HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 855 - recommending to council to approve minor zone change 45,63,77 Bigham Dr.PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 855
A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE
CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE MINOR ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (R-3) TO TOURIST AND OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL (C-4) ON 0.43 ACRES LOCATED AT 45, 63, AND 77 BIGHAM DR.
(37S 2W 02CD Tax Lots 600, 700, and 1000)
File No.:ZC-18003
Applicant: Nelson Investment Enterprises, LLC
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property identified by
the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 02CD Tax Lots 600, 700, and 1000 as
Employment Commercial; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Tourist and Office Professional (C-4) zoning is an urban
Employment Commercial zoning district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
surrounding land uses; and
WHEREAS, adequate public services and transportation networks are available to the site;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed zone change from R-3 to C-4 has been determined to be consistent
with the State Transportation Planning Rule.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning
Commission, by this Resolution No. 855, does recommend that the City Council approve the
change of zone on the property identified by the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W
02CD Tax Lots 600, 700, and 1000. This decision is based on the Staff Report dated August
7, 2018 including Attachments A through D attached hereto by reference and incorporated
herein.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
7th day of August, 2018.
r
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Kil"
City epresentat'
Planning Commission Resolution No. 855 (08/07/2018)
City of Central Point, Oregon
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502
541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384
www.centra1pg intorao_n.eov
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
August 7, 2018
Community Development
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
AGENDA ITEM: VII -A.2
Consideration of a Zone (map) Change application from Residential Multifamily (R-3) to Tourist and
Office Professional (C4) for 0.43 acres located at 45, 63, and 77 Bigham Drive. The Project Site is
identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 02CD, Tax Lots 600, 700, and 1000.
Applicant: Nelson Investment Enterprises, LLC (Craig Nelson). File No.: ZC-18003. Approval
Criteria: CPMC 17. 10, Zoning Map and Zoning Code Text Amendments.
STAFF SOURCE:
Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner
BACKGROUND:
The applicant has requested a minor zone map amendment from R-3 to C-4 with the intent of
developing a consolidated commercial development for professional office uses at an unspecified
future date. In consideration of this application, there are three criteria that must be addressed per
CPMC 17.10.400:
L. Comprehensive PIan Compliance. The current land use plan designation for the property is
Employment Commercial, which is designed to accommodate a wide variety of retail, service
and office uses (Figure 1). The Employment Commercial designation was adopted in the
2018 Land Use Element update to replace the Tourist and Office -Professional classification.
Per the adopted Land Use Element, the proposed C-4 zoning designation is consistent with
the Employment Commercial Classification and abuts properties to the east that are planned
and zoned the same.
2. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning. The proposed zone map
amendment occurs on three (3) lots on the northeast side of Bigham Drive. The properties to
the south and west are planned and zoned high density residential/R-3 and the properties to
the north and east are planned and zoned employment commercial/C-4. Existing structures
adjacent to the project location includes five (5) single family dwellings, two (2) that are
legally non -conforming to the high density residential designation and three (3) that are
legally nonconforming to the commercial designation.
Although the proposed zone change will increase the land area available for commercial
development, the character and compatibility between uses will be a function of siting and
design per CPMC 17.75, Design and Development Standards. As properties redevelop, they
will be subject to standards that aim to minimize conflicts between uses, including a 20 -ft
landscape buffer between commercial and residential uses. Additional site and building
design requirements promote pedestrian scale architecture and attractive walkable
environments necessary to assure compatibility with existing and planned uses.
3. Traffic Impacts/Transportation Planning Rule Compliance. The State Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR) in OAR 660-012-0060 requires changes to land use plans and
74
land use regulations (i.e. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments and Zoning Map
Amendments) to be consistent with the function and capacity of existing and planned
transportation facilities. The Applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis shows that the
traffic generated by the increased land use intensity will not alter the functional
classification for any existing or planned infrastructure (Attachment "C"). As
demonstrated in the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (Attachment "D") the
proposed zone change can be accommodated by the transportation network and public
services.
ISSUES:
There are no issues relative to this application.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
None,
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "X'— Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps
Attachment "B" — Applicant's Findings
Attachment "C-1" — Trak impact Analysis dated March 18, 2018
Attachment "C-2" — Traffic Study Conclusion Clarification Memo dated July 24, 2018
Attachment "D" — Planning Department's Findings
Attachment "E" — Resolution No. 855
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. 837. Per the Staff Report dated December 6, 2016 and
supported by Findings of Fact.
75
ATTACHMENT "A"
ure 1. Current Com nhetWvc Plan Map
CENTRAL
POINT
1
4 Current Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Deslgnatlon
F5 63 & 77 Dgham Road
1 2C -18003E
I
I w `
l
Legend
I{ Iowcermy
j ueaea, vmsr,•
{1L�– Wise c<mg
cemmnney C.—I...i
1� eaegeaq Caraeerr
sore c.we/ir
s. -coat
cwa
oeAa axd aced s; --P ager,
42H Lee. 11-Snt Y�—
_
I woe,
v,1R ml
2. Current Zonin itita�
76
CENTRAL
POINT
Bioham Drive (LC -78007)
R-3 to CCC4
T
11111s
!'AF""FrJ/i IiLUSr/WIK:I1
D1ge'm.S GMAT
Fire 3. Pr"
Id Zone hlpp Change
1'
�E
77
A
cm
i
Proposed Zone Changs
31gham Drive )ZC-18003)
R-3 10 C-4
XWPFOR LLIUSTRA77ON
PURPPSES ONLY
ATTACHMENT "B"
Nelson Investment Enterprises, LLC
210 Valle Vista Drive
Grants Pass, OR 97527
Project Narrative & Findings of Fact
(Freeman-Bigham Road Zone Change)
The purpose of the requested Zone Map Amendment is to change the zoning designation as needed to
prepare for a consolidated commercial development on properties located on Freeman and Bigham
Road, and to comply with the commercial comprehensive plan designations recently approved by the
City. Provided below are responses to the application approval criteria in Central Point Municipal Code
Chapter 17 10, Zoning Map and Zoning Code Text Amendments.
17.10.200 Initiation of amendments.
A proposed amendment to the code or zoning map 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 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).
Finding CPMC 17.10.200: The zoning map change has been initiated by the property owner of the
property identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 02CD Tax Lots: 600, 700,
and 1000 ("Project Site") as evidenced by the application documents submitted to the City on May
29, 2018. It should be noted that the Applicant also owns property identified on the Jackson County
Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 02CO Tax Lots: 800, 900, 1300, and 1400. These properties are not
included in this Application.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.200: The application for a zone map change has been initiated consistent
with the requirements of this section.
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
78
recommendation by the planning commission. (Ord. 1989 §1 (part), 2014, Ord. 1874 §3(part),
2006) .
Finding CPMC 17.10.300: On March 8, 2018, the City approved Ordinance No. 2043 updating and
adopting the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. As part the Land Use Element
Update, the City re -designated the Project Site properties from High Density Residential to
Employment Commercial. At this time, the zoning for these properties is R-3, Residential
Multifamily, which is consistent with the prior land use designation. The purpose of the proposed
zone map change is to comply with the new Comprehensive Plan land use designation (i.e.
Employment Commercial), and to prepare the properties for future commercial development. No
new policies or zoning regulations are proposed as part of this application
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.300: As evidenced by the nature of the application, the proposed zone
map change is a Minor Amendment consistent with this section.
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);
Finding CPMC 17,10.400(A): The proposal is a Minor Zone Map Amendment (see Finding CPMC
17.10.300).
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.400(A): Not applicable.
B. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan (major and
minor amendments);
Findina CPMC 17.10.400(B): The proposed zone map amendment would change the current R-3
zoning designations to C-4, which is consistent with the Employment Commercial land use
designation the recently updated Land Use Element, Land Use Map.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10,400(8): The proposed zone change complies corrects a current
disconnect between the land use and zoning map designations and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
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
Finding CPMC 17.10.400(C): The project site is currently served with water, sewer and storm
drainage facilities, which serves existing development on portions of the site and existing
surrounding development. Any future infrastructure upgrades will be a function of development, per
the City's requirements for public services and streets.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.400(C): The project complies with this standard.
79
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)),
Finding CPMC 17.10.4000: A Traffic Study was prepared by Southern Oregon Traffic
Engineering, LLC on March 14, 2018 for the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map Amendments on
the Project Site. The purpose of the Traffic Study is to demonstrate how the proposed change
complies with the Transportation Planning Rule and City regulations. Per the Traffic Study analysis,
streets and intersections that serve the property will accommodate projected p.m. peak hour traffic
volumes from permitted uses under proposed Employment Commercial zoning without requiring a
change in the functional classification of any existing or planned facility, or degrade the
performance of an existing or planned facility such that it would not meet the performance standard
identified in the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) or Comprehensive Plan
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.400(D}: Based on the Traffic Study analysis and findings, the proposed
zone map amendment complies with the Transportation Planning Rule and the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
In conclusion, we believe the application submittal package demonstrates compliance with the approval
criteria for zone map amendments in the Central Point Municipal Code_ If you have any further
questions, please feel free to contact me,
Craig Nelson, -- -��
Nelson investment Enterprises, LLC
May 29, 2018
80
ATTACHMENT "C-1"
Bigham Drive R-3 to E -C
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Zone Change
Traffic Impact Study
March 14, 2018
Prepared By:
fouTII-r?M 04-rom TamifPDPTOTIOMfNamrrP1mc LLC
81
TABLE OF CONTENTS
}.EXarUTIvEam,wMAmY....................................... ..............................................................
c1.INTRODUCTION ........... .............. ................ _................... ..~................ ........ ~.......... .... .4
Background........ ....... ........................................................................................................................... x
ProjectLocation ....................... ............. ............ ........ ........................................................................... o
ProjectDescription ..................... .................. ................................................................. -t ................. o
Ill. EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................
SiteCondition ...................................................................... ............... ........................ -..... ............... a
RoadwayCharacteristics ...... ................... ........... .................... .......... .......... .............. ................ V
Traffic[vuow-..-'----'-__-_----'-'-'-------_-------___--'_o
BackgroundGrowth ........................................................ ............................. .............. ...................... 8
Intersection Capacity and Level ofService ............................................................ ...................... ........ m
Year zo\kNo-Build Intersection Operations .............................................................. .......................... \|
Year zo|8No-Build 95°Percentile guuuing_....................... .............. ..... .—............................... /\
CrashHistory ........ ....... ............ ....... ....................... ............. .......... ........... ..—............. ...... O
IV. SITE 1s
TripG,nomhon......... ....... ............ ..................................................................................................... |3
Trip Distribution and Assignment ....... ...... ....... ................................ ................... -........................ ]
V. YEAR zw1wBUILD CONDITIONS .......................... .................................................... Ii
Year20mBuild Description ........................ ......................................................................................... |y
Yea20i8Build Intersection Operations ............................................ ................. .......... ....... -.......... \5
Year 20|HBuild 95~Percentile Queuing .................. ........................................................................... |5
Year 200Build Turn Lanes, ...~.-_-'—.-'--..--'-_'--'_.----'___--._.-.-.\0
VI. FUTURE YEAR 20mmNO-BUILD AND BUILD CONDITIONS -........................ ........... ........... uw
Future Year zO3mNo-Build Description ..................... ............................... ...... ...... ....... .............. 0
Future Year 208VBuild Description ................... ................. ............... ......................... ...................... 0
Future Year oB8No-Build and Build Intersection 0poou \;
82
LIST OF TABLES
Table |: Roadway C|uoi|cmionoand ooscripmvos--- ' ---....................... —............ 8
�ble'.'.RCMLev*\of8erv.ceDesignations for Stop -Controlled Intersections ......................................... m
Table ]:HC'VI Level uCo^mivxDesignations for Signalized Intersections .......................................... ....... m
Table 4� Year I0|8No-Build Intersection Operations, RM Peak Hour ..................... ............... ...... ......... |)
Table 5: Year 2018 No-BuIld 95"' Percentile Queue LengthsPNI/I Peak Rvvc.—'---...... ................... \|
Table o�Development Trip Generations ........ ............................................. .................. ..._~~~~....... —'o
Table 7�Year Z0|8Build Intersection Operations, pNPeak Hour ............................................................... /5
Table 8.Year %0|UBuild 9~Peic�auleQueue Lvxuth+nwPeak Hour '................................................. /5
Table 9: Fuonv,mnZo38No-Build and Build Intersection Operations, yNPeak *uvc— '.................. 0
Tablel 0: Future V��ar 2038 No -Build and Build 95�h Percentile Queue Lengths.. PM Peak Hour...... ........... 19
Figure 1; vicinity Map_ ........................................
Figure 2: Year 2o1uNo-Build Traffic Volumes, PMPeak Hvvx................. ..... .'—.......... .... ,..... ._'p
Figure 3: Development Trip Distributions, nwPeak Hour --.................. --...................................... 4
Figure 4: Year Zo!8Build TmffioVolumes, PIM Peak nvo..... —..................................... —................ |7
Figure Future Year 20suNo-Build Traffic Volumes, PuuPeak Hour ..................... —........................ 20
Figure 6: Future Year 20n9Build Traffic Volumes, PrmPeak Hour ................................................... .... 2)
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Traffic Count Data, Seasonal Adjustment Information
Appendix B:
ITE Trip Generation Data, Background Growth
Appendix C:
Year 20!VNo-Build and Build mynvhmOutput
Appendix D:
Year z0/oNo-Build and Build SimT,affiuOutput
Appendix c:
Future Year 2038 No`m"ildnnd Build Synohm Output
Appendix F:
pum'rYear zo]8No-Build and Build SimTnuficOutput
Appendix G:
Agency Requirements
83
'['I W5 F k(ii i.!.; I I4! K f'.1(-'N-FI, !\ A (.�. '
84
1. EXECUTIVE SUNIV1ARY
Summary
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC prepared a traffic impact analysis for a proposed
Cori irrehensive plan map amendrlent and zone change from High Density Residential (R-3) to
Employment Commercial (E -C) or Township 37S Range I W :Section 2CD, tax lots 600, 700 and 1000
In Celltrat POitlt, Tllc il:b';Ccr propert,, Is IJcatcd along the -oss side of 131 hani Drive so:tth of
f r;,cman Roan_ .occas; is pry;sided born Bigh.lrn Drina.
lA tl'nfi1C: iI716£iot IS requirod h�, he Cin, Co "' ldW,ess issues of cornp(1ai1Ce With Che City of Central!
Point C<�rhpre,lens±�.e Nan_ Land Develuprient Code, and 1'ranspurtalum Planning Rule fPRI.
Potential developlizo t dnpacib were based on 0.43 acres of E -C zoning under existing year 2018 and
f',ture eat' 2038 conditions. De,,lopnhent impims were anav�zed during the p.ril. peal: hour, which
141.1s shown to he the peak period of the day in the study area.
Two study area in er ctions were identified as key int-arsect(on For the analysis. These included;
I . Freeman Road &. Bigham Drix,e
2, Oak Street & Bigliam Drive
Conclusions
'The findings of the traffic impact analysis conclude that the proposed comprehensive plan map
amendrrient and zone change from R-3 to E -C on 37S I W02CD tax lots '000, ;OC and 1000 can he
aceommodated on the c)xistiliu Lansportatlon system with planned ImprOVCMCntS Without Cl -eating
ad -verse impacts. intersection operations, roadway c(assif;cations, and Safety Conditions were evaluated
to address potential impacts to the transportation systom. Results of the analysis show the following:
• Key iniersections were evaluated operationally under year 2018 and Future year 2033 no -build and
build conditions. Results of the analysis show the intersection of Bigham Drive and Freeman Road
exceeding the City'. level of service (LOS) "D" nerforn,,ance standard and operating at a LOS "E"
under oxisting year 20t8 no -build conditions, A planned improvenient identified in the Interchange
Area Marlagemelit Plan (1,'1MP) (or Exit 33 included a center median along Freeman Road ir: the
future, which will limit traffic movements to and from Bigltam Drive to right -in, right -out only
With this improveniont in place, the intersection will lie ;:degtlarel;v mitigated thrcxlgh future year
2038 build conditions,
a 9511' percentile queue lengths are not shown to exceed lull: dl rances nor, create saref concerns at
key intersections under any of the analysis scenarios.
• Air evaluation of crash history in fhe sitee vicinity showed no. crashes within the most recent tivo
year period at either key iruersectiori,
this analysis was undertaken to address issues of compliance with rhe City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan. Lard Devc(npmeril. Code, and Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR1 in
Oregon Administrative Rules tOAR) Chapter 660, Divisior: 012. Based upon our analysis, it is
concluded ;flat sheets and intersections that serve the subject property will ac,onimodate projected p.m.
peak hour traffic volumes lroln pernhitted uses under proposed E -C zoning without requiring a change
in the functional classiticat oil of ally existing or planned facility, or degrade the performance of an
existing or planned faci(iiy such that it would not meet the performance standard identified in the Cit...'s
Transportation System Plan (TSP) or Comprehensive Plan.
f
!- 1
7O iiNN>Pl1!rr fillNr t.94'Ni i=P,Id4. 4♦'. �. 'rtnf:_?'{, J_rin 11.1 to E -(' Zone CiL'Inge rr•AfiiciniPsr,i AfGAiy:,ld
85
II. INTRODUCTION
Background
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC prepared a traffic impact analysis for a proposed
comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change from High Density Residential (R-3) to
Employment Commercial (E -C) on Township 37S Range t W/ Section 2CD, tax lots 600, 700 and 1000
in Central Point, Oregon. The subject property is located along the east side of Bigham Drive south of
Freeman Road.
Under E -C zoning, the site is assumed to have the potential to generate 273 average daily trips (ADT)
with 27 trips occurring during the p.m, peak hour based on a 7,840 sduare foot (SF) medical office
building, It was our assumption that a medical office would be the worst case land use based on parcel
constraints (shape and size), parking requirements, and location.
Two study area intersections were identified as key intersection for the analysis. These included.
1. Freeman Road & Bigham Drive
2. Oak Street & Bigham Drive
Study area intersections were evaluated under existing year 2018 and future year 2038 no -build and
build conditions during the p.m. peak hour to determine what impacts the proposed plan amendment
and zone change will have on the transportation system.
Project Location
The subject parcels are located along the east side of Bigham Drive south side of Freeman Road on
Township 37S Range I W Section 2CD, tax lots 600, 700 and 1000 in Central Point, Oregon. Refer to
Figure I for a vicinity map,
Project Description
The subject property is currently zoned High Nnsity Residential (R-3) and is proposed as Employment
Commercial (E -C). The change in land use is estimated to generate 273 ADT to the transportation
system with 27 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Access to the site is provided from Bigham
Drive.
f 0. TeanrvnRrarron . "larch 14, 2018 i R-3 to E -C Zane Chance Traffic Impact Anatysis 6
86
Figure 1 : Vicinity Map
jL
yy
AIFT
AMIN
7 •'�!� =F r ice•
All
WUT-flan 0-4-140n Bigham Drive Plan Amendment
TA-MPOANTion tic & Zone Change (R-3 to E -C)
�Wadford, Oregon 97504 Traffic Impact Analysis
Ph 541, 608.9923 fax 541.535, 6873 Y
emarCkim.parducciggmail.com Central Point, Oregon
87
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Site Conditions
The proposed site is located on Township 37S Range I W Section 2CD, tax lots 600, 700 and 1000.
The two tax lots total 0.43 acres.
Roadway Characteristics
Table I provides a summary of existing roadway classifications and descriptions in the study area.
Table 1 - Roadway Classifications and Descriptions
Functional City Operational
Aogdway 3urisdictioo Classification Laaesi Standard Posted Speed
Freeman Road City of Central Point Minor Arterial 2 LOS D 35
Dighani Drive City of Central Point Local 2
Oak Street City of Central Point Local 2
Traffic Counts
LOS D 25
LOS D 25
Manual traffic counts were collected from 3:00-6:00 p.m. at key intersections in February of 20(8.
Counts were seasonally adjusted and balanced to feffect peak conditions. The p.m. peak hour was
shown to occur from 4:45-5:45 p.m. in the surrounding area. Refer to Appendix A for count data.
Refer to Figure 2 for year 2018 no -build traffic volumes during the p.m, peak hour.
Background Growth
Background growth was derived using growth raises .from the Interchange Area Management Plan
(LAMP) for Exit 33 as well as traffic volume comparisons between counts in 2010 and 2018. The
[AMP estimated approximately 0.53% per year of growth on Freeman Road between 2010 and future
year 2034. in comparing baseline year 2010 traffic volumes to current year 2018 traffic volumes,
however, traffic movements had varying growth rates of 0.25% to 2% depending on the movement.
Based on this, growth rates for determining future 2038 no -build conditions varied and were chosen
to be as consistent as possible with those in the TAMP.
f.0. TPOMP0A1lfrl0ll W I March H, 2018 I R-3 to E -C Zone Change Traffic Impact Analysis 18
88
Figure 2: Year 2018 No -Build Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour
NOT TO SCALE
O
SOUTA M 0"40M
TUMSPOATAT10M 041" LAIM6, LU
Medford, Oregon 97504
ph 541.608.9923 fax 54 f.535.6873
email k1m.parducciftmad.com
89
Bigham Drive Plan Amendment
& Zone Change (R-3 to E -C)
Traffic Impact Analysis
Central Point, Oregon
Intersection Capacity and Level of Service
Intersection capacity calculations were conducted utilizing the methodologies presented in the Year
2000 Nightivay Capuci.v Manual, Capacity and level of service calculations for signalized and
unsignalized intersections were prepared using "SYNI CHRO" timing software.
Level of service quantities the degree of comfort afforded to drivers as they travel through an
intersection or along a roadway section, The level of service methodology was developed to quantify
the quality of service of transportation facilities. Level of service is based on total delay, defined as
the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from
the stop line. Level of service ranges from. "A" to "F", with "A" indicating the most desirable
condition and ''F" indicating an unsatisfactory condition, The HCM LOS designations for stop -
controlled intersections are provided in Table 2. The HCM LOS designations for signalized
intersections are provided in Table 3.
Table 2 — HCM Level of Service Designations for Stop -Controlled Intersections
Levet of Service Delay Range
A
<10
B
>to- 15
- --- C
>i5 -ZS
D
>25 35
»5-50
F
> 50
Table 3 - HCM Level of Service Designations for Signatized Intersections
Level of Service Delay Range
A <10
H >10-20
C, �- - >20 - 35
- D >35 - 55
E -55-8r)
F > 80
Key intersections are under City of Central Point jurisdiction. 'The City of Central Point requires all
study area intersections to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS), 'The minimum acceptable
level of service for signalized intersections and unsignalized intersection movements is LOS "D".
Mitigation is required at key intersections operating below a LOS "D".
f.0, Tngaj oaRramun tNG1NEFF/N4, Li.i ;March Id, 20!8 1 R -i to E -C Zone Change Traffic Impact <lnalysis i 10
Year 2018 No -wild Intersection Operations
Key intersections were evaluated under year 2018 no -build conditions during the p,m, peak hour.
Results are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 - Year 2018 No -Build Intersection Operations, P<vl Peak Hour
Intersection Y Performance Traffic � Year 2018 No -Build
Standard Control
Frcinn,in Road + Hi .!hare Tkk F iN.B)
i1a Street; Bighann Driye I.i!S 1) i WSC A, (SFS)
i ;)s=i cvei of scroca, T-4V.lC-rw�. •s>�� ;:rpC. mvrnl!:I NR ia�ri•tixx:nd, �l?-=;Fe;azuu:[d
?dote cT.;'�-:4cQ ,c6)f,mncQ stnndarls Vc ;iw!vr m bald, !lahc
Results or the analysis show the intersection of Bigham Drive and Freeman Road operating at a level
of service (LOS) "E" under year 2018 no -build conditions, which is failing. The critical movement is
the northbound tell turn movement, which drives the Failing LOS. This movement will eventually be
restricted to right -out only when City plans for a median along Freeman Road moves forward, but
until then it will remain a potentially difficult movement during peak conditions. The remaining Ivey
intersection is shown to operate acceptably under year 2018 no -build conditions. Refer to Appendix
C for synchro output sheets.
Year 2018 No -Build 95th Percentile Queuing
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 derennining how a transportation corridor operates.
Queue lengths are reported as the average, maximum, or 95'x' percentile queue length. The 95'h
percentile queue length is used For design purposes and is the queue length reported in this analysis.
Fire simulatians were ruts and averaged in Sit11 FcaMc to determine 95"' percentile queue Icngths at
study area intersections under existing conditions. Queue lengths were then rounded up to the nearest
25 feet (single vehicle length) and reported in Table For the p.m. peak hour,
Table 5— Year 2018 No -Build 95(" Percentile Queue Lengths, PM Peak Hour �-
Intersection ! Available Link T 95'' Percentile Exceeded or
Movement Distance (Ft) Queue Lengths Blocked Roadway
Freeman Road / Bigham Drive
Eastbound Lc(U'l'luough/Right 250 50
We,ithound l.c(ttrhroughlRight 325 50
Northbound 1.e.VrluoughlRight 425 50
Southhound t.efuThrough/Right Wo 25
Oak Strect/Bigham Drive
Eastbound Left/Through 125 25
Westbound Through/Right 250 U
Southbound WI/Right 425 35
Nwv F.xcocded jerf-ormance. sl=ni, ,lards are shown iu �.ld, italic
17. l Rng'PnP,rnilnff tdclnfrill#G, Cl f ; oam: 1.4, 2018 R -z to h -C (one Change I radio Fmpa" Auai".kx l I
91
Results of the queuing analysis show that ao link distances at key intersections are exceeded under
year 2018 no -build conditions during the p.m. peak hour. The northbound movement on Bigham
Drive at Freeman Road is shown to have two vehicles waiting at any one time during the p.m. peak
hour, which is consistent with the LOS analysis, which showed that this movement might be difficult
to maneuver during peak conditions. Refer to Appendix D for a full queuing and blocking report.
Crash History
Crash data for the most recent five year period was gathered From ODOT's crash analysis unit.
Results were gathered for the period of January 1, 2012 through December 3 t", 2016. Crash data is
gathered to identify crash patterns that could be attributable to geometric or operational deficiencies,
or crash trends of a specific type that would indicate the need for further investigation at an
intersection. Results, however, showed that there were no reported crashes at either key intersection
within a five year period. No further investigation is shown to be necessary.
f. U. TRgYiP0JlraT1UM f HQMfCWNq. LLC I iMarah 14, 20191 R-3 to E -C Zone Change Traffic Impact Analysis i 12
92
IV. SITE TRAFFIC
Trip Generation
Trip generation calculations for the proposed plan amendment and zone change to E -C were prepared
utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10`x' Edition. An ITE rate
was used for land use code 720 — Medical/Dental Office Building. No pass -by or internal trip
reductions were taken_ Proposed development trips were based on a 7,640 SF medical office
building. Table 6 provides a summary of trip generations. CIE descriptions and graphs are provided
in Appendix R.
Table 6 — Development Trip Generations —
Land Use — Unit Size Daily Daily Ph1 Peak PM Peak Hour
Bate Trfp_-� Bate Min
Total In Out
720 —IedicalMentul Office ION) SF 7,84 34.8 273 3 46 1 27 8 19
Total Tripp 273 27 8 �t9
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Development trips were distributed based on traffic distributions from the existing site. Trip
percentages to and from the north and south were based on existing splits along Bigham Drive. Once
trips reached key intersections, development trips were then distributed in the same manner, which
followed that of existing splits. Refer to Figure 3 for development distribution percentages and trip
assignments.
f 17 Ta�nrnonrnnon nGInF6Qfn6. 1U I March 14, 211181 R-:3 to F. -C Zone Change 1'ral'1ic Impact:Analysis 113
93
Figure 3: Development Trip Distributions, PM Peak Hour
NOT TO SCALE
SOUR=" 0-4t40n
TAMPOATATION 1M61I1LtAIM6, LK
Medford, Oregon 97504
ph 541.608.9923 fax 541.535.8873
small.• kim.parducci ftmail.com
94
Bigham Drive Plan Amendment
& Zone Change (R-3 to E -C)
Traffic Impact Analysis
Central Point, Oregon
V. YEAR 2018 BUILD CONDITIONS
Year 2018 Build Description
Build conditions represent no -build conditions for a study area 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. Build conditions
are evaluated in this analysis For the year 2018. Year 2018 build traffic volumes during the p.m. peak
hour are provided in Figure 4.
Year 2018 Build Intersection Operations
Year 2018 build traffic volumes were evaluated at key intersections under p.m. peak hour conditions.
Results are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7 - Year 2018 Build Intersection Operations, PM Peak flour
Intersection—•- ---��� —� Performance TTraffic Year 20l8Build
Standard Control
Freeman Road t Sighanr Drive LOS D TWSC E, (VB
Oak Stree€% Bigham Drive LOS D )'WSC A, (S B)
LOS=LevaiJISerwcc.IWSC-rwr-wvayiwocwitrnlled, NL91=rjorthirnw:d:,Irl, Z;nf_=snuthnouna;art
Note: Fxcec t(Qd Irer`,jrmanct siandarda are shown t❑ hold, rlaiic
Results of the analysis show the intersection of Bigham Drive at Freeman Road continues to have a
failing northbound traffic movement under year 2018 build conditions during the p.m. peak hour.
This is unchanged from existing year 2018 no -build conditions and fails as a result of high traffic
volumes on Freeman Road. Refer to Appendix C for synchro output sheets.
Year 2018 Build 95th Percentile Queuing
Five simulations were run and averaged in SifnTraffic to determine 95'h percentile queue lengths at
study area intersections under year 2018 build conditions. Queue lengths were then rounded up to the
nearest 25 feet (,single vehicle length) and reported in Table 8 for the p.m peak holt-.
Table 8—Year 2018 Build 95`h Percentile Queue Lr gths, PM Peak Hour
Intersection / Available Link 93'a Percentile Exceeded or
Ylovement Distance (Ft) Queue Lengths Blocked Roadway
Freeman Road ! Righum Drive
Eastbovnd LeRrrhroughMight 250 50
Westbound WI/1—hroughrR[ght 32.5 50
Northbound I ert'Through!Right 425 50
SOuthhOUnd Left/1'hroughf Right 100 25
Oak Street! Bigham Drive
Eastbound Lett/Through 125 25
Westbound I'hrough/Right 250 0
Southbound Left/Right 425 25
Pore Exceeded parrormarcc standards %Ire vhown in huid.:talk
1.D. TRaniDOAlq/ItM tEV, 1144nlrlc, I L ( I A;I;Ircil Id, 201N R-3 Ili C -C; Lone Change riaMiu Irrmpact Anaiisis; 15
95
Results of the queuing analysis show that queue lengths at key intersections remain the same under
year 2018 build conditions during the p.m. peak hour. Refer to Appendix D for a full queuing and
blocking report.
Year 2018 Build Turn Lanes
Turns lanes are not evaluated at the time of plan map amendment or zone change because exact
development details are not known at that time, but they will be evaluated at the time of development.
Additionally, a median along Freeman Road is planned by the City of Central Point, which will
mitigate any need for a center turn lane requirement.
S.O. CLC I March 44.20181 R-3 to E -C Zone Change Traffic Impact Analysis 116
96
Figure 4: Year 2018 Build Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour
NOT TO SCALE
SOUP=" 9"4011
TU"SPOATAT10" .041" WK4, LLC
Medford, Oregon 97504
ph 541.606:9923 fax 541.535.6673
email. kim.parducciOgmad.com
97
Bigham Drive Plan Amendment
& Zone Change (R-3 to E -C)
Traffic Impact Analysis
Central Point, Oregon
Vi. FUTURE YEAR 2038 NO -BUILD AND BUILD i;ONDITtONS
Future Year 2038 No -Build Description
Future year 2038 no -build conditions represent future year conditions for a study area without
consideration of proposed development trips. This condition is evaluated to deten-nine bow a study
area will be impacted by future background growth but no traffic from proposed development trips.
Background growth was determined based on projections in the interchange area Management Plan
(1AMP) al exit 33 and from comparisons between 20110 traffic volurnes and 2018 manual counts
gathered for this analysis, Growth rates varied between 0.023'�o and 2"°U per year depending upon the
traffic movement; in an effort to be as consistent as possible with traffic projections in the IAMP.
Refer to Figure 5 for ft€tore year 2038 no -build traffic volumes during ttte p,m peak hout•-
Future Year 2038 Build Description
Future year 2038 build conditions represent future conditions for a study area with background
growth and proposed development trips considered. Build conditions are compared to no -build
conditions to determine what kind of impacts will result from proposed development under future
conditions. Future build conditions are evaluated in this analysis for the planning year of 2038. Refer
to Figure 6 for future year 2038 build traffic volumes during the p,m. peak hour_
Future Year 2038 No -Build :and Build Intersection Operations
Future year 2038 no -build and build traffic volumes were evaluated at key intersections during the
p.m. peak .hour to determine how background growth and proposed development trips impact the
transportation system. Results of the analysis are swrimarized in Table p.
Table 9 — Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build intersection Operations, PNI Peak Hour
Ferformauce Traffic Future Year 2938 Future Year 2038
Intersection Standard Control N"uild Build
Pr;ennin Road r Bigh in Drina f OS D 1'u S4' 1:, (iinj E, ('mi)
Wk Street '13i -,ham Drive Ws D TV ( A, (SB) t0, ('§B)
1,00-1 cvcl of 5c;vicc, rwSC=°two-waystopwritiulled. V6f.-noriiNxkod i_fi zea-tia.r,h !rurui ieit
Nutt Fr,, cs�lled .riurnarlce 5'!ndardi are shown in bull_ !tdic
Results of the analysis show that key intersections continue to operate th same under future year
2038 no -build and build conditions as they were shown to operate Under year 21t)18 no -build and build
conditions. The intersection of Bigham Drive and Freeman Road continues to have a failing
northbound traffic movement, which will be re-routed as a result of a ciente-r median planned along
Freeman Road. This improvement is shown to adequately mitigate any safety concerns relating to the
northbound left turn movement, The remaining key intersection is shown to continue to operate at a
LOS "A". which is well within performance standards, Synchro atltput sheets are provided in
Appendix E.
l Rd1l14DE7Rrgr1011 �N�INrti RING �, I,l ��a ilfCh l 1, 11018 ; R -i to FA' /One t'11aligt,�i4:1 (lC hnp>1c1 Ai'.;1t}31i 1 IS
98
Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build 95th Percentile Queuing
Five simulations were run and averaged in SimTratlic to determine 95°i percentile queue lengths at
study area intersections under future year 2038 no -build and build conditions. Queue lengths were
then rounded up to the nearest 25 feet (single vehicle length) and reported for p.m. peak hour
conditions in Table 10.
Table 10 -Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build 95t' Percentile Queue Lengths Pm Peak Hour
Intersection /
Available Link
451' Percentile
9r Percentile Exceeded or
Movement
DiStanee (1't)
Queue Lengths
Queue Lengths Blocked Roadway
_
No -Build
Build
Freeman Road / Bigham Drive
Eastbound Leftlfhrough'RigliL
250
75
75
Westbound izft through/Right
325
50
50
Northbound LetL'fbrough/Right
425
50
50
Southbound LelbThruugh/Right
100
25
25
Oak Street/ Bigham Drive
Eastbound LetNhrough 125 25 25
W'estbound'rhrough/Right 23D 0 0
Southbound Led/Right 425 25 25
Nae: Excceded peTFormance standards are showt in bold, italic
Results of the queuing analysis show that queue lengths at key- intersections continue to remain
similar under future year 2038 no -build and build conditions as were shown in year 2018 no -build
and build conditions. The only queue length shown to increase is the eastbound left tum queue on
Freeman Road at Bigham Drive, and this increases to 75 feet under both no-budd and build
conditions. All other queue lengths at key intersections are shown to remain the same. It can also be
noted that the planned center median along Freeman Road in the future will limit traffic movements
to and from Bigham Drive to right -in, right -out movements so queue lengths along Freeman Road
resulting from left turning movements will no longer exist. Refer to Appendix F for a frill queuing
report.
f. 0. TNBIIrpoprim 9if of t( l March H, 2018 1 R-3 to E -C Zone Change Traffic Impact Analysis 119
99
Figure 5: Future Year 2038 No -Build Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour
NOT TO SCALE
MUM" 0"40"
TAA"00-R ATIOM .041"ZOIM6. LL(
Medford, Oregon 97504
ph 541.608.9923 fax 541.535.6873
email: kim.parduccioagmail.com
100
Bigham Drive Plan Amendment
& Zone Change (A-3 to E -C)
Traffic Impact Analysis
Central Point, Oregon
Figure 6: Future Year 2038 Build Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour
NOT TO SCALE
SOUTU"" 0"40"
T NSPOATATIOM -041 L"W, LK
Medford, Oregon 97504
ph 541.608.9923 fax 541, 535.6873
emafk kim. parduccl(Ogmail. com
101
Bigham Drive Plan Amendment
& Zone Change (R-3 to E -C)
Traffic Impact Analysis
Central Point, Oregon
VI1. CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the traffic impact analysis conclude that the proposed comprehensive plan ntap
amendment and zoite change Frottn R-3 to E -C on 3791 W02CD tax lots 600, 700 and [000 can be
accommodated on the existing transportation system with planned improvements without creating
adverse impacts. Intersection operations, roadway ctassifications, and safety conditions were evaluated
to address potential impacts to the transportation system. Results of the analysis show the following;
• Key intersections were evaluated operationally under year 2018 and suture year 2038 no -build and
build conditions. Results of the analysis show the intersection of Bighaitt Drive and Freeman Road
exceeding the City's level of service (LOS) "D" performance standard and operating at a LOS "E"
under existing year 2018 no -build conditions. A planned improvement identified in the Interchange
Area Management Plan (]AMP) for Exit 33 included a center rnedian along Freeman Road in the
t1ature, which will limit traffic movements to and from Bigham Drive to right -in, right -out only.
With this improvement in place, the intersection will be adequately mitigated through future year
2038 build conditions.
• 95`h percentile queue lengths are not shown to exceed link distances nor create safety concerns at
key intersections under any of the analysis scenarios.
• An evaluation of crash history in the site vicinity showed no crashes within the most recent five
year period at either key intersection.
This analysis was undertaken to address issues of compliance with the City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Code, and Oregon `Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) in
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660, Division 012. Based upon our analysis, it is
concluded that streets and intersections that serve the subject property will accommodate projected p.m.
peak hour traffic volumes from permitted uses under proposed E -C zoning without requiring a change
in the functional classification of any existing or planned facility, or degrade the performance of an
existing or planned facility such that it would not meet the performance standard identified in the City's
Transportation System Plan (TSP) or Comprehensive Plan.
f_ri. T ft v)YiD0ArPT1D1f C/twnrrAfd,,, t1( 1 March 14, 2018 1 R-3 to F. -C Zone Cha1!ge Pratfic Impact Analysis'; 22
102
Ourac m
t7arom
T44moonUTIOM
.1twrrrr,niac, L L C
Annendix G
Agency Requirements
103
320.00.00 — Design
320.10.01— Design Standards
3125A 4
12.25 PU
The purpose of these standards is to provide a consistent policy under which certain physical
aspects of street and related design and plan preparation will be observed by the engineer.
The Engineer should be aware that certain alternate street standards for the Transit Oriented
District and Transit Oriented Corridor might apply to the design and construction streets in these
areas of the city. These alternate standards are fully described in the Central Point TOO Design
Requirements and Guidelines. They are also briefly described in lesser detail in these
Standards and Specifications,
This section contains design standards to ensure the safe and efficient operation of each
facility type for all users and the best use of public space. The requirements in this section are
established as minimum standards to follow and apply to both new construction and
reconstruction, except as otherwise specified.
Designs shall consider the needs of people with disabilities and the aged, such as visually
impaired pedestrians and mobility impaired pedestrians. Every effort should be made to locate
street hardware away from pedestrian locations and provide a surface free of bumps and
cracks, which create safety and mobility problems_ Smooth access ramps shall be provided
where required. All designs shall conform to the current American Disabilities Act (ADA) or as
adopted by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan.
The determination of the pavement width and total right-of-way shall be based on the
operational needs for each street as determined by a technical analysis. The technical analysis
shall use demand volumes that reflect the maximum number of pedestrians, bicyclists, parked
vehicles and motorized vehicle traffic expected when the area using the street is fully
developed. Technical analysis shall take into consideration, transportation elements of the
Comprehensive Plan, TOD, neighborhood plans, approved tentative plans as well as existing
commercial and residential developments. All street designs shall be coordinated with the
design of other new or existing infrastructure
These standards set forth the minimum requirements for materials and street design.
The Public Works Director shall have discretion to require a higher or different standard for
materials or design when in his judgment it is in the best interest of the public's health, safety
and welfare when considering all aspects and circumstances of the project.
The minimum geometric requirements for all street classifications are defined in Tables 300 — 1
through 300 — 7.
320.10.02— Traffic Impact Analysis
The purpose of this section is to assist in the determination of which road authorities participate
in land use decisions, and to implement Section 660-012-0045(2)(e) of the State Transportation
37
City of Central Point
Department of Public Worcs
Standards and Specifications
104
N25i 14
1225 P.M
Planning Rule that requires the city to adopt a process to apply conditions to development
proposals in order to minimize impacts and protect transportation facilities
This chapter establishes the standards for when a proposal must be reviewed for potential traffic
impacts; when a traffic impact analysis must be submitted with a development application in
order to determine whether conditions are needed to minimize impacts to and protect
transportation facilities; what must be in a traffic impact analysis; and who is qualified to prepare
the study.
A traffic impact analysis shall be prepared by a traffic engineer or civil engineer licensed to
practice in the state of Oregon with special training and experience in traffic engineering. If the
road authority is the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), consult ODOT's regional
development review planner and OAR 734-051-180. If the road is the authority of Jackson
County, consult Jackson County's road design requirements_
The Public Works Director may, at his/her discretion, waive the study of certain intersections
when it is concluded that the impacts are not substantial
320,10, 03 — Traffic Impact Analysis Applicability
(1) The level of detail and scope of a traffic impact analysis (TIA) will vary with the size,
complexity, and location of the proposed application. Prior to any TIA, the applicant shall submit
sufficient information to the City for the Public Works Department to issue a scoping letter. If
stipulations to reduce traffic are requested by an applicant, it must first be shown by means of
an analysis that an unconditional approval is not possible without some form of mitigation to
maintain an adequate LOS. This will determine whether a stipulation is necessary.
(2) Extent of Study Area:
The study area shall be defined by the Public Works Department in the scoping letter and shall
address at least the following areas:
a) All proposed site access points;
b) Any intersection where the proposed development can be expected to Contribute 25
or more trips during the analysis peak period. Impacts of less than 25 peak period trips
are not substantial and will not be included in the study area. This volume may be
adjusted, at the discretion of the Public Works Department, for safety or unusual
situations; and
c) Any intersections directly adjacent to the subject property.
(3) When required: TIA shall be required when a land use application involves one or more of
the following actions:
a) A change in zoning or a plan amendment designation that generates 300 average
daily trips (ADT) more than the current zoning;
b) Any proposed development or land use action that a road authority, including the city,
Jackson County or ODOT, states may have operational or safety concerns along its
facilities;
c) An increase in site traffic volume generation by 250 average daily trips (ADT) or more,
or 25 Peak Hour Trips (PHT),
3e
City of Central Point
Department of Public Works
Standards and Specifications
105
325.'1 4
?225 PM
d) An increase in peak hour volume of a particular movement to and from the State
highway by 20 percent or more;
e) An increase in use of adjacent streets by vehicles exceeding twenty thousand pounds
gross vehicle weight by 10 vehicles or more per day;
fj The location of the access driveway does not meet minimum sight distance
requirements, as determined by the city engineer, or is located where vehicles entering
or leaving the property are restricted, or such vehicles queue or hesitate on the state
highway, creating a safety hazard at the discretion of the community development
director; or
g) A change in internal traffic patterns that, at the discretion of the Public Works Director,
may cause safety problems, such as back-up onto a street or greater potential for traffic
accidents.
(4) Submittals:
Provide two copies of the TIA for Public Works Department to review
(5) Elements of Analysis:
A TIA shall be prepared by a Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer licensed to practice in the State
of Oregon with special training and experience in traffic engineering. The TIA shall be a
thorough review of the effects a proposed use will have on the transportation system. The study
area shall include all streets and intersections in the analysis, as defined in subsection (2)
above. Traffic generated from a proposed site will be distributed throughout the transportation
system using existing count data or the current transportation model used by the City. Any
alternate distribution method must be based on data acceptable to the Public Works
Department. The following checklist outlines what a TIA shall contain. Incomplete reports shall
be returned to the applicant for completion without review:
a) The scoping letter as provided by the Public Works Department:
b) The Final TIA shall be signed and stamped by a Professional Civil or Traffic Engineer
registered in the State of Oregon;
c) An executive summary, discussing the development, the major findings of the
analysis, and the mitigation measures proposed;
d) A vicinity map of the proposed site and study area;
e) Project characteristics such as zoning, potential trip generations (unless stipulated to
less than potential), proposed access(s), and other pertinent factors;
f) Street characteristics within the study area including functional classification, number
of travel lanes, lane width, shoulder treatment, bicycle path corridors, and traffic control
at intersections;
g) Description of existing transportation conditions including transit accessibility, accident
history, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, traffic signals, and overall traffic operations
and circulation;
h) Peak period turning movement counts of at least two-hour minimums at study area
intersections, less than 2 years old. These counts shall be adjusted to the design year of
the project and consider seasonal traffic adjustments when required by the scoping
letter;
i) A "Figure" showing existing peak period (AM, noon, or PM, whichever is largest)
turning movement volumes at study area intersections, as shown in Example 1.
Approved applications obtained from the City that have not built out but will impact study
39
City of Central Point
Department or oulakc Works
Standards and SpaarlCatior.s
106
7/25/14
1226 PM
area intersections shall be included as pipeline traffic An appropriate adjustment factor
shall be applied to existing count data if counts were taken during the off-peak season
j) Potential "Project" trip generation using the most current edition of the ITE Trip
Generation, as required by the Public Works Department at the time of scoping.
Variations of trip rates will require the approval of the Public Works Department. Such
approval will require submission of adequate supporting data prior to first submittal of the
TIA;
k) A "Figure" illustrating project turning movement volumes at study area intersections
for peak periods, as shown in Example 2 Adjustments made for pass -by traffic volumes
shall follow the methodology outlined in the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation, and
shall not exceed 25% unless approved by the Public Works Director;
1) A "Figure' illustrating the combined traffic of existing, background, and project turning
movement volumes at study area intersections for peak periods, as shown in Example 3,
m) Level of Service (LOS) analysis at study area intersections under the following
conditions:
(A) Existing plus pipeline traffic
(B) Existing plus pipeline traffic and project traffic.
A table shall be prepared which illustrates all LOS results. The table shall show LOS
conditions with corresponding vehicle delays for signalized intersections and the critical
movement at unsignalized intersections. If the proposed use is scheduled to be
completed in phases, a LOS analysis shall be prepared, for each phase;
n) A mitigation plan if impacts to the study area reduce level of service (LOS) below
minimums. Mitigation measures may include stipulations and/or construction of
necessary transportation improvements. Mitigation measures shall be required to the
extent that the transportation facilities, under City jurisdiction, operate at an acceptable
level of service (LOS) with the addition of project traffic; and
o) Intersections under jurisdiction of another agency, but still within the City limits, shall
be evaluated by either the City's criteria or the other jurisdiction's criteria, or both,
whichever is considered applicable by the Public Works Department.
If the TIA is not consistent with the scoping letter (including any amendments) then the
TIA will be returned to the applicant without review.
(6) Analysis criteria:
a) All trip distributions into and out of the transportation system must reflect existing
traffic count data for consistency or follow the current transportation model used by the
City. If alternate splits are used to distribute traffic then justification must be provided and
approved by the Public Works Department prior to first submittal of the TIA.
b) If progression analysis is being evaluated or queuing between intersections is a
concern, the peak period used in the analysis must be the same for every intersection
along the street and reflect that of the most critical intersection being evaluated. If a
common peak period is not requested by the Public Works Department, then the actual
peak period of every intersection shall be used.
c) Counts performed must be a minimum of two hours and include the peak period for
analysis purposes. All documentation shall be included in the TIA.
d) All supporting count data, LOS analyses, pass -by deductions, growth rates, traffic
40
City of Central Point
Department of Public Works
Standards and Speciflcations
107
3125;14
12:26 PM
distributions, or other engineering assumptions must be clearly defined and attached to
the TIA when submitted in report form to the City for review.
e) All LOS analyses shall follow operational procedures per the current Highway
Capacity Manual. Ideal saturation flow rates greater than 1800 vehicles per hour per
lane should not be used unless otherwise measured in the project vicinity. Queue
lengths shall be calculated at the 95th percentile where feasible. Actual peak hour
factors should be used for each movement or lane grouping in the analysis. Peak hour
factors over 0.90 shall not be used unless justified by specific counts at that location,
f) Signal timing used in capacity or progression analysis shall follow City timing plans
and account for pedestrian crossing times, unless otherwise noted in the scoping letter
g) Arrival Type 3 (random arrivals) shall be used unless a coordinated plan is in place
during the peak period.
320.10.04 — Maintenance of leve! of Service D
Whenever level of service is determined to be below level D for arterials or collectors,
development is not permitted unless the developer makes the roadway or other improvements
necessary to maintain level of service D respectively
41
City of Central Point
Department of Public Works
Standards and Specifications
108
On Feb 9,20 18, at 2;14 PM, WANG Wei * Michael <Wei, ANG(ct�odot.state.or,us> wrote:
Kim,
I have checked this project with RAME.
We agreed that the proposed development will not significantly impact state highway system.
If the city is require a TIA, we would like to take a look at the TIA as well.
Wei (Michael) Wang P.E. a M.S.1 Development Review Traffic Englneer
The ODOT Region 3 1 District 61100 Antelope Rd. I Whke City, OR 97503
Phone: 15411774.6316 1 Fax: 15411 T74,6349 Email: WeLWannlodoLstate.or us
From: Kim Parducci
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 4:09 PM
To: WANG Wei * Michael
Subject: Central Point ZC
Hi Michael,
I have a zone change in Central Point that 1 think is going to be too small to reach any ODOT
facilities but I'm sending a scoping letter to you just in case you have any comments.
The zone change involves three small residential tax lots on Bigham Drive (off of Freeman) that
are surrounded by commercial lots. The City is changing the comprehensive plan on two of the
three lots, which will snake them non -conforming if they stay residential so the applicant is
seeking the new Employment Commercial (E -C) zoning to be consistent with surrounding
properties. He plans to build an office building and said he has a dentist interested. I considered
the worst case on this site as a medical office building because other commercial uses like
restaurants require too much parking to be feasible in my opinion. A fast-food restaurant as an
example needs an acre to work. The only thing 1 wasn't sure of was how big of an office could
be constructed and still meet parking requirements so 1 assumed 50% coverage to hopefully be
conservative.
Call me if you have any questions.
-Kim
KINI11WR1 1 1' \RI)i ( I PI 111 O1
.5(11 I I11.Ws
('411 941-4140
I�.�Hlmrducwii�m�ilwm Oregon DBE%WBF,ESR Ceoi(ied No 5725
109
ATTACHMENT "C-2"
MEMORANDUM
To. Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner
City of Central Point
Date: 07/24/2018
(lotTPA "i DOATATia h
�hGlh�EAlh4. Lt(
Project: Bigham Drive R-3 to E -C / C-4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment / Zone Change
Subject: Traffic Impact Study Conclusion Clarification
319 Eastwood Drive
Medford, OR 97504
Telephone 541.941.4148
Kim, parducci@gmail.com
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering prepared a traffic impact study (TIS) dated March 14, 2018 for a
proposed comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change from R-3 (High Density Residential) to E -C
(Employment Commercial) / C-4 (Tourist/Office Professional) on 3751 W02CD tax lots 800, 700, and 1000. In our
conclusions we stated that the intersection of Bigham Drive and Freeman Road was shown in the analysis to be
operating at a level of service (LOS) "E" under existing conditions, which exceeds the City's LOS performance
standard. A planned improvement in a draft version of the Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) for Exit 33
was cited as providing mitigation for this intersection in the future. We have since learned that this planned
improvement did not get approved in the final version of the iAMP and will, therefore, not provide the mitigation
referenced. This does not change the outcome of our analysis, but requires some clarification.
The intersection of Bigham Drive and Freeman Road in our analysis is shown to operate at a LOS "E" under
existing conditions and continues to operate at a LOS "E" under year 2018 build, future year 2038 no -build, and
future year 2038 build conditions. The proposed zone change, therefore, is not shown to degrade the
performance of the intersection under existing or future conditions. This should have been stated in our original
analysis regardless of planned improvements. Our report conclusions remain the same as previously stated with
one clarification. Streets and intersections that serve the subject property will accommodate projected p.m, peak
hour traffic volumes. from permitted uses under proposed C-4 zoning wifiiaut requiring a change in the functional
classification of any existing or planned facility, or degrade the performance of an existing or planned facility that
is otherwise oroiected to not meet the performance standards identified in the City's Transportation System Plan
(TSP) or Comprehensive Plan. The outcome is the same, but the referenced section of the TPR changes when
mitigation is not shown through a planned improvement.
We hope this provides adequate clarification. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or
concerns.
Respectfully,
�&L� pj�--,
Kimberly Parducci, PE PTOE
Firm Principal
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC
110
ATTACHMENT "D"
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
File No.: ZC-18003
Before the City of Central Point Planning Commission
Consideration of a Zone (Map) Change Application on 0.43 acres at 45, 63, and 77 Bigham Drive.
The property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 02CD, Tax Lot 600,
700, and 1000.
Applicant: ) Findings of Fact
Nelson Investment Enterprises, LLC } and
210 Valle Vista Drive ) Conclusion of Law
Grants Pass, OR 97527
PART 1
INTRODUCTION
It is requested that the above referenced tax lots be rezoned from Residential Multifamily (R-3) to Tourist
and Office Professional (C4). The purpose of the zone change is to comply with the Employment
Commercial (EC) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and to prepare for a consolidated commercial
development that includes the subject properties_
The zone change request is a quasi-judicial trap amendment, which is processed using Type III
application procedures. Type Ili procedures set forth in Section 17.05.400 provides the basis for
decisions upon standards and criteria in the development code and the comprehensive plan, when
appropriate.
Applicable development code criteria for this Application include:
1. Comprehensive Plan
2. State Transportation Planning Rule
3. CPMC, Chapter 17.10
PART 2
FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
Staff has reviewed the Applicant's Findings (Attachment `B" in the Staff Report dated August 7, 2018)
and found that they address all of the applicable development code criteria for the proposed zone (map)
amendment. However, the Planning Department is providing supplemental findings addressing the State
Transportation Planning Rule below.
OAR 660-01240060 — Transportation Pl&WQ& Rule
The State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) in OAR 660-012-0060 requires changes to land use plans
and land use regulations (i.e. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments) to
be consistent with the function and capacity of existing and planned transportation facilities. Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060 subsection (l) states the following:
(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use
regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in
section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule.
tE
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 corrections of map errors in an adopted plan);
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a): A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the
proposed zone change by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC on March
14, 2018. A memorandum was submitted by Southern Oregon Transportation
Engineering, LLC on July 24, 2018 clarifying conclusions. Both documents are provided
as attachments to the Staff Report (Attachments "C-1 " and "G2 ", respectively) and are
herein incorporated by reference as evidence addressing the proposed zone change
compliance with the comprehensive plan, local land use regulations and TPR.
The TIA evaluates the proposed zone change on the 0.43 acre project site (37S 2 W 02CD
Tax Lots 600, 700. and 1000) from R-3 to EC%G4', including the surrounding streets and
intersections on Freeman Road (Minor Arterial), Bigham Drive (Local) and Oak Street
(Local). Per Table 6 in the TIA, the zone change trip generation was evaluated based on
a 1.000 square foot medical gffice building as the highest use for the site. The analysis
reported a 27 total PM Peak trips, which does not result in any changes to the functional
street classifications an Freeman Road, Bigham Drive, or Oak Street.
Conclusion OAR 66"12-0060(I)(u): Per the 774, the traffic generated by the increased
land use intensity will not alter the functional classification for any existed or planned
infrastructure.
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
Finding OAR 660 -012 -0060(1)(b). -Hie standards implementing a functional
classification system are based on the Public Works Department Standard Specifications
and Uniform Details for Public Works Construction (2014). Table I in the TIA
summarizes the roadway classifications and operational standards that apply to the
transportation facilities evaluated. As shown in the TIA, the City's operational standard
for all evaluated streets is LOS D. The intersection at Bigham Drive and Oak Street is
shown to operate at a LOS A under the no -build and build conditions for 2018 and 2038.
The intersection at Freeman and Bigham Drive, however, currently operate at a LOS E
under no -build conditions. The TIA shows that the intersection continues to operate at a
LOS Efor the 2018 build, 2038 no build, and 2038 build conditions, and is not
aggravated by the proposed minor zone map amendment. As demonstrated by the TIA,
the proposed zone map amendment does not change any standards implementing the
functional classification system for Bigham, Freeman or Oak Street.
1 The Employment Commercial (EC) is in reference to the underlying land use designation, which includes the C-4
zoning classification per the 2018 Land Use Element adopted by Ordinance No. 2043 (herein incorporated by
reference).
112
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(1)(b): Consistent.
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based
on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the
adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected
to be generated within the areas of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment
includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic
generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This
reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(A): Travel and access are a function of
increased trips and driveway spacing. As demonstrated in Finding OAR 660-
012-0060(1)(a), the trips generated by the proposed zone change is consistent
with the functional street classifications for Freeman Road, Bigham Drive, and
Oak Street. Driveway and access standards are provided in the Public Works
Standards, Table 300-6 which species site access shall be located the farthest
distance away from a Mirror Arterial (Freeman Road) and Local (Bigham Drive)
.street intersection or 30 -ft whichever is greater. Per the Applicant's T1A, travel
and access to the site on Bigham Drive is located at the south end of the affected
properties, approximately 180 feetfrom the intersection of Bighom Drive and
Freeman Road consistent with this standard.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(A): The access and travel on existing and
planned facilities is consistent with the funclional classification standards set
forth in the Public Works Standard Specifications and TSP and Comprehensive
Plan.
("B) Degrade the pertlormance of an existing or planned transportation facility such
that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan; or,
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B): As shown in Table 1, the intersection of
Freeman and Bigham will decline to an unacceptable level ofservice (LOS) "E"
under year 2018 no -build year and continue through build year 2038.
113
Roadway
Functional
City
Year
Year
Future
Fature
Intersection
Classification
Operational
2018,
2018,
Year
Year
Standard
No -build
Build
2038, No
2038,
Build
Build
Freeman Road/
Minor Arterial
LOS "D"
LOS "E"
LOS "E"
LOS "E"
LOS "E"
Bi ham Drive
Oak Street/Local
J
-- Street
LOS "D"
LOS "A"
LOS "A"
LOS "A"
Bigham Drive
113
The TIA shows that the trips generated by the proposed zone change do not
degrade the performance of the existing street beyond current conditions.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B): Consistent.
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is
otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP
or comprehensive plan.
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(C): As demonstrated in Finding OAR 660-
012-0060(1)(c)(B), the intersection of Freeman Road and Bigham Drive fails
during the 2018 and 2038 no -build scenarios. The proposed zone change does
not further aggravate the city's operational standard.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(C): Consistent.
(2) if a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, then the local
government must ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function,
capacity, and performance standards of the facility measured at the end of the planning period
identified in the adopted TSP through one or a combination of the remedies listed in (a)
through (e) below, unless the amendment meets the balancing test in subsection 2(e) of this
section or qualities for partial mitigation in section (11) of this rule. A local government using
subsection (2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11) to approve an amendment recognizes
that additional motor vehicle traffic congestion may result and that other facility providers
would not be expected to provide additional capacity for motor vehicles in response to this
congestion.
(a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned,
function, capacity, and performance standards of the facility.
(b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities,
improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the
requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or
mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation
finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service will be provided by the end of
the planning period.
(c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of
the transportation facility.
(d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development
agreement or similar funding method, including but not limited to transportation system
management measures or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall,
as part of the amendment, specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to
114
this subsection will be provided.
(e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly affected
mode, improvements to facilities other than the significantly affected facility, or
improvements at other locations if:
(A) The provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written statement
that the system -wide benefits are sufficient to balance the significant effect, even
though the improvements would not result in consistency for all standards;
(B) The providers of facilities being improved at other locations provide written
statements of approval; and,
(C) The local jurisdictions where facilities are being improved provide written
statements of approval.
Finding OAR 660-012-1160(2): As demonstrated in the findings and conclusions for OAR 660-
012-0060(l), transportation facilities will not be significantly afl'ecred by the proposed zone
map change.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(2)_ Not applicable.
(3) Notwithstanding sections(1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may approve an
amendment that would significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring
that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity, and performance
standards of the facility where:
(a) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements and
services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve
consistency with the identified function, capacity or performance standard for that facility
by the end of the planning period identified in the TSP.
(b) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum mitigate the impacts of
the amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the performance of the
facility by the time of the development through one or a combination of transportation
improvements or measures;
(c) The amendment does not involve property located in an interchange area as defined in
paragraph (d)(C); and
(d) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed
funding and timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, at a
minimum, sufficient to avoid further degradation to the performance of the affected state
highway. However, if a local government provides the appropriate ODOT regional office
with written notice of a proposed amendment in a manner that provides ODOT
reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of the local
government proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a written statement, then the local
115
government may proceed with applying subsections (a) through (c) of this section.
Finding OAR 660-012-060(3): As demonstrated in the findings and conclusions for OAR 660-
011-0060(1), transportation facilities will not be significantly affected by the proposed zone
map change.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(3): Not applicable.
(4) Determinations under sections (1) through (3) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected
transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments.
(a) In determining whether an amendment has a significant effect on an existing or planned
transportation facility under subsection (1)(c) of this rule, local governments shall rely on
existing transportation facilities and services and on the planned transportation facilities,
improvements and services set forth in subsections (b) and (c) below.
(b) Outside of interstate interchange areas, the following are considered planned facilities,
improvements, and services:
(A) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are funded for
construction or implementation in the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program or a locally or regionally adopted transportation improvement program
or capital improvement plan or program of a transportation service provider.
(B) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are authorized in a local
transportation system plan and for which a funding plan or mechanism is in place
or approved. These include, but are not limited to, transportation facilities,
improvements or services for which: transportation systems development charge
revenues are being collected; a local improvement district or reimbursement
district has been established or will be established or will be established prior to
development; a development agreement has been adopted; or conditions of
approval to fund the improvement have been adopted.
(C) Transportation facilities, improvements or services in a metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) area that are part of the area's federally -approved,
financially constrained regional transportation system plan.
(D) Improvements to state highways that are included as planned improvements in a
regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when ODOT
provides a written statement that the improvements are reasonably likely to he
provided by the end of the planning period.
(E) Improvements to regional and local roads, streets or other transportation facilities
or services that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local
transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when the local government9s)
all-
or transportation service provider(s) responsible for the facility, improvement or
service provides a written statement that the facility, improvement or service is
reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period.
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(4)(b): The proposed zone change occurs on property
within '/a mile oflnterchange 33 for Interstate 5.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(4)(b): Not applicable since the property is within an
adopted LAMP.
(c) Within interstate interchange areas, the improvements included in (b) (A) -(C) are
considered planned facilities, improvements and services, except where:
(A) ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing of
mitigation measures are sufficient to avoid a significant adverse impact on the
Interstate Highway system, then local governments may also rely on the
improvements identified in paragraphs (b)(€7) and (E) of this section; or,
(B) There is an adopted interchange area management plan, then local government
may also rely on the improvements identified in that plan and which are also
identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section.
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(4)(c): Akhough the 1AMP and 7SP do not identify
improvwments adjacent to the site that would mitigate the existing LOS E deficiency at the
intersection of Freeman and Bigham Drive, ODOT provided written confirmation in an
email dated February 9, 2018 that the proposed zone change will not adversely affect the
highway system.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(4)(c): Consistent.
(d) As used in this section and section (3):
(A) Planned interchange means new interchanges and relocation of existing
interchanges that are authorized in an adopted transportation system plan or
comprehensive plan;
(B) Interstate highway means Interstates 5, 82, 84, 105, 205 and 405; and,
(C) Interstate interchange area means:
(i) Property within one-quarter mile of the ramp terminal intersection of an
existing or planned interchange on an Interstate Highway; or,
(ii) The interchange area as defined in the Interchange Area Management
Plan adopted as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan.
117
(e) For purposes of this section, a written statement provided pursuant to paragraphs (b)(D),
(b)(E), or (c)(A) provided by ODOT, a local government or transportation facility
provider, as appropriate, shall be conclusive in determining whether a transportation
facility, improvement or service is a planned transportation facility, improvement or
service. ]n the absence of a written statement, a local government can only rely upon
planned transportation facilities, improvements and services identified in paragraphs
(b)(A)-(C) to determine whether there is a significant effect that requires application of
the remedies in section (2).
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(4): As demonstrated in the Findings for OAR 660-012-
0060(4)(c). the proposed minor zone snap amendmeni was coordinated with affected
transportation facility and service providers, including ODOT and the Central Point Public
Works Department.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(4): Consistent.
(9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a local government may find that an amendment to a
zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned facility if all of the following
requirements are met:
(a) The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan map designation
and the amendment does not change the comprehensive plans map;
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(9)(4): The comprehensive plan designation for the subject
property is Employment Commercial (Ordinance No. 2043). Per the Land Use Element, the
Employment Commercial land use designation replaces the former Tourist and Office
Professional designation and is consistent with the C4. Tourist and Office Professional
zoning proposed for the site.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(9)(a): Consistent.
(b) The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent
with the TSP; and,
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(9)(b): The City's TSP was acknowledged on December 18,
2008 (Ordinance No. 1922) and was updated on October 8, 2015 (Ordinance No. 2017) to
incorporate I"P 33 and IA -MP 35 by reference into the TSPITransportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Per the TSP, the zoning is consistent with the functional classifications
and performance standards for the affected transportation facilities.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(9)(b): Consistent.
(c) The area subject to the zoning map amendment was not exempted from this rule at the
time of an urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660-024-0020(1)(d),
or the area was exempted from this rule but the local government has a subsequently
acknowledged TSP amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area.
118
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(9)(c): The project site is located on 0.43 acres that was part of
the original town settlement when it was incorporated in 1889. Given the timing of
incorporation, it was not subject to this rule and therefore was not exempted from it. Since the
land was incorporated, it has been planned for urbanization as evidenced by existing
development and planned land use shown on comprehensive plan and zoning maps adopted
and updated over the years.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(9)(c): The findings in this section further support findings in
OAR 660-012-0060(1) in concluding that the proposed minor zone map amendment does not
signifecuntly affect existing or planned transportation facilities.
(10) Notwithstanding sections (t) and (2) of this rule, a local government may amend a functional
plan, a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation without applying performance standards
related to motor vehicle traffic congestion (e.g. volume to capacity ratio or V/Q, delay or
travel time if the amendment meets the requirements of subsection (a) of this section. This
section does not exempt a proposed amendment from other transportation performance
standards or policies that may apply including, but not limited to, safety for all modes,
network connectivity for all modes (e.g, sidewalks, bicycle lanes) and accessibility for freight
vehicles of a size and frequency required by the development.
(a) A proposed amendment qualifies for this section if it:
(A) Is s neap or text amendment affecting only land entirely within a multimodal
mixed-use area (MMA); and
(B) Is consistent with the definition of an MMA and consistent with the function of
the MMA as described in the findings designating the MMA.
Fending OAR 560-012-0060(10)(x): The proposed map amendment is within an area
designated as an Activity Center in the Land Use Element (Ordinance No. 2043) and Rogue
Valley Metropolitan Area (RV41PO) Alternative Measures Activity Center.z Activity Centers
are interchangeable with the term Transit OrientedIMixed Use Pedestrian Friendly Areas.
These areas represent development of places that encourage neighborhood oriented, higher
density and mixed use environments that increase the convenience of walking, bicycling and
transit.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(10)(a): Consistent.
(b) For the purpose of this rule, "multimodal mixed-use area" or "MMA" means an area:
(A) With a boundary adopted by a local government as provided in subsection (d) or
(e) of this section and that has been acknowledged;
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(10)(b)(A): The subject properties are fully within
the boundary of a designated Activity Center as delineated in the Central Point
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and RVMPO Regional Transportation
z 2009-2034 Regional Transportation Plan, Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, April 27, 2004.
119
Plan.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(10)(b)(A). Consistent.
(B) Entirely within an urban growth boundary;
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(10)(b)(B): The subject properties are entirely
within the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary as shown in the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(10)(b)(B): Consistent.
(C) With adopted plans and development regulations that allow the uses listed in
paragraphs (8)(b)(A) through (C) of this rule and that require new development
to be consistent with the characteristics listed in paragraphs (8)(b)(D) through
(l) of this rule;
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(10)(b)(C): The subject properties are within an
activity center that includes lands planned and zoned for a combination of
commercial and high density residential uses, specifically the R-3 and C-4 zones.
As shown in CPMC 17.28 (R-3) and CPMC 17.44 (C-4), uses allowed in this
activity center include densities ranging between 14 and 25 units per acre in
buildings up to 43 -ft (if performance zoning is applied). Commercial uses
include a variety of professional office, personal service, and retail awes
consistent with OAR 660-012-0060(8)(b) (A) through (C).
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(10)(b)(C): Consistent.
(D) With land use regulations that do not require the provision of off-street parking,
or regulations that require lower levels of off-street parking than required in other
areas and allow flexibility to meet the parking requirements (e.g. count on -street
parking, allow long-term leases, allow shared parking); and
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(10)(b)(D). The land use regulations in this zone
permit reduced off-street parking up to 20% of the minimum/maximum
requirement. Per CPMC 17.64.040(D), .shared parking is allowed and
encouraged in commercial zones, including the C-4 zone.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(10)(b)(D): Consistent.
(E) Located in one or more of the categories below:
(i) At least one-quarter mile from any ramp terminal intersection of existing
or planned interchanges;
120
(ii) Within the area of an adopted Interchange Area Management Plan
(IAMP) and consistent with the LAMP; or
(iii) Within one-quarter mile of a ramp terminal intersection of an existing or
planned interchange if the mainline facility provider has provided written
concurrence with the MMA designation as provided in subsection (c) of
this section.
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(10)(b)(E): Using GIS measurements based on the
2017 aerial photo of Central Point, the subject properties are within
approximately 570 feet or 0.10 miles of Interstate 5 Exit 33. The property is
shown in the 14MP for Exit 33, but no projects are planned adjacent to the site.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(10)(h)(E): Consistent.
(c) When a mainline facility provider reviews an MMA designation as provided in
subparagraph (b)(E)(iii) of this section, the provider must consider the factors listed in
paragraph (A) of this subsection.
(A) The potential for operational or safety effects to the interchange area and the
mainline highway, specifically considering;
(i) Whether the interchange area has a crash rate that is higher than the
statewide crash rate for similar facilities;
(ii) Whether the interchange area is in the top ten percent of locations
identified by the safety priority index system (SPIS) developed by
ODOT; and
(iii) Whether existing or potential fixture traffic queues on the interchange exit
ramps extend onto the mainline highway or the portion of the ramp
needed to safely accommodate deceleration.
(B) If there are operational or safety effects as described in paragraph (A) of this
subsection, the effects may be addressed by an agreement between the local
government and the facility provider regarding traffic management plans
favoring traff is movements away from the interchange, particularly those
facilitating clearing traffic queues on the interchange exit ramps.
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(10)(c): Per the TIA in Appendix G, Agency Requirements, there is
an email from ODOT Region 3 dated February 9, 2018 indicating their agency's determination
that the development resulting from the proposed zone map amendment will not significantly
impact the state highway system. The TIA was distributed to ODOT Region 3 on July], 2018
and July 18, 2018. No comments were received contrary to the email received on February 9,
2018. This is further supported by findings in the TIA relative to site traffic generated in the 2018
build and 2038 build years showing no adverse operational or safety effects.
121
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(10)(c): Consistent.
(d) A local government may designate an MMA by adopting an amendment to the
comprehensive plan or land use regulations to delineate the boundary following an
existing zone, multiple existing zones, an urban renewal area, other existing boundary, or
establishing a new boundary. The designation must be accompanied by findings showing
how the area meets the defmition of an MMA. Designation of an MMA is not subject to
the requirements in sections (1) and (2) of this rule.
(e) A local government may designate an MMA on an area where comprehensive plan map
designations or land use regulations do not meet the definition, if all of the other elements
meet the definition, by concurrently adopting comprehensive plan or land use regulation
amendments necessary to meet the definition. Such amendments are not subject to
performance standards related to motor vehicle traffic congestion, delay or travel time.
Finding OAR 660-012-0060(10)(d) through (e): The City is not proposing designation ofa new
MMA as part of this application.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(10)(d) through (e): Not applicable.
PART 3
SUMMARY CONCLUSION
As evidenced in findings and conclusions provided in Part 2 and Exhibit "I", the proposed zone change is
consistent with applicable standards and criteria in the Central Point Municipal Code, including the
Statewide Planning Goals (where applicable), Comprehensive PIan, and Statewide Transportation
Planning Rule.
122
ATTACHMENT "E"
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 855
A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE
CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE MINOR ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (R-3) TO TOURIST AND OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL (C-4) ON 0.43 ACRES LOCATED AT 45, 63, AND 77 BIGHAM DR.
(37S 2W 02CD Tax Lots 600, 700, and 1000)
File No.:ZC-18003
Applicant: Nielson Investment Enterprises, LLC
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property identified by
the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 02CD Tax Lots 600, 700, and 1000 as
Employment Commercial; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Tourist and Office Professional (C4) zoning is an urban
Employment Commercial zoning district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
surrounding land uses; and
WHEREAS, adequate public services and transportation networks are available to the site;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed zone change from R-3 to C-4 has been determined to be consistent
with the State Transportation Planning Rule.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning
Commission, by this Resolution No. 855, does recommend that the City Council approve the
change of zone on the property identified by the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W
02CD Tax Lots 600, 700, and 1000. This decision is based on the Staff Report dated August
7, 2018 including Attachments A through D attached hereto by reference and incorporated
herein.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by the in authentication of its passage this
7th day of August, 2018.
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
City Representative
Planning Comrnission Resolution No. 855 (08/07/2018)
123