AP0764707 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED LOLA V. ALBRIGHT, Grantor(si hereby convey and warrant to BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Grantce(s) the following described real property in the County of JACKSON and State of Oregon, free ofencrnlbrances except as specirically set Furth herein: mmenc.nq a-- tie Northeast corner of Lot K r:f Snowy Butte Orchards, Jackson County, rir=gar„ a-c-ordinq to the offLciaL plat thereof, now of record, which said point is •n Che ri'Ih': oL 'day Lire of the Southern Pacific R.ail.road; thence run _oI:tl. 3S° 3' Ea.ar along said right of way Line 528.68 feet to a I” iror. Dirt for the me c•oirjF �£ becinning: Lhence North 89'2'7' West. 300.17 feet; thence South 0°01' feet, more or Less, to the South boundary line of said lot: thence 3u•.rth 9_'''8' Kast 454.04 feel., more or less, to the Southwesterly right of 'day Line hp y'.-,t'het r. Pacific Faifrond;thence North 35°08' WesL 264.58 Peet along said -Lghr of •aay i ae to the rrue per ..^.t of beginning. (rap ta-,. 37.'wl LC, 1'ax Lr)L 6400, Account No. 1-017672--B, Code 6-281 The ahove-described properly is free of encumbrances except all those items of record, if any, as of the date of this deed and those shown below, if any: Subject to the 2004-05 real property taxes, a lien not yet due nod payable Fire true and actual consideration for This collveyance isumms 1-I IIS INS I'RUMENT WI ILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, TI IF PERSON ACQUIRING FFF TITL E TO fHE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH TIIE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DFPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAIVSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30 930. Datedlhijt-�-/L dayof �ifr1GQ _—' G(✓(J oFftriniSERt 1 - - iWO� R ' f �QF CI.[7R GOt't ` � �r 1 '✓ C[:MLJnifkrN Nry 35ti2()li A- 01-�� m CS7htV ALBIiItiH V[1 �s State of Oregon County of JACKSON x r; Phis mslnrmcrb vasacknowledged before tire on � �, 2004 by Lola V. Albright. ' (� 12 tom• (Nulirry Puhlic r regon} J /LJ C J Vey commission cxplren_�� 301 EXHIBIT "A" A page 2 of 3 A m"' e'dr il t I e Pert Of The/ELD-WENPanlny After recording return to: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Oregon Limits] Liability Company 2950 Phillips Way Central Point, OR 97502 Until a change is requested all tax statements shall be sent to The following address: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Oregon LitoiIcd Liability Corn an 2950 Phillips Way Central Point, OR 97502 Escrow No, AP0763998 Title No. 0763998 .•t• Jackson County Official Records 2005-0729 1 1 R -Wo Cnl=1 Sln=4 SHAWBJ 1210112006 08:00:00 AM $10 oa $5 00 $11 oo Total:;26.00 01f6009620050072911002 THIS SPACE RES FR) 1. H.I1,1..n e. e..w.H, C—ly C— mr �.a.en c.mnr. 0119.1 .May th t th. InO—A Id.nthl.d h...1. r.. —.rd.A In th. C1.6 ....rd.. Kathleen S Beckett - County Clerk STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED 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, Gmulur(s) ltereby convey and warrant to 808 FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, en Oregon Limiletl Liability Company, Granlee(a) the following deesribed real property in the County orJACKSON and State of Oregon free of encumbrances except as speci 6caiily set forth herein: SEE EXHIBIT A WHICH IS MADE A PART HERF,OF BY THIS REFERENCE The above-described property is free of encumbrances except all those items of record, if any, as of the date of this decd and those shown below, if any: The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is PURSUANT TO AN IRC 1031 TAX DEFERRED 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 INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERJFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMINQ OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. ; Dated (hi �' g day of s7 — d� WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA V. FROHREICH, TRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS W TRUST UNDER THE FROHREICH LOVING TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, 1996, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO BY: /ret 1Y '`u7a�C. l2ccy� WALTER H. FROFIRE1CH, TRUSTEE B '�'tyC� •_C.r�ES r�� OFFICIALSEAL J EARA V. FROHREICH. TRUSTEE J.I.. HOFMANN aomfty PUGUC-OR60ON COhtAtISSIWI Nt7 36tlxEf0 Stifle of Oregon DMMN881QN EkPIiIES Jll4tt 10. ZOOrJ County of JACKSON This inatrumanr was seknuwlydged before mcon 2005 by WALTER H. FROHRBICH AND LEORA V. PROHREICH, TRUSTEES OF THE FROHREIC VINO TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, 1996„ i �i �-P.r regonj ,My commission expirEx-��Q 302 order No. 0763998 Page 4 EXHIBIT "41" page 3 of 3 Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot "K" of Snowy Butte Orchards, Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record, which said point is on the Southwesterly right-of-way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad; thence run South 35"08' Bast along said right-of-way line 528.69 to a 1" iron pin; thence North 99"271 West 300.77 feet for the true point of beginning; thence North 89"271 West 359.93 feet more or less to the Westerly boundary line of said Lot "K"; thence South 0°01' West 222.24 feet, more or less, to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot "K"; thence South 89"58' East 357.85 feet to a point which bears North 89158' West 454.04 feet from the Southeast corner of said Lotf thence North 0"01, East 222.24 feet, more or lees to the point of beginning. (Map No. 372WL1C, TaK Lot 8300, Account NO. 1.017631-0, Code 6-2) S LL C C6 N fa vi N C L ru Qi ru O CL ti C (U u 304 0 n A! ,i, a cn M W U' W J 3 01. u &n_ AC Bin- C PC 0 me MG 10 4r 0Ott 000e ILI, S, an. P CL AC Vin. PVCr 0 OAd Ad vc OAJ -u.V 6.17. PVC CL 8in. aJ"7077�WR CL CL 306 U) 0 -c (D c 0 00 ?L E c) 0 =(D U) C,4 — > 0 Lr� N s� JENSEN & ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 11 CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS May 3, 2017 CSA Planning Public Utility Analysis - 37S 2W 11C Tax Lots 3470 & 3428 Per your request, X 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. ohn E. lensen, E. 310 RICHARD WAY, JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 TEL, 541-779-4352 Cell 541-727-1330 email: jej42.843@gmail.com 308 309 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 372W11C, Tax Lot 8400 ew Amerilitle No of rh, I Er. n- W F.'N F—f ly THIS SPACE RESERVI ARcr recording return to: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN OREGON LIMII'ED LIABILITY COMPANY _2950 PHILLIPS _ Central 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 Ccnlral Point., OR 47502 Escrow No. AP0764707 Jarkson County Official Records 2004-038981 R -WD Cnl=1 Sin= to Clj Ui •IGr0710812004 02:30:00 PM '0 0 55 170 51 1 OG Total:S21.00 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 01a41a6320a40a3aaa10010011 I1(elhl•en5 arch en Cnm,N Cle,h forJ¢Menn Caunly. Oiepon cen,ry ih•1 Ih• uuWme�l Itl •nlilila venin w•e �•c•rded In Ila CI•,M 1Ce'a` Kathleen S Beckett - Counry Clerk STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED LOLA V. ALBRIGHT, Grantor(s) hereby convey and warrant to BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Grantee(s) the following described real property in the County of JACKSON and State of Oregon, free of encumbrances except as specifically ser forth herein: Commencing at the Northeast corner. of Lot K of Snowy Butte Orchards, Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record, which said point is -m the So�lthwesterly righL of way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad; thence run South 35°')8' Gast along said right of way line 528.68 feet to a 1" iron pin for. the ':rue point of beginning; !hence North B9°27' West 300.77 feet; thence South 0'01' 'Aesl 222_.24 feel., were c:r less, to the South boundary lino of: said Int; thenr,.r-, South 891ti8' Fast 454.04 feet, more or less, to the Southwesterly right of way line ofthe Southern Pacific Railroad; thence North 35°08' West 264.58 feet along said right of way line to the true point of beginning. (Map No. 372W11C, Tax Lot 8400, Account No. 1-017632-8, Code 6-28) The above-described property is free ol'encumbrances except all those items of record, if any, as of the date of !Itis deed and those shown below, if any: Subject to the 2004-05 real property taxes, a lien not yet due and payable The true and actual consideration for this conveyance islomm TI IIS INSTRUMEN'r WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULA11ONS. 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 70.930. / c L Dated lhis(7G� day of LLf(J� Zoo '� T -OFFICIAL SEAL J.L.. kIUFN1ANM No7AR�' F'47".,C "'LGON I CO. IISPION Ww). 750235 � ^ ` , MY C 0MMISSit]N Emns ,NNE 10.2465 ALBRICi31T�� Slate of Oregon C'ounly of JACKSON This instrument wits acknowledged before me on i '1 • 2004 by Lula V. Albright. i �f Notary Public r regon) / My commissionexpirrrs_i�• -/F0 310 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 372W1 1 C, Tax Lot 8300 Afthlitle P� r I O/ Th r I EL D- wFN F� n I lly After recording return to: BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company _2950 Phillips Way Central 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 Liabili Com an 2950 Phillips Wax Central Point OR 97502 Escrow No. AP0763998 Title No. 0763998 Jackson County OtllGel Records 2005-072911 R -WD Cnl=1 Sln=4 SHAWBJ 12101/2006 09:00:00 AM S1000$5.00$110o Total:S29.00 IIII�INIlllll1111ll III til111111 011 ON OO02002 a00 1 0211011 THIS SPACE RESERI I, meim..n a a,rh.lt, county elrrh for Jrrh.on County, Cream nrtlry Ihel IN 1nrlrtanrnl IdenlMlyd hrr.ln Me r.rorded In the Clerk recrrh KatNeen S Beckett • County Clerk STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED 10 WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA V. FROHREICH, TRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE FROHREICH LOVING TRUST DATED JANUARY f 1996, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, Grantor(s) hereby convey and warrant to BOB FELLOWS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company, Grantee(s) the following described real property in the County of JACKSON and State of Oregon free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein: SEE EXHIBIT A WHICH IS MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE The above-described properly is free of encumbrances except all those items of record, if any, as of the date of this deed and those shown below, if any: The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is PURSUANT TO AN IRC 1031 TAX DEFERRED EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF GRANTOR/GRANTEE. 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 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 30.930. Dated lhicic - WALTER H. FROHW- CH AND LEORA V. FROHREICH, TRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE FROHREICH LOVING TRUEST DATED JANUARY 4, 1996, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO By: rtY�`07r C.r�Tt �2ee�.2 WALTER H. FROHREICH, TRUSTEE B DRPICtAL B6AL 4RA' V. FROHREICH, TRUSTEE J.L. HOP MANN N07ARv PUBLI"REQON C0*088tom N0.3dE"ll State of Oregon 8810N 10010 JURE 10 200E County of JACKSON This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ 2005 by WALTER H. FROHREICH AND LEORA) FROHREICH, TRUSTEES OF THE FROHREIC L INC TRUST DATED JANUARY 4, 1996,. [No Public r vegan) My commission expires _ Q .. 311 Order No. 0763998 Page 4 MMXBST 'A' Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot ^K" of Snowy Butte Orchards, Jackson County, Oregon, according to Lhe official plat thereof, now of record, which said point is on the Southwesterly right -Of -way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad; thence run South 35'00' Bast along amid right-of-way line 528.58 to a V iron pin; thence North 09°27' West 300.77 East for the true point of beginning; thence North 89°21, west 358.83 feet more or leas to the Westerly houndary line of said Lot "K"; thence South 0'01' West 222.24 feet, more or lees, to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot "K^; thence South 09053' Rant 357.85 feet to a point which tears North B9058' West 454.04 feet from the Southeast Corner of said Lot; thence Borth 0°01' Bast 222.24 feet, more or lean to the point of beginning. (Map No. 372N11C,,Tax Lot 8300, Account No. 1-017631-0, Code 6-2) a �l Subject Lots 2012 Aerial 300 -Foot Buffer Tax Lots Cit Limits L.. J Y Y— — - Railroad 300 -Foot Radius Map Annexation / Zone Change `' Bob Fellows Construction, LLC W + E 37-2W-11 C tax lots 8300 & 8400 S U200 100 0 200 Feet CSA Planning, Ltd. 313 ATTACHMENT "E" r •L CSA Planning, Ltd 4497 Brownridge, Suite 101 Medford, OR 97504 one 541 779 0569 July 6, 2017 TelephFax 541.779:01114 Jay@CSAplanning.net City of Central Point 140S.3 rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Files Annex -17001, CPA -17002, and ZC-17001 Dear Mr. Humphrey: 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 Fre-Appiication meeting was held on June 28, 2017. Attendees were Tom Humphrey, Matt Samitore, Don Burt, Molly Bradley, Bob Fellows, 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 submitted under cover of this letter. 3. Committed Residential Density Issue: The City's May 171 letter 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 Density Cakubtion City of Central Point ZaniuB Dlslrlef Nlu.Net De"'I 11 Ml n, Or. Dokkall1 Grose Veenut Acres is Urbsu Ares % Dlstrlbullon Build -Out DUMdd Fellows Adjusted Gr.Acres Fallows Adjusted Build -Out DU Yield RL 1 1.25 4.25 3'16 5 4.25 5 R-1.6 4 5 t0.88 8% 54 10.88 54 R•1.8 3 3.75 3.86 3% 14 3.86 14 R-1.10 2 2.5 3.13 2% 8 3.13 B R.. d 7.5 31.99 27% 285 37,99 285 R•3 14 173 3.52 3% 62 3.52 62 L ilt 6 7,5 15.44 11% 116 19.08 1143 WAR 14 17.7 46.21 33% 809 42.57 745 fidiR 30 37,5 13.50 io% 106 13.50 306 - _-- 138,19 100% 1.859- 136.70 1 A1 Averltae GI', Defillly 13.40 13.13 'Min Net OansAy adlueled by 125 for ROW Source: Gly o1 CanlrN Pohl 6uOable Lards InveMary 314 City of Central Point Housing Construction by Housing Type and Zoning, City Limits 1980-2016 1990 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: 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 Section 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 Point Page 2 315 ilwcllitq�iftfid , � -i--- — Mobile Total SNR SFR Mobile Howe Care Rousing %of Zgnio Datqched Al[ac6ed_ _ O4vlc[ TrlRlrc tiilFR Hdmr __P Ark ____ Faeil'ty H lt� Tutal R -L 30 - - - - 30 11/1 R-1-10 71 - - - 71 2% R-1-8 896 2 898 21% R-1-6 1,145 - - 3 - 1,148 27% R-2 426 4 68 - - - - - 498 120/a 'R•3 334 - 171 12 222 65 221 1,025 24% !LMR 370 4 12 - - - 386 9% NINIR 113 12 2 75 - - l5 217 5% IHMR 16 10 26 1 P� 1'A Pai `— 233 _ !2 _ 309 70 221 13 4 99 Pcrcauiy afTgt+tl 7&7°./v 0. % 3.7% 0.31 7.1% J.6% S.J% 0,3E 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: 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 Section 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 Point Page 2 315 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 moving this key infrastructure 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 market demand 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. IV Harland Principal Applicant Reserves the right for his attorney to argue this provision is inapplicable 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 3 316 ATTACHMENT "F" I omtcpm Duom TumpaPTNION -C*viYccPnY4G, L L C 319 Eastwood Drive - Medford, Or. 97504 — Phone (541) 608-9923 — Email: Kwkp1 @Q.com July 10, 2017 Matt Samitore, 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 amendment, and zone change on property located east of Chicory Lane and south of Haskell Street on Township 37S Range 2W Section 11C tax lots 8300 and 8400. Background Access to the subject property is provided from Chicory Lane and Haskell 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 alternate 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 will be added along the subject property frontage as part of development, connecting pedestrian facilities to the north and south on Haskell 317 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 2017 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 analytic fnr the CrPPks,de Apartment, /Marsh of 20171 and are. iine.hapge.d for thie analysis_ They are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 — Year 2017 No -Build Intersection Operations Performance Traffic Year 2017 Year 2017 intersection Jurisdiction Standard Control No -Build Ne -Build A.M. Peak P3L Peak Haskell Street / W. Pine Street City of Central Point LOS D Signal C, 21.1 smt A, 9.2 sou LOS = Level of Service, sec = seconds Note: Exceeded perfannance standards are shown in bold, italic Results of the analysis show the intersection of Haskell 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 a.m. 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 95'h percentile queue length is used for design purposes and is the queue length reported in this analysis. Five simulations were run and averaged in SimTraffic 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 12 318 Table 2 — Year 2017 No -Build 95t° Percentile Queue Lengths Available Link 951b Percentile 95'd Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Queue Length (Feet) AM (feet) PM (feet) Haskell Street / W. Pine Street Southbound Left 375 750* 150 Southbound Through/Right 150 175* 50 Northbound Left/Through/Right 525 100* 50 Eastbound Left 150 175* 50 Eastbound Through/Right 425 67S* 175 Westbound Left 150 75 100 Westbound Through 375 200 250 Westbound Right 275 125 100 Note: Excecdcd queue lengths are shown in bold, italic * Queue lengths affected by downstream congestion at Pine Street / 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 model simulations, the eastbound traffic volume on Pine Street at OR 99 exceeds the single lane capacity provided, and the amount of green time for that movement cannot support the demand. This results in a queue length that backs up through the railroad crossing, Amy Street, and Haskell Street far 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 property 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 95"' Percentile Queue Lengtbs — Haskell / W. Pine Isolated Available Link 951° Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Exceeded (Feet) AM (feet) Haskell Street / W. Pine Street Southbound heft 375 250 No Southbound Througb/Right 150 50 No Northbound Left/Through/Right 525 75 No Eastbound Left 150 125 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 are shown in bold, italic 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 I 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 OR 99, L. 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 Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 201713 319 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 95`h Percentile Queue Lengths — Mitigated Available Link 951h Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length (Feet) AM (feet) Exceeded 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 loo No Note; Exceeded queue lengths are 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 affected by downstream queuing. This mitigation was previously shown to be required in the year 2000 Central Point Transit Oriented Development Traffic Impact 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 from Haskell Street to OR 99 through the Twin Creeks railroad crossing, consistent with what was shown to occur in model runs provided for the JRH 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 1", 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`x' 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 5 - Study Area Intersection Crash Rates, 2011-2015 Intersection 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total AADT Crash ODOT Crashes Rate 90 /o Haskell Street / W. Pine Street 0 1 2 5 2 10 14,900 1 0.37 1 0.860 Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, GLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 14 320 Table 6 - Crash History by Type, 2011-2015 Intersection Collision Type Severity Rear- Turning/ Fixed Other Ped/ Non- Injury Fatal End Angle Object Bike I Injury Haskell Street/ W. Pine Street 1 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. None 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 not considered excessive especially considering the high traffic spikes that are shown to occur during 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 ODOT published 90`h percentile crash rate, which is used as a measure to determine 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 growth. 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 Mitigated Haskell Street / Pine Street City of Central Point LOS D signal B, 17.0 see B, 17.6 see LOS = Level of Service, see = seconds Note: Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 1 5 321 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 No -Build Queuing and Blocking Five simulations were run and averaged in SimTraffic to determine 95'h 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 95`h Percentile Queue Lengths — AM Peak Hour Available Link 95`s Percentile 95tb Percentile Intersection Movement Distance Queue Length Queue Length (Feet) AM No -Build AM Mitigated Haskell Street / W. Pine Street Southbound Left 375 450* 275 Southbound Through/Right 150 75 50 Northbound Left/Through/Right 525 100 75 Eastbound Left 150 100* 100 Eastbound Through/Right 425 700* 275 Westbound Left 150 100 75 Westbound '1 hrough 3 I5 17/ 150 Westbound Right 275 100 100 Note, Exceeded queue lengths are shown in bold, italic e Queue lengths affected 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 Street and OR 99 in the eastbound direction (and 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 Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 16 322 Trip Generation Trip generation calculations for proposed development trips were prepared utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 9th 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 Ra et AM Peak Hour Rate PM Peak Hour Total (In) (Out) Total (In) (Out) 210—Single Family Residential DU 23 0.75 17 4 13 1.00 23 14 9 Net New Trips 17 4 13 23 14 9 DU = dwelling unit Trip Distribution and Assignment Development trips were assumed to distribute a little over 50% to/from 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/from the west on W. Pine Street at Haskell Street because an assumption was made that trips wanting to travel tolfrom the west would more likely use an alternate route via Chicory Lane and Glenn Way. Refer to the diagram below for percentage splits and distributions at Haskell Street and W. Pine Street. Development Trips, AM Peak Hour 1 46% 1 4% 0 1 0 0 1 1 AM 0 0 Haskell I Pine St 0 0 7:15-8:15 am 1 0!. 0 1 6 54% 0 2 trips distribute tdFrom 7 3:45-4:45 pm 0% 10% 90% 0% It 1 4 It Street and 50% tdFrom 2 7 7 Development Trips, PM Peak Hour 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 Transporlation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 ( 7 323 1 4% 1 0 1 1 0 " AssLanptiorr. 0 PM 0 50% of davelopment 0 Haskell I Pine St 0 trips distribute tdFrom 0 3:45-4:45 pm 6 the north on Haskell 0% 0 1 4 96X Street and 50% tdFrom 7 5 the south, north, and west W. 8% 84% on Chicory Ln, Glenn Wy, and Malabar Street, 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 Transporlation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 2017 ( 7 323 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 Trak Year 2018 Year 2018 Standard Control Build Build -Mitigated I"ask !I JtIGGI / C Ille �llGet nilt�' Vl nenll al I'o ll'It LOSS D Signal B, 1D 0 sec v, IT11 .ScC LOS = bevel of Servicc, see = seconds Note: Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Results of the analysis show the intersection of Haskell Street and W. Pine Street continues to operate acceptably (within performance standards) with additional traffic from the proposed development. 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 95th percentile queue lengths under design year 2018 build conditions. Queue lengths were rounded up to the nearest 25 feet (single vehicle length) and reported in Table 11 for traffic movements during the a.m. peak hour under build and mitigated build conditions. Table i I — Design Year 2018 Build 95`h Percentile Queue Lengths —A.M. Peak Hour J 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/I'hrough/Right 525 125 75 Eastbound Left 150 175* l00 Eastbound Through/Right 425 800* 250 Westbound Left 150 I00 75 Westbound Through 375 175 150 Westbound Right 275 100 100 Note: Exceeded queue lengths are shown in bold, italic * Queue lengths affected 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 324 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 eastbound 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 a.m. peak hour. This is expected to reduce when the third railroad crossing at Twin Creeks is in place in November of 2017. It will be fully mitigated when a second eastbound through lane on Pine Street at OR 99 is implemented. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information regarding this letter. Sincerely, 1{ �o-- icci PE, PTOE Sou -mall O-R-uCom TAmSP0-2TATIOH -Lwm-u-wm LK Attachments, Count Data, Crash Data Traffic Volume Development Synchro Output/SimTraffic Output Supporting Data Cc: L Client 53 OF OREGON WS t Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC I Fellows Annexation Traffic Analysis I July 10, 201719 325 ATTACHMENTS 326 North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles Saadiew oaf" Jwrepadau" FargliirRM&V, AM A(&4"4 Vs. 97504 Groups Printed- Unshifted File Name : Pine-Haskell—Tues Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/21/2017 Page No ;1 327 S, Haskell St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St From North From East From South From West Start rune ,Left Thru ; _ - Rgft Peds _ _ Aw,rm , _ Lett Thru rqn R' t Peds Marmp ; Leff , ThN ; .. Peds A w ; Left _..--- j ThN RipiK - Pods ; . . .or rer w roux 12 25 20 1 58 0 0 10 O 1 O 1 53 1 0 55 161 Total 35 1 2 0 _38 38 12 25 20 1 6-8 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;15AM 83 1 7 0 91 4 37 52 1 94 2 1 8 0 11 12 82 0 1 95 291 07:30 AM 140 2 10 5 157 3 36 56 2 97 1 4 28 2 35' 15 83 1 20 119 408 _QT45Rei [i : 120_ 2 13 _ 5 _ 14Q, _19 86- --42 3_ J30_ 0 3 20 Q 23: 12 2 �3- - - 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 38 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 0 121 1 95 1 1 98 279 WAS AM 47 2 3 0 _52 20 44 27 2 93 3 2 12 1 12 152 1 3 57 200 Total 254 5 18 5 287 50 166 121 2 339 6 6 51 4 _ 67 6 296 6 8 316 1009 Grand Tatar 682 11 51 18 762 94 367 307 9 777 10 14 131 6 161 52 672 11 52 787 2487 Apprch % 89.5 14 67 2.4 12.1 47.2 39.5 1.2 6.2 6.7 81A 3.7 6.6 65.4 1.4 6.6 Total % 27.4 0.4 2.1 0.7 30.6 3.8 14.6 12.3 0.4 31 2 0.4 0.6 5.3 0,2 6.5 2.1 27 0.4 2.1 316 327 soadew 0 SwwQadaMn &ngbwe b*, RXe Ata4 xd, Uj, 97504 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 : 2/21/2017 Page No : 2 328 S. Haskell St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine 5t 357 aAi•1 1a From North From East Righl Pwl 1.^1t Peds From South 4 F From West start Left Thru Right Peds Left Thr Rig Ped App. t_etf Thr Rig Ped APP• Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int. Time NoAh �.�„ u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:15 AM to 08:00 AM - Peak 1 of 1 i W � m Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: a n belt.,.aI 'r rsnl RI9h1_ Peds W 1' AM 0715AM 0775AM 93 a7:1f.W In-`!i'Hour:C; is AM .0 ll "' 83 1 7 0 91 4 37 52 1 94 2 I 6 0 1 i 12 82 U i 95 +15 mires. 140 2 10 5 157 3 36 56 2 97 1 4 28 2 35 15 83 1 20 119 +30 mins. 120 2 13 5 140 19 66 42 3 130 0 3 20 0 23 12 89 2 23 126 +45 mires, 71 3 9 2 85 13 38 30 0 81 0 1 21 2 24 2 90 a 3 98 row vow w 414 8 39 12 473 39 177 180 6 402 3 9 77 4 93 41 344 6 47 438 U apP soler 87.5 1.7 8.2 2.5 9.7 44 44.8 1.5 3.2 8.7 82.8 43 94 78.5 1.4 107 PHF .739 667 750 600 753' .513 .670 .804 .500 .773 _375 .563 888 500 664 .683 .956 .500 .511 .669 328 HB" st In - Peak Four, 07:15 AM 473 357 aAi•1 1a Righl Pwl 1.^1t Peds 4 F Peak Hour Data M A -;0 6 2 NoAh ^r Y U'w ft'. ulUl Y i W � m a n belt.,.aI 'r rsnl RI9h1_ Peds 9 n: 4 93 In-`!i'Hour:C; is AM 328 Sad&= ourx 5w"PoXta k& F.+wireex&q, jue Ai[ 4"d, Cc 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 : 1 Groups Printed- UnshiMed 329 S. Haskell St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St From North_ _ From East From South From West Start TImB Left _ Thru R4h� P_ qg# _ Pp, _ Left_ . Thru RVA _ Peds pp Ted . Left _ Thru ; Rktd Peds , Am T� Left , Thru _ RI 1 Pie ti„ rar M� Tc_w 07:00 AM 43 0 2 1 46 9 35 19 0 63 0 0 14 0 14 3 49 1 0 53 176 07:15 AM' 75 1 3 1 80 4 38 56 0 98 2 2 7 0 11 11 78 0 0 89 278 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 13 6 140 11 6814p 1 3 18 0 22 10 91 1_ 14_ Total 391 5 30 13 429 33 162 185 4 984 4 7 75 0 86 42 306 - _ 4 _ 38 _118:_ 3901 _da8, 1288 08:00 AM 90 1 4 4 99 15 41 32 0 88 0 0 9 1 10 3 85 2 5 951 292 08:15 AM 55 2 3 0 60 5 30 28 0 63 0 1 15 0 16 3 52 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 08-45 AM 63 1 2 2 68 10 n Q_ 7_2 1 0 8 3 12_ 3 5n 1. 81 Total 274 4 14 7 299 38 . - 137 111 0 286 2 2 43 5 52 4 252 ___ 4 13 _ 278 _3 915 Grand Total 655 9 44 20 728 71 299 296 4 670 6 9 118 5 138 51 558 8 51 668 2204 Apprch % 90 1.2 6 2.7 10.6 44.6 442 0.6 4.3 6.5 85.5 3,6 7.6 83.5 1.2 7.6 Total % 29.7 0.4 2 0,9 33 3.2 13,6 13A 0,2 30,4 0.3 0.4 5.4 0.2 6.3 2.3 25.3 04 2.3 30.3 329 soadmewf" .TwmpadaUm &9buwd4p, AM Asq"d, &L 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 :2 330 S. Haskell St E. Pine St S_ Haskell St E_ Pine St From North From Earst Mofit I'hru Left Peds From South From West Start Left I Thru Right Peds A�, T.. Left Thr ' Rig' Ped Apjo� Left Thr R'U Ped APP' i Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int. Timer u, ht- s; Total U ht s i Total U hi s_i Total Total Peak Hour AnSysis From 07:15 AM to 08:00 AM -Peak br Peak Huw far Each Approach Begins at. Ift T"L_ r4w POP T 01A I AM 0715 AM 07 15 Am In - Peak Hour- W., IS AM X.Lkj, OT13A .0,1". 75 1 3 1 80, 4 38 56 0 98 2 2 7 0 11 11 78 0 0 89 +15 mins. 145 1 12 5 163 i 9 21 52 1 83 1 2 36 0 39 18 88 2 24 132 1 +30 rdns. 118 3 13 6 140 11 68 58 3 140 1 3 18 0 22 10 91 1 14 116 90 1 4 4 99 15 41 32 0 88 a 0 9 1 10 3 85 2 —5— AA Tow vdLm 428 6 32 16 482 36 168 148 4 469 4 7 70 1 82 42 342 5 43 432 % App. TOW 68 8 1 2 66 3.3 9.5 41.1 48.4 1 49 8,5 B5.4 12 9.7 79x2 1.2 10 PHF .738 500 615 667 739 650 618 853 333 730 500 .583 .486 250 525 .583 940 62.5 Ak 330 S. Haskell S6 In - PakhM 15 AM Mofit I'hru Left Peds Peak Hour Data 4 North UnOtted- 9 5 br Ift T"L_ r4w POP T In - Peak Hour- W., IS AM X.Lkj, 330 Soadm Vag" gw"poxtal f" F ns, "e Af &gAwd, 0L 97504 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- UnshiRed 331 S. Haskell E. Pine St S. Haskell E. Pine St _From North From East From South From West 3rt Time. Lett _ Thru ; Blob! i Po. vp rem , Left_ Thfu Rlpi Pu&% _ A p Too. 14ft , Th(U Ri Poo : awTr : Left Thru Rig7i Peds r� ni rcWi 07:00 AM 35 2 2 1 40 15 30 19 1 65 1 0 13 0 14 3 58 0 1 62 181 07:15 AM 83 7 4 2 96 5 35 51 0 91 0 2 19 0 21 9 73 1 0 83 j 291 07:30 AM 136 3 16 7 162 2 42 62 0 106 0 3 23 0 26 17 90 4 15 1261 420 Q7:45AM _ 122 3 . _ 18,_ _ _ 3 14(3 13 55 50 3 121 1 1 23 5 30 15 3 23__ 133 ! 0 Total 376 15 40 13 444 35 162 182 4 383 2 6 M 5 91 44 _92_ 313 8 _ 39 _ 404 i 1322 08:00 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 17 0 19 4 61 2 3 70 227 08:30 AM 70 0 1 2 73 5 38 36 0 79 0 0 12 0 12 1 105 1 1 108 272 Q8:4$ AM_t 40 _ 3 2_10 0 12 1 1 _ 1 82 _ 22$ Total: 241 4 12 15 272 44 162 144 0 350 2 3 58 2 63 13 309 8 7 337 r 1022 Grand Total; 617 19 52 28 716 79 324 326 4 733 4 9 134 7 1541 57 622 16 46 741 2344 Apprch % 662 2.7 7.3 3,9 10.8 44.2 44.5 0.5 2.6 5.8 87 45 I 7.7 93 9 2.2 6.2 Total % 26.3 0.8 2.2 12 30.5 3.4 13.8 13.9 0.2 31.3 0.2 04 5.7 03 6.6 2.4 26.5 0.7 2 31.6 331 Soadm a 9,caliltOP044riM &V&601141111111#, JUe A&4md, Cc 97504 North-South: S. Haskell St File Name : Pine-Haskell—Thursday East-West: E. Pine St 07: 15 AM Site Code : 00000003 Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Start Date : 2/23/2017 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No :2 S. Haskell E. Pine St S. Haskell E. Pine st From North From East From South From West Start Left Thrn Right Peds Left Thr Rig Ped App. lift Thr Rig PBI App Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int. AVA Tab Time I u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:15 AM to 08:00 AM - Peak t of 1 P"e How ig 940 AR~. 0®gin® at: _ 07: 15 AM In - PeA Flan, 07715 AM 07: 15 AM 498 0715 AM 07:15 AM Right Thru t.aA Peds +0 mins. 83 7 4 2 96 5 35 51 0 91 0 2 19 0 21 9 73 1 0 83 +15 mins. 136 3 16 7 162. 2 42 62 0 106 0 3 23 0 26 17 90 4 15 126 +30 mins.• 122 3 18 3 146 13 55 50 3 121 1 1 23 5 30 15 92 3 23 133 +45 mins. 72 0 7 13 92 10 36 39 0 85 0 1_ 17 2 20 7 84 4 2 97 Tomevdw-" 413 13 45 25 496 30 168 202 - 3 403: _ _ 1 7 _ 82 - _ 7 _ 97 48 339 12 40 439 %A1>$ U 1.83.3 2.6 9.1 5 7.4 41.7 50.1 0.7 1 72 84.5 7.2 10.9 77_2 2.7 - 9.1 _- _ P_HF I ;75 _,464 - ,§2 - 481 - _-;765;_577 — - 764_ — Al 250 .833 250 .583 .881 .350 .808 _ .706 .921 750 .435 :825 332 In - PeA Flan, 07715 AM 498 Right Thru t.aA Peds 4 - LI, Peak Hour Data ♦ 12 *� 2 North -2 p CE AW 'CS a - oal � la m w r► Ihru ..PJgh t_J'2dD AL 7 �7J In - Peak l-Wur: 07:15 AM 332 North-South: S. Haskell Street East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles s a .Medmd, ON. 975M Groygs Prints¢--Unah"ftq File Name : Haskell -Pine Site Code : 00000005 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No : 1 333 S. Haskell St E. Pine St S. Haskell St E. Pine St From North From East From South From West $lart Time Left Thru Rigra Peds ,M uw Left, Thru _ wgrd_ i Peds • �„ *Kr Left Thru lighl Peds wo. rew Left Thru Righl Peds ,� ma .Ins rw.l 02:00 PAA 39 3 3 3 48 8 36 38 0 82 2 4 5 T 12 6 37 4 0 47 189 02:15 PM 91 1 14 26 132 ; 9 61 70 1 141 2 1 8 3 14 6 54 1 2 63 350 02:30 PM 77 1 10 6 94 1 13 63 76 0 152 4 0 13 0 171 5 64 1 0 70 333 02:45 PM 60 0_ 3 0 63 ;_ 19 58 0 139 4 3 11 2 20 2 51 0 4. 57 278 Total! 267 5 30 _ _ 35 _ - 337' _ 49 _,.02 _ 222 _ 242 1 514 12 8 37 $ 63 19 206 6 6 237 1151 03:00 PM 44 2 1 2 49 8 73 48 1 130 ' 2 2 13 0 171 2 57 0 6 64 260 03:15 PM 59 0 7 2 68 11 61 59 3 134 2 1 15 0 186 67 2 0 75 295 03:30 PM 52 1 3 1 57 22 79 54 1 156 1 2 16 0 19, 0 76 2 0 78i 310 (18.46 PM 66 0 6 0 72, 25 105 7�-- M' Q g 1V Q I7 ' 2 I 2- ILI .' Total ! 221 3 17 5 246 i - 66 - 318 233 --1 6 . 623 I 5 7 59 0 -- 71 1 10 - -§- 266 _ 5 _ 7 288 t _63 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 i 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 PAA . 42-- 0 -- - 1 _ _ Q _ _34 i- 9 , 107 71- Q. 187 � 1 7 0 _ _ 9 4 47 - 2. 1 54 . 293 1 r�lal 209 1 9 4 223 55 413 280 11 759 5 3 -- 39 0 47 9 240 3 1 260 1289 05:00 PM . 61 0 1 0 62 16 95 85 0 196 `r 1 2 26 1 30 5 49 2 4 60 348 0515 PM 51 1 3 0 65 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 {}5:45 PM 43 0. 2 0 45 -9 %- 1 1U 2 0 10 4 3 -- .1 _--- Q ` 181 Total i 211 1 8 3 223 j 59 -0 402 305 9 775 6 3 65 7 -L 81 - 11 ---41 228 6 . 4 248 1, 1327 Grand ToM ! 908 10 64 47 1029 229 13m toes 27 2671 28 21 200 13 262 49 947 19 18 1033 4995 Appreh % 88.2 1 6.2 4.6 8.6 50.7 39.7 1 10.7 8 76.3 5 4.7 91,7 1.8 1.7 TOW % 18.2 0.2 1.3 0.9 20.6 4.6 27.1 21.2 0.5 53.5 0.6 04 4 03 5.2 1 19 0.4 0.4 20,7 333 SOUMM owfom 5wMpoda ffen F.tIFUCOrAV, d ee Atedp.. V& 97504 North-South: S. Haskell Street File Name : Haskell -Pine East-West: E. Pine Street Site Code : 00000005 Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Start Date : 2/23/2017 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No : 2 334 S. Haskell St S. Haskell St E. Pine St E. Pine St From North From East Start Left Thn7 RW Pads.,, rte, Left Thr Rig Ped Time Left Thr Rig u ht s Peak Hour Analysis From 03:45 PM to 04:30 PM - Peak i of 1 u; N s -I Pe* Hor_NrEgo _AA ro _ftf§s -- - M s ii 07:45 PM - - - 203 + 03 45 PM 0 :03-45 PY 17 03:45 PN 2 +0 mins. 66 0 6 0 72 25 105 72 1 +15 mins. 63 0 3 2 68 18 106 64 2 +30 mins. 55 1 4 2 62 14 102 72 4 .+4¢_r0ins. ; _ 49 Q 1 Q 50 14 08 3 Total Volume 7 233 _-- 1 14 4 252 71 _79 411 281 12 %NV. TAM : 92.5 0.4 5.6 1.6_', 4 9.2 53 36.3 15 PHF 683 250 683 540 .875 7s0 989 862 600 334 S. Haskell St E. Pine St From South From West App. Leq Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int Total a u; N s -I Total S. 16} _, g u M s Total Total - - - 203 + 03 45 PM 0 2 15 0 17 03:45 PN 2 66 1 2 71 190 2 1 13 0 16 3 65 0 0 68 192 0 0 9 0 9 1 69 0 0 70 190 2 1_ -- .]Q _ _Q 121 W 1 0 68 775 4 4 47 0 55 7 266 2 2 277 7.3 7.3 85.5 0 2.5 M 07 07 .954 .509 .500 783 MO 809 .583 .864 -500 .250 .975 334 3. H= 11 In - Peak Now. 03:45 PM RlON Th=u COR Peds i ► Peak Hour Data a M1 1' S. 16} _, g i mom �;y; i �- . -2y -— .; r IL T 4' Len Thru algin Piggs 41 4 47 0 $5. In - Peak Flour fltS-45 PM 334 North-South: OR 99 East-West: E. Pine Street Weather: Overcast, 45 deg Veh Type: All Vehicles (Thurs) .Alay4 rdo 04 97504 QN9f!kPri_nted- Unahftd File Name : E Pine—OR 99—AM Site Code : 00000004 Start Date : 2/23/2017 Page No : 1 335 OR 99 E. Pine St OR 99 E. Pine St From North- .. From East From South From West $tt3R lime Lei.: ThN ;. Rpt ;Perla Thru rtot Perla IgR Thru Rk}+! Peea Left Thru nkjht Peds �� ..� ni rar 07:00 AM 3 28 16 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 47 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 07:45 AM 7 - ,.69, ._ .25- . ,._4 .-105 ..45_ __72 13 2 132 41 $Q 2 134 54 118 67 0 237 608 Total 28 190 66 4 308 138 200 31 2 371 130 182 87 3 402 146 422 182 4 764 4845 08:00 AM 14 54 15 0 83 34 45 16 0 95 28 53 27 2 110 38 104 46 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 62 45 0 199 501 52 _ .. 11 1 1_V 7A 65 29 0-- 118 27 52 105 ' 444 Total 52 209 80 1 342 164 192 45 _ 1 402 81 246 113 2 - 4421 171 _ _ 312 - ------1 146 5 _ 634 1820 Grand Total 80 399 166 5 650 302 392 76 3 773 211 428 200 5 844 317 734 338 9 1398 3665 Appreh % 12.3 81.4 25.5 0.8 39.1 50.7 9.8 04 25 50,7 23.7 0.6 1 22.7 52.5 24.2 0.6 Total % ' 2.2 10,9 4.5 0.1 17.7 i 8.2 10.7 2.1 01 21.1 5.8 117 5.5 0.1 23 8.6 20 9.2 0.2 38.1 335 SdUd0W a gwMp leauss , ,epee ,Ate4md, (fix. 97604 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 OR 99 E Pine St OR W E Pine St From North From East From South From West Start Thr Rig Ped App. Thr Rig Ped App- Thr Rig Ped , App. Int. Time Left Thru RPV Res Left Left u ht s Total Left u ht s Total LER 0 ht s Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:15 AM to 08:00 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at 336 01'%AM OR 99 fn - Peek Y{gyr 07-15 AM 0713W 344 o} klA __��1.�{ .--:/.� m -0Aµ kighl Thru Len Peds >0 mins. 7 3L 17 0 58 37 47 5 0 138 32 43 14 1 90 33 84 36 2 1G5 +15 mina. 11 58 28 0 97 35 44 9 0 88 38 49 23 0 1110 42 140 62 1 245 +30 mins. 7 69 25 4 105 45 72 13 2 132 41 80 31 2 134 54 116 67 0 237 +45 ming. U 54 15 0 83 34 45 16 0 95 28 53 27 2 110 3a 104 46 3 191 Toil von,me 39 21B 85 4 344 151 208 43 2 404 134 205 95 5 444 167 454 291 6 838 App Tow 113 62.8 24-7 1 2 37.4 51.5 t0.6 0.5 31.3 46-2 214 1 1 19.9 54.2 25-2 0.7 PHF 696 ,783 759 .250 819 839 722 .672 250 7B5 .848 .854 -766 -625 .829 .773 .811 787 500 .855 336 OR 99 fn - Peek Y{gyr 07-15 AM 344 __��1.�{ .--:/.� kighl Thru Len Peds � r Peak Hour Data r North m fryer 77 ��E It (. 2 d Uj i�� 113 N L®R rdru Right ftls 1391 los fly 5 444 In - Peak MMOT:15 AM 336 � ! � § \ f � , � 4 \ \ § N if § if | ` f 9 J g Q q R§ it Q h] h§ § q q q t� t§ t§ t§ |j�t§ t/■t§ , »; #: #I q! § § 1 ( §° )|) §� fl|||;! §t §# |!;; 337 338 d d d A rote 1,11 1.13 Ul 0 .11 3.11 $e l ti® gig gig gig g58 3aa 119 sz ,s em T T J L- A L. J L. A L. z� Is. vee IN. h -a Ida Ida emi Ida �Ytl $']� kr ftltl 50 ��Ytl YY �tltl YY �tlY IY �YY IY 338 I N e -i STOZ-AON STOZ-daS STOZ-(n r i - StOt Aew STOZ-,eW STOZ-Uer I � btOZ-daS bTOZ-Inf bTOZ-AEW } ' bTOZ-Jeal ' VTOZ-uer f £TOZ-AO N £TOZ-das ! ETOZ-ini ETOZ-Aeyy . ETOZ-Jew £TOZ-uef ZTOZ-AON ZiOZ•daS ZtOZ-1nr f ZTOt-Aeyy ZTOZ-Jeal ZTOZ•uer TTOZ-nvN TTOZ-daS TTOZ�Inr j TTOZ-AEW TTOZ-JeW j I TTOZ-uef o0 kq I: N O O O O C s84sea:);0 JagwnN 339 2 a O ti O 11% *ell 9 Yr t0 u1 .4, M N saysej„o jagwnN 340 'i O a �d 7d N� � I Gf�fA J� C' did I 7p P� d d �d Q/ APO Pd b 110, ,oPdy .w � b C O O 6 O y io a o u o 0 a in 0 Z I a i v Z i — I I I I � I I 1 , I Jii 0 � II I LL .j 1 1 i •i � O1 00 LO u'1 M N sa4seJ3;o aagwnN 341 a shown in the table should be flagged for further analysis. Exhibit 4-1 Intersection Crash Rates per MEV by Land Type and Traffic Control CnI�rCQ' �1. ��ls1ellt tll SIsIl�WIEI' IIS+.?•�1l�•il li It !'t 11 H'H1�1�Le'. FHWA_OR-Rf)-1R Portland ,�talP_. University and Oregon State University, June 2011, Table 4. 1, p. 47- A -Calculator has 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 Deeds: Existing Year Annual Average Daily Entering Traffic Volumes Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 4-5 Last Updated 12/2014 342 Rural 1 Urban 3SG 3ST 4SG 4ST 3SG 3ST 4SG 4ST No. of Intersections 7 115 20 60 55 77 106 60 Mean Crash Rate 0.226 0.196 0.324 0.434 0.275 0.131 0.477 0.198 Median Crash Rate 0.163 0.092 1 0.320 0.267 1 0.252 0.105 0.420 0.145 Standard Deviation 0.185 0.314 0.223 0.534 1 0.155 0.121 0.273 0.176 Coefficient of Variation 0.819 1.602 0.688 1.230 0.564 0.924 0.572 0.889 90 Percentile Rate 0.464 0,475 0.579 1.080 0.509 0.293 0.860 0.408 CnI�rCQ' �1. ��ls1ellt tll SIsIl�WIEI' IIS+.?•�1l�•il li It !'t 11 H'H1�1�Le'. FHWA_OR-Rf)-1R Portland ,�talP_. University and Oregon State University, June 2011, Table 4. 1, p. 47- A -Calculator has 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 Deeds: Existing Year Annual Average Daily Entering Traffic Volumes Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 4-5 Last Updated 12/2014 342 343 O O rn CEJ r'F1 CA I'f'i �i �• �,c!,•� Q O o�a�M r-- M ---i M CV JOM M 61 C�f�CaQ�r�L QL1C-�C�LaC� aC .o :� o 0 0 0 •� 0 0 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � � sn o 0 0 o pp © 0 o 0 o 0 c 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • " M v v� n oo O O r• 00 O� O 00 Q\ 0 4 r • , 00 kc p O •p 00 O O p O C Q O O G5 • 0 p 0 p 0 0 Qri9 C7 M Cb.O .-, v Cf) C`1 00 M V-) N C— N O• N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N . r u m i Y U ^ � C m i r•� I /Mo i � x i I O u +� e� c3 o C--1 x O d � oI , e>d U �, u •+ rr�0� ami H x �' U w 4o-4 4; o 000 � � wz w� a oaoo w 4. 0 0 4�n a 4.. 00 46 04, ►I.�1 .6%J! O G �U4.7l O O fJJ rJ��J��' �a�0 �0 �a70.'I �a9 iGQl7l iGrnV m Cd UG7Jl iUn m m c4 V47] o o G a {r '� ter+ G.7 fJ� rAm w U VI Lri t/1 Vl �i V1 G E : N p 0 %D N V) 0 0 v1 0 N 0 N 0 iri 0 V% 0 fV 0 , C',(4 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 C 1 G 'f x, o. �c \0 C•I r--. rn t-- 0 07 o M N %D 0 00 V -0 M r— G1 M GO U7 O a r--- r— N --t v) r� vy M .-+ r� o0 mN d Vl Ci rna; o� ri ri o -; r•itr of vi 00 a� a =r rt t �t =t It ct It In Lr, C�1 10 C•t \O C 1 � C1 1-0\O hl C'1 \10 N 110 (-•1 kc\0 C -I C) V7 MM to � M 0o M ��s M �D M %D M 110 M 10 M 1.0 M <o M �p M %D m 0 p O O O O O O O O O O k O O Cep j 344 ODOT Future Volume Table 2013 2035 Growth Rate / Year 99 at Scenic 7200 10,100 1.015 OR 99 at Beall 14,400 20,100 1.015 TWIN CREEKS CROSSING IMPACT: Re-routed Traffic from Twin Creeks Railroad Crossing AM Peak Hour. Approximately 15% SB increase on OR 99 or 50 trips reductior. on Haskell Street atPine (-50 SBL) Approximately 12% NB increase on OR 99 or 65 trip reduction on Pine at Haskell (40 WSR, -25 WBT) PM Peak Hour. Approximately 12% SB increase on OR 99 or 45 trip reduction on Haskelf Street at Pine (•45 58L) Approximately 21 % NB increase on OR 99 or 115 trip reduction on Pine at Haskell (-85 MR. -50 WST) 345 346 g E G C 2 21 e O� � • %� R ' ..L $ � ii 3 g y n� g Yw p'' Kt, Q C•" pi:. $«' 3 Ii f:I 32 1 R K . I 90 'Io R� � o Q B 5 r a 0 � o 346 347 �_� �$! ,© ■Ee .� . R e 9a -- IF ) ©•© ! . � - a : � ■ ; : - ■ ; / . - § z ��|- � .■2|� !.!2 - < ,��t. �� .�! L: �• .� �,.■ �� !# § / RR ;R -1 | \ !, . ■ _ .. !r 0■ ® ■§e } ..� ' #|r . ■ ■ i - - ■ ; ! | ■ ! '-| k ■4 -�■ �¥ a Ee 3 |` ||� r -■�)� ��!$\ ; `��k� � �e R -.c ■® ; e ,�r a - � �■ �, ) ! ! � $ § } ! ! y 7 |! ! !| \ 347 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 54: E Pine St & Front 0310912017 h 10 r l '0( t. Movement rNBL INaT NSR 55L SST 58R NEL NET NER SWL STJT S'WR Lane Configurations fl, `i i' 'S T r ti. Traffic Volume (vph) 140 205 95 40 220 85 180 510 225 150 210 45 Future Volume (vph) 140 205 95 40 220 85 180 510 225 150 210 45 Ideal Flow (vphpq 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util, Factor 1,00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1,00 0.97 1.00 1,00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1dt0 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 1699 1420 1568 3008 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1568 2810 1511 3107 1359 930 1699 1420 262 3008 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 169 241 114 48 265 102 217 614 271 181 253 54 RTOR Reduction (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 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 4 5 5 4 2 6 6 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 3 9 3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 13% 8% 10% 7% 7% 2% 3% 2% 6% 8% 4% Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.1 21.9 7.0 148 14.8 53.2 41.2 41.2 53.4 41.3 Effective Green, g (s) 141 22.9 7.0 15.8 15.8 53.2 41.2 41.2 53.4 41.3 Actuated g/C 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 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) 222 648 106 494 216 583 705 589 300 1252 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.11 0.03 0.09 0.05 c0.36 c0,07 0.10 vis Ratio Perm 0.0 f 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, dl 40.9 33.1 44.3 38.3 35.5 12.3 26.6 19,8 18.6 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 B B Approach Delay (s) 40.7 39.8 28.5 19.0 Approach LOS D D C 8 InteneGtion Summary _ HCM 2000 Control 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 Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 348 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 03/09/2017 Movement SEL - SER NWL NWT NVVR NEL NET NER SWL 5U1(i SWR Lane Configurations -�� _W,, A 0.14 .f, c0.44 's Gv 0.06 's R If Traffic Volume (vph) 450 15 50 1 10 90 50 370 15 35 180 220 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 30.9 19.6 4,0 18.1 4.0 4.0 A 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 Approach Delay (s) 1.00 8.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 C 0.97 B 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Fipb, ped/bikes 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 1.00 1,00 0,85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1615 1462 1470 1623 1685 1620 1549 1405 Fit Permitted 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1225 1462 1469 944 1685 408 1549 1405 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 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 Reduction (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 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 vehicles (%i 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.9 42.9 42.9 26A 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 Effective Green, g (s) 42.9 42.9 42.9 26A 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 Actuated 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 6dension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Capjvph) 679 811 815 322 575 139 529 479 v/s Ratio Prot c Critical Lane Group 0.04 c0.27 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.44 0.05 0.06 0.10 0,06 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.06 0.09 0.19 0.80 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 Delay (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 B B B Approach Delay (s) 18.5 8.1 29.5 18.9 Approach LOS B A C B iniersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 21,1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity 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 Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 349 Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 54: E Pine St & Front 03113/2017 0) t r 10 l J'W/ r A,' L Movement NBL NBT NBR _ SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NEfj,-. - xSM. - -SSC _ Lane Configurations 41" '` fit' 4 IN 'I ?11• Traffic Volume (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 13C 465 60 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 4,0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 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 0.98 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3053 1630 3260 1410 1630 1716 1428 1630 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 (Perm) 1630 3053 1630 3260 1410 492 1716 1428 440 3198 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 255 406 188 73 219 120 115 370 141 135 4 r 62 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 37 0 0 0 91 0 0 83 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 557 0 73 219 29 115 370 58 135 539 0 Confi. Peds. (#/hr) 14 14 14 14 1 1 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 3 9 3 Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm pm+pt NA Pert pm+pt NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.9 26.1 7.8 19.0 19,0 31.5 21.8 21.8 30.9 21.5 Effective Green, g (s) 14.9 27.1 7.8 20.0 &0 31.5 21,8 21.8 30.9 21.5 Actuated g/C 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 v/s Ratio Prot W.16 c0,18 0.04 0.07 0.04 c0.22 c0.05 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.09 0.04 012 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.55 0.47 0.28 0,09 0.36 0.81 0.15 0.45 0.64 Uniform belay, d1 32.6 22.5 95,2 25.2 24.0 17.2 28.2 23.1 18.3 26.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 Incremental Delay, d2 22.0 1.0 1.7 0.4 0.2 0.5 10.4 0.1 0.6 1.5 Delay (s) 54.6 23.6 36.9 25.5 24.2 17.7 38.6 23,2 19.1 28.4 Level of Service D C D C C B D C 8 C Approach Delay (s) 32.9 27.2 31.3 26,6 Approach LOS C C C C interseafion Summ-n HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C 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 350 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 03/1312017 Movement _SEL_ SET SER NWL NVVT NWR NAL NET_ NER SWT SWR Lane Configurations R t+ v/s Ratio Penn c0.22 4. 0.02 'L k _SWL 'f R Y 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 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 A A 4.0 A 4.0 4.0 9.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 B A 1.00 A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 9.2 1.00 1.00 A 1.00 1,00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Sum of lost time (s) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.86 61.8% ICU Level of Service 0.89 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1614 1471 Synchro 9 Report 1494 1652 1681 1597 1699 1396 Flt Permitted 0,72 1.00 0.99 0.39 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1216 1471 1481 683 1681 928 1699 1396 Peals -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 094 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 271 1 16 5 5 53 11 309 2 80 473 324 RTCR 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 Confl, Peds. (Whr) 4 4 12 2 2 12 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (% 3% 0% 0% 1)% 0% 4% 0% 4% 0% 4% 3% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 B 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 14.2 14.2 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 14,2 14.2 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0,34 0.34 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 416 503 506 317 781 431 790 649 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.18 c0.28 v/s 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 0,60 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 11.6 9.0 9.2 6.0 7.3 6.5 8.2 6.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 6.1 7.5 6.7 9.3 6.8 Level of Service B A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 14.5 9.2 7.5 8.1 Approach LOS B A A A Intersecl,on Summa HCM 2000 Control 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 Capacity Utilization 61.8% ICU Level of Service B 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 2 351 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build. AM Peak Hour 03/1112017 Summary of All Intervals Run NUMW 1 2 3 4 5. Avg 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 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 Vehs Entered 2925 29M 2923 3027 3007 2974 Vehs Exited 2947 3037 2941 3037 3023 2997 Starting Vehs 80 106 75 79 77 80 Ending Vohs 58 64 57 69 61 59 Travel Distance (mi) 1006 1012 996 1032 1029 1015 Travel Time (hr) 77.5 76.7 72.2 96.4 83.8 81.3 Total Delay (hr) 38.9 37.8 34.0 56.7 44.1 42.3 Total Stops 3851 3846 3656 4205 3966 3907 Fuel Used (gal) 45.1 45.5 14 n 50.5 47.6 46.5 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Tune 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by FHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recordin Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 13 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 831 832 767 813 808 810 Vehs Exited 814 794 764 766 755 780 Starting Vehs 80 106 75 79 77 80 Ending Vehs 97 144 78 126 130 112 Travel Distance (mi) 285 277 272 268 269 274 Travel 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 352 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03/11/2017 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Numl}er 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 2094 2163 2156 2214 2199 21 G7 Vehs Exited 2133 2243 2177 2271 2268 2219 Starting Vehs 97 144 78 126 130 112 Ending Vehs 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 28A Total Stops 2725 2639 2511 3093 2798 2756 Fuel Used (gal) 31.9 32.1 31.0 37.7 34.6 33.5 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 353 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03111/2017 Intersection: 48: E Pine St & 2nd Movement SE NW NE t,iE 3J: S4,i Directions Served LTR LTR LT TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 78 103 69 90 112 64 Average Queue (ft) 39 43 20 15 37 4 95th Queue (ft) 61 79 54 63 85 29 Link Distance (ft) 354 346 233 259 259 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 Intersection: 51: E Pine St & 1st me+it SE NW NE SW SW Directions Served LT R L; R LTR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 60 103 166 93 126 Average Queue (ft) 28 44 28 22 15 95th Queue (ft) 56 81 108 67 74 Link Distance (ft) 313 295 221 233 233 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 354 SimTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03/11/2017 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movement Ne NB NB S8 SS SB SB NE NE NE SW SW Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 224 298 231 117 189 157 104 203 317 125 194 233 Average Queue (ft) 114 96 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 (ft) 316 316 327 327 222 222 221 221 Upstream Blk The 1 0 0 39 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 1 178 0 8 Storage Bay 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 Movement SW Directions Served TR Maximum Queue (ft) 150 Average Queue (ft) 112 95th Queue (ft) 178 Link Distance (ft) 323 Upstream Blk Time (%) 109 Queuing Penalty (veh) 12 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 Intersection: 57: E Pine St & Amy Movement tys NE 14E I% &N Directions Served R T TR T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 49 125 323 143 109 Average Queue (ft) 12 67 206 11 7 95th Queue (ft) 39 166 383 69 52 Link Distance (ft) 247 276 222 222 Upstream Blk Time (%) 8 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 78 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 24 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 111 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 355 SimTraffic Report Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 03/11/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement Sz SE 14W NE NE SW SW 34N 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 69 59 95th Queue (ft) 762 167 86 172 671 84 169 113 Link Distance (ft) 1332 1332 386 Queuing Penalty (veh) 929 276 276 Upstream Blk Time (%) Network Summary Storage Bay Inst (ft) 2 Network wide Queuing Penalty: 572 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis 1 0 0 SimTratfic Report 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 1 0 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 40 0 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 21 0 4 Intersection: 64: Front & Oak moyerwat IN as r'.a 86 S5 cg 9W i7iractts Served T TR LT 35 T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 39 28 51 36 56 78 Average Queue (ft) 3 1 18 2 2 39 95th Queue (ft) 27 10 49 17 24 62 Link Distance (ft) 491 491 316 316 194 Upstream Blk Tune (%) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Storage Bay Inst (ft) 50 Network wide Queuing Penalty: 572 Storage Blk Time (%) Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis 1 0 SimTratfic Report Queuing Penalty (veh:) 1 0 Intersection: 66: Front & Manzanita movement NB NB SB SB $8 SW Directions Served T TR L T T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 14 36 35 24 20 69 Average Queue (ft) 1 1 4 1 1 29 95th Queue (ft) 9 16 21 13 9 55 Link Distance (ft) 327 327 421 421 184 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 572 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis SimTratfic Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 5 356 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build Isolated Intersection Evaluation, AM Peak Hour 03/13/2017 Summary of All Intervals Ran Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time 7:05 7:05 7:05 7:05 7:05 7:05 End Time 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 8:10 Total Time (min) 85 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 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 Vehs 33 31 21 29 35 29 Travel Distance (mi) 701 729 699 723 707 712 Travel Time (hr) 34.1 35.8 34.5 35.1 35.3 35.0 Total Delay (hr) 6.5 7.0 7.1 6.7 7.4 6.9 Total Stops 922 975 943 948 990 955 Fuel Used (gal) 24.3 25.0 24.3 24.8 24.8 24.6 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:05 End Time 7:10 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recordin Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:25 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number i 2 3 4 5 A Vehs Entered 421 414 444 443 463 437 Vehs Exited 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 2.5 3.0 2.7 Total Stops 285 280 330 303 335 308 Fuel Used (gal) 7.3 6.9 7.8 7,4 8.0 7.5 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 357 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build Isolated Intersection Evaluation, AM Peak Hour 03/1312017 Interval #2 Information Recordin Start Time 7:25 End Time 8:10 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 _ _ Avg Vehs Entered 1023 1096 997 1040 _ 995 1031 Vehs bated 1028 1108 1023 1058 1010 16445 Starting Vehs 38 43 47 47 50 45 Ending Vehs 33 31 21 29 35 29 Travel Distance (mi) 494 531 482 509 483 500 Travel Time (hr) 23.5 25.7 22.9 24.2 23.4 24.0 Total Delay (hr) 4.1 4.6 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.3 Total Stops 637 695 613 645 655 648 Fuel Used (gal) 16.9 16.2 16.5 17.4 16.9 t7.2 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 358 SimTrafflc Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build Isolated Intersection Evaluation. AM Peak Hour Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement. 5E SE NW NE NE SW SW SW Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T rR 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 75 127 265 79 163 84 Link Distance (ft) 1331 1331 386 929 1457 1457 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 11 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 100 100 0 15 0 4 1 8 1 1 359 03113/2017 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 03/1212017 Summary of All Intervals Run Number r 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time ^ 7:10 _ 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8:15 6:15 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 2 Vehs Entered 2952 3008 2950 2980 3014 2980 Vehs Exited 2986 3018 2967 2988 3017 2994 Starting Vehs 87 67 82 64 68 70 Ending Vehs 53 57 65 56 65 57 Travel Distance (mi) 1008 1010 989 1014 1017 1008 Travel Tom (hr) 64.8 63.6 60.6 64.7 63.2 63.4 Total Delay (hr) 25.9 24.7 22.5 25.6 24.1 24.6 Total Stops 3337 3322 3160 3327 3308 3293 Fuel Used (gal) 43.0 42.3 41.5 42.6 42.4 42.4 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this Interval. Interval #1 Information Recordin Start rune 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3_ 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 852 809 _ 828 x853 _ 779 822 Vehs Exited 835 805 840 833 772 849 Starting Vehs 87 67 82 64 68 70 Ending Vehs 104 71 70 84 75 75 Travel Distance (mi) 297 280 288 301 267 267 Travel Time (hr) 20.4 18.2 19.0 20.6 17.6 19.2 Total Delay (hr) 9.0 7.5 7,9 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 360 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build. AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 03/12/2017 Interval #2 Information Recordina Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Humber t 2 3 4 Vehs Entered 2100 2199 2122 2127 2235 2159 Vehs Exited 2151 2213 2127 2155 2245 2179 Starting Vehs 104 71 70 84 75 75 Ending Vehs 53 57 65 56 65 57 Travel Distance (mi) 712 729 701 713 750 721 Travel Time (hr) 44.4 45.4 41.5 44.0 45.6 44.2 Total Delay (hr) 17.0 17.2 14.6 16.6 16.8 16.4 Total Stops 2271 2359 2155 2256 2379 2283 Fuel Used (gal) 30.2 30.4 29.0 29.6 31.0 30.0 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 361 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 03/12/2017 Intersection: 48: E Pine St & 2nd Movement $E NW NE NE SW $W Directions Served LTR LTR LT TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 86 95 80 85 110 38 Average Queue (ft) 37 43 28 11 29 6 95th Queue (ft) 66 74 70 48 75 30 Link Distance (ft) 354 346 234 234 259 259 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 51: E Pine St & 1st Movemernt SE P.1w NE NE SW SW Directions Served L E ft LTR LT TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 54 92 75 80 101 132 Average Queue (ft) 25 41 13 7 19 13 95th Queue (ft) 55 72 51 41 64 75 L 'Ink D srance (fl) 319 288 222 222 234 234 Upstream Bilk Time (%} 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Bilk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 362 SimTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 03/12/2017 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movemenr is _ f:S SB SB SB SB NE 14E NE SN!_ SW Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 220 271 206 108 185 136 69 200 273 296 191 226 Average Queue (ft) 102 73 64 37 83 37 35 87 162 208 82 140 95th Queue (11) 188 169 131 88 143 98 65 171 255 299 150 246 Link Distance (ft) 318 318 328 328 223 223 222 222 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 2 7 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 7 33 0 6 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 150 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0 0 4 20 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 0 11 37 20 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movement SW Directions Served TR Maximum Queue (ft) 157 Average Queue (ft) 115 95th Queue (ft) 179 LEnk Distance (ft) TR Upstream Blk Time (96) 35 Queuing Penalty (veil) 87 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 12 Intersection: 57: E Pine St & Am iaf4ilenl$nt i45 NE NE GV'J SW Directions Served R T TR T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 35 73 87 62 48 Average Queue (ft) 7 12 16 9 6 95th Queue (ft) 28 47 61 44 34 Link Distance (ft) 241 276 276 223 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 363 SimTraffic Report Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated . _ 0311212017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement SE SE N'N NE NE SW SW SW Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 321 112 91 195 284 69 181 158 Average Queue (ft) 156 20 35 36 136 27 80 59 95th Queue (ft) 277 68 68 100 246 63 155 112 Link Distance (ft) 1331 1331 373 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 929 276 276 Upstream Blk Time (%) Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 Intersection: 66: Front & Manzanita Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 13 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 7 0 2 Intersection: 64: Front & Oak Movement NB NB $8 S8 SB SW Directions Served T TR L T T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 13 38 53 14 30 82 Average Queue (ft) 1 1 18 1 1 39 95th Queue (ft) 8 14 48 9 14 64 Link Distance (ft) 491 491 26 318 318 194 Upstream Blk Time (%) 328 328 421 421 184 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 Intersection: 66: Front & Manzanita Movement Na NS SB SB 56 SW Directions Served T TR L T T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 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 Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Bfk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary _ Networkwide Queuing Penalty: 140 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 364 SimTraffic Report Page 5 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 03/09/2017 Summary of All Intervals Run Number _ _ 1 2 3 4 5 Avg _ Start Time 3:40 3:40 3:40 3.110 3:40 3:40 End Time 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 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 Vehs Entered 3044 3026 3207 2969 2972 3042 Vehs Exiled 3057 3042 3163 2975 2994 3047 Starting Vehs 61 66 51 fib 90 65 Ending Vehs 48 50 95 62 68 60 Travel Distance (mi) 923 914 964 901 920 924 Trave? Time (hr) 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 Stops 3979 3714 4496 3566 3943 3937 Fuel Used (gal) 42.7 43.0 48.1 40.9 46.2 44.2 Interval #0 Information Seedi Start Time 3:40 End Time 3:45 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth f=actors. Pio data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 3:45 End Time 4:00 Total Time (rrun) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Faclnrs. Rim lutiimber 1 2 - 3 4 Avcl Vehs Entered 858 787 682 837 �5 838 841 Vehs Exited 839 797 833 834 832 628 Starting Vehs 61 66 51 68 90 65 Ending Vehs 80 56 100 71 96 77 Travel Distance (mi) 247 229 251 248 249 245 Travel Time (hr) 18.6 16.4 19.1 19.1 23.2 19.3 Total Delay (hr) 9.0 7.5 9.4 9.5 13.6 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 SimTraffic Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 365 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 03/09/2017 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 4:00 End Time 4:45 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Run tuumbef 1 2 3 _ 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 2186 2239 2325 2132 2134 2202 Vehs Exited 2218 2245 2330 2141 2162 2220 Starting Vehs 80 56 100 71 96 77 Ending Vehs 48 50 95 62 68 60 Travel Distance (mi) 676 685 713 653 671 679 Travel Time (hr) 50.5 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 Stops 2898 2831 3414 2538 2792 2896 Fuel Used (gal) 31.3 32.6 36.4 29.3 33.4 32.6 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 366 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 03109/2017 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Rovemeni N5 N6 NB SB SS 56 SB %E hit= NE SW SW Directions 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) 180 184 158 53 80 39 42 59 220 96 73 206 95th Queue (ft) 262 375 306 101 138 100 74 109 262 168 127 279 Link Distance (ft) 316 316 327 327 222 222 221 221 Upstream Blk Time (%) 17 0 26 15 Queuing Penalty (veh) 69 1 78 49 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 150 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 32 0 0 0 54 1 28 queuing Penalty (veh) 62 0 0 0 73 2 83 Intersection: 54: E Pine St & Front Movement SW Directions Served TR Maximum Queue (ft) 152 Average Queue (ft) 135 95th Queue (tt) 180 Link Distance (ft) TR Upstream Blk Time 38 Queuing Penalty (veh) 290 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 15 Queuing Penalty (veh) 34 Intersection: 57: E Pine St & Am Movement NG NE NE S'I: it-; Directions Served R T TR T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 38 124 290 121 76 Average Queue (ft) 6 36 149 19 8 95th Queue (ft) 27 125 324 79 41 Link Distance (ft) 247 276 222 222 Upstream Blk Time (%j 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 30 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 19 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 58 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 367 SimTralc Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2017 No -Build, PM Peak Hour 03/09/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement SE SE HW NE NE SW SW SW Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum 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 Upstrea n Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 8 1 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 2 7 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Pen*: 551 Creekside Apartment Development Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 368 SimTraffic Report Page 4 NCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 07/07/2017 Movement _ _ _ _SEL SET _ SER_ N_WL _ NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations 'l` 0.12 i c0.40 '1+• 0.06 0,06 T �' 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 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1760 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 24.5 16.2 4.0 15.0 4.0 4,0 A 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 Approach Delay (s) 1.00 8.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 C 0.97 B 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,97 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Fit 1.00 0.89 0.88 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0,85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.W 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1617 1471 1471 1623 1685 1622 1549 1406 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1203 1471 1471 1043 1685 467 1549 1406 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 476 19 59 1 14 128 59 441 19 45 188 216 RTOR Reduction (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 45 188 78 Gong. Peds. (#Ihr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Confl. Bikes (#Ihr) 1 1 Heayy Vehicles % 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Penn NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 35.8 35.8 35.6 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 Actuated gIC 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 Extension W 2.5 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 c Critical Lane Group 0.03 c0.27 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 0.06 0,06 0.10 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.76 0.27 0.34 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 12.8 8.0 8.2 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 Delay (s) 17.7 8.0 8.2 15.0 24.5 16.2 16.3 15.0 Level of Service B A A B C B 8 B Approach Delay (s) 16.3 8.2 23.4 15.6 Approach LOS B A C B Interseclior. Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.3 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 Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 369 Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 07/07/2017 Movement SEL SET SER NVVL NWT NWR NEL NET HER S4VL SM SWR Lane Configurations 1' ;: It 1• R T P 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 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/bikes 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Fit 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 1,00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1622 1471 1487 1623 1685 1622 1549 1406 Fit Permitted 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 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow lvph) 47R 19 59 1 14 128 59 441 19 45 188 218 RTOR Reduction (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 45 188 78 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Confl. Bikes (Whr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles 2% 0°% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Peal NA Perm NA Perm _ NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 35.6 35.6 35.6 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 Effective Green, g (s) 35.6 35.6 35.6 24.4 24A 24.4 24.4 24.4 Actuated g/C 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 Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 631 770 777 374 604 167 555 504 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.27 0.12 vis Ratio Penn c0.39 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 vlc Ratio 0.75 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.76 0.27 0.34 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 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 B C B B B Approach Delay (s) 16.3 8.2 23.3 15.6 Approach LOS B A C B Intersechon Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCM 2000 Level 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 0 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 370 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 07107/2017 Summary of All Intervals Run Nurizer 1 _ 2 3 _ 4 5 Avg 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 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 Vehs Entered 2911 2983 2982 2954 2956 2956 Vehs Exited 2937 2983 2992 2967 2941 2962 Starting Vehs 86 71 65 73 67 71 Ending Vehs 60 71 55 60 82 60 Travel Distance (mi) 994 988 1012 990 995 996 Travel Time (hr) 73.2 79.2 75.9 75.7 80.8 77.0 Total Delay (hr) 35.1 41.2 37.0 37.6 42.4 38.7 Total Stops 3661 3852 3924 3876 3881 3837 Fuel Used (gal) 43.9 45.3 45.3 44.5 45.8 45.0 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 761 802 783 799 772 781 Vehs Exited 749 745 747 789 757 759 Starting Vehs 86 71 65 73 67 71 Ending Vehs 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 I ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 371 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 0710712017 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Run Number 1 2 _ 3 5 Avg Vehs Entered _ 2150 2181 _ 2199 _4 2155 2184 2175 Vehs Exited 2188 2238 2245 2178 2184 2207 Starting Vehs 98 128 101 83 82 96 Ending Vehs 60 71 55 60 82 60 Travel Distance (mi) 730 726 744 718 730 730 Travel Time (hr) 49.4 51.7 54.7 52.0 61.1 53.5 Total Delay (hr) 21.4 23.8 26.0 24.5 32.9 25.7 Total Stops 2536 2634 2869 2710 2899 2730 Fuel Used (gal) 31.3 31.9 33.4 31.6 34.1 32.4 Fellows Annexation 1 ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 372 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour 07107/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement BE SE NW NE NE SW SW SVV 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 (ft) 439 76 100 180 705 88 169 69 Link Distance (ft) 1332 1332 386 929 276 276 Upstream Bilk Time (°k} 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 39 1 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 20 2 2 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 26 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 373 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0710712017 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Ay 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) 5 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 815 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded IntarvaIs Starting Vehs 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 69 2926 2968 2984 2919 2941 2947 Vehs Exited 291 2926 3013 2995 2918 2936 2955 Starting Vohs 17.4 65 90 80 61 61 70 Ending Vehs 7.4 65 45 69 62 66 56 Travel Distance (mi) 926 966 1006 992 979 974 983 Travel Time (hr) 12.0 60.3 63.3 60.2 60.6 59.2 60.6 Total Delay (hr) 23.0 24.5 21.9 23.1 21.8 22.9 Total Stops 3150 3192 3140 3114 3228 3166 Fuel Used (gal) 40.9 42.0 41 1 41.0 40.8 41.2 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recordin Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total The (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Run Numt�r 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 824 844 798 807 797 815 Vehs Exited 820 853 793 777 785 805 Starting Vehs 65 90 80 61 61 70 Ending Vohs 69 81 85 91 73 78 Travel Distance (mi) 285 291 271 275 272 279 Travel Time (hr) 19.8 20.0 17.4 18.0 17.3 18.5 Total Delay (hr) 8.8 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 / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 374 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Desi2n Year 2018 No -Build. AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0710712017 Interval #2 Information Recordin Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Numoef 1 2 3 4 5 Aug Vehs Entered 2102 2124 2186 _ 2112 2144 2135 Vehs Exited 2106 2160 2202 2141 2151 2153 Starting Vehs 69 81 85 91 73 78 Ending Vehs 65 45 69 62 66 56 Travel Distance (mi) 681 715 721 704 702 705 Travel Time (hr) 40.5 43.3 42.8 42.8 41.9 42.3 Total Delay (hr) 14.2 15.7 15.0 15.7 14.9 15,1 Total Stops 2132 2153 2207 2170 2302 2196 Fuel Used (gal) 23.4 29.3 29.7 29.3 29.2 29.2 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 375 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year 2018 No -Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 07107/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement SE SE NW NE !fE SW SIN SW Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 363 75 90 176 368 117 174 117 Average Queue (ft) 145 20 35 38 133 29 69 50 95th Queue (ft) 269 51 72 105 263 76 144 96 Link Distance (ft) 1331 1331 373 929 276 276 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 12 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 7 0 1 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 9 Fellows Annexation 1 ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 376 ShTraffic Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 07/07/2017 Movement SEL SET SER NWi NWT NWR NEI. NET NER SWL SW SWR Lane Configurations i, 44 �, ►t R r Traffic Volume (vph) 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 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/bikes 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 0.89 0.88 1.00 0.99 1.00 1,00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1617 1474 1471 1623 1685 1621 1549 1406 Flt Permitted 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow erre 1187 1474 1471 1039 1685 462 1549 1406 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 085 0.85 0.85 085 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. 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 Group Flow (vph) 476 51 0 0 87 0 59 459 0 46 188 78 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (% 2°% 0% 2°% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.5 365 36.5 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 Actuated g/C Ratio 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 Vehicle Extension (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 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.27 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0,40 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 vlc Ratio 0.76 0.07 0.11 016 0.76 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 0.0 0.1 5.5 0.7 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 18.1 8.0 8.3 15.3 25.1 16.6 16.6 15.3 Level of Service B A A B C B B B Approach Delay (s) 16.7 8.3 24,0 15.9 Approach LOS B A C B Intersestiah Sumrnafy 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 Seance D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 377 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. 07/07/2017 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NVVR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations cO.27 T, 0.12 4� c0.40 'i 0.06 0.06 'I T r Traffic Volume (vph) 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 Flow(vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 24.8 16.4 4.0 15.1 4.0 4.0 A 4,0 4.0 4.0 Lane UM. Factor 1.00 1.00 Approach Delay (s) 1.00 8.3 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 C 0.98 B 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 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 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1622 1474 1487 1623 1685 1622 1549 1406 Fit Permitted 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perml 1191 1474 1487 1041 1685 465 1549 1406 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0,65 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0,85 0,85 0.85 0.85 0,85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 476 9n 59 1 15 135 59 441 1Q 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 Confi. Peds. (#Ihr) 7 25 25 7 3 40 40 3 Cod, Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 08/6 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3% Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perna NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.1 36.1 36.1 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 Effective Green, g (s) 36.1 36.1 36.1 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 Actuated gIC Ratio 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 Vehicle Extension (sl 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 625 774 781 372 603 166 554 503 v/s Ratio Prot c Critical Lane Group 0.03 cO.27 0.12 vis Ratio Perm c0.40 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 vie Ratio 0.76 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.76 0.28 0.34 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 12.9 8.0 8.2 15.0 19.5 15.7 16.1 15.0 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 0.0 0.1 5.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 18.1 8.0 8.3 15.2 24.8 16.4 16.4 15.1 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 Intersection Summ HCM 2000 Control Delay 17,9 HCFA 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0,76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.7 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 / ZC Traffic Analysis resign Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated Synchro 9 Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering Page 1 378 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour 07/07/2017 Summary of All Intervals Rur1 Number _ 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 _ 710 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 2 Vehs Entered 2999 2968 2963 2953 2944 2965 Vehs Exited 2988 2984 3000 2955 2980 2982 Starting Vehs 74 83 92 74 83 76 Ending Vehs 85 67 55 72 47 66 Travel Distance (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 (gal) 44.1 46.3 47,3 45.1 44.1 45.4 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 787 863 772 784 784 797 Vehs Exited 770 822 745 749 770 771 Starting Vehs 74 83 92 74 83 76 Ending Vehs 91 124 119 109 97 106 Travel Distance (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 379 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour 0710712017 Interval #2 Information Recordir Start Time 7:30 End Time 6;15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Run Number 1 w 4 ,yg Vehs Entered 2212 _2 2105 _3 2191 2169 2160 2170 Vehs Exited 2218 2162 2255 2206 2210 2209 Starting Vehs 91 124 119 109 97 106 Ending Vehs 85 67 55 72 47 66 Travel Distance (mi) 728 711 734 737 735 729 Travel Time (hr) 52.1 49.5 60.2 53.6 49.6 53.0 Total Delay (hr) 24.1 22.0 31.9 25.3 21.4 24.9 Total Stops 2649 2571 2893 2709 2556 2680 Fuel Used (gal) 32.0 31.1 33.9 32.6 31.8 32.3 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 380 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour ._ 07/07/2017 Intersection: 60: E Pine St & Haskell St. Movement SE SE NW NE NE SWI SW SW Directions Served L TR LTR L TR L T R Maximum 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 94 189 94 Link Distance (ft) 1332 1332 386 929 276 276 Upstream Slk Time (%} 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 37 1 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 19 2 3 Zone Summary Zone We Queuing Penalty: 29 Fellows Annexation I ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 381 SimTra(fic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 0710712017 Summary of All Intervals Rgft; 1_ z_ 3 4 5 Avg 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 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 2918 AM 2953 2978 2982 2960 Vehs Exited 2936 2990 2969 2981 2982 2972 Starting Vehs 61 74 67 61 66 60 Ending Vehs 43 62 51 58 66 53 Travel Distance (mi) 978 987 978 987 995 985 Travel Time (hr) 58.7 60.4 60.7 60.4 61.0 60.2 Total Delay (hr) 21.0 22.5 23.2 22.4 22.6 22.4 Total Stops 3058 3138 3094 3160 3243 3139 Fuel Used (gal) 40,4 41.2 40.9 41.3 414 41.0 Interval #0 Information Seedi Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min) 5 Volumes adjusted 5y PHI~. Grorrlh Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Record Start T"nne 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg +lei}s Entered 792 815 839 810 810 817 Vehs Exited 772 825 830 809 811 809 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 (gal) 11,6 11.9 12.5 11.9 11.7 11.9 Fellows Annexation 1 ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 382 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Design Year 2018 Build, AM Peak Hour, Mitigated 07107/2017 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. RunNumber 1 2 3 4 =5 Avg Vehs Entered 2126 2163 2114 2168 _ 2172 2151 Vehs Exited 2164 2165 2139 2172 2171 2163 Starting Vehs 81 64 76 62 65 69 Ending Vehs 43 62 51 58 66 53 Travel Distance (mi) 706 710 689 708 717 706 Travel Time (hr) 40.8 42.2 41.0 42,3 43.0 41.9 Total Delay (hr) 13.6 14.9 14.7 15.1 15.4 14.7 Total Stops 2110 2172 2100 2237 2288 2184 Fuel Used (gal) 28.8 29.2 28.4 29.4 29.7 29.1 Fellows Annexation / ZC Traffic Analysis Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering 383 SimTraffic Report Page 2 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 CENTRAL Legend +•••LUrban Area — Principal Arterial Collector Public Parks _moi Intermodal Connector A . Future Collector Railroad � Minor Arterial —Local ... Future Minor Arterial Figure 7.1 Functional Classification & Street Network Map 2008-2430 CHAPTER 7 – STREET SYSTEM PLAN Page 64 of 161 384 MO Central Point Transit Oriented Development PON as rn ii 385 Page ■ RVMmr& Dandndkudel Printed _mG0 . � 3 ami 150(2020 Corntmi■a,+ epdaAw m« — \Lt� 386 s x � / , \ , y r . \ � I . i> � � 3 ami 150(2020 Corntmi■a,+ epdaAw m« — \Lt� 386 x � r r! � � . � w<, , e' \�~ t � Page ■VMmTravel Demme Model Printed on 7/31A Scenario lgc020Committed kthUpdated m& h -.,D— to V,(,(A \" 387 I Pago l of 1 RVMiPO Travel Daniand Model Printed on i/31/00 ,y Scenario 750 (2020 Detailed Network) 2020 B"� 1 OC AM 388 Page 1 of 1 RVMPO Travel Demand Modal Printed on 7131/00 5 14eeaario SSO (2020 Detailed Network) 2.a -2.0 o(A c d pm 389 ATTACHMENT "G" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 845 A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CLARIFICATION OF 3428 AND 3470 CHICORY LANE TO TOD CORRIDOR Applicant: Bob Fellows Construction, LLC; Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. (37S 2W 11C, 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-LMR/R-2 zoning designation are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding uscs; 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 "A"), 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 September, 2017. ATTEST: City Representative Approved this day of September, 2017. Planning Commission Resolution No. 838 Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Chair 390