HomeMy WebLinkAbout04012025 PC Agenda Packet (Condensed Version)PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
AGENDA
April 1, 2025
6:00 PM
Email planning@centralpointoregon.gov
to request a Zoom link for virtual participation
www.centralpointoregon.gov
10. Meeting Called to Order
20. Roll Call
30. Correspondence
40. Approval of Minutes
A. Approval of the March 4, 2025 Meeting Minutes
50. Public Appearances
60. Business
A. Anchor Church Conditional Use Permit
B. Gebhard Village Master Plan Application
C. Gebhard Village Tentative Subdivision Plan
70. Discussion Items
80. Administrative Reviews
90. Miscellaneous
100. Adjournment
Individuals wishing to attend a meeting via Zoom or needing special
accommodations such as sign language, foreign language interpreters, or
equipment for deaf and hard of hearing people must request such services at least
72 hours before the City Council meeting. To make your request, please contact
the City Recorder at 541-423-1015 (voice) or by e-mail to
meetings@centralpointoregon.gov.
Page 1 of 1226
Si necesita traductor en espanol o serviciis de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a
una junta publica de la caudad poor favor llame con 72 hora de anticipation al 541-
664-3321 ext. 201.
Page 2 of 1226
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
MINUTES
March 4, 2025
6:00 PM
Email planning@centralpointoregon.gov
to request a Zoom link for virtual participation
www.centralpointoregon.gov
1 Meeting Called to Order
2 Roll Call
The following members were present: Board Member Kay Harrison, Board Member
Patrick Smith, Board Member Alicia Van Riggs, Board Member Royce Chambers
The following members were absent: Jim Mock
The following staff were also present: Stephanie Powers, Justin Gindlesperger
3 Correspondence
None.
4 Approval of Minutes
A.Approval of February 11, 2025 Minutes
Motion: Approve
Moved By: Kay Harrison Seconded by: Alicia Van Riggs
Roll Call: Members Kay Harrison, Patrick Smith, Alicia Van Riggs, Royce
Chambers voted yes. None voted no.
5 Public Appearances
None.
6 Business
Page 3 of 1226
Central Point Planning Commission
March 4, 2025 Meeting
Page 2 of 3
A.Anchor Church Conditional Use Permit
Chairperson Tom Van Voohrees read the Quasi-judicial Hearing Statement
explaining the rules governing the public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit
application. He asked Commissioners about ex-parte contacts, conflicts of
interest and bias. There were none reported and no challenges from members
of the public. Chairperson VanVoohrees opened the public hearing.
Community Planner III, Justin Gindlesperger, introduced the proposed
Conditional Use Permit application to operate a church within an existing
building in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. The site, he said, is an existing
shopping center located at the intersection of North 10th and North 3rd Street.
Mr. Gindlesperger explained that the use has been active for over a year but
requires a Conditional Use Permit to consider impacts, such as traffic. The item,
he said, was initially scheduled for a public hearing on February 4, 2025 but
had to be rescheduled due to adverse weather conditions. Mr. Gindlesperger
reported that the hearing had been duly noticed for this meeting. However, the
applicant's agent submitted a written request to open the public hearing and
continue it to the April 1, 2025 meeting.
The Planning Commission heard testimony from two members of the public who
were present, as follows:
•Mark Anderson, the church pastor, introduced himself and spoke in favor
of the proposed Conditional Use Permit application, and said he was
available to answer questions of the Planning Commission. The
Commission asked him how many days a week the church is in service.
Mr. Anderson responded that Sundays are the only day service is held.
•Rick Aarons, a resident on Crater Lane, spoke in favor of the application,
noting that he had observed the parking lot on Sundays when church is
in session. He said it is never full and doesn't appear to be causing any
issues with traffic or parking.
7 Discussion Items
None.
8 Administrative Reviews
None.
9 Miscellaneous
Planning Director, Stephanie Powers, provided a brief overview of land development
applications and construction in the City. Commissioners had questions about the
Page 4 of 1226
Central Point Planning Commission
March 4, 2025 Meeting
Page 3 of 3
status of Grocery Outlet and Goodwill on East Pine Street, as well as the Yellow
Basket property on South Front Street.
Ms. Powers notified the Commissioners that there would be a Joint Study Session
with the City Council and Citizen's Advisory Committee on April 21, 2025 to receive
a report on a code audit and code concepts necessary to comply with Climate
Friendly & Equitable Communities walkable design standards requirements. She
said code updates would occur concurrent with the update of the City's
Transportation System Plan, which is set to start later this year.
10 Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the March 4, 2025, Planning Commission meeting were
approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of _________________, 2025.
Dated:_________________________
ATTEST:
__________________________
Page 5 of 1226
Staff Report
Anchor Church Conditional Use Permit
File No. CUP-24003
April 1, 2025
Item Summary
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application to allow a religious institution at 1775 N
10th Street. The project site is within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) commercial zoning
district and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s Map as 37S 2W 03AA Tax Lot 4300.
Applicant/Agent: Cynthia Guthrie, AIA.
Staff Source
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner III
Background
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a church in an existing
office building on a property at 1775 N 10th Street in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N)
commercial zoning district. Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) defines the term ‘church’ as a
permanently located building wholly or partly used for the purpose of religious worship. As noted
in the Project Narrative (Attachment “A”), the CUP is to allow Anchor Church to change the use
of the existing building from a retail use in order to conduct Sunday worship/church services on
site.
The public hearing for the conditional use permit was initially scheduled for February 4, 2025,
but the hearing was canceled due to inclement weather and re-scheduled for March 4, 2025.
Prior to the re-scheduled hearing, the Applicant informed staff of their inability to attend and
requested the hearing be continued. At the March 4, 2025 meeting, the Planning Commission
received testimony from two individuals before continuing the hearing to April 1, 2025.
At the April 1, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, staff will present the application along with a
summary of the public testimony and recommend action for the Planning Commission’s
consideration based on evidence in the record and the criteria for Conditional Use Permit set
forth in CPMC 17.76.
Project Description
The applicants are currently conducting church services on the property and the CUP
application is necessary to bring the use into compliance with the CPMC. As part of the
application, the applicant remodeled the interior of the building to accommodate the Sunday
services.
Page 6 of 1226
Access
The site has an existing access along N 3rd Street, a public street. Frontage improvements are
existing and no additional improvements are required.
Traffic Impacts
As noted above, services are only conducted on Sunday for approximately 50 attendees. Traffic
from the site will not conflict with the weekday peak times on the adjacent streets. Based on the
hours of operation and the number of trips from the church, a traffic impact analysis is not
required and there are no anticipated traffic impacts associated with this use.
Building and Site Design
The church occupies approximately 3,700 square feet of an existing 8,100 square foot
commercial building. The remaining floor area is occupied by an existing retail use, the Fair City
Market. The uses are separated internally and utilize separate entrances, with Fair City
entrance facing North and Anchor Church to the east. Prior to the church, this portion of the
building was used for various retail uses, most recently the Horse Blanket. The applicants are
not proposing any exterior modifications to the structure.
In accordance with CPMC 17.64, there are no minimum parking requirements in Central Point.
Maximum parking standards apply. Churches may provide up to 13.3 spaces/1,000 square feet
of floor area, or a maximum of 49 parking spaces for the 3,700 square foot church.
The site currently has 15 existing parking spaces and the adjacent property, under the same
ownership as the subject property has an additional 27 parking spaces. There are no proposed
alterations to the parking or landscaping areas.
Neighborhood Compatibility
Due to the existing development patterns and noise impacts of the area, the proposed church is
not expected to conflict with or adversely impact the existing uses. The subject property is
located near the intersection of N 10th Street and N 3rd Street with an existing commercial retail
use adjacent to the church use. In addition, the church is conducting services on Sundays only
and avoids peak weekday travel times.
Issues
There are three (3) issues relative to this application:
1.Change of Occupancy. The church use changes the occupancy of the building from a
“B” category use (for business) to an “A-3” category use (for assembly). Per Building
Department comments (Attachment “E”), the change requires a Change of Occupancy
Permit to ensure the interior modifications are consistent with the Building Code.
Comment: Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 2 requiring the applicant to
submit a detailed floor plan to the Building Division and obtain a Change of Occupancy
Permit.
Page 7 of 1226
2.Trash Enclosure. As noted by the Rogue Disposal Staff Report (Attachment “H”), the
existing trash enclosure on the property does not comply with current Rogue Disposal
specifications. If the applicant proposes to have separate service from the adjacent use
on site, the Applicant must coordinate the placement of the new trash containers with
Rogue Disposal and comply with service area screening requirements in CPMC
17.75.042.
Comment: Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 3(a) requiring the Applicant to
coordinate trash container locations with Rogue Disposal and Conditional of Approval
No. 3(b) requiring the Applicant to comply with service area screening requirements.
3.Public Comments. The City received written comments (Attachment “I”) regarding
parking and traffic impacts from the proposed use on the adjacent streets. Specifically,
the comments are concerned with off-street parking for the church use and traffic
conflicts at the intersection of N. 3rd Street and N. 10th Street, especially during AM and
PM school pick up and drop off times for nearby Scenic Middle School.
Comment: As noted in the Project Narrative (Attachment “A”), the church will conduct
services on Sundays from 8 am to 12 pm for approximately 50 congregants. Sunday
services avoid the peak traffic times on the adjacent streets, including weekday school
pick up and drop off times.
As noted above, the site provides 15 spaces with an additional 27 parking spaces on the
adjacent site that is under the same ownership. Additional on-street public parking is
available along N. 3rd Street, south of the project site across from Aurora Lane. On-
street parking is restricted north of the site to avoid conflicts with the N 3rd Street/N 10th
Street intersection.
As a condition of approval, any modifications to the conditional use permit for the
proposed church is subject to review in accordance with CPMC 17.09. This will include
additional service days and service times.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
The Anchor Church Conditional Use Permit has been evaluated against the applicable
Conditional Use Permit Criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76 and found to comply as conditioned
and as evidenced in the Planning Department Findings of Fact (Attachments “D”).
Conditions of Approval
1. The applicant shall coordinate with the Building Division to obtain a Change of
Occupancy Permit and comply with the requirements in the Oregon Specialty Structural
Code.
Page 8 of 1226
2. The applicant shall coordinate with Rogue Valley Sewer Services and comply with the
requirements set forth in the letter dated January 7, 2025 (Attachment “G”).
3. At the time separate trash service is established for the proposed use, the Applicant
shall:
a. Coordinate with Rogue Disposal and comply with the requirements set forth in
the email dated January 7, 2025 (Attachment “H”); and
b. Submit plans and construction details that demonstrate compliance with
Screening for Service Area standards in CPMC 17.75.042(A)(6).
4. Any modifications to the conditional use permit, including but not limited to scheduled
service days and times, shall be subject to review in accordance with CPMC 17.09,
Modifications to Approved Plans and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments
Attachment “A” – Project Narrative
Attachment “B” – Site Plan
Attachment “C” – Floor Plan
Attachment “D” – Planning Department Findings of Fact
Attachment “E” – Building Division Staff Report, dated 01/07/2025
Attachment “F” – Fire District No. 3 Staff Report, dated 01/07/2025
Attachment “G” – Rogue Valley Sewer Services Staff Report, dated 01/07/2025
Attachment “H” – Rogue Disposal Staff Report, dated 01/07/2025
Attachment “I” – Public Comments, dated 01/27/2025
Attachment “J” – Resolution No. 927
Action
Open a public hearing and consider the proposed Conditional Use Permit application and 1)
approve; 2) approve with revisions; or 3) deny the application.
Recommendation
Approve Resolution No. 927, a Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit application for
the Anchor Church.
Recommended Motion
I move to approve Resolution No. 927, a Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit
application for the Anchor Church per the Staff Report dated April 1, 2025.
Page 9 of 1226
CYNTHIA GUTHRIE ARCHITECT
4075 Cedar Lane Medford,Oregon 97501 Phone:840-9190 Email:arch4clg@yahoo.com
December 5,2024
Hello:
This is a statement regarding the proposed Change of Occupancy at 1779 10th St.
Central Point,Oregon from ‘B’to ‘A-3’.My Client,Anchor Church,is proposing to
use this space as a Church for Sunday Services.
●They will use the existing 42 parking spaces provided on their and the
adjoining lot (also owned by Herb Miller)and not exceed the maximum
allowed of 49 spaces.
●The Trip Generation for this change is a Maximum of 50 congregants on
Sundays from 8-12.
●New Maximum Occupant Load will be 200 with signage stating this from
F.D.#3 posted near Exit.
●Based on the Occupancy of 200 or less,the existing Restrooms-(2)
toilets/sinks in Women’s,(1)toilet/sink in Men’s meet required numbers of
fixtures per Table 2902.1,2022 OSSC
●Exit location,size,signage and emergency lighting all reviewed and
approved for proposed ‘A-3 ’Occupancy by Jackson County Fire District #3
Deputy fire Marshal Mark Northrop.Exists will remain unobstructed and
open to provide appropriate egress.
●Anchor Church will welcome yearly inspections from F.D.#3 for compliance
Thank you
Cynthia Guthrie,Architect
Page 10 of 1226
Page 11 of 1226
Page 12 of 1226
Page 1 of 6 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: CUP-24003
PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
File No.: CUP-24003
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit
for Anchor Church Change of Use
Applicant:) Findings of Fact
Cynthia Guthrie, AIA ) and
4075 Cedar Lane ) Conclusion of Law
Medford OR 97501 )
PART 1
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting to change the use of an existing commercial retail building to a religious
institution in order to conduct Sunday worship/church services on site.
The project site is located within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) zoning district. Churches and
other religious institutions are considered conditional uses in the CN zone, in accordance with CPMC
17.32.030.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is processed using Type III application procedures. Type III procedures
set forth in Section 17.05.400 provide the basis for decisions upon standards and criteria in the
development code and the comprehensive plan, when appropriate.
The standards and criteria for CUP are set forth in CPMC 17.76. The following findings address each of
the standards and criteria as applies to the proposed application for the Anchor Church change-of-use.
Page 13 of 1226
Page 2 of 6 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: CUP-24003
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Page 14 of 1226
Page 3 of 6 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: CUP-24003
Figure 2. Site Plan
Page 15 of 1226
Page 4 of 6 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: CUP-24003
PART 2 – CHAPTER 17.76
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
In certain districts, conditional uses are permitted subject to the granting of a conditional use permit.
Because of their unusual characteristics or the special attributes of the area in which they are to be
located, conditional uses require special consideration so that they may be properly located with respect to
the objectives of the zoning title and their effect on surrounding properties.
17.76.040 Findings and conditions.
The planning commission in granting a conditional use permit shall find as follows:
A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to
meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other
provisions of this code;
Finding 17.76.040(A): The CN zoning district does not have minimum lot area, width or depth
requirements. There are no minimum setbacks. As shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2), the project site
is currently developed with an existing commercial building, parking and circulation, landscape and
frontage improvements. The application proposes to change the use of a portion of the existing
building from commercial retail use to a church for assembly use. There are no proposed alterations
to the exterior or size of the building, to parking or circulation, or landscape areas.
Conclusion 17.76.040(A): Consistent.
B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is
adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be
generated by the proposed use;
Finding 17.76.040(B): As shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2), the site has direct access to N 3rd
Street, a public street. N 3rd Street is classified as a Collector street. The proposed use will conduct
services on Sundays, away from peak days and times for the area streets. Frontage improvements are
existing and the application does not propose to alter the access location or width.
Conclusion 17.76.040(B): Consistent.
C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted
use thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of
improvements on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of
buildings and structures; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs;
Finding 17.76.040(C): There are no proposed alterations to the exterior of the building, parking
area, on-site circulation, or landscape areas. Modifications to the building are interior in order to
accommodate the proposed change of use from commercial to a religious institution for church
services.
Conclusion 17.76.040(C): Not applicable.
Page 16 of 1226
Page 5 of 6 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: CUP-24003
D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with local,
state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health,
safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and
will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to
the general welfare of the community based on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of
this section;
Finding 17.76.040(D): As noted in the Building Department Staff Comments, dated January 7, 2025,
the proposed change of use requires a Change of Occupancy permit. The commercial use is
considered a “B” (business) use in the Oregon Specialty Code and the church is considered an “A-3”
use for assembly. As a condition of approval, the Applicant must obtain a Change of Occupancy
permit from the Building Department.
Conclusion 17.76.040(D): Complies as conditioned.
E. That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare and may include:
1.Adjustments to lot size or yard areas as needed to best accommodate the proposed use;
provided the lots or yard areas conform to the stated minimum dimensions for the subject
zoning district, unless a variance is also granted as provided for in Chapter 17.13,
2.Increasing street widths, modifications in street designs or addition of street signs or traffic
signals to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use,
3.Adjustments to off-street parking requirements in accordance with any unique
characteristics of the proposed use,
4.Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress,
5.Requiring landscaping, irrigation systems, lighting and a property maintenance program,
6.Regulation of signs and their locations,
7.Requiring fences, berms, walls, landscaping or other devices of organic or artificial
composition to eliminate or reduce the effects of noise, vibrations, odors, visual
incompatibility or other undesirable effects on surrounding properties,
8.Regulation of time of operations for certain types of uses if their operations may adversely
affect privacy of sleep of persons residing nearby or otherwise conflict with other
community or neighborhood functions,
9.Establish a time period within which the subject land use must be developed,
10.Requirement of a bond or other adequate assurance within a specified period of time,
Page 17 of 1226
Page 6 of 6 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: CUP-24003
11.Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare,
12.In considering an appeal of an application for a conditional use permit for a home
occupation, the planning commission shall review the criteria listed in Section 17.60.190.
Finding 17.76.040(E): As shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2), the project site is currently developed with
an existing commercial building, off-street parking, circulation, landscaping and street frontage
improvements. The proposed change of use is from a retail commercial use to a religious
institution/church. The proposed use operates on Sundays and does not generate as many trips as the
previous use and avoids peak travel days and times. Modifications to the site are internal to the building
to accommodate the new use and no changes are proposed for site layout. Any changes to the exterior of
the building, including but not limited to signs, must obtain permits from the Building Department.
As noted in the Rogue Disposal Staff Comments, dated January 7, 2025, the existing trash enclosure on
the property does not comply with current Rogue Disposal specifications. If the applicant proposes to
have separate service from the adjacent use on site, the Applicant must coordinate the placement of the
new trash containers with Rogue Disposal and comply with service area screening requirements in
CPMC 17.75.042.
Conclusion 17.76.040(E): Complies as Conditioned.
PART 3
SUMMARY CONCLUSION
As evidenced in Planning Department Findings of Fact, the proposed conditional use permit application
for the church along North 3rd Street is, as conditioned in the Staff Report dated February 4, 2025, in
compliance with the applicable criteria set forth in Title 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code.
Page 18 of 1226
Page 19 of 1226
Page 20 of 1226
January 7, 2025
City of Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Re: CUP‐24003 – 1775 & 1779 N 10th St, Map 37 2w 03AA TL 4300
There is an existing building is currently served by a 4 inch connection the existing 8 inch sewer main
along N 3rd Street. The proposed change of use will not affect this service. However, there may be sewer
SDC’s owed to RVSS.
Rogue Valley Sewer Services requests that approval of this project be subject to the following
conditions:
1. Applicant must submit architectural/plumbing plans for the calculation of related SDC fees.
2. Applicant must pay all related SDC’s to RVSS prior to the issuance of Building permits.
Feel free to call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Nicholas R Bakke, PE
District Engineer
Page 21 of 1226
Page 22 of 1226
Understanding the Enclosure
All dumpsters are the same width, but their depth is different.
1. Width of truck and dumpster
• Minimum inside Width Clearance: 12 ft wide
• Minimum Depth Clearance: 10 ft deep
• Minimum Height Clearance: 14ft high
2. Enclosure Placement
• Frontload truck needs direct access to enclosure – truck forks go straight into the pockets
on the dumpster, truck cannot approach at an angle.
• The front load truck needs overhead clearance to lift dumpster 25’ into the air.
Notes: - The enclosure needs to allow for min of 1.5 ft clearance outside of the truck lift arms – min
enclosure width is 12 feet. If you have enclosure gates, the 12 ft would apply to the space
between the gates when propped fully open at 130 degrees. If you have 2 dumpsters in the
enclosure it needs to be a min of 24 feet wide, with no center pole – 12 ft wide minimum per
opening. The inside of the enclosure must have a curb to keep the container from hitting the back wall
of the enclosure after the dumpster is emptied.
Minimum of 12ft opening
foenclosure
Outside of dumpster pockets = 7ft
Outside of dumpster = 6ft
Build enclosure to specs of truck, not the specs of the dumpster.
Height and depth will vary by size, but width remains the same.
Front view of dumpster
Page 23 of 1226
3. Dumpster lids
Doors must open at least 130 degrees.
Pins must be placed on doors to secure open. Pin needs to go 3” into ground
grounground.
If you install doors, follow the next few rules.
Lid of container could cause damage to the
enclosure.
Side view of enclosure.
Top view of enclosure
Page 24 of 1226
Page 25 of 1226
Planning Commission Resolution No. 927 (01/04/2025)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 927
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1775 N 10TH
STREET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-N).
(File No: CUP-24003)
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application for approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to change the use of an existing structure within the Neighborhood Commercial zone; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located at 1775 N 10th Street, which is identified on the Jackson
County Assessor’s Map as 37S 2W 12 03AA, Tax Lot 4300; and,
WHEREAS, religious institutions require a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with CPMC
17.32.030(C); and,
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025 and April 1, 2025, at a duly noticed public hearing the City of
Central Point Planning Commission considered the Applicant’s request for a Conditional Use
Permit, at which time it reviewed the record and heard testimony and comments on the
application; and,
WHEREAS, the application has been found to be consistent with the approval criteria applicable
to Conditional Use Permits in accordance with Section 17.76 of the Central Point Municipal
Code as conditioned per the Staff Report dated April 1, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that
Section 1: The City of Central Point Planning Commission hereby approves the Conditional Use
Permit application File No. CUP-24003 subject to the conditions in the Staff Report dated April
1, 2025 (Exhibit 1).
Section 2: This decision is based upon the Planning Department Staff Report dated April 1,
2025, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, including all exhibits thereto.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
1st day of April, 2025
__________________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Representative
Page 26 of 1226
Staff Report
Gebhard Village
Master Plan Application
File No. MP-25001
April 1, 2025
Item Summary
Consideration of a Master Plan application for the development of Gebhard Village, a 67-lot/78-
unit subdivision and development in the Eastside Transit Oriented Development (ETOD)
Overlay, including residential lots, new public streets, stormwater management and public park
and open space. The 8.18-acre site is located at 4922 Gebhard Road and is identified on the
Jackson County Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 02AA, Tax Lot 2800.
Applicant: Lowman Revocable Trust; Agent: Neathamer Surveying, Inc. (Bob Neathamer)
Associated Files: SUB-25001
Staff Source
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner III
Background
The proposed Gebhard Village Master Plan (“Master Plan”) establishes a framework for a
residential development within the Eastside Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) Overlay.
The Master Plan provides land use and circulation patterns that are consistent with
development on surrounding properties, including Willow Bend to the south (File No.
14004).
It is the applicant’s objective to obtain master plan approval to facilitate development of a
residential subdivision. The Master Plan serves as a blueprint to guide future development
of the site. An application for a 67-lot tentative plat (File No. SUB-25001) is being reviewed
concurrently with and is subject to compliance with the Master Plan. Once final plat is
obtained, development of each lot will be reviewed to assure the site development and
architectural features implement the Master Plan instructions.
Discussion:
The Gebhard Village Tentative Plan (Exhibit 1, Attachment “B”) proposes 78 dwelling units
that will be developed over two (2) phases. The project site is along Gebhard Road in the
western portion of the ETOD. The abutting property in the ETOD to the south is under
development as the Willow Bend Subdivision. The property to the northeast is developed
with single-family residences in the R-3 zoning district. The properties to the southeast and
to the west across Gebhard Road are undeveloped.
The proposal is within the minimum/maximum density allowed on the site by proposing 78
units on 5.56 net acres – subtracting proposed right-of-way as per Note ‘f’, Table 2, CPMC
17.65.050. The resulting 14 units/acre is consistent with the required 14-32 units/acre
required in the MMR zone.
Page 27 of 1226
Building Design Plans
The Architectural Plans (Exhibit 6, Attachment “B”) propose designs that are architecturally
similar with the building designs in Willow Bend, Phase 1 to the south of the project site in order
to “…integrate cues from the existing structures while creating new architectural elements to
provide a pleasing combination of individuality and continuity.” The designs are consistent with
the standards in the TOD and provide architectural interest and variety among the structures.
Transportation and Circulation Plan
Primary access to the Master Plan area is provided from Gebhard Road to the west via two (2)
Minor Residential Local Streets with 52-foot right-of-way width and one (1) Standard Local
Street with a 60-foot right-of-way width. Additional circulation includes two (2) public alleys and
public sidewalks.
Infrastructure and Utilities
The Utility Plan (Exhibit 2, Attachment “B”) proposes connections to existing utility services in
the area and provides connection to individual lots throughout the development. Stormwater
management is provided for the development, treated onsite before connecting to existing City
of Central Point facilities.
Issues
There are five (5) issues relative to this project as set forth below:
1.Traffic Impacts. In accordance with Section 17.05.900, a Traffic Impact Analysis for
residential development is required when Average Daily Trips (ADT) exceed 250.
Gebhard Village is estimated to generate 532 ADT and the TIA (Exhibit 5, Attachment
“B”) evaluates the impacts of the development at nearby intersections, including the
Hamrick Road/Beebe Road intersection. Per the TIA, the Hamrick Road/Beebe Road
intersection exceeds Central Point standards for intersection Level of Service (LOS).
A supplemental letter to the TIA (Exhibit 13, Attachment “B”), identifies the number of
trips that will access the Hamrick Road/Beebe Road intersection, contributing to the
intersection exceeding the City’s LOS standard.
Comment:. As noted in the Parks and Public Works Staff Report (Attachment “D”), the
Applicant is required to contribute funding to a traffic signal project in this location based
on a proportional share of traffic generated. Staff recommends Condition of Approval No.
1(d)(v) requiring the applicant to provide a proportional share of the traffic signal
installation project at Hamrick Road/Beebe Road as necessary to mitigate the impact
2.Soil Contamination. The Environmental Plan (Exhibit 11, Attachment “B”) includes an
Independent Cleanup Program Report (ICP) that assesses soil quality, identifying
potential health risks associated with historical orchard and commercial chicken farm
operations on the site, and a Soil Management Plan (SMP) that identifies mitigation
measures since several of the sample sites on the property exceeded the risk-based
concentration levels (RBCs).
Page 28 of 1226
Comment: The SMP recommends removing organics and vegetation from the site,
mixing the top 12-inches of soil to distribute the concentration levels and site scarifying
prior to final grading. Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 1(b) requiring the
applicant to submit final authorization that the soil remediation plan was completed and
no further action on the site is required
3.Shallow Wells. The ETOD is identified as an area with shallow wells providing water
supply to surrounding properties for domestic and agricultural uses. As noted in previous
applications in the ETOD (see File No. 14004, MP-23002), construction of public utilities
as part of the development process may impact the water table and shallow wells within
the vicinity of the project site.
Comment: The well reports identify multiple wells in the surrounding area, but do note
the absence of wells on the subject property. Based on the conclusions of the analysis
and the proposed development plans for Gebhard Village, the development is not
anticipated to impact the water table or surrounding wells unless installation of water and
sanitary sewer lines extend below the water table.
Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 1(d)(i) requiring the applicant to implement
mitigation actions identified in the Well Survey Report (Exhibit 12, Attachment “B”) as
necessary to avoid impacts to surrounding wells. Mitigation plans will be reviewed by the
City Engineer during the Civil Improvement Plan review process prior to approval by the
Public Works Department to assure there are no adverse impacts to the water table and
shallow wells in the vicinity
4.Agriculture Mitigation. The ETOD is an area of the City that continues agricultural
production with the presence of active farm uses. New developments in the ETOD must
recognize these uses until the ETOD is completely annexed and developed out to urban
uses.
Comment: All development in the ETOD is required to acknowledge the presence of
active farm uses in the area by recording a right-to-farm disclosure statement as a
condition of final plat. Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 1(c) requiring the
applicant to record a right-to-farm disclosure statement prior to final plat of Sunnybrook
Village.
5.Housing Types. CPMC 17.65.050, Table 1, requires developments in the TOD with
more than 40 units to provide at least three (3) different housing types. The Master Plan
identifies lots intended to accommodate four (4) different housing types as required by.
These include: 1) Single Family Detached; 2) Duplexes; 3) Triplexes; and 4)
Quadplexes. There are two issues of note relative to housing:
a. Single Family Detached Dwellings. Per CPMC 17.65.050, Table 1, single family
detached housing is, “Only permitted as a transition between lower density zones
and/or when adjacent to an environmentally sensitive area.” The adjoining property
is within the R-3 Multi-family Residential zoning district that requires a density of
between 14 and 25 units per acre. As written, the adjoining property would need to
Page 29 of 1226
be in a lower density zone in order for single-family detached dwellings to be
included in the Medium Mix Residential zone.
Comment: The adjoining property is developed with single-family homes at a
density of approximately 8 units per acre. Staff finds that the proposed single-
family lots in Gebhard Village offer a transition between existing lower density
housing and the higher density housing proposed throughout the rest of Gebhard
Village and into the remaining areas of the ETOD. No conditions of approval are
recommended.
b. Plexes. CPMC 17.08.410(C)(2)(a) defines “plexes” as two or more attached units
on a single lot. They may have single or multiple stories. They share common walls
with other dwelling units, but not common floors or ceilings.” Based on the project
narrative, it appears that the proposed lots for triplexes and quadplexes within
Gebhard Village will only accommodate 1 dwelling unit each.
Dwelling units attached along common side lot lines are classified as single-family
residences, defined as “attached row houses” in CPMC 17.08.410(C)(1), because
each unit is located on a separate lot, and they do not share common floors or
ceilings with other dwelling units.
Comment: The Tentative Plan (Exhibit 1, Attachment “B”) depicts lots that
accommodate ‘duplexes’ with 2 dwelling units on each lot. Staff finds the housing
types provided, including single-family detached, attached row houses, and
duplexes, complies with CPMC 17.65.050, Table 1 for at least three (3) housing
types within Gebhard Village. No conditions of approval are recommended.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
The Gebhard Village Master Plan has been evaluated against the applicable criteria set
forth in CPMC 17.66 and found to comply as evidenced in the Gebhard Village Master Plan
(Attachment “B”), the Applicant’s Findings (Attachment “C”), the Planning Department
Supplemental Findings (Attachment “D”) and the Staff Report dated April 1, 2025.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Approval of the Master Plan application shall be subject to the following:
1. Prior to final plat approval for any phase of the land division, the applicant shall:
a. Provide a revised Tentative Plan that depicts the lots accommodating at least
three (3) different housing types, consistent with CPMC 17.65.050, Table 1;
b. Provide a copy of a “No Further Action’ letter from DEQ indicating that
remediation of on-site contamination is completed;
c. Provide recorded copies of a right-to-farm disclosure, as required by CPMC
17.65.025(A); and,
Page 30 of 1226
d. Demonstrate compliance with the conditions listed in the Public Works
Department Staff Report (Attachment “D”), including but not limited to:
i. Submit and receive approval for Civil Improvement Drawings for
infrastructure construction, including but not limited to, streets, landscape
row and street trees, sidewalk, access approach, street lighting, and
utilities with necessary shallow well mitigation.
ii. Submit a stormwater management plan for the proposed demonstrating
compliance with the MS4 Phase II stormwater quality standards.
iii. Obtain a 1200-C permit from DEQ and provide a copy to the Public
Works Department. The proposed development will disturb more than 5
acres and requires an erosion and sediment control permit (NPDES
1200-C) from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
iv. Pay all System Development Charges and permit fees.
v. Pay a proportional share of the traffic signal installation project at the
Hamrick Road/Beebe Road intersection based on the impact at the time
of development, or 2.3% of the project cost.
e. Coordinate with Fire District #3 to plan the location of and install fire lane signs
and fire hydrants in accordance with Fire District #3 comments, dated March 12,
2025 (Attachment “E”).
f. Comply with conditions of approval listed in the Rogue Valley Sewer Staff
Report, dated March 11, 2025 (Attachment “F”)
2. Any modifications to the site design, including but not limited to building designs, street
layout, and density, shall be subject to review in accordance with CPMC 17.09,
Modifications to Approved Plans and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments
Attachment “A” – Project Location Map
Attachment “B” – Gebhard Village Master Plan, January 23, 2025
Exhibit # 1 – Tentative Plan
Exhibit # 2 – Conceptual Utility Plan
Exhibit # 3 – Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan
Exhibit # 4 – Adjacent Land Use Plan
Exhibit # 5 – Traffic Impact Analysis
Exhibit # 6 – Site Plan and Architectural Plan
Exhibit # 7 – Open Space Landscape Plan
Exhibit # 8 – Independent Cleanup Report
Exhibit # 9 – Soil Management Plan
Page 31 of 1226
Exhibit #10 – Wetland Delineation
Exhibit #11 – Shallow Well Report
Exhibit #12 – Shallow Well Report
Exhibit #13 – Traffic Impact Analysis Supplemental Letter, dated Feb 27, 2025
Attachment “C” – Applicant Findings of Fact
Attachment “D” – Planning Department Supplemental Findings of Fact
Attachment “E” – Parks and Public Works Staff Report, dated March 14, 2025
Attachment “F” – Fire District #3 Staff Report, dated March 12, 2025
Attachment “G” – Rogue Valley Sewer Services Staff Report, dated March 11, 2025
Attachment “H” – Resolution No. 931
Action
Conduct the public hearing and consider the Master Plan application. The Planning
Commission may 1) approve; 2) approve with revisions; or 3) deny the application.
Recommendation
Approve the Master Plan application for Gebhard Village subject to the recommended
conditions of approval set forth in the Staff Report dated April 1, 2025, and the Planning
Department Findings of Fact.
Recommended Motion
I move to approve Resolution No. 931, a Resolution approving the Gebhard Village Master Plan
application per the Staff Report dated April 1, 2025.
Page 32 of 1226
Page 33 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) MASTER PLAN
January 23, 2025
Nathan Ruf, Senior Associate, CFM
Neathamer Surveying, Inc.
Page 34 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page ii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents..........................................................................................................................ii
List of Figures...............................................................................................................................iv
List of Exhibits...............................................................................................................................v
Preface...........................................................................................................................................vi
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Master Plan Duration............................................................................................................1
1.2 Site Location Map.................................................................................................................1
1.3 Land Use, Minimum and Maximum Residential Densities.................................................. 2
1.3 Identification of Adjacent Approved Master Plans................................................................2
2. Site Analysis............................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Master Utility Plan.................................................................................................................4
2.2 Adjacent Land Use Plan.......................................................................................................6
3. Transportation and Circulation Plan.......................................................................................7
3.1 Public Street Standards | CPMC 17.67.040(A)....................................................................7
3.2 Parking Lot Driveways | CPMC 17.67.040(B)......................................................................8
3.3 On-Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation | CPMC 17.67.040(C).....................................8
3.4 Traffic Impact Analysis Summary........................................................................................8
4. Site Plan......................................................................................................................................9
4.1 Adjacent Off-Site Structures and Uses | CPMC 17.67.050(A)............................................ 9
4.2 Natural Features | CPMC 17.67.050(B).............................................................................10
4.3 Topography | CPMC 17.67.050(C).....................................................................................10
4.4 Solar Orientation | CPMC 17.67.050(D).............................................................................10
4.5 Existing Buildings on the Site | CPMC 17.67.050(E)......................................................... 10
4.6 New Prominent Structures | CPMC 17.67.050(F)............................................................. 10
4.7 Views | CPMC 17.67.050(G).............................................................................................. 11
4.8 Adjoining Uses and Adjacent Services | CPMC 17.67.050(H)...........................................11
4.9 Transitions in Density | CPMC 17.67.050(I)....................................................................... 11
4.10 Parking | CPMC 17.67.050(J)...........................................................................................11
4.11 Landscaping | CPMC 17.67.050(K)..................................................................................11
4.12 Lighting | CPMC 17.67.050(L).......................................................................................... 11
4.13 Signs | CPMC 17.67.050(M).............................................................................................13
5. Recreation and Open Space Plan.........................................................................................13
5.1 General | CPMC 17.67.060(A)............................................................................................14
January 23, 2025
Nathan Ruf, Senior Associate, CFM
Neathamer Surveying, Inc.
Page 35 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page iii
5.2 Parks and Open Space Location | CPMC 17.67.060(B)................................................... 15
5.3 Parks and Open Space Amount and Size | CPMC 17.67.060(C).....................................15
5.4 Parks and Open Space Design | CPMC 17.67.060(D)..................................................... 15
6. Building Design Plan...............................................................................................................15
6.1 General Design Requirements | CPMC 17.67.070(A).......................................................15
6.2 Architectural Character | CPMC 17.67.070(B)...................................................................16
6.3 Building Entries | CPMC 17.67.070(C)...............................................................................18
6.4 Building Facades | CMPC 17.67.070(D)............................................................................18
6.5 Roofs | CPMC 17.67.070(E).............................................................................................. 18
6.6 Exterior Building Lighting | CPMC 17.67.070(F).................................................................18
6.7 Service Zones | CPMC 17.67.070(G).................................................................................19
6.8 Parking Structures | CPMC 17.67.070(H)..........................................................................19
7. Transit Plan...............................................................................................................................19
8. Environmental Plan.................................................................................................................20
8.1 Soil Management Plan....................................................................................................... 20
8.2 Wetland Delineation...........................................................................................................20
8.3 Shallow Well Assessment.................................................................................................20
9. Exhibits..................................................................................................................................... 22
Page 36 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page iv
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Aerial with Site Identified
Figure 3 – Conceptual Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan (reduced scale)
Figure 4 – Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan (reduced scale)
Figure 5 – Adjacent Land Use Plan (reduced scale)
Figure 6 – Site Plan (reduced scale)
Figure 7 – Existing Street Light along Gebhard Road (Willow Bend, Phase 1)
Figure 8 – Existing Street Light along Internal Streets (Willow Bend, Phase 1)
Figure 9 – Existing Street Light along Alleyways (Willow Bend, Phase 1)
Figure 10 – Open Space Landscape Plan (reduced scale)
Figure 11 – Open Space Landscape Plan Detail (reduced scale)
Figure 12 – Existing Residence (Willow Bend)
Figure 13 – Existing Residence (Willow Bend)
Figure 14 – Existing Residences (WIllow Bend, Under Construction)
Figure 15 – Exterior Building Lighting Example
Page 37 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page v
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 – Tentative Plan
Exhibit 2 – Conceptual Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan
Exhibit 3 – Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan
Exhibit 4 – Adjacent Land Use Plan
Exhibit 5 – Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
Exhibit 6 – Site and Architectural Plans
Exhibit 7 – Open Space Landscape Plan
Exhibit 8 – Independent Cleanup Program Report
Exhibit 9 – Soil Management Plan
Exhibit 10 – Wetland Delineation
Exhibit 11 – Well Survey Report (2016)
Exhibit 12 – Well Survey Report (2024)
Page 38 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page vi
Preface
The City of Central Point requires submittal of a Master Plan for land divisions or development
that involve more than two (2) acres of land within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
Overlay. As defined in the Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) 17.08.010 a Master Plan is “a
long-term written and illustrated plan, prepared in accordance with Section 17.66.030(A)(1),
providing overall guidance and instruction for the use and development of specific geographic
areas within TOD overlays.”The purpose of this Master Plan is to document the vision and
instructions for Gebhard Village Subdivision with such specificity that it can be applied as criteria
for future land development applications including but not limited to Site Plan and Architectural
Review for structures to be constructed on each of the lots.
There are eight (8) elements required in a TOD Master Plan per Section 17.66.030(B) as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Site Analysis Map
2.1 Master Utility Plan
2.2 Adjacent Land Use Plan
3. Transportation and Circulation Plan
4. Site Plan
5. Recreation and Open Space Plan
6. Building Design Plan
7. Transit Plan
8. Environmental Plan
This document is organized into sections addressing each of the required elements.
Page 39 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 1
1. Introduction
The subject property has a situs address of 4920 and 4922 Gebhard Road (being commonly
known as Jackson County Assessment Map No. 37 2W 02AA, Tax Lot 2800). The property is
proposed to be developed in its entirety, consisting of 78 total dwelling units with four different
housing types: detached single-family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes and four-plexes. Refer to
the Tentative Plat (Exhibit 1) for the proposed subdivision of the property.
1.1 Master Plan Duration
The project is proposed to be developed in two phases. Construction of both phases is
estimated to be completed within five years from the approval date of this Master Plan, with the
potential for a minimized timeframe if both phases are developed concurrently.
1.2 Site Location Map
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Page 40 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 2
1.3 Land Use, Minimum and Maximum Residential Densities
The property is zoned Medium Mix Residential (MMR) in the Eastside Transit Oriented
Development District (ETOD). Pursuant to Table 2 of Section 17.65.050 of the CPMC, the MMR
zoning district has a minimum density of 14 units per net acre and a maximum density of 32
units per net acre are allowed in the MMR zoning district.
There is a total of 8.18 gross acres in the project, 2.62 acres of which are to be dedicated as
public streets, resulting in a total of 5.56 net acres. The following calculations were used to
determine the minimum and maximum densities:
5.56 𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥14 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠/𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 ൌ 78 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠 ሺ𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚ሻ
5. 56 𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥32 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠/𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 ൌ 178 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠 ሺ𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚ሻ
Seventy-eight units are being proposed, meeting the minimum required units as shown above.
Multiplex housing is a permitted use per said Table 2, while standard single-family housing is a
limited use being “permitted as a transition between lower density zones and/or when adjacent to
an environmentally sensitive area.”The detached single-family housing units are being
proposed as a transition between the existing detached single-family residences adjacent to the
northeast, providing a buffer to the denser, multiplex units.
1.3 Identification of Adjacent Approved Master Plans
Located to the south of the subject project is the White Hawk TOD Master Plan. The first phase
of which was developed and platted on June 14, 2023, as Willow Bend, Phase 1.
There are no other known Master Plans that have been approved and are adjacent to the site.
Page 41 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 3
2. Site Analysis
Figure 2 - Aerial with Site Identified
The site is situated in the northeast region of the City of Central Point, with the Jackson County
Expo lying just southwest of the project area. It is bound by Gebhard Road to the west along
with vacant lands providing mountainous views further west thereof. To the south is Denson
Street which was recently constructed with the first phase of development for the White Hawk
Master Plan, consisting of 32 residential lots (vertical construction is underway). The northerly
and northeasterly boundaries are adjacent to fully-developed, detached single-family residences
and a private park. Adjacent to the southeast is a rural, large-tract single-family residence with a
small orchard.
Several environmental challenges were discovered with the site in the early stages of the
development process, including the discovery of contaminants in the soil, potential wetlands
impacted by development and the presence of shallow wells in the vicinity. Refer to Section 8.
Environmental Plan for additional information on these matters.
Size constraints of the property along with a planned street (proposed as Bryce Pelia Way) and
existing streets that were recently constructed with Willow Bend, Phase 1, presented a unique
Page 42 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 4
challenge for the project design and layout. Another consideration was the potential for a
regional park which could have removed/reduced the open space requirements. However, it
was ultimately determined that due to the uncertainty of the timeline and authorization for the
regional park, it was prohibitive for the development to consider a regional park in the design. As
a result, the proposal herein reflects current requirements for open space (proposed as
Common Area “A”).
2.1 Master Utility Plan
The following Figures 3 and 4 are reduced scale excerpts of the conceptual utility plans prepared
by Construction Engineering Consultants (CEC). Refer to Exhibits 2 and 3 for the full-size plans.
It should be noted that the proposed plans are conceptual in nature and are subject to changes
discovered during the detailed phase of design.
Figure 3 - Conceptual Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan (reduced scale)
There are existing sewer and water mainlines located in Denson Street and Gebhard Road. The
proposed sewer lines northerly of Bryce Pelia Way will connect to the manhole at the
intersection of Gebhard and Green Valley Way, while those southerly of Bryce Pelia Way are
intended to connect to the mainline in Denson Street.
Water is planned to connect at Denson street with two connections extending to Gebhard Road.
Sewer and water stubs will terminate at the easterly end of Bryce Pelia Way.
Page 43 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 5
Dry utilities (power, communication, etc.) will run within the proposed public utility
easements(PUE) as shown above.
Figure 4 - Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan (reduced scale)
Denson Street contains an existing 42” storm drain line that flows westerly to Gebhard Road,
then southerly. The majority of stormwater runoff is intended to be collected and treated in a
facility located within Common Area “A”; the outlet of which will connect to the existing manhole
at the intersection of Denson Street and Gebhard Road. The facility may be above or below
ground (or a combination thereof which is to be determined during the detailed design phase of
the project).
A curb inlet near the northerly end of the project will direct runoff from east side of Gebhard Road
to the existing roadside ditch which runs on the west side thereof. Also, there are two curb inlets
at the southerly end of Annalise Street which are proposed to connect to the manhole at the
intersection of Annalise and Denson Street.
An area drain in the public alley near the southeast corner of the project will be constructed to
gather runoff from the alleyway and the existing ditch located easterly thereof. The runoff will be
directed southerly to the existing storm water line in Denson Street.
Page 44 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 6
All proposed underground utilities will be constructed as outlined in Section 8. Environmental
Plan to mitigate concerns related to shallow water wells.
2.2 Adjacent Land Use Plan
The following Figure 5 is a reduced scale excerpt of the Adjacent Land Use Plan. Refer to
Exhibit 3 for the full-size plan.
Figure 5 - Adjacent Land Use Plan (reduced scale)
Green Valley Subdivision, a planned community consisting of fully-developed, detached
single-family residences and an open space park, is adjacent to the north and northeast of the
project area. Detached single-family lots were strategically located next to the existing
residences to provide a buffer from the higher-density housing types proposed near the center
and southerly portions of the project. This transitive housing layout will help to keep residential
related activity to a similar level currently experienced in the existing neighborhood.
The property to the southeast is a larger tract of land zoned ETOD LMR that is currently being
used for residential purposes with limited farming, including a small orchard and irrigated fields.
Irrigation runoff from the adjacent property is currently being dispersed to the roadside ditch on
Page 45 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 7
the west side of Gebhard Road, via an existing ditch that extends across the subject site. As the
portion of the ditch on the subject site is intended to be filled and will no longer serve as an outlet
for the runoff waters, an area drain is proposed to intercept the irrigation runoff and direct the
water into the existing storm drain infrastructure in Denson Street. There is also a proposed
curb inlet on the north side of the easterly extension of Bryce Pelia Way that will collect runoff
waters. Refer to Exhibit 3 for additional information.
Adjacent to the south is Willow Bend, Phase 1 (being part of the White Hawk TOD Master Plan).
The existing development shares similar characteristics as the proposed project. No uses were
identified which would cause a need for remediation.
As the lands to the west are vacant, there are no uses that will be adversely impacted by the
proposed development.
3. Transportation and Circulation Plan
The circulation plan for the project includes the creation of three streets (Annalise Street, Logue
Street and Bryce Pelia Way) and three public alleys. Annalise Street and Logue Street are Minor
Residential Local Streets with a 52-foot right-of-way using the standard detail ST-10 (bottom
street section) of the Uniform Standards for Public Works Construction (USPWC). Bryce Pelia
Way is a Standard Local Street with a 60-foot right-of-way using standard ST-15 (bottom street
section) of the USPWC. All three alleys will be constructed to the ST-43 detail standard of the
USPWC. The easterly side of Gebhard Way will be constructed to the modified 2 Lane Collector
Street with a half-street right-of-way of 37 feet, as approved and constructed for the White Hawk
TOD Master Plan southerly of this project.
Section 17.67.040 of the CPMC contains the adopted circulation and access standards. The
following subsections 3.1 through 3.3 address the applicable items of the code as they pertain to
the project.
3.1 Public Street Standards | CPMC 17.67.040(A)
The proposed lots along the northeasterly portion of the project abut an existing residential
development without access to a street connection to satisfy the block perimeter and length
thresholds of 2,000 feet and 600 feet per CPMC 17.67.040(A)(2) and (3). However, CPMC
17.67.040(A)(5)(b) allows modification to these standards due to, “...existing development
patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or accessways.”
As there is not a logical connection of streets or accessways on the abutting property, this block
is allowed to exceed the block perimeter and length standards. All other remaining blocks meet
said standards.
CPMC 17.67.040(A)(6) requires all utilities to be installed underground (except for access lids).
The proposed utilities are intended to be installed underground as shown on the conceptual
plans. Refer to Exhibits 2 and 3 for more information.
Page 46 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 8
The only existing street connection adjacent to the project is Annalise Street, which has been
designed to align with the existing right-of-way and extend northerly, meeting the requirement per
CPMC 17.67.040(A)(7), which states, “connections shall be provided between new streets in a
TOD overlay and existing local and minor collector streets.”
In addition to the sidewalks contained in the standard street details per the USPWS, a paved
multi-use path is also being included on the east side of Gebhard Road to extend northerly from
the existing pathway in the White Hawk TOD Master Plan. All pedestrian street crossings will be
marked as required per CPMC 17.67.040(A)(8).
Two off-street pedestrian walkways are proposed within the Common Area “A” to provide an
amenity in the open space area for the development. Said walkways have been designed to
meet the requirements of CPMC 17.67.040(A)(9)(c), including having a minimum width of five
feet with a two-foot horizontal clearance from the edge of the path. Refer to Exhibit 7 for
additional information.
3.2 Parking Lot Driveways | CPMC 17.67.040(B)
No parking lots have been included as part of the project, thus CPMC 17.67.040(B) is not
applicable.
3.3 On-Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation | CPMC 17.67.040(C)
The open space Common Area “A” was centrally placed in the development in order to promote
easily accessible pedestrian access. Sidewalks will be constructed throughout the
development, with short distances to building entrances. As previously mentioned, a multi-use
path and minor off-street trail has also been incorporated in the development to provide attractive
access routes for pedestrians and cyclists, as required per CPMC 17.67.040(A)(9)(C).
Decorative street lighting in a similar style that was used in Willow Bend, Phase 1 of White Hawk
TOD Master Plan southerly of the project will be used to provide continuity for the area and
illuminate the accessways.
3.4 Traffic Impact Analysis Summary
A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC,
which assessed the proposed development and the impact to the area. Said analysis concluded
that the “... streets and intersections that serve the subject property will accommodate projected
a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes without adverse transportation impacts.”Furthermore,
the study determined that although the proposed intersection of Logue Street and Gebhard Road
does not meet the required intersection spacing standard of 300 feet from Green Valley Way
(proposed distance is approximately 235 feet), there were no safety concerns identified and the
sight distance is shown to be adequate without the need for a center turn lane. Refer to Exhibit 5
for additional information.
Page 47 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 9
4. Site Plan
The following Figure 6 is a reduced scale excerpt of the Site Plan. Refer to Exhibit 6 for the
full-size plan.
Figure 6 - Site Plan (reduced scale)
Section 17.67.050 of the CPMC contains the adopted site design standards. The following
subsections 4.1 through 4.13 address the applicable items of the code as they pertain to the
project.
4.1 Adjacent Off-Site Structures and Uses | CPMC 17.67.050(A)
Refer to Section 2.2 Adjacent Land Use Plan hereinabove for a description of the existing
surrounding uses and proposed measures to preserve and enhance the livability of those uses.
All utilities to be constructed as part of the development will adhere to the applicable standards
as set forth in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Details for Public
Works Construction, and will be constructed in such a way to not adversely impact neighboring
uses.
Page 48 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 10
4.2 Natural Features | CPMC 17.67.050(B)
There are a few mature trees located on the site as shown on the Tentative Plan (Exhibit 1).
Said trees were considered during the design of the project. However, due to the size
constraints of the property in conjunction with the required street and connection to Annalise
Street to the south, many of the existing trees are located in the proposed rights-of-way and will
not be able to be preserved. Efforts will be made to retain the walnut tree located at the
northeast corner of proposed Lot 43.
Two small wetlands (totaling 0.1 acre) were identified on the project, but are not subject to state
permit (and preservation) requirements. Refer to Section 8.2 Wetland Delineation hereinbelow
for additional information.
To compensate for the loss of the trees and incorporate natural elements into the project, there
are several plantings proposed in the open space common area as shown on the Landscape
Plan (Exhibit 7).
4.3 Topography | CPMC 17.67.050(C)
The site is mostly flat with gradual slopes. As such, minimal grading and filling is anticipated,
without the need for special building design accommodations. This approach is consistent with
the neighboring properties which also share similar characteristics as the project.
4.4 Solar Orientation | CPMC 17.67.050(D)
The majority of the buildings in the project are east-west oriented structures which is consistent
with the recommended solar orientation practices to take advantage of sunlight while also being
able to control glare. Awnings and eaves have been designed to provide shading during the
summer months (with the higher summer sun) while benefiting from passive solar heating
during the winter months when the sun is lower.
4.5 Existing Buildings on the Site | CPMC 17.67.050(E)
There are no existing buildings located on the site.
4.6 New Prominent Structures | CPMC 17.67.050(F)
There are no public or civic buildings proposed for this development.
Page 49 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 11
4.7 Views | CPMC 17.67.050(G)
The west-facing residences located adjacent to Gebhard Road will be able to benefit from the
viewshed provided by the open space lands to the west. The project generally groups similar
housing types to be across from one another (except in the transition area to the northeast), to
promote a sense of coherence within the project.
4.8 Adjoining Uses and Adjacent Services | CPMC 17.67.050(H)
There are no commercial uses or services proposed within the development or neighboring
properties. However, the surrounding, lower-density residential uses were considered during the
design of the project and care was taken to reduce impacts to the neighboring properties by
intentionally placing the lower-density housing types adjacent to these areas as a buffer.
4.9 Transitions in Density | CPMC 17.67.050(I)
As previously mentioned, density within the project was designed to integrate a variety of housing
types while being harmonious with the surrounding uses. Refer to Section 1.3 Land Use,
Minimum and Maximum Residential Densities and Section 2.2 Adjacent Land Use Plan for
additional information.
4.10 Parking | CPMC 17.67.050(J)
Parking will be provided by attached residential garages which will be able to accommodate one
or two vehicles, depending on the housing type and have been designed to meet the city code
requirements. On-street parking will also be available. There are no parking structures/lots
proposed for this development.
4.11 Landscaping | CPMC 17.67.050(K)
Each lot is intended to be landscaped to soften the appearance of the buildings. Drought
resistant, native plantings shall be used with water-wise irrigation practices. Street trees will be
installed in the planter strips consistent with the city requirements. Common Area “A” is
intended to be landscaped as shown on Exhibit 7.
4.12 Lighting | CPMC 17.67.050(L)
Street lighting is proposed to be similar in style to those used in the neighboring Willow Bend,
Phase 1, development. The following Figures 7, 8 and 9 demonstrate the existing lighting and
and shall serve as an example of the design characteristics to be used in this development:
Page 50 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 12
Figure 7 - Existing Street Light along Figure 8 - Existing Street Light along
Gebhard Road (Willow Bend, Phase 1) Internal Streets (Willow Bend, Phase 1)
Figure 9 - Existing Street Light along
Alleyways (Willow Bend, Phase 1)
Page 51 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 13
4.13 Signs | CPMC 17.67.050(M)
There are no signs proposed within the development other than the required street signage.
5. Recreation and Open Space Plan
The following Figures 10 and 11 are reduced scale excerpts of the Landscape Plan for the open
space Common Area “A”. Refer to Exhibit 7 for the full-size plan.
Figure 10 - Open Space Landscape Plan (reduced scale)
Page 52 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 14
Figure 11 - Open Space Landscape Plan Detail (reduced scale)
Section 17.67.060 of the CPMC contains the adopted public parks and open space design
standards. The following subsections 5.1 through 5.4 address the applicable items of the code
as they pertain to the project.
5.1 General | CPMC 17.67.060(A)
The open space for the project has been designed in two phases to accommodate various
activities. The first phase includes two concrete walkways providing pedestrian access through
the open space, three turf grass areas of varying sizes, ornamental plantings, two benches with
handicap spaces, a drinking fountain, recycle and disposal facilities. Phase two includes a
graveled area with a covered gathering and picnic table.
In addition to recreational facilities, a majority of stormwater runoff is intended to be collected and
treated in a detention facility located within Common Area “A”. The detention facility may be
above or below ground (or a combination thereof which is to be determined during the detailed
design phase of the project). Should the detention facility (or a portion thereof) be above ground,
Page 53 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 15
the north-south walkway may be relocated as needed. Refer to Section 2.1 Master Utility Plan
for additional information.
5.2 Parks and Open Space Location | CPMC 17.67.060(B)
The open space has been centrally located in the project to encourage safe, pedestrian friendly
access to the park and recreation area for all of the residents. Vehicular access is also readily
available as the park is surrounded by streets and an alley along a majority of its boundaries. The
park has also been situated to be faced by four residences, being Lots 12 through 14 and Lot 57.
5.3 Parks and Open Space Amount and Size | CPMC 17.67.060(C)
There are a total of 78 proposed residential dwelling units. CPMC 17.67.060(C)(a) requires a
minimum of 400 square feet of open space for each dwelling unit. The following calculation was
used to determine the minimum required open space:
78 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑥400 𝑠𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡/𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 ൌ 31, 200 𝑠𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡 ሺ𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚ሻ
Common Area “A” is comprised of 32,504 square feet, meeting the minimum requirement
calculated hereinabove.
5.4 Parks and Open Space Design | CPMC 17.67.060(D)
A combination garbage/recycle bin and a drinking fountain have been included in the landscape
plan for the open space area. Additionally, two benches (Phase 1) and a covered picnic shelter
(Phase 2) have been implemented in the design, satisfying the criterion per CPMC
17.67.060(D)(1)(a) and (e). The proposed lighting contained in Section 4.12 Lighting will provide
adequate illumination for safety and security of the open space and recreation area.
6. Building Design Plan
Section 17.67.070 of the CPMC contains the adopted building design standards. The following
subsections 6.1 through 6.8 address the applicable items of the code as they pertain to the
project.
6.1 General Design Requirements | CPMC 17.67.070(A)
Architectural Plans have been prepared and included as Exhibit 6. All building elements,
including roof design, window placement, porch coverings, interior layouts, garage locations,
architectural details and materials shall be constructed to be consistent with said plans. Earth
tone color palettes shall be used for interior and exterior surfaces, with an emphasis placed on
varying the colors on the exterior buildings to promote variety among the development.
Page 54 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 16
Where possible, sustainable building practices shall be used. Examples of such practices
include the installation of ductless heating and cooling systems, water efficient plumbing fixtures
and Energy Star Certified appliances. Windows with screened openings shall be placed
throughout the structures to allow for ventilation and summer heat dissipation.
Pedestrian access is encouraged by placing routes close to building entrances that connect to
the public sidewalk system. A trail is proposed to encompass the open space area which will be
centrally located for easy access for the residents.
6.2 Architectural Character | CPMC 17.67.070(B)
Willow Bend, Phase 1, of the White Hawk TOD Master Plan shares similar characteristics with
this project, including two-story attached single-family dwellings. The intent of this development
is to integrate cues from the existing structures while creating new architectural elements to
provide a pleasing combination of individuality and continuity.
For example, similar siding materials have been incorporated, such as James Hardie horizontal
lap siding and shingles that are present in the adjacent project. Also, street lighting is proposed
to be similar to the existing development (as shown in Section 4.12 Lighting hereinabove).
New attributes such as sill and apron windows, cantilever outlookers, false louvered vent details
and knee braces for the roof supports have been added to create architectural interest and
variety among the structures. A variety of columnar wraps and railing styles are present for the
covered porches to provide further differentiation.
The following Figures 12 through 14 demonstrate the architectural character of several of the
existing structures recently constructed as part of the Willow Bend development.
Page 55 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 17
Figure 12 - Existing Residence (Willow Bend) Figure 13 - Existing Residence (Willow Bend)
Figure 14 - Existing Residences (WIllow Bend, Under Construction)
Page 56 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 18
6.3 Building Entries | CPMC 17.67.070(C)
Buildings are oriented to have the primary entries facing the streets with concrete accessways
extending from the sidewalk to the front door of each dwelling. Said entries shall be sheltered as
shown on sheets A-1 through A-26 of the Architectural Plans, meeting the required four foot
covered pedestrian access standard per CPMC 17.67.070(C)(1)(c) and porch requirements per
CPMC 17.67.070(C)(3) .
6.4 Building Facades | CMPC 17.67.070(D)
As many of the proposed residential structures are multi-plex dwellings, much attention was
focused on designing diversity within the building streetscape to avoid monotonous repetition.
The alleyways made it possible to rear load all of the triplex and four-plex structures, placing the
garage doors out of sight from street views. Main living areas for these dwellings were then
arranged to be facing the streets, with large windows and extended trim detailing providing
informal surveillance of the public spaces. Other elements that were included to add interest are
pergola and metal coverings. Variations among the rooflines, garage doors (for those structures
not rear-loaded) and windows were also integrated to create uniqueness among the building
facades. Refer to the streetscapes shown on sheets A-1 through A-3 for the overall result of how
these elements have been incorporated in the project.
6.5 Roofs | CPMC 17.67.070(E)
Roofs will be constructed as shown on sheets A-1 through A-26 of the Architectural Plans using
architectural composition shingles with a minimum of a 30-year warranty. Roof slopes will be
installed at a ratio of 5/12, with eaves extending past the building by a minimum of 12 inches.
6.6 Exterior Building Lighting | CPMC 17.67.070(F)
Exterior light fixtures on the buildings will incorporate the use of shrouds and directional lighting
to highlight architectural interest, reduce glare and illuminate the surrounding area to create an
inviting and safe atmosphere. Warm white (2700 to 3000K) or soft white (3000K - 3500K)
lighting color temperatures shall be used. The following Figure 15 is an example of how lighting
is proposed to be incorporated in the design.
Page 57 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 19
Figure 15 - Exterior Building Lighting Example
(source: https://www.tollbrothers.com/blog/exterior-home-lighting-ideas/)
6.7 Service Zones | CPMC 17.67.070(G)
Any mechanical/utilities servicing the structures (e.g. HVAC equipment) shall be installed in
inconspicuous areas as to not deter from the front facade of the structures. Landscaping will
also be installed to provide a buffer to reduce the noise and reduce the visual presence of the
equipment.
There are no delivery, loading or other service zones that are proposed to be integrated in the
development.
6.8 Parking Structures | CPMC 17.67.070(H)
Attached garages are included for all proposed residential housing types. Garage doors were
designed to integrate with the structures by utilizing a mixture of traditional and carriage style
design elements as shown in sheets A-1 through A-26 of the Architectural Plans. All garage
doors shall incorporate windows near the top sections of the doors in an effort to blend with the
rest of the structure and minimize their visual impact.
7. Transit Plan
Pursuant to coordination with Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD), a transit stop is not
required or needed as there is not an established route along Gebhard Road. Therefore, no
transit facilities are proposed for this development.
Page 58 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 20
8. Environmental Plan
The following sections 8.1 through 8.3 address environmental impacts that were discovered
during the planning process and proposed mitigation measures.
8.1 Soil Management Plan
An Independent Cleanup Program Report (ICP) was prepared on July 27, 2018, by Cascadia
Associates, LLC, to identify the potential health risk of arsenic and lead in soils due to historical
uses on or near the property (a commercial chicken farm and orchards). The assessment was
conducted and the report concluded,“... the lead and arsenic present in the site soil will not
present an unacceptable health risk.”The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) reviewed
the ICP and requested the preparation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) as there were a few
locations that exceeded the regional background concentrations (RBCs). Refer to Exhibit 8 for
additional information.
A SMP was prepared by Cascadia Associates, LLC, on May 16, 2019. As the average
concentrations of lead and arsenic were found to be below the RBCs, the site preparation
approach identified in the report was to mix the upper 12 inches of soil to distribute those areas
of higher concentrations. The proposed mitigation includes the removal of organics, site
scarifying and grading that will need to occur prior to development. Refer to Exhibit 9 for
additional information.
8.2 Wetland Delineation
The site contains an existing drainage ditch located near the center of the project which
prompted concerns of wetlands that may be impacted by development. A wetland delineation
was prepared (identifying two small wetlands totalling approximately 0.10 acres) and sent to the
Department of State Lands (DSL) for review. A letter of concurrence was issued by DSL on
August 9, 2017, and reissued on May 16, 2023, which stated that the ditch and two wetlands
identified on the delineation are exempt per Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 141-085-0515(6)
and not subject to state permit requirements. Refer to Exhibit 10 for additional information.
The ditch and two identified wetland are intended to be filled, the source of water (irrigation runoff
from the neighboring property) is proposed to be collected and routed into the storm drain
system as outlined in Section 2. Site Analysis hereinabove.
8.3 Shallow Well Assessment
Two well surveys were performed by Apex Companies, LLC, near the project area. The first
was conducted in 2016 for the White Hawk TOD Master Plan southerly of the project area. The
second of which was conducted in 2024 for the Sunnybrook Development, being southeast of
the project area.
Page 59 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 21
Numerous wells were identified as being within the general vicinity. The closest well is located
on the property adjacent to the east (being commonly known as Jackson County Assessment
Map Number 37 2W 02, Tax Lot 200). Said well had a measured static water level of 22 feet
below ground surface in the 2024 assessment (originally measured at 15 feet below ground
surface in the 2016 report). The report found that a long-term lowering in the water table may be
occurring.
The conceptual utility plans do not contain detailed information regarding the depths of the
utilities for the proposed Gebhard Village development. However, preliminary analysis indicates
the utilities will not extend into depths over 12 feet, which is well above the first encountered
shallow well as indicated above.
Ultimately, the 2024 report concluded that it is unlikely the groundwater levels in local wells would
be impacted by the Sunnybrook Development. As even fewer wells were identified within the
Gebhard Village project area (with deeper water surface levels than those in the vicinity of the
Sunnybrook Development), it is also unlikely that the subject development would have adverse
impacts to the existing wells and groundwater levels. In the event the development does extend
into the water table, the proposed mitigation measures as outlined in the 2024 report will be
utilized.
Refer to Exhibits 11 and 12 for additional information.
Page 60 of 1226
Gebhard Village Subdivision - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Page 22
9. Exhibits
Page 61 of 1226
EXHIBIT "1"
Page 62 of 1226
EXHIBIT "2"
Page 63 of 1226
EXHIBIT "3"
Page 64 of 1226
EXHIBIT "4"
Page 65 of 1226
Gebhard Village
Master Plan within ETOD
Type III Application
Traffic Impact Analysis
October 2, 2024
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC
Transportation
Engineering, LLC
EXHIBIT "5"
Page 66 of 1226
Gebhard Village
Master Plan within ETOD
Type III Application
Traffic Impact Analysis
October 2, 2024
Prepared By:
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC
Page 67 of 1226
Page 68 of 1226
Page 69 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
Page 70 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
Page 71 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
Page 72 of 1226
Page 73 of 1226
Page 74 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
Page 75 of 1226
Page 76 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
Page 77 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
E, 41.7 sec WBLT
Page 78 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
Page 79 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
E, 46.3 sec WBLT
Page 80 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
Page 81 of 1226
Page 82 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
Trip Generation
Page 83 of 1226
Page 84 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
F, 51.7 sec WBLT
Page 85 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
Page 86 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
Page 87 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
Page 88 of 1226
Page 89 of 1226
S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC
Page 90 of 1226
Southern Oregon
Transportation Engineering, LLC
Medford, Oregon 97504
Phone 541.608.9923 Fax 541.535.6873
Email: Kim.parducci@gmail.com
Page 91 of 1226
Gebhard Village
Master Plan within ETOD
Type III Application
Appendices A-G
October 2, 2024
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC
Transportation
Engineering, LLC
Page 92 of 1226
Southern
Oregon
Transportation
Engineering, LLC
Page 93 of 1226
File Name : Hamrick-Beebe_2023
Site Code : 00000001
Start Date : 3/16/2023
Page No : 1
North-South: Hamrick
East-West: Beebe
Weather: Sunny, Warm
Vehicle: All Vehicles
Groups Printed- All
Hamrick
From North
Beebe
From East
Hamrick
From South
Beebe
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 1 60 0 1 62 1 0 3 0 4 2 55 1 0 58 1 0 15 0 16 140
07:15 AM 2 88 1 0 91 3 0 3 0 6 2 68 2 0 72 0 0 14 0 14 183
07:30 AM 1 127 2 0 130 1 0 3 0 4 1 95 2 0 98 0 0 22 0 22 254
07:45 AM 4 95 1 0 100 3 1 3 0 7 7 103 2 0 112 0 0 21 0 21 240
Total 8 370 4 1 383 8 1 12 0 21 12 321 7 0 340 1 0 72 0 73 817
08:00 AM 1 72 1 0 74 3 1 4 0 8 5 88 0 0 93 0 0 11 0 11 186
08:15 AM 1 101 2 0 104 2 2 3 0 7 4 61 1 0 66 0 0 8 0 8 185
08:30 AM 1 81 0 0 82 2 0 3 0 5 7 62 2 0 71 0 0 8 1 9 167
08:45 AM 1 91 2 0 94 1 1 2 0 4 5 74 6 0 85 1 0 10 0 11 194
Total 4 345 5 0 354 8 4 12 0 24 21 285 9 0 315 1 0 37 1 39 732
*** BREAK ***
03:00 PM 8 125 3 0 136 3 0 5 0 8 12 93 3 0 108 2 0 12 0 14 266
03:15 PM 6 113 3 0 122 1 1 4 0 6 11 76 2 0 89 1 0 8 0 9 226
03:30 PM 7 148 1 1 157 3 1 4 0 8 17 85 3 0 105 0 0 11 2 13 283
03:45 PM 3 121 2 1 127 2 0 4 0 6 12 90 3 1 106 4 4 12 0 20 259
Total 24 507 9 2 542 9 2 17 0 28 52 344 11 1 408 7 4 43 2 56 1034
04:00 PM 8 122 6 2 138 1 1 2 0 4 10 97 1 1 109 5 5 21 0 31 282
04:15 PM 4 123 2 0 129 2 0 5 0 7 15 83 1 0 99 1 1 8 0 10 24504:30 PM 10 155 3 1 169 2 0 6 1 9 19 86 3 1 109 0 1 10 0 11 298
04:45 PM 4 129 4 0 137 2 0 6 0 8 7 92 2 0 101 0 0 13 0 13 259
Total 26 529 15 3 573 7 1 19 1 28 51 358 7 2 418 6 7 52 0 65 1084
05:00 PM 5 140 1 0 146 1 0 8 1 10 16 87 5 0 108 2 0 3 1 6 270
05:15 PM 8 119 2 0 129 2 0 3 0 5 14 86 5 0 105 0 2 12 0 14 253
05:30 PM 10 91 2 0 103 6 0 6 0 12 16 82 5 0 103 0 1 16 3 20 238
05:45 PM 8 108 2 0 118 3 0 5 0 8 10 83 2 0 95 2 0 15 0 17 238
Total 31 458 7 0 496 12 0 22 1 35 56 338 17 0 411 4 3 46 4 57 999
Grand Total 93 2209 40 6 2348 44 8 82 2 136 192 1646 51 3 1892 19 14 250 7 290 4666
Apprch %4 94.1 1.7 0.3 32.4 5.9 60.3 1.5 10.1 87 2.7 0.2 6.6 4.8 86.2 2.4
Total %2 47.3 0.9 0.1 50.3 0.9 0.2 1.8 0 2.9 4.1 35.3 1.1 0.1 40.5 0.4 0.3 5.4 0.2 6.2
SOUTHERNOREGON
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
Medford, Oregon 97504 | Kim.parducci@gmail.com | (541) 941-4148 Cell
Page 94 of 1226
File Name : Hamrick-Beebe_2023
Site Code : 00000001
Start Date : 3/16/2023
Page No : 2
North-South: Hamrick
East-West: Beebe
Weather: Sunny, Warm
Vehicle: All Vehicles
Hamrick
From North
Beebe
From East
Hamrick
From South
Beebe
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins.1 127 2 0 130 1 0 3 0 4 1 95 2 0 98 0 0 22 0 22
+15 mins.4 95 1 0 100 3 1 3 0 7 7 103 2 0 112 0 0 21 0 21
+30 mins.1 72 1 0 74 3 1 4 0 8 5 88 0 0 93 0 0 11 0 11
+45 mins.1 101 2 0 104 2 2 3 0 7 4 61 1 0 66 0 0 8 0 8
Total Volume 7 395 6 0 408 9 4 13 0 26 17 347 5 0 369 0 0 62 0 62
% App. Total 1.7 96.8 1.5 0 34.6 15.4 50 0 4.6 94 1.4 0 0 0 100 0
PHF .438 .778 .750 .000 .785 .750 .500 .813 .000 .813 .607 .842 .625 .000 .824 .000 .000 .705 .000 .705
Hamrick
B
e
e
b
e
B
e
e
b
e
Hamrick
Right
6
Thru
395
Left
7
Peds
0
In - Peak Hour: 07:30 AM
408
Rig
h
t
13
Th
r
u
4
Le
f
t
9
Pe
d
s
0
In
-
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
0
7
:
3
0
A
M
26
Left17 Thru347 Right5 Peds0
In - Peak Hour: 07:30 AM369
Le
f
t
0
Th
r
u
0
Rig
h
t
62
Pe
d
s
0
In
-
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
0
7
:
3
0
A
M
62
All
Peak Hour Data
North
SOUTHERNOREGON
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
Medford, Oregon 97504 | Kim.parducci@gmail.com | (541) 941-4148 Cell
Page 95 of 1226
File Name : Hamrick-Beebe_2023
Site Code : 00000001
Start Date : 3/16/2023
Page No : 3
North-South: Hamrick
East-West: Beebe
Weather: Sunny, Warm
Vehicle: All Vehicles
Hamrick
From North
Beebe
From East
Hamrick
From South
Beebe
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 03:45 PM to 04:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
03:45 PM 03:45 PM 03:45 PM 03:45 PM
+0 mins.3 121 2 1 127 2 0 4 0 6 12 90 3 1 106 4 4 12 0 20
+15 mins.8 122 6 2 138 1 1 2 0 4 10 97 1 1 109 5 5 21 0 31
+30 mins.4 123 2 0 129 2 0 5 0 7 15 83 1 0 99 1 1 8 0 10
+45 mins.10 155 3 1 169 2 0 6 1 9 19 86 3 1 109 0 1 10 0 11
Total Volume 25 521 13 4 563 7 1 17 1 26 56 356 8 3 423 10 11 51 0 72
% App. Total 4.4 92.5 2.3 0.7 26.9 3.8 65.4 3.8 13.2 84.2 1.9 0.7 13.9 15.3 70.8 0
PHF .625 .840 .542 .500 .833 .875 .250 .708 .250 .722 .737 .918 .667 .750 .970 .500 .550 .607 .000 .581
Hamrick
B
e
e
b
e
B
e
e
b
e
Hamrick
Right
13
Thru
521
Left
25
Peds
4
In - Peak Hour: 03:45 PM
563
Rig
h
t
17
Th
r
u
1
Le
f
t
7
Pe
d
s
1
In
-
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
0
3
:
4
5
P
M
26
Left56 Thru356 Right8 Peds3
In - Peak Hour: 03:45 PM423
Le
f
t
10
Th
r
u
11
Ri
g
h
t
51
Pe
d
s
0
In
-
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
0
3
:
4
5
P
M
72
All
Peak Hour Data
North
SOUTHERNOREGON
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
Medford, Oregon 97504 | Kim.parducci@gmail.com | (541) 941-4148 Cell
Page 96 of 1226
File Name : Gebhard-Wilson_AM-PM 2023
Site Code : 00000003
Start Date : 6/5/2023
Page No : 1
North-South: Gebhard Road
East-West: Wilson Road
Weather: Sunny, Warm
Vehicle: All Vehicles
Groups Printed- All
Gebhard Rd
From North
Wilson Rd
From East
Gebhard Rd
From South
Wilson Rd
From West
JACKSON COUNTY ROADS
200 Antelope Road
White City, OR 97503
Page 97 of 1226
File Name : Gebhard-Wilson_AM-PM 2023
Site Code : 00000003
Start Date : 6/5/2023
Page No : 2
North-South: Gebhard Road
East-West: Wilson Road
Weather: Sunny, Warm
Vehicle: All Vehicles
Gebhard Rd
From North
Wilson Rd
From East
Gebhard Rd
From South
Wilson Rd
From West
Gebhard Rd
W
i
l
s
o
n
R
d
W
i
l
s
o
n
R
d
Gebhard Rd
Right3 Thru3 Left4 Peds0
In - Peak Hour: 07:30 AM10
Ri
g
h
t
19
Th
r
u
82
Le
f
t
5
Pe
d
s
0
In
-
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
0
7
:
3
0
A
M
10
6
Left
36
Thru
1
Right
5
Peds
0
In - Peak Hour: 07:30 AM
42
Le
f
t
0
Th
r
u12
2
Rig
h
t
25
Pe
d
s
0
In
-
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
0
7
:
3
0
A
M
14
7
All
Peak Hour Data
North
JACKSON COUNTY ROADS
200 Antelope Road
White City, OR 97503
Page 98 of 1226
File Name : Gebhard-Wilson_AM-PM 2023
Site Code : 00000003
Start Date : 6/5/2023
Page No : 3
North-South: Gebhard Road
East-West: Wilson Road
Weather: Sunny, Warm
Vehicle: All Vehicles
Gebhard Rd
From North
Wilson Rd
From East
Gebhard Rd
From South
Wilson Rd
From West
Gebhard Rd
W
i
l
s
o
n
R
d
W
i
l
s
o
n
R
d
Gebhard Rd
Right
1
Thru
3
Left
2
Peds
0
In - Peak Hour: 03:45 PM
6
Rig
h
t
2
Th
r
u10
5
Le
f
t
16
Pe
d
s
0
In
-
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
0
3
:
4
5
P
M
12
3
Left30 Thru2 Right11 Peds0
In - Peak Hour: 03:45 PM43
Le
f
t
5
Th
r
u12
8
Rig
h
t
38
Pe
d
s
0
In
-
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
0
3
:
4
5
P
M
17
1
All
Peak Hour Data
North
JACKSON COUNTY ROADS
200 Antelope Road
White City, OR 97503
Page 99 of 1226
Page 100 of 1226
Page 101 of 1226
Southern
Oregon
Transportation
Engineering, LLC
Page 102 of 1226
Page 103 of 1226
Page 104 of 1226
Page 105 of 1226
Page 106 of 1226
Page 107 of 1226
Page 108 of 1226
Page 109 of 1226
Page 110 of 1226
Page 111 of 1226
Page 112 of 1226
Page 113 of 1226
Page 114 of 1226
Page 115 of 1226
Page 116 of 1226
Page 117 of 1226
Page 118 of 1226
Balanced
Page 119 of 1226
Balanced
Page 120 of 1226
Page 121 of 1226
Balanced
Page 122 of 1226
Balanced
Page 123 of 1226
Page 124 of 1226
Southern
Oregon
Transportation
Engineering, LLC
Page 125 of 1226
Page 126 of 1226
Page 127 of 1226
Page 128 of 1226
Page 129 of 1226
Page 130 of 1226
Page 131 of 1226
Page 132 of 1226
Page 133 of 1226
Page 134 of 1226
Page 135 of 1226
Page 136 of 1226
Page 137 of 1226
Southern
Oregon
Transportation
Engineering, LLC
Page 138 of 1226
Page 139 of 1226
Page 140 of 1226
Page 141 of 1226
Page 142 of 1226
Page 143 of 1226
Page 144 of 1226
Page 145 of 1226
Page 146 of 1226
Page 147 of 1226
Page 148 of 1226
Page 149 of 1226
Page 150 of 1226
Southern
Oregon
Transportation
Engineering, LLC
Page 151 of 1226
Page 152 of 1226
Page 153 of 1226
Page 154 of 1226
Page 155 of 1226
Page 156 of 1226
Page 157 of 1226
Page 158 of 1226
Page 159 of 1226
Page 160 of 1226
Page 161 of 1226
Page 162 of 1226
Page 163 of 1226
Page 164 of 1226
Page 165 of 1226
Page 166 of 1226
Page 167 of 1226
Page 168 of 1226
Page 169 of 1226
Southern
Oregon
Transportation
Engineering, LLC
Page 170 of 1226
Page 171 of 1226
Page 172 of 1226
Page 173 of 1226
Page 174 of 1226
Page 175 of 1226
Southern
Oregon
Transportation
Engineering, LLC
Page 176 of 1226
Page 177 of 1226
Page 178 of 1226
Page 179 of 1226
Page 180 of 1226
Page 181 of 1226
Southern Oregon
Transportation Engineering, LLC
Medford, Oregon 97504
Phone 541.608.9923 Fax 541.535.6873
Email: Kim.parducci@gmail.com
Page 182 of 1226
EXHIBIT "6"
Page 183 of 1226
Page 184 of 1226
Page 185 of 1226
Page 186 of 1226
Page 187 of 1226
Page 188 of 1226
Page 189 of 1226
Page 190 of 1226
Page 191 of 1226
Page 192 of 1226
Page 193 of 1226
Page 194 of 1226
Page 195 of 1226
Page 196 of 1226
Page 197 of 1226
Page 198 of 1226
Page 199 of 1226
Page 200 of 1226
Page 201 of 1226
Page 202 of 1226
Page 203 of 1226
Page 204 of 1226
Page 205 of 1226
Page 206 of 1226
Page 207 of 1226
Page 208 of 1226
Page 209 of 1226
Page 210 of 1226
EXHIBIT "7"
Page 211 of 1226
EXHIBIT "8"
Page 212 of 1226
Page 213 of 1226
Page 214 of 1226
Page 215 of 1226
Page 216 of 1226
Page 217 of 1226
Page 218 of 1226
Page 219 of 1226
Page 220 of 1226
Page 221 of 1226
Page 222 of 1226
Page 223 of 1226
Page 224 of 1226
Page 225 of 1226
Page 226 of 1226
Page 227 of 1226
Page 228 of 1226
Page 229 of 1226
Page 230 of 1226
Page 231 of 1226
Page 232 of 1226
Page 233 of 1226
Page 234 of 1226
Page 235 of 1226
Page 236 of 1226
Page 237 of 1226
Page 238 of 1226
Page 239 of 1226
Page 240 of 1226
Page 241 of 1226
Page 242 of 1226
Page 243 of 1226
Page 244 of 1226
Page 245 of 1226
Page 246 of 1226
Page 247 of 1226
Page 248 of 1226
Page 249 of 1226
Page 250 of 1226
Page 251 of 1226
Page 252 of 1226
Page 253 of 1226
Page 254 of 1226
Page 255 of 1226
Page 256 of 1226
Page 257 of 1226
Page 258 of 1226
Page 259 of 1226
Page 260 of 1226
Page 261 of 1226
Page 262 of 1226
Page 263 of 1226
Page 264 of 1226
Page 265 of 1226
Page 266 of 1226
Page 267 of 1226
Page 268 of 1226
Page 269 of 1226
Page 270 of 1226
Page 271 of 1226
Page 272 of 1226
Page 273 of 1226
Page 274 of 1226
Page 275 of 1226
Page 276 of 1226
Page 277 of 1226
Page 278 of 1226
Page 279 of 1226
Page 280 of 1226
Page 281 of 1226
Page 282 of 1226
Page 283 of 1226
Page 284 of 1226
Page 285 of 1226
Page 286 of 1226
Page 287 of 1226
Page 288 of 1226
Page 289 of 1226
Page 290 of 1226
Page 291 of 1226
Page 292 of 1226
Page 293 of 1226
Page 294 of 1226
Page 295 of 1226
Page 296 of 1226
Page 297 of 1226
Page 298 of 1226
Page 299 of 1226
Page 300 of 1226
Page 301 of 1226
Page 302 of 1226
Page 303 of 1226
Page 304 of 1226
Page 305 of 1226
Page 306 of 1226
Page 307 of 1226
Page 308 of 1226
Page 309 of 1226
Page 310 of 1226
Page 311 of 1226
Page 312 of 1226
Page 313 of 1226
Page 314 of 1226
Page 315 of 1226
Page 316 of 1226
Page 317 of 1226
Page 318 of 1226
Page 319 of 1226
Page 320 of 1226
Page 321 of 1226
Page 322 of 1226
Page 323 of 1226
Page 324 of 1226
Page 325 of 1226
Page 326 of 1226
Page 327 of 1226
Page 328 of 1226
Page 329 of 1226
Page 330 of 1226
Page 331 of 1226
Page 332 of 1226
Page 333 of 1226
Page 334 of 1226
Page 335 of 1226
Page 336 of 1226
Page 337 of 1226
Page 338 of 1226
Page 339 of 1226
Page 340 of 1226
Page 341 of 1226
Page 342 of 1226
Page 343 of 1226
Page 344 of 1226
Page 345 of 1226
Page 346 of 1226
Page 347 of 1226
Page 348 of 1226
Page 349 of 1226
Page 350 of 1226
Page 351 of 1226
Page 352 of 1226
Page 353 of 1226
Page 354 of 1226
Page 355 of 1226
Page 356 of 1226
Page 357 of 1226
Page 358 of 1226
Page 359 of 1226
Page 360 of 1226
Page 361 of 1226
Page 362 of 1226
Page 363 of 1226
Page 364 of 1226
Page 365 of 1226
Page 366 of 1226
Page 367 of 1226
Page 368 of 1226
Page 369 of 1226
Page 370 of 1226
Page 371 of 1226
Page 372 of 1226
Page 373 of 1226
Page 374 of 1226
Page 375 of 1226
Page 376 of 1226
Page 377 of 1226
Page 378 of 1226
Page 379 of 1226
Page 380 of 1226
Page 381 of 1226
Page 382 of 1226
Page 383 of 1226
Page 384 of 1226
Page 385 of 1226
Page 386 of 1226
Page 387 of 1226
Page 388 of 1226
Page 389 of 1226
Page 390 of 1226
Page 391 of 1226
Page 392 of 1226
Page 393 of 1226
Page 394 of 1226
Page 395 of 1226
Page 396 of 1226
Page 397 of 1226
Page 398 of 1226
Page 399 of 1226
Page 400 of 1226
Page 401 of 1226
Page 402 of 1226
Page 403 of 1226
Page 404 of 1226
Page 405 of 1226
Page 406 of 1226
Page 407 of 1226
Page 408 of 1226
Page 409 of 1226
Page 410 of 1226
Page 411 of 1226
Page 412 of 1226
Page 413 of 1226
Page 414 of 1226
Page 415 of 1226
Page 416 of 1226
Page 417 of 1226
Page 418 of 1226
Page 419 of 1226
Page 420 of 1226
Page 421 of 1226
Page 422 of 1226
Page 423 of 1226
Page 424 of 1226
Page 425 of 1226
Page 426 of 1226
Page 427 of 1226
Page 428 of 1226
Page 429 of 1226
Page 430 of 1226
Page 431 of 1226
Page 432 of 1226
Page 433 of 1226
Page 434 of 1226
Page 435 of 1226
Page 436 of 1226
Page 437 of 1226
Page 438 of 1226
Page 439 of 1226
Page 440 of 1226
Page 441 of 1226
Page 442 of 1226
Page 443 of 1226
Page 444 of 1226
Page 445 of 1226
Page 446 of 1226
Page 447 of 1226
Page 448 of 1226
Page 449 of 1226
Page 450 of 1226
Page 451 of 1226
Page 452 of 1226
Page 453 of 1226
Page 454 of 1226
Page 455 of 1226
Page 456 of 1226
Page 457 of 1226
Page 458 of 1226
Page 459 of 1226
Page 460 of 1226
Page 461 of 1226
Page 462 of 1226
Page 463 of 1226
Page 464 of 1226
Page 465 of 1226
Page 466 of 1226
Page 467 of 1226
Page 468 of 1226
Page 469 of 1226
Page 470 of 1226
Page 471 of 1226
Page 472 of 1226
Page 473 of 1226
Page 474 of 1226
Page 475 of 1226
Page 476 of 1226
Page 477 of 1226
Page 478 of 1226
Page 479 of 1226
Page 480 of 1226
Page 481 of 1226
Page 482 of 1226
Page 483 of 1226
Page 484 of 1226
Page 485 of 1226
Page 486 of 1226
Page 487 of 1226
Page 488 of 1226
Page 489 of 1226
Page 490 of 1226
Page 491 of 1226
Page 492 of 1226
Page 493 of 1226
Page 494 of 1226
Page 495 of 1226
Page 496 of 1226
Page 497 of 1226
Page 498 of 1226
Page 499 of 1226
Page 500 of 1226
Page 501 of 1226
Page 502 of 1226
Page 503 of 1226
Page 504 of 1226
Page 505 of 1226
Page 506 of 1226
Page 507 of 1226
Page 508 of 1226
Page 509 of 1226
Page 510 of 1226
Page 511 of 1226
Page 512 of 1226
Page 513 of 1226
Page 514 of 1226
Page 515 of 1226
Page 516 of 1226
Page 517 of 1226
Page 518 of 1226
Page 519 of 1226
Page 520 of 1226
Page 521 of 1226
Page 522 of 1226
Page 523 of 1226
Page 524 of 1226
Page 525 of 1226
Page 526 of 1226
Page 527 of 1226
Page 528 of 1226
Page 529 of 1226
Page 530 of 1226
Page 531 of 1226
Page 532 of 1226
Page 533 of 1226
Page 534 of 1226
Page 535 of 1226
Page 536 of 1226
Page 537 of 1226
Page 538 of 1226
Page 539 of 1226
Page 540 of 1226
Page 541 of 1226
Page 542 of 1226
Page 543 of 1226
Page 544 of 1226
Page 545 of 1226
Page 546 of 1226
Page 547 of 1226
Page 548 of 1226
Page 549 of 1226
Page 550 of 1226
Page 551 of 1226
Page 552 of 1226
Page 553 of 1226
Page 554 of 1226
Page 555 of 1226
Page 556 of 1226
Page 557 of 1226
Page 558 of 1226
Page 559 of 1226
Page 560 of 1226
Page 561 of 1226
Page 562 of 1226
Page 563 of 1226
Page 564 of 1226
Page 565 of 1226
Page 566 of 1226
Page 567 of 1226
Page 568 of 1226
Page 569 of 1226
Page 570 of 1226
Page 571 of 1226
Page 572 of 1226
Page 573 of 1226
Page 574 of 1226
Page 575 of 1226
Page 576 of 1226
Page 577 of 1226
Page 578 of 1226
Page 579 of 1226
Page 580 of 1226
EXHIBIT "9"
Page 581 of 1226
Page 582 of 1226
Page 583 of 1226
Page 584 of 1226
Page 585 of 1226
Page 586 of 1226
Page 587 of 1226
Page 588 of 1226
Page 589 of 1226
Page 590 of 1226
Page 591 of 1226
Page 592 of 1226
Page 593 of 1226
Page 594 of 1226
Page 595 of 1226
Page 596 of 1226
Page 597 of 1226
Page 598 of 1226
Page 599 of 1226
Page 600 of 1226
Page 601 of 1226
Page 602 of 1226
Page 603 of 1226
Page 604 of 1226
Page 605 of 1226
Page 606 of 1226
Page 607 of 1226
Page 608 of 1226
Page 609 of 1226
Department of State Lands
775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100
Salem, OR 97301-1279
(503) 986-5200
FAX (503) 378-4844
www.oregon.gov/dsl
State Land Board
Tina Kotek
Governor
Cheryl Myers
Acting Secretary of State
Tobias Read
State Treasurer
May 16, 2023
The Lowman Revocable Trust
Attn: Magna Carrico-Lowman
4462 Coal Mine Road
Medford, OR 97504
Re: WD # 2017-0100R Reissuance
Wetland Delineation Report for Gebhard Road Project
Jackson County; T37S R2W S2AA TL2800
Dear Magna Carrico-Lowman:
The Department of State Lands has reviewed the request to reissue a wetland
delineation report prepared by Schott & Associates for the site referenced above. Based
upon the information presented in the report, we concur with the wetland and waterway
boundaries as mapped in Figure 6 of the report. Please replace all copies of the
preliminary wetland map with this final Department-approved map.
Within the study area, 2 wetlands (Wetland A and B, totaling approximately 0.10 acres)
and a drainage channel were identified. Normally, a state permit is required for
cumulative fill or annual excavation of 50 cubic yards or more in wetlands or below the
ordinary high-water line (OHWL) of the waterway (or the 2-year recurrence interval flood
elevation if OHWL cannot be determined). However, the wetlands and drainage channel
are exempt per OAR 141-085-0515(6); therefore, they are not subject to these state
permit requirements.
This concurrence is for purposes of the state Removal-Fill Law only We recommend
that you attach a copy of this concurrence letter to any subsequent state permit
application to speed application review. Federal, other state agencies or local permit
requirements may apply as well. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will determine
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, which may require submittal of a complete
Wetland Delineation Report.
EXHIBIT "10"
Page 610 of 1226
This concurrence is based on information provided to the agency. The jurisdictional
determination is valid for five years from the expiration date of the original letter, August
9, 2022, unless new information necessitates a revision. Circumstances under which
the Department may change a determination are found in OAR 141-090-0045 (available
on our web site or upon request). In addition, laws enacted by the legislature and/or
rules adopted by the Department may result in a change in jurisdiction; individuals and
applicants are subject to the regulations that are in effect at the time of the removal-fill
activity or complete permit application. The applicant, landowner, or agent may submit a
request for reconsideration of this determination in writing within six months of the date
of this letter.
Thank you for having the site evaluated. If you have any questions, please contact the
Jurisdiction Coordinator for Jackson County, Matt Unitis, at (503) 986-5262.
Sincerely,
Peter Ryan, SPWS
Aquatic Resource Specialist
Enclosures
ec: Juniper Tagliabue, Schott & Associates
Jodi Forgione, Schott & Associates
Central Point Planning Department
Kirsten Hines, Corps of Engineers
Lauren Stebbins, PWS, DSL
Page 611 of 1226
MU
x
2017-0100R
01 16 2023
Page 612 of 1226
PP3PP4
Bubbler
Drainage Channel
OHW
OHW
9
45
3
2
7
8
PP5
1, PP1
6, PP2
Fill
2.72 ac
Fill0.49 ac
Fill0.09 ac
Fill0.03 ac
Wetland A0.05 ac
Wetland B0.05 ac
Figure 6. Wetland Delineation Map
T37S R2W Section 02AATL#2800
4920 Gebhard Road
Central Point, Jackson County, Oregon
January 2017
S&A#
Data plots and wetland boundaries delineated by Schott & Associates, Inc.
utilizing a Trimble GeoXT hand-held unit to a +/- 3 foot accuracy.Tax lot boundaries provided by Jackson County GIS.
Data files and maps are to be used for informational purposes only and maynot be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes.
Coordinate System:NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N
0 100 20050 Feet
Study Area Boundary
Fill
Channel
Wetland
Tax Lots
Sewer Manhole
Bubbler
Culvert
Sample Plot/Photo Point
Culvert/Off-site Ditch
1 Inch=100 Feet
DSL WD# 2017-0100R
Approval Reissued 5/16/2023
Approval Expires 8/9/2027
Page 613 of 1226
See Reissued Concurrence Letter
Dated 5/16/2023
Page 614 of 1226
Page 615 of 1226
Page 616 of 1226
Page 617 of 1226
Page 618 of 1226
See Reissued Figure 6
Dated 5/16/2023
Page 619 of 1226
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
November 16, 2016
John Boyd
People’s Bank of Commerce
1311 East Barnett Rd.
Medford, Oregon 97504
Re: White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results
718 Beebe Road
Central Point, Oregon
2251-00
Dear Mr. Boyd:
This letter provides the results of a well survey conducted in the vicinity of the proposed White Hawk Development
and updates the evaluation of the potential for impacts to the water levels in wells near the development due to the
installation of a proposed storm drain line along Gebhard Road. A preliminary evaluation was provided in a letter to
you dated August 24, 2015. Subsequent to that letter, the City of Central Point requested that a survey be performed
to identify domestic well owners in the vicinity of the development and, where possible, the construction of the wells
(e.g., depth, use, screened interval if screened, etc.) to further evaluate the potential for negative impacts to water
levels in wells located within the White Hawk transit oriented development (TOD) from the proposed construction of
the storm drain line. The survey was completed between December 2015 and April 2016. The results of the survey
and an updated evaluation on the potential impacts of the storm drain line on wells identified in the White Hawk TOD
are provided below.
WELL SURVEY
A well survey form was sent to the residents located within the White Hawk TOD; Attachment A shows the
boundaries and tax lots within the White Hawk TOD. Well surveys were sent to owners of the 31 tax lots within the
White Hawk TOD. The well survey was sent at least two times to each tax lot owner; 11 completed surveys were
returned to Apex. Attachment B includes copies of the completed surveys. Table 1 summarizes the results of the
survey; two surveys were for property outside of the TOD and were not included on Table 1. Results of the well
survey indicated the presence of six wells on five tax lots within the TOD. The location of these wells and the
reported depth of the well is shown on Figure 1. Where information on the exact location of the well is not available,
the location is approximated by placing it in the center of the tax lot for which the information was obtained.
In addition, Apex reviewed Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) online files to identify registered wells in
the TOD. Ten well logs for wells located on 6 parcels within the TOD were identified. Attachment C contains the
identified well logs and Table 2 summarizes the information on the identified wells, by parcel. Two of the parcels1
with well logs registered by OWRD sent in completed well surveys; the other well logs provided additional
information. Additionally, shown on Figure 1 are the locations of wells identified in a report prepared by
Don Haggerty, PhD in February 20002.
1 Dino Picollo, parcel 28 and Charlotte Holder, parcel 15; see Table 1.
2 Haggerty 2000. Report on Groundwater in the Vicinity of Beebe Rd., Jackson County, Oregon. February 28, 2000.
EXHIBIT "11"
Page 620 of 1226
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016
Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 2
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
It is unknown how many of the wells identified in the OWRD database or in the Haggarty report are still in use as only
two property owners3 with wells identified in the OWRD database and/or the Haggerty report sent back completed
well surveys (parcel owners were sent water well surveys in December 2015, January 2016, and/or March 2017).
Additionally, the Haggerty report indicated 3 wells to be present on parcel number 15, but the completed well survey
for this parcel indicated just one 50-foot deepwell. Figure 1 shows the updated information from the well survey.
Based on the information obtained from the well searches:
At least six wells are in use in the White Hawk TOD based on the well survey results; the well depths
range from 12 to 50 feet, where known.
An additional 5 to 8 wells were identified from the OWRD w ell log database. Of these, all but two are
sealed from ground surface to 20 feet or more. Additionally, the Himmelman well at parcel 30 appears
to be 100 feet deep and sealed to 35 feet.
It is unclear whether the additional wells identified in the OWRD database are still in use.
The well logs in the OWRD database suggest that, in the vicinity of the development, the soil consists
of clay to depths of 8 to 12 feet below grade, underlain be sand and gravel to at least 40 to 50 feet in
most locations.
Figure 1 shows that most of the wells are more than 100 feet from the proposed stormdrain line to be installed
beneath Gebhard Road. However, wells are reported at parcels 3, 5, and 6 (see Figure 1) and the location of the
wells are not known so the wells could be closer to the proposed utility.
EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTS DURING STORM AND SANITARY LINE INSTALLATION
Depth to first encountered water for shallow wells in the area appears to be about 9 feet below grade, but was
historically reported as shallow as 4 feet below grade in some areas. Based on the OWRD well logs, it appears that
most (if not all) of the wells are sealed to at least 9 feet below grade and are accessing water below that depth. The
proposed storm and sanitary lines may be installed to depths of up to 10 to 12 feet and therefore, may intercept the
water table in some areas. Based on this information, installation of the storm and/or sanitary lines could impact
groundwater levels (and thereby impact the nearby water wells) from the following:
Dewatering during construction;
Infiltration into sewer lines; or
Longitudinal flow in trench backfill.
If dewatering is necessary during construction, the water table would be lowered and these effects could extend to
nearby water wells. This effect would be temporary and conditions would be expected to return to normal within a
short period after completion of the work.
Long-term, if the storm or sanitary lines leak, infiltration into the lines could permanently lower the water table in the
vicinity of the utilities to the base of the lines; however, this effect would likely extend only a few feet from the utility
trench. This potential impact is addressed by quality control during construction to assure the utility lines are installed
in alignment, seals are in place, intact and tested, proper pipe bedding is used, and trench backfill is properly
compacted. These conditions assure the lines have a tight seal and meet the required performance standards prior
to acceptance by the City.
3 Dino Picollo, parcel 28 and Charlotte Holder, parcel 15; see Table 1.
Page 621 of 1226
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016
Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 3
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
If trench backfill is more permeable than native soil, water could flow longitudinally along the trench and discharge to
surface water, permanently lowering the water table in the vicinity of the trench. Given the native soil conditions (clay
soils in the upper 8 to 12 feet), it is possible that the trench backfill could be more permeable than the native soil in
the areas where the native clay extends below the bottom depth of the utility bedding. Depending on the depth to
which the trench penetrates the water table, longitudinal flow could occur; however, the influence on the shallow
water table would likely extend only a few feet laterally from the utility trench. This localized depression in the water
table caused by the trench could be addressed by installing low-permeability plugs at intervals in the trench backfill.
Given that dewatering of local wells was reported after a drain trench was installed in Beebe Road in 1998, it is
recommended that low permeability trench plugs be installed in future utility trenches dug for the project.
MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION AND MITIGATION OPTIONS
The potential impact of the installation and presence of the proposed storm and sanitary lines was performed in 2015
and is updated herein based on the updated well information obtained from the wells survey:
Up to 21 wells may be located in the vicinity of the proposed project; it is unclear how many of these
wells are still in use, however, at least three wells that are likely in use appear to be located within
100 feet of the proposed installation along Gebhard Road. The proposed utility installation is not
expected to impact two of these wells because the wells are 35 and 140 feet deep and access water
well below the depth of utility installation. The third well, located on parcel 3 (Figure 1) is of unknown
depth. It is also unlikely that the utility installation will impact this well because the utility installations
will penetrate only a few feet into the water table, if at all, at this location.
A 12-foot depth well is reportedly located on parcel 28 that may be within 100 feet of proposed storm
and sewer lines to be installed along the eastern development boundary (Figure 1). There is the
potential that this well could be impacted by the utility installation, if the line extends into the water table
at this location.
Wells located further than 100 feet from the installation would not be anticipated to be impacted by the
utility installation.
It is also noted that three wells have been deepened over a period of 16 years, indicating that there is a
long-term reduction in water level in the area.
The following presents mitigation options to address potential concerns:
Prior to construction of the storm drain line proposed to be placed along Gebhard Road, verify the
depth of the well located on parcel 3 and, if the well is less than a total depth of 15 feet, monitor water
levels in that well during construction.
Prior to construction of storm or sewer lines tie-ins to the existing storm or sewer lines beneath Beebe
Road, verify the presence of wells located on parcel 10 identified in the Haggerty report that may be
located within 100 feet of the tie-ins and are reported to be shallower than 15 feet in depth. If these
wells are still present and in use, monitor the water levels during the construction.
If installation does penetrate the water table, low-permeability plugs can be used to inhibit flow along
the trench line. Assuming crushed rock is used for trench backfill, adding 5 percent (dry weight)
bentonite to the backfill is sufficient to reduce the permeability of the backfill. The plugs should be
placed from the bottom of the trench to 1 foot above the water table the full width of the trench and have
a minimum length of 5 feet. A plug should be placed at the low end of each main sewer line.
In areas where the lines are installed below the water table, particular care needs to be taken to ensure
that the lines have a tight seal.
Page 622 of 1226
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016
Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 4
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Amanda Spencer, R.G.
Principal Hydrogeologist
ATTACHMENTS
Table 1 – Summary of Well Survey Results
Table 2 – OWRD Well Survey Results
Figure 1 – Location of Wells in the White Hawk TOD
Attachment A – White Hawk TOD
Attachment B – Completed Surveys
Attachment C – OWRD Well Logs for Wells Within the TOD
cc:Matt Samitore, City of Central Point
Page 623 of 1226
Parcel
Index MAP TAX LOT Site Num Site St Owner
Owner Address
(if different from Site
Address)
Date Survey sent Survey
Returned?
Well?Well Depth Date Installed Notes
1 372W02 400
6026 Palmero Cir
Cameron Park, CA 95682 Survey sent 12/15
12/22/2015
1/25/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
2 372W02 500
10 S Oakdale Ave
Medford, OR 97501 Survey sent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
3 372W02 2500 4757 Gebhard Karen and Randall Wales Survey sent 12/15 12/28/2015 Y unknown unknown domestic use and yard/gardening
4 372W02 600
1355 Cora Ln
Auburn, CA 95603 Survey sent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
5 372W02 2601 4617 Gebhard David & Julie Webb Survey sent 12/15 12/30/2015 Y 35 feet bgs 1930?
domestic use and
yard/gardening/orchard
6 372W02 2600 4613 Gebhard Sergio Mejia
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Survey not completed but OWRD well
log found dated 5/4/2012 for a 140 foot
well
7 372W02 2602 4603 Gebhard William Jeshke
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
8 372W02D 501
PO Box 996
Medford, OR 97501
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N Undeveloped land
10 372W02D 300 587 Beebe Ken Beebe?
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but 3
OWRD well logs identified - See Table 2
11 372W02D 200 511 Beebe Mingus Survey sent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but 3
OWRD well logs identified - See Table 2
12 372W01C 2500 507 Beebe Terry & Harley Callahan
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
13 372W01C 2400 495 Beebe James and Michelle Nistler
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
14 372W01C 2300 477 Beebe Michelle Nistler
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
15 372W01C 2301 445 Beebe Charlotte Holder
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 1/11/2016 Y 50 feet 1998
lawn, gardening, watering orchard, fire
abatement
16 372W01C 2200 443 Beebe Rita Deann Tyner
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
17 372W01C 1700 4511 Hamrick James Sutton
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
18 372W01C 1800 4497 Hamrick Nick Kenneth Lee
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
19 372W01CB 1100 4475 Hamrick Gladys Muse
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
20 372W01CB 1000 4461 Hamrick Richard Smith
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF WELL SURVEY RESULTS
No Address
No Address
No Address
No Address
Page 624 of 1226
21 372W01CB 900 4439 Hamrick Humphrey&Windsor LLC
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
22 372W01BC 10100 446 Beebe Survey sent 3/3/16 N
23 372W01BC 10200 444 Beebe Survey sent 3/3/16 N
24 372W01BC 10000 4615 Hamrick Edic Sliva
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
25 372W01BC 9800 4630 Hamrick CA Galpin
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
26 372W01BC 9900 456 Beebe Picollo LLC
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
27 372W02 3100 600 Beebe
Shepherd of the Valley
Catholic Church
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but
OWRD well log identified - See Table 2
28 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Dino Picollo Survey sent 12/15 12/23/2015 2 wells
1 - 12 feet
2 - 34 feet
1 - Unknown
2 - 1940ish
one well at back of lot used for
irrigation;
second well shared with 523 Beebe for
domestic and irrigation
OWRD well log from 2/17/1983 for a 60
foot well - see Table 2
30 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard
Steve & Carolyn
Himmelman Survey sent 12/15 1/5/2016 Y 15 feet unknown
hand dug well
domestic use/irrigation/stock watering
OWRD well log found from 10/11/1994
for a 100 foot well
31 372W02AA 2800 4920 Gebhard Survey sent 3/3/16 N
Note: yellow highlighted: surveys were returned because the post office could not deliver
Page 625 of 1226
Parcel
Index MAP TAX LOT Site Num Site St Owner
Well Log #Well Depth Date Installed Notes
1 372W02 400 None NA NA
2 372W02 500 None NA NA
3 372W02 2500 4757 Gebhard None unknown unknown
domestic use and yard/gardening well onsite
based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
4 372W02 600 None NA NA
5 372W02 2601 4617 Gebhard None 35 feet bgs 1930?
domestic use and yard/gardening/orchard well
onsite based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
6 372W02 2600 4613 Gebhard Sergio Mejia JACK61181 140 feet 5/4/2012
sealed from 0 to 50 feet below grade; screened
from 50 to 140 feet below grade
7 372W02 2602 4603 Gebhard William Jeshke None
8 372W02D 501 None
10 372W02D 300 587 Beebe Ken Beebe?
JACK12262
JACK12264
JACK12261
12 feet
66.5 feet
13 feet
1965 and 1966
sealed 0 to 9 feet
sealed 0 to 20 feet
sealed 0 to 9 feet
11 372W02D 200 511 Beebe Mingus
JACK52926
JACK55868
JACK52660
204 feet
56 feet
59 feet
1999
2003
1998
sealed 0 to 59?
Sealed 0 to 27 feet
sealed 0 to 20 feet
12 372W01C 2500 507 Beebe Terry & Harley Callahan None
13 372W01C 2400 495 Beebe
James and Michelle Nistler None
14 372W01C 2300 477 Beebe Michelle Nistler None
15 372W01C 2301 445 Beebe Charlotte Holder None 50 feet 1998
lawn, gardening, watering orchard, fire abatement
well onsite based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
16 372W01C 2200 443 Beebe Rita Deann Tyner None
17 372W01C 1700 4511 Hamrick James Sutton None
18 372W01C 1800 4497 Hamrick Nick Kenneth Lee None
19 372W01CB 1100 4475 Hamrick Gladys Muse None
20 372W01CB 1000 4461 Hamrick Richard Smith None
21 372W01CB 900 4439 Hamrick Humphrey&Windsor LLC None
22 372W01BC 10100 446 Beebe None
23 372W01BC 10200 444 Beebe None
24 372W01BC 10000 4615 Hamrick Edic Sliva None
25 372W01BC 9800 4630 Hamrick CA Galpin None
26 372W01BC 9900 456 Beebe Picollo LLC None
TABLE 2: OWRD SURVEY RESULTS
No Address
No Address
No Address
No Address
Page 626 of 1226
27 372W02 3100 600 Beebe
Shepherd of the Valley
Catholic Church JACK30394 90 feet 1990 Deepening of an existing well from 68 to 90 feet
28 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Dino Picollo JACK12241 60 feet 1983
Deepening of an existing well from 35 feet to 60
feet. Sealed from 0 to 35 feet.
30 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard Steve Himmelman JACK33759 100 feet 1994 sealed 0 to 35 feet
31 372W02AA 2800 4920 Gebhard None
Page 627 of 1226
[15']
[UNK]
[14'][13']
[66.5']
[56']
[59']
[50'][12']
[35']
[140']
[12']
[34']
[90']
[45']
[13']
[11.5']
[UNK]
[97']
[UNK][23'][15']
[204']
[97']
B1 B2
M1 R1 S1
G1
T1G3
F1
C1
F2
F3
R2
M2
Base map prepared from a Well Notiofication Area figure by CES NW (12/01/2105).I
Water Well (Based on Returned Survey; Location Approximate)
Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Database Well Location
Water Well (Based on February 2000 Haggerty Report and/or OWRD Database; Existence Not Confirmed)
Depth of Well (UNK = Unknown Depth)0 500
Approximate Scale in Feet
1,000[35']
B1
Page 628 of 1226
White Hawk TOD
Page 629 of 1226
OF
SHEET
1
1
BEEBE ROAD
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
171819
20
21
2223
24
25
2627
28
29
30
31
32
Page 630 of 1226
Completed Surveys
Page 631 of 1226
Page 632 of 1226
Page 633 of 1226
Page 634 of 1226
Page 635 of 1226
Page 636 of 1226
Page 637 of 1226
Page 638 of 1226
Page 639 of 1226
Page 640 of 1226
Page 641 of 1226
Page 642 of 1226
OWRD Well Logs for Wells Within the TOD
Page 643 of 1226
Page 644 of 1226
Page 645 of 1226
Page 646 of 1226
Page 647 of 1226
Page 648 of 1226
Page 649 of 1226
Page 650 of 1226
Page 651 of 1226
Page 652 of 1226
Page 653 of 1226
Page 654 of 1226
15618 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
July 25, 2024
Jack Galpin
Medford, Oregon 97504
Re: Assessment of Potential Groundwater Impacts to Shallow Wells
Proposed Sunnybrook Development
4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon
32-24007645
Dear Mr. Galpin:
This letter provides the results of an assessment of shallow wells in the vicinity of the proposed Sunnybrook
Development at 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon for Galpin Homes, LLC (Galpin). Apex Companies,
LLC (Apex) understands that the City of Central Point requires an evaluation of the potential for impacts to the water
levels in domestic wells near the development due to the installation of utilities within the subdivision. The results of
the assessment and an evaluation of potential impacts to groundwater elevations in the vicinity of the proposed
development of the Site are provided below.
SHALLOW WELL ASSESSMENT
Apex reviewed Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) online files to identify registered wells within 1,000
feet of the proposed Sunnybrook Development. Additionally, Apex reviewed the White Hawk Development – Well
Survey Results letter completed for the White Hawk Transit Oriented Development project (Apex, 2016). Sixteen
wells were identified as being potentially located within 1,000 feet of the proposed Sunnybrook Development. Table
1 summarizes the information on the identified wells, and Figure 2 shows approximate well locations by parcel.
Exact well locations have not been identified, and it is unknown how many of the wells are still in use. OWRD well
logs, where available, are included in Attachment A, and Attachment B includes the 2016 White Hawk Development
– Well Survey Results letter (Apex, 2016). Three wells were previously identified as potentially being within the
proposed Sunnybrook Development area; however, only one well has been located during pre-development surveys.
The well logs in the OWRD database suggest that, in the vicinity of the development, the soil consists of clay to
depths of 6 to 12 feet below ground surface (bgs) underlain by sand and gravel to at least 40 to 50 feet bgs in most
locations. The top of claystone, siltstone, or sandstone is present in many of the wells at depths ranging from 4 to 60
feet bgs.
Based on the information obtained from the OWRD well logs and the 2016 well survey for White Hawk development,
the completed well depths within the vicinity of the proposed development range from 10 to 50 feet bgs, where
known. The static water level at the time of drilling reported on the well logs ranges from 4 feet bgs in well 13
(JACK12241) to 41 feet bgs in well 6 (JACK52926), both located to the southwest of the property. At least three of
the well logs are for well deepening (well 6, well 9, and well 13), indicating that there is a long-term lowering in the
water table in the area and shallow static water levels reported at the time of drilling may no longer be representative
of site conditions. The depth to static water in wells drilled since 1990 ranges from 12 to 41 feet bgs and is likely
more representative of current conditions.
EXHIBIT "12"
Page 655 of 1226
Jack Galpin, Galpin Homes, LLC July 25, 2024
Well Survey Results, Sunnybrook Development Page 2
15618 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTS DURING EXCAVATION AND UTILITY INSTALLATION
Depth to first encountered water for shallow wells in the area appears to be at least 12 feet bgs as described above.
Based on the OWRD well logs, it appears that most (if not all) of the wells are sealed to at least 9 feet bgs and are
accessing water below that depth.
During development, imported soil will be used to raise the existing grade by 3 to 4 feet. Based on development
plans provided by Galpin, utilities will be installed at a maximum depth of 9 feet below existing grade, and in many
cases at shallower depths. It is unlikely that the installation of utilities in the subdivision will intercept the water table.
In the unlikely event that groundwater is encountered, local groundwater levels could be impacted by the following:
Dewatering during construction;
Infiltration into drain lines; or
Longitudinal flow in trench backfill.
If dewatering is necessary during construction, the water table could be lowered locally and may impact the static
water levels in nearby water wells. This effect would be temporary, and conditions would be expected to return to
normal within a short period after completion of the dewatering activities.
Long-term, if the storm or sanitary lines leak, infiltration into the lines could potentially lower the water table in the
vicinity of the utilities to the base of the lines; however, this effect would likely extend only a few feet from the utility
trenches. This potential impact can be addressed through construction methodologies that meet industry
performance standards and city codes.
Given the native soil conditions (clay soils in the upper 6 to 12 feet), the trench backfill could potentially be more
permeable than the native soil in the areas where the native clay extends below the bottom depth of the utility
bedding. Depending on the depth to which the trench penetrates the water table, longitudinal flow could occur along
the trench alignment; however, the influence on the shallow water table would likely be limited to only a few feet
laterally from the utility trench.
POTENTIAL MITIGATION
The proposed Sunnybrook Development is not expected to impact groundwater levels in local wells, as excavation
and development plans provided by Galpin do not include depths that would likely be below the water table.
Additionally, the development will be provided with municipal water supply and sewer services and is not anticipated
to impact water availability. If installation does extend below the water table, low-permeability plugs can be used to
inhibit flow along the trench line. Assuming crushed rock is used for trench backfill, adding 5 percent (dry weight)
bentonite to the backfill would be sufficient to reduce the permeability of the backfill. The bentonite plugs should be
placed from the bottom of the trench to 1 foot above the water table in the full width of the trench with a minimum
length of 5 feet. A plug should be placed at the low end of each main sewer line.
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Tess Chadil Steve Misner, R.G.
Project Manager Senior Associate Hydrogeologist
Page 656 of 1226
Jack Galpin, Galpin Homes, LLC July 25, 2024
Well Survey Results, Sunnybrook Development Page 3
15618 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
ATTACHMENTS
Table 1 – Galpin Homes Well Log Search
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Location of Wells Near Proposed Sunnybrook Development
Attachment A – OWRD Well Logs
Attachment B – White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results (Apex 2016)
REFERENCES
Apex Companies, LLC, 2016. White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results, Central Point, Oregon. November
16, 2016.
“Oregon Water Resources Department Well Report Query.” Well Report Query, Oregon Water Resources
Department, apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/gw/well_log/Default.aspx. Accessed 25 July 2024.
Page 657 of 1226
Table 1. Galpin Homes Well Log Search
Proposed Sunnybrook Development
4613 Hamrick Road Central Point, Oregon
Map ID Location Tax Lot
Street
Number Street Owner Well Log # Well Depth
Date
Installed
Static
Water
Level
W-1 372W01 1100 4475 Hamrick Rd Muse
JACK 12222 60 1960 25
W-2 372W01 1100 4475 Hamrick Rd Muse
JACK 62111 45 2015 12
W-3 372W01 Unk. Unk. Unk. Gebhard JACK 34914 10 Pre 1948 7
W-4 372W01 2500 507 Beebe Rd Beebe JACK 52862 144 1998 12
W-5 372W02
Unk. Unk. Unk. Childress JACK 34915 14 1938 10
W-6 372W02 200 511 Beebe Rd Mingus
JACK52926 204 feet 1999 41
W-7 372W02 200 511 Beebe Rd Mingus JACK55868 2003 12
W-8 372W02 200 511 Beebe Rd Mingus
JACK52660 59 feet 1998 41
W-9 372W02 3100 600 Beebe Rd Shep. of Valley JACK 30394 90 1990 17
W-10 372W02 Unk. Unk. Beebe Rd Beebe JACK 12262 12 1966 9
W-11 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard Rd Himmelman JACK 33759 100 1994 22
W-12 372W02 2700 718 Beebe Rd Nixon JACK 12239 100 1989 28
W-13 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Rd Picollo JACK12241 60 feet 1983 4
W-14 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Rd Picollo n/a
12 feet Unk. 12
W-15 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Rd Picollo n/a
34 feet 1940 34
W-16 372W01 Unk. 4713 Hamrick Rd Houser JACK 12201 37 1963 12
Notes:
1. See Figure 1 for approximate well location
2. Static water level as measured at time of drilling
Shallow Wells Within 1,000 feet of Proposed Sunnybrook Development
Assessment of Potential Groundwater Impacts to Shallow Wells
Proposed Sunnybrook Development
32-24007645
Page 1 of 1
Page 658 of 1226
Page 659 of 1226
Page 660 of 1226
Attachment A
OWRD Well Logs
Page 661 of 1226
Page 662 of 1226
Page 663 of 1226
Page 664 of 1226
Page 665 of 1226
Page 666 of 1226
Page 667 of 1226
Page 668 of 1226
Page 669 of 1226
Page 670 of 1226
Page 671 of 1226
Page 672 of 1226
Page 673 of 1226
Page 674 of 1226
WELL I.D. LABEL# L
START CARD #
Owner Well I.D.
First Name
Address
Zip
(1) LAND OWNER
New Well Deepening
Abandonment(complete 5a)
Conversion
(3) DRILL METHOD
Rotary Air Rotary Mud Cable Auger Cable Mud
OtherReverse Rotary
(4) PROPOSED USE Domestic Community
Industrial/ Commericial
Irrigation
Livestock Dewatering
StateCity
STATE OF OREGON
WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT
(as required by ORS 537.765 & OAR 690-205-0210)
Thermal Injection Other
(5) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION
Depth of Completed Well ft.
Explosives used: Yes Type Amount
SEAL
Material From To Amt
Other
Backfill placed from ft. to ft. Material
Filter pack from ft. to ft. Material
BORE HOLE
(Attach copy)
Dia From To
Special Standard
(6) CASING/LINER Dia
Shoe Inside Outside Location of shoe(s)
From To Gauge Stl Plstc Wld ThrdCasing Liner
(7) PERFORATIONS/SCREENSMethod
Type Material
Scrn/slot
widthToFrom
# of
slots
Tele/
pipe size
Casing/
Liner
Dia
(8) WELL TESTS: Minimum testing time is 1 hour
Yield gal/min Drawdown Drill stem/Pump depth Duration (hr)
Temperature °F Lab analysis
Water quality concerns?
Yes
From Yes (describe below)To Description
(9) LOCATION OF WELL (legal description)
Tax Lot
Lot
Twp Range E/W WM
Sec 1/4 1/4
Lat °'" or DMS or DD
Long °'" or DMS or DD
County N/S
of the
(10) STATIC WATER LEVEL
WATER BEARING ZONES
From To Est Flow SWL(psi)SWL Date
(11) WELL LOG Ground Elevation
Material To
CompletedDate Started
(unbonded) Water Well Constructor Certification
I certify that the work I performed on the construction, deepening, alteration,or
abandonment of this well is in compliance with Oregon water supply well
construction standards. Materials used and information reported above are true to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
License Number Date
Signed
(bonded) Water Well Constructor Certification
ORIGINAL - WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
THIS REPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF WORK
Depth water was first found
Temp casing Yes From To
Screen
Dia
Other
Tax Map Number
I accept responsibility for the construction, deepening, alteration, or abandonment
work performed on this well during the construction dates reported above. All work
performed during this time is in compliance with Oregon water supply well
construction standards. This report is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
License Number Date
Signed
Existing Well / Pre-Alteration
Completed Well
From
Company
Last Name
E D C B AMethodHow was seal placed:
Perf/
Screen
Date SWL(psi)
By
Amount Units
sacks/
lbs
Slot
length
Perforations
Screens
SWL(ft)
SWL(ft)
Size
Contact Info (optional)
Flowing Artesian?
(2a) PRE-ALTERATION
Alteration (complete 2a & 10)
(2) TYPE OF WORK
To sacks/lbsAmtFromMaterial
(5a) ABANDONMENT USING UNHYDRATED BENTONITE
Proposed Amount
From Dia
TDS amount
Casing:
Seal:
ORIGINAL LOG #
Actual Amount
Street address of well Nearest address
Pump Bailer Air Flowing Artesian
Dry Hole?
Form Version:
ThrdWldPlstcStlGaugeTo
Calculated
Calculated
Page 1 of 2
115720
1026408
GLADYS MUSE
4475 HAMMRICK RD
CENTRAL POINT OR 97502
45.00
125/14/2015
5/14/2015 5/14/2015
1798 5/14/2015
62111JACK
5/14/2015
GARY NEWMAN (E-filed)
Southern Oregon Well Drilling 541-772-1177
JACKSON 12222
UNDISTURBED
JACKSON 37.00 S 2.00 W
1 SW NW 1100
4475 HAMMRICK RD CENTRAL POINT OREGON 97502
6 0 60
Page 675 of 1226
WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT -
continuation page
(6) CASING/LINER
(7) PERFORATIONS/SCREENS
(8) WELL TESTS: Minimum testing time is 1 hour
(10) STATIC WATER LEVEL
ThrdWldPlstcStlGaugeToFrom+ DiaCasing Liner
Material ToFrom
Comments/Remarks
BORE HOLE
Dia From To
Water Quality Concerns
Yield gal/min Drawdown Drill stem/Pump depth Duration (hr)
SEAL
Material From To Amt
sacks/
lbs
From To Description Amount Units
FILTER PACK
From To Material Size
SWL(ft)SWL(psi)Est FlowToFromSWL Date
(11) WELL LOG
(5) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION
(2a) PRE-ALTERATION
Perf/
Screen
Casing/
Liner
Screen
Dia From To
Scrn/slot
width
Slot
length
# of
slots
Tele/
pipe size
From Dia ThrdWldPlstcStlGaugeTo
WELL I.D. LABEL# L
START CARD #
ORIGINAL LOG #
To sacks/lbsAmtFromMaterial
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Extended casing by three feet. Casing is now approx eighteen inches above
ground level. We placed five sacks of Bentonite chips around the extended
casing.
5/14/2015
62111JACK
12222JACKSON
Page 2 of 2
Page 676 of 1226
Attachment B
White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results (Apex 2016)
Page 677 of 1226
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
November 16, 2016
John Boyd
People’s Bank of Commerce
1311 East Barnett Rd.
Medford, Oregon 97504
Re: White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results
718 Beebe Road
Central Point, Oregon
2251-00
Dear Mr. Boyd:
This letter provides the results of a well survey conducted in the vicinity of the proposed White Hawk Development
and updates the evaluation of the potential for impacts to the water levels in wells near the development due to the
installation of a proposed storm drain line along Gebhard Road. A preliminary evaluation was provided in a letter to
you dated August 24, 2015. Subsequent to that letter, the City of Central Point requested that a survey be performed
to identify domestic well owners in the vicinity of the development and, where possible, the construction of the wells
(e.g., depth, use, screened interval if screened, etc.) to further evaluate the potential for negative impacts to water
levels in wells located within the White Hawk transit oriented development (TOD) from the proposed construction of
the storm drain line. The survey was completed between December 2015 and April 2016. The results of the survey
and an updated evaluation on the potential impacts of the storm drain line on wells identified in the White Hawk TOD
are provided below.
WELL SURVEY
A well survey form was sent to the residents located within the White Hawk TOD; Attachment A shows the
boundaries and tax lots within the White Hawk TOD. Well surveys were sent to owners of the 31 tax lots within the
White Hawk TOD. The well survey was sent at least two times to each tax lot owner; 11 completed surveys were
returned to Apex. Attachment B includes copies of the completed surveys. Table 1 summarizes the results of the
survey; two surveys were for property outside of the TOD and were not included on Table 1. Results of the well
survey indicated the presence of six wells on five tax lots within the TOD. The location of these wells and the
reported depth of the well is shown on Figure 1. Where information on the exact location of the well is not available,
the location is approximated by placing it in the center of the tax lot for which the information was obtained.
In addition, Apex reviewed Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) online files to identify registered wells in
the TOD. Ten well logs for wells located on 6 parcels within the TOD were identified. Attachment C contains the
identified well logs and Table 2 summarizes the information on the identified wells, by parcel. Two of the parcels1
with well logs registered by OWRD sent in completed well surveys; the other well logs provided additional
information. Additionally, shown on Figure 1 are the locations of wells identified in a report prepared by
Don Haggerty, PhD in February 20002.
1 Dino Picollo, parcel 28 and Charlotte Holder, parcel 15; see Table 1.
2 Haggerty 2000. Report on Groundwater in the Vicinity of Beebe Rd., Jackson County, Oregon. February 28, 2000.
Page 678 of 1226
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016
Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 2
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
It is unknown how many of the wells identified in the OWRD database or in the Haggarty report are still in use as only
two property owners3 with wells identified in the OWRD database and/or the Haggerty report sent back completed
well surveys (parcel owners were sent water well surveys in December 2015, January 2016, and/or March 2017).
Additionally, the Haggerty report indicated 3 wells to be present on parcel number 15, but the completed well survey
for this parcel indicated just one 50-foot deepwell. Figure 1 shows the updated information from the well survey.
Based on the information obtained from the well searches:
At least six wells are in use in the White Hawk TOD based on the well survey results; the well depths
range from 12 to 50 feet, where known.
An additional 5 to 8 wells were identified from the OWRD w ell log database. Of these, all but two are
sealed from ground surface to 20 feet or more. Additionally, the Himmelman well at parcel 30 appears
to be 100 feet deep and sealed to 35 feet.
It is unclear whether the additional wells identified in the OWRD database are still in use.
The well logs in the OWRD database suggest that, in the vicinity of the development, the soil consists
of clay to depths of 8 to 12 feet below grade, underlain be sand and gravel to at least 40 to 50 feet in
most locations.
Figure 1 shows that most of the wells are more than 100 feet from the proposed stormdrain line to be installed
beneath Gebhard Road. However, wells are reported at parcels 3, 5, and 6 (see Figure 1) and the location of the
wells are not known so the wells could be closer to the proposed utility.
EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTS DURING STORM AND SANITARY LINE INSTALLATION
Depth to first encountered water for shallow wells in the area appears to be about 9 feet below grade, but was
historically reported as shallow as 4 feet below grade in some areas. Based on the OWRD well logs, it appears that
most (if not all) of the wells are sealed to at least 9 feet below grade and are accessing water below that depth. The
proposed storm and sanitary lines may be installed to depths of up to 10 to 12 feet and therefore, may intercept the
water table in some areas. Based on this information, installation of the storm and/or sanitary lines could impact
groundwater levels (and thereby impact the nearby water wells) from the following:
Dewatering during construction;
Infiltration into sewer lines; or
Longitudinal flow in trench backfill.
If dewatering is necessary during construction, the water table would be lowered and these effects could extend to
nearby water wells. This effect would be temporary and conditions would be expected to return to normal within a
short period after completion of the work.
Long-term, if the storm or sanitary lines leak, infiltration into the lines could permanently lower the water table in the
vicinity of the utilities to the base of the lines; however, this effect would likely extend only a few feet from the utility
trench. This potential impact is addressed by quality control during construction to assure the utility lines are installed
in alignment, seals are in place, intact and tested, proper pipe bedding is used, and trench backfill is properly
compacted. These conditions assure the lines have a tight seal and meet the required performance standards prior
to acceptance by the City.
3 Dino Picollo, parcel 28 and Charlotte Holder, parcel 15; see Table 1.
Page 679 of 1226
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016
Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 3
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
If trench backfill is more permeable than native soil, water could flow longitudinally along the trench and discharge to
surface water, permanently lowering the water table in the vicinity of the trench. Given the native soil conditions (clay
soils in the upper 8 to 12 feet), it is possible that the trench backfill could be more permeable than the native soil in
the areas where the native clay extends below the bottom depth of the utility bedding. Depending on the depth to
which the trench penetrates the water table, longitudinal flow could occur; however, the influence on the shallow
water table would likely extend only a few feet laterally from the utility trench. This localized depression in the water
table caused by the trench could be addressed by installing low-permeability plugs at intervals in the trench backfill.
Given that dewatering of local wells was reported after a drain trench was installed in Beebe Road in 1998, it is
recommended that low permeability trench plugs be installed in future utility trenches dug for the project.
MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION AND MITIGATION OPTIONS
The potential impact of the installation and presence of the proposed storm and sanitary lines was performed in 2015
and is updated herein based on the updated well information obtained from the wells survey:
Up to 21 wells may be located in the vicinity of the proposed project; it is unclear how many of these
wells are still in use, however, at least three wells that are likely in use appear to be located within
100 feet of the proposed installation along Gebhard Road. The proposed utility installation is not
expected to impact two of these wells because the wells are 35 and 140 feet deep and access water
well below the depth of utility installation. The third well, located on parcel 3 (Figure 1) is of unknown
depth. It is also unlikely that the utility installation will impact this well because the utility installations
will penetrate only a few feet into the water table, if at all, at this location.
A 12-foot depth well is reportedly located on parcel 28 that may be within 100 feet of proposed storm
and sewer lines to be installed along the eastern development boundary (Figure 1). There is the
potential that this well could be impacted by the utility installation, if the line extends into the water table
at this location.
Wells located further than 100 feet from the installation would not be anticipated to be impacted by the
utility installation.
It is also noted that three wells have been deepened over a period of 16 years, indicating that there is a
long-term reduction in water level in the area.
The following presents mitigation options to address potential concerns:
Prior to construction of the storm drain line proposed to be placed along Gebhard Road, verify the
depth of the well located on parcel 3 and, if the well is less than a total depth of 15 feet, monitor water
levels in that well during construction.
Prior to construction of storm or sewer lines tie-ins to the existing storm or sewer lines beneath Beebe
Road, verify the presence of wells located on parcel 10 identified in the Haggerty report that may be
located within 100 feet of the tie-ins and are reported to be shallower than 15 feet in depth. If these
wells are still present and in use, monitor the water levels during the construction.
If installation does penetrate the water table, low-permeability plugs can be used to inhibit flow along
the trench line. Assuming crushed rock is used for trench backfill, adding 5 percent (dry weight)
bentonite to the backfill is sufficient to reduce the permeability of the backfill. The plugs should be
placed from the bottom of the trench to 1 foot above the water table the full width of the trench and have
a minimum length of 5 feet. A plug should be placed at the low end of each main sewer line.
In areas where the lines are installed below the water table, particular care needs to be taken to ensure
that the lines have a tight seal.
Page 680 of 1226
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016
Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 4
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Amanda Spencer, R.G.
Principal Hydrogeologist
ATTACHMENTS
Table 1 – Summary of Well Survey Results
Table 2 – OWRD Well Survey Results
Figure 1 – Location of Wells in the White Hawk TOD
Attachment A – White Hawk TOD
Attachment B – Completed Surveys
Attachment C – OWRD Well Logs for Wells Within the TOD
cc:Matt Samitore, City of Central Point
Page 681 of 1226
Parcel
Index MAP TAX LOT Site Num Site St Owner
Owner Address
(if different from Site
Address)
Date Survey sent Survey
Returned?
Well?Well Depth Date Installed Notes
1 372W02 400
6026 Palmero Cir
Cameron Park, CA 95682 Survey sent 12/15
12/22/2015
1/25/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
2 372W02 500
10 S Oakdale Ave
Medford, OR 97501 Survey sent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
3 372W02 2500 4757 Gebhard Karen and Randall Wales Survey sent 12/15 12/28/2015 Y unknown unknown domestic use and yard/gardening
4 372W02 600
1355 Cora Ln
Auburn, CA 95603 Survey sent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
5 372W02 2601 4617 Gebhard David & Julie Webb Survey sent 12/15 12/30/2015 Y 35 feet bgs 1930?
domestic use and
yard/gardening/orchard
6 372W02 2600 4613 Gebhard Sergio Mejia
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Survey not completed but OWRD well
log found dated 5/4/2012 for a 140 foot
well
7 372W02 2602 4603 Gebhard William Jeshke
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
8 372W02D 501
PO Box 996
Medford, OR 97501
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N Undeveloped land
10 372W02D 300 587 Beebe Ken Beebe?
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but 3
OWRD well logs identified - See Table 2
11 372W02D 200 511 Beebe Mingus Survey sent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but 3
OWRD well logs identified - See Table 2
12 372W01C 2500 507 Beebe Terry & Harley Callahan
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
13 372W01C 2400 495 Beebe James and Michelle Nistler
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
14 372W01C 2300 477 Beebe Michelle Nistler
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
15 372W01C 2301 445 Beebe Charlotte Holder
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 1/11/2016 Y 50 feet 1998
lawn, gardening, watering orchard, fire
abatement
16 372W01C 2200 443 Beebe Rita Deann Tyner
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
17 372W01C 1700 4511 Hamrick James Sutton
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
18 372W01C 1800 4497 Hamrick Nick Kenneth Lee
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
19 372W01CB 1100 4475 Hamrick Gladys Muse
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
20 372W01CB 1000 4461 Hamrick Richard Smith
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF WELL SURVEY RESULTS
No Address
No Address
No Address
No Address
Page 682 of 1226
21 372W01CB 900 4439 Hamrick Humphrey&Windsor LLC
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
22 372W01BC 10100 446 Beebe Survey sent 3/3/16 N
23 372W01BC 10200 444 Beebe Survey sent 3/3/16 N
24 372W01BC 10000 4615 Hamrick Edic Sliva
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
25 372W01BC 9800 4630 Hamrick CA Galpin
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
26 372W01BC 9900 456 Beebe Picollo LLC
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
27 372W02 3100 600 Beebe
Shepherd of the Valley
Catholic Church
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but
OWRD well log identified - See Table 2
28 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Dino Picollo Survey sent 12/15 12/23/2015 2 wells
1 - 12 feet
2 - 34 feet
1 - Unknown
2 - 1940ish
one well at back of lot used for
irrigation;
second well shared with 523 Beebe for
domestic and irrigation
OWRD well log from 2/17/1983 for a 60
foot well - see Table 2
30 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard
Steve & Carolyn
Himmelman Survey sent 12/15 1/5/2016 Y 15 feet unknown
hand dug well
domestic use/irrigation/stock watering
OWRD well log found from 10/11/1994
for a 100 foot well
31 372W02AA 2800 4920 Gebhard Survey sent 3/3/16 N
Note: yellow highlighted: surveys were returned because the post office could not deliver
Page 683 of 1226
Parcel
Index MAP TAX LOT Site Num Site St Owner
Well Log #Well Depth Date Installed Notes
1 372W02 400 None NA NA
2 372W02 500 None NA NA
3 372W02 2500 4757 Gebhard None unknown unknown
domestic use and yard/gardening well onsite
based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
4 372W02 600 None NA NA
5 372W02 2601 4617 Gebhard None 35 feet bgs 1930?
domestic use and yard/gardening/orchard well
onsite based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
6 372W02 2600 4613 Gebhard Sergio Mejia JACK61181 140 feet 5/4/2012
sealed from 0 to 50 feet below grade; screened
from 50 to 140 feet below grade
7 372W02 2602 4603 Gebhard William Jeshke None
8 372W02D 501 None
10 372W02D 300 587 Beebe Ken Beebe?
JACK12262
JACK12264
JACK12261
12 feet
66.5 feet
13 feet
1965 and 1966
sealed 0 to 9 feet
sealed 0 to 20 feet
sealed 0 to 9 feet
11 372W02D 200 511 Beebe Mingus
JACK52926
JACK55868
JACK52660
204 feet
56 feet
59 feet
1999
2003
1998
sealed 0 to 59?
Sealed 0 to 27 feet
sealed 0 to 20 feet
12 372W01C 2500 507 Beebe Terry & Harley Callahan None
13 372W01C 2400 495 Beebe
James and Michelle Nistler None
14 372W01C 2300 477 Beebe Michelle Nistler None
15 372W01C 2301 445 Beebe Charlotte Holder None 50 feet 1998
lawn, gardening, watering orchard, fire abatement
well onsite based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
16 372W01C 2200 443 Beebe Rita Deann Tyner None
17 372W01C 1700 4511 Hamrick James Sutton None
18 372W01C 1800 4497 Hamrick Nick Kenneth Lee None
19 372W01CB 1100 4475 Hamrick Gladys Muse None
20 372W01CB 1000 4461 Hamrick Richard Smith None
21 372W01CB 900 4439 Hamrick Humphrey&Windsor LLC None
22 372W01BC 10100 446 Beebe None
23 372W01BC 10200 444 Beebe None
24 372W01BC 10000 4615 Hamrick Edic Sliva None
25 372W01BC 9800 4630 Hamrick CA Galpin None
26 372W01BC 9900 456 Beebe Picollo LLC None
TABLE 2: OWRD SURVEY RESULTS
No Address
No Address
No Address
No Address
Page 684 of 1226
27 372W02 3100 600 Beebe
Shepherd of the Valley
Catholic Church JACK30394 90 feet 1990 Deepening of an existing well from 68 to 90 feet
28 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Dino Picollo JACK12241 60 feet 1983
Deepening of an existing well from 35 feet to 60
feet. Sealed from 0 to 35 feet.
30 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard Steve Himmelman JACK33759 100 feet 1994 sealed 0 to 35 feet
31 372W02AA 2800 4920 Gebhard None
Page 685 of 1226
[15']
[UNK]
[14'][13']
[66.5']
[56']
[59']
[50'][12']
[35']
[140']
[12']
[34']
[90']
[45']
[13']
[11.5']
[UNK]
[97']
[UNK][23'][15']
[204']
[97']
B1 B2
M1 R1 S1
G1
T1G3
F1
C1
F2
F3
R2
M2
Base map prepared from a Well Notiofication Area figure by CES NW (12/01/2105).I
Water Well (Based on Returned Survey; Location Approximate)
Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Database Well Location
Water Well (Based on February 2000 Haggerty Report and/or OWRD Database; Existence Not Confirmed)
Depth of Well (UNK = Unknown Depth)0 500
Approximate Scale in Feet
1,000[35']
B1
Page 686 of 1226
White Hawk TOD
Page 687 of 1226
OF
SHEET
1
1
BEEBE ROAD
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
171819
20
21
2223
24
25
2627
28
29
30
31
32
Page 688 of 1226
Completed Surveys
Page 689 of 1226
Page 690 of 1226
Page 691 of 1226
Page 692 of 1226
Page 693 of 1226
Page 694 of 1226
Page 695 of 1226
Page 696 of 1226
Page 697 of 1226
Page 698 of 1226
Page 699 of 1226
Page 700 of 1226
OWRD Well Logs for Wells Within the TOD
Page 701 of 1226
Page 702 of 1226
Page 703 of 1226
Page 704 of 1226
Page 705 of 1226
Page 706 of 1226
Page 707 of 1226
Page 708 of 1226
Page 709 of 1226
Page 710 of 1226
Page 711 of 1226
Page 712 of 1226
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC
319 Eastwood Drive | Medford, Or. 97504 | 541. 941.4148 | Kim.parducci@gmail.com
February 27, 2025
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner III
City of Central Point
Community Development
130 S Third Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
RE: Gebhard Village Subdivision – Beebe Road / Hamrick Road Impact
Dear Justin,
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
October 2, 2024 for the Gebhard Village Master Plan and Tentative Subdivision Plan. The
analysis concluded that the stop-controlled intersection of Beebe Road / Hamrick Road exceeds
the City’s level of service (LOS) “D” standard under all analysis scenarios and is projected to
operate at a LOS “F” under design year 2027 build conditions during the p.m. peak hour. At the
time of the study, it was our understanding that the intersection already had a planned, funded
project (traffic signal) that would provide adequate mitigation within two to four years. We now
understand that the intersection has a planned project, but funding has not been fully established.
If a traffic signal is currently planned but not funded, then we recommend the proposed
development pay a proportional share toward the cost of a traffic signal at Beebe Road / Hamrick
Road. This can be based on total entering volume. Our analysis shows the proposed Gebhard
Village Subdivision generates 46 total p.m. peak hour trips on the transportation system with 28
p.m. trips reaching the intersection of Beebe Road / Hamrick Road. The total entering volume
of p.m. trips at the Beebe / Hamrick intersection under design year 2027 no-build conditions is
1,198 trips. The proposed development impact at the time of development is, therefore, 2.3%.
We hope this provides the additional information needed to deem the application complete.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Parducci PE, PTOE
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC
Cc: Matt Samitore, Central Point Parks and Public Works Director
Stephanie Powers, Central Point Planning Director
Client
Page 713 of 1226
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
BEFORE THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
FOR THE APPROVAL FOR THE MASTER
PLAN OF GEBHARD VILLAGE
SUBDIVISION.
APPLICANT: Lowman Revocable Trust
4462 Coal Mine Road
Medford, OR 97504
AGENT: Neathamer Surveying, Inc.
P.O. Box 1584
Medford, OR 97501
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The subject property is comprised of 8.18 gross acres located at 4920 and 4922 Gebhard Road (being
commonly known as Jackson County Assessment Map No. 37 2W 02AA, Tax Lot 2800), in the
Transit Oriented Development District (ETOD) and zoned Medium Mix Residential (MMR). The
site is unimproved land bounded by Willow Bend, Phase 1 of the White Hawk TOD Master Plan to
the south.
A pre-application conference was held on July 27, 2021 (File No. PRE-21007).
B. SCOPE, PURPOSE, AND OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATION
The purpose of this application is for the approval of the Master Plan for Gebhard Village
Subdivision, consisting of a total of 78 dwelling units in two phases.
C. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS OF FACT
The following sections of Title 17 ZONING of the Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) are found
to be relevant to the subject application:
17.65.040 | LAND USE
17.65.040(A) | Residential (TOD)
1. LMR--Low Mix Residential. This is the lowest density residential zone in the district. Single-family
detached residences are intended to be the primary housing type; however, attached single-family
and lower density multifamily housing types, such as duplex and triplex, for example, are also
allowed and encouraged.
2. MMR--Medium Mix Residential. This medium density residential zone focuses on higher density
forms of residential living. The range of housing types includes higher density single-family, such as
zero lot line and attached single-family dwellings, and a variety of multifamily residences. Low
impact commercial activities may also be allowed.
Page 714 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 2 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
3. HMR--High Mix Residential/Commercial. This is the highest density residential zone intended to
be near the center of the TOD district. High density forms of multifamily housing, such as multiplexes
or apartments, are encouraged along with complementary ground floor commercial uses. Low impact
commercial activities may also be allowed. Low density residential types, including large and
standard lot single-family detached housing, are not permitted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The subject property is within the MMR (ETOD) zoning district, being subject to 17.65.040(A)(2)
above. There are four different proposed residential housing types: detached single-family dwellings,
duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes. The proposed mix is consistent with the intent of the MMR
district and provides a variety of housing options for residents in the area.
17.65.040(B) | Employment (TOD)
1. EC--Employment Commercial. Retail, service, and office uses are primarily intended for this
district. Activities which are oriented and complementary to pedestrian travel and transit are
encouraged. Development is expected to support pedestrian access and transit use. Automobile-
oriented activities are generally not included in the list of permitted uses. Residential uses above
ground floor commercial uses are also consistent with the purpose of this zone.
2. GC--General Commercial. Commercial and industrial uses are primarily intended for this district.
Activities which are oriented and complementary to pedestrian travel and transit are encouraged.
Residential uses above ground floor commercial uses are also consistent with the purpose of this
zone.
FINDINGS OF FACT
This criterion is not applicable to the subject development.
17.65.040(C) | Civic (TOD)
Civic uses such as government offices, schools, and community centers are the primary uses intended
in this district. These uses can play an important role in the vitality of the TOD district.
FINDINGS OF FACT
This criterion is not applicable to the subject development.
17.65.040(D) | Open Space (TOD)
Because the density of development will generally be higher than other areas in the region, providing
open space and recreation opportunities for the residents and employees in the TOD district becomes
very important. This zone is intended to provide a variety of outdoor and recreation amenities.
Page 715 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 3 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
FINDINGS OF FACT
An open space area has been integrated in the design and includes several amenities for the nearby
residents as required per 17.65.040(D). Refer to the Master Plan for detailed information regarding
the proposed layout for the open space and recreation facilities.
17.65.050 | ZONING REGULATIONS
17.65.050(A) | Permitted Uses
Permitted uses in Table 1 are shown with a P. These uses are allowed if they comply with the
applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the same application and review process as
other permitted uses identified in this title.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The proposed duplex, triplex and quadplex dwellings are permitted uses per Table 1 of 17.65.050.
17.65.050(B) | Limited Uses
Limited uses in Table 1 are shown with an L. These uses are allowed if they comply with the
specific limitations described in this chapter and the applicable provisions of this title. They are
subject to the same application and review process as other permitted uses identified in this title.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pursuant to said Table 1, the proposed detached single-family residential dwellings are a limited use
allowed, as a transition between lower density zones. Said detached dwellings are proposed along
the northeasterly boundary, adjacent to the existing residences, which will act as a buffer to the denser
multiplex units.
17.65.050(C) | Conditional Uses
Conditional uses in Table 1 are shown with a C. These uses are allowed if they comply with the
applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the same application and review process as
other conditional uses identified in this title.
FINDINGS OF FACT
There are no conditional uses proposed for the subject development.
17.65.050(D) | Density
The allowable residential density and employment building floor area are specified in Table 2.
Page 716 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 4 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
FINDINGS OF FACT
There is a total of 8.18 gross acres in the project, 2.62 acres of which are to be dedicated as public
streets, resulting in a total of 5.56 net acres. Table 2 of 17.65.050 permits a range of 14 to 32 units
per net acres in the MMR district, resulting in 78 units (min) and 178 units (max) for the project. The
applicant is proposing 78 units, meeting the minimum required units.
17.65.050(E) | Dimensional Standards
The dimensional standards for lot size, lot dimensions, building setbacks, and building height are
specified in Table 2.
FINDINGS OF FACT
All proposed lots meet the minimum standards specified in said Table 2.
17.65.050(F) | Development Standards
1. Housing Mix. The required housing mix for the TOD district is shown in Table 2.
2. Accessory Units. Accessory units are allowed as indicated in Table 1. Accessory units shall meet
the following standards:
a. A maximum of one accessory unit is permitted per single-family unit;
b. An accessory unit shall have a maximum floor area of eight hundred square feet;
c. The applicable zoning standards in Table 2 shall be satisfied.
3. Parking Standards. The off-street parking and loading requirements in Chapter 17.64 shall apply
to the TOD overlay.
FINDINGS OF FACT
As there are 78 dwelling units being proposed, a total of three or more housing types are required per
said Table 2. The applicant is proposing a total of four housing types, satisfying the required housing
mix.
No accessory units are proposed in the subject development.
Table 17.64.02 does not require a minimum or maximum number of off-street parking spaces for the
proposed housing types.
17.67.040 | CIRCULATION AND ACCESS STANDARDS
17.67.040(A) | Public Street Standards
1. Except for specific transportation facilities identified in a TOD overlay master plan, the street
dimensional standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard
Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 300, Street
Page 717 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 5 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
Construction shall apply for all development located within the TOD overlay which is approved
according to the provisions in Section 17.65.020 and Chapter 17.66.
2. Block perimeters shall not exceed two thousand feet measured along the public street right-of-way.
3. Block lengths for public streets shall not exceed six hundred feet between through streets,
measured along street right-of-way.
4. Public alleys or major off-street bike/pedestrian pathways, designed as provided in this chapter,
may be used to meet the block length or perimeter standards of this section.
5. The standards for block perimeters and lengths shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary
based on findings that strict compliance with the standards is not reasonably practicable or
appropriate due to:
a. Topographic constraints;
b. Existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection
of streets or accessways;
c. Railroads;
d. Traffic safety concerns;
e. Functional and operational needs to create a large building; or
f. Protection of significant natural resources.
6. All utility lines shall be underground but utility vault access lids may be located in the sidewalk
area.
7. Connections shall be provided between new streets in a TOD overlay and existing local and minor
collector streets.
8. Pedestrian/Bike Accessways Within Public Street Right-of-Way.
a. Except for specific accessway facilities identified in a TOD overlay master plan, the
following accessway dimensional standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department
of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works
Construction, Section 300, Street Construction shall apply for any development located
within the TOD overlay which is approved according to the provisions in Section 17.65.020
and Chapter 17.66.
b. In transit station areas, one or more pedestrian-scaled amenities shall be required with
every one hundred square feet of the sidewalk area, including but not limited to:
i. Street furniture;
ii. Plantings;
Page 718 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 6 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
iii. Distinctive paving;
iv. Drinking fountains; and
v. Sculpture.
c. Sidewalks adjacent to undeveloped parcels may be temporary.
d. Public street, driveway, loading area, and surface parking lot crossings shall be clearly
marked with textured accent paving or painted stripes.
e. The different zones of a sidewalk should be articulated using special paving or concrete
scoring.
9. Public Off-Street Accessways.
a. Pedestrian accessways and greenways should be provided as needed to supplement
pedestrian routes along public streets.
b. Major off-street pedestrian accessways shall incorporate all of the following design
criteria:
i. The applicable standards in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works
Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works
Construction, Section 300, Street Construction;
ii. Minimum ten-foot vertical clearance;
iii. Minimum twenty-foot horizontal barrier clearance for pathway;
iv. Asphalt, concrete, gravel, or wood chip surface as approved by the city, with a
compacted subgrade;
v. Nonskid boardwalks if wetland construction is necessary; and
vi. Minimum one hundred square feet of trailhead area at intersections with other
pedestrian improvements. A trail map sign shall be provided at this location.
c. Minor off-street trails shall be a minimum of five feet wide, have a minimum vertical
clearance of eight feet, a minimum two-foot horizontal clearance from edge of pathway and
be constructed of gravel or wood chips, with a compacted subgrade.
Page 719 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 7 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
FINDINGS OF FACT
The proposed lots along the northeasterly portion of the project abut an existing residential
development without access to a street connection to satisfy the block perimeter and length thresholds
of 2,000 feet and 600 feet per CPMC 17.67.040(A)(2) and (3). However, CPMC 17.67.040(A)(5)(b)
allows modification to these standards due to, ... existing development patterns on abutting property
which preclude the logical connection of streets or accessways. As there is not a logical connection
of streets or accessways on the abutting property, this block is allowed to exceed the block perimeter
and length standards. All other remaining blocks meet said standards.
Proposed utilities are intended to be installed underground pursuant to CPMC 17.67.040(A)(6). More
information regarding the underground infrastructure can be found in the Master Plan.
The only existing street connection adjacent to the project is Annalise Street, which has been
designed to align with the existing right-of-way and extend northerly, meeting the requirement per
CPMC 17.67.040(A)(7), which states, connections shall be provided between new streets in a TOD
overlay and existing local and minor collector streets.
All pedestrian street crossings will be marked as required per CPMC 17.67.040(A)(8).
There are two minor off-street pedestrian walkways proposed within the Common Area A to
provide an amenity in the open space area for the development. Said walkways have been designed
to meet the requirements of CPMC 17.67.040(A)(9)(c). More information regarding the design of the
open space can be found in the Master Plan.
17.67.040(B) | Parking Lot Driveways
1. Parking lot driveways that link public streets and/or private streets with parking stalls shall be
designed as private streets, unless one of the following is met:
a. The parking lot driveway is less than one hundred feet long;
b. The parking lot driveway serves one or two residential units; or
c. The parking lot driveway provides direct access to angled parking stalls.
2. The number and width of driveways and curb cuts should be minimized and consolidated when
possible.
3. Where possible, parking lots for new development shall be designed to provide vehicular and
pedestrian connections to adjacent sites.
4. Large driveways should use distinctive paving patterns.
FINDINGS OF FACT
This criterion is not applicable as there are no parking lots proposed in the subject development.
Page 720 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 8 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
17.67.040(C) | On-Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Attractive access routes for pedestrian travel should be provided by:
1. Reducing distances between destinations or activity areas such as public sidewalks and building
entrances. Where appropriate, develop pedestrian routes through sites and buildings to supplement
the public right-of-way;
2. Providing an attractive, convenient pedestrian accessway to building entrances;
3. Bridging across barriers and obstacles such as fragmented pathway systems, wide streets, heavy
vehicular traffic, and changes in level by connecting pedestrian pathways with clearly marked
crossings and inviting sidewalk design;
4. Integrating signage and lighting system which offers interest and safety for pedestrians;
5. Connecting parking areas and destinations with pedestrian paths identified through use of
distinctive paving materials, pavement striping, grade separations, or landscaping.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The open space and recreation area has been located near the center of the development to encourage
pedestrian access. Sidewalks will be constructed throughout the development, with short distances to
building entrances. A multi-use path and minor off-street trail has also been incorporated in the
development to provide attractive access routes for pedestrians and cyclists, as required per CPMC
17.67.040(A)(9)(C). Decorative street lighting in a similar style that was used in Willow Bend, Phase
1 of White Hawk TOD Master Plan southerly of the project will be used to provide continuity for the
area and illuminate the accessways.
17.67.050 | SITE DESIGN STANDARDS
17.67.050(A) | Adjacent Off-Site Structures and Uses
1. All off-site structures, including septic systems, drain fields, and domestic wells (within one
hundred feet) shall be identified and addressed in the master plan, land division, or site plan process
in a manner that preserves and enhances the livability and future development needs of off-site
structures and uses consistent with the purpose of the TOD overlay and as necessary to improve the
overall relationship of a development or an individual building to the surrounding context.
2. Specific infrastructure facilities identified on site in the master plan, land division, and/or site plan
shall comply with the underground utility standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department
of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works
Construction, Section 400, Storm Water Sewer System and, more specifically, Section 420.10.02,
Ground Water Control Plan, in order to safeguard the water resources of adjacent uses.
Page 721 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 9 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
FINDINGS OF FACT
An Adjacent Land Use Plan has been included as an exhibit to the Master Plan which identifies the
surrounding structures and uses. The proposed development (including the infrastructure facilities)
have been designed in such a way to not adversely impact neighboring uses. More information
regarding the adjacent uses and mitigative measures can be found in the Master Plan.
17.67.050(B) | Natural Features
1. Buildings should be sited to preserve significant trees.
2. Buildings should be sited to avoid or lessen the impact of development on environmentally critical
areas such as steep slopes, wetlands, and stream corridors.
3. Whenever possible, wetlands, groves, and natural areas should be maintained as public preserves
and as open space opportunities in neighborhoods.
FINDINGS OF FACT
There are a few mature trees located on the site as shown on the Tentative Plan exhibit in the Master
Plan. Said trees were considered during the design of the project. However, due to the size
constraints of the property in conjunction with the required street and connection to Annalise Street to
the south, many of the existing trees are located in the proposed rights-of-way and will not be able to
be preserved. Efforts will be made to retain the walnut tree located at the northeast corner of
proposed Lot 43.
Two small wetlands (totaling 0.1 acre) were identified on the project, but are not subject to state
permit (and preservation) requirements. More information regarding environmental considerations
can be found in the Master Plan.
17.67.050(C) | Topography
1. Buildings and other site improvements should reflect, rather than obscure, natural topography.
2. Buildings and parking lots should be designed to fit into hillsides, for instance, reducing the need
for grading and filling.
3. Where neighboring buildings have responded to similar topographic conditions on their sites in a
consistent and positive way, similar treatment for the new structure should be considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
As the site is generally flat, there are no special construction considerations that need to be
implemented on account of the existing topography.
Page 722 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 10 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
17.67.050(D) | Solar Orientation
1. The building design, massing and orientation should enhance solar exposure for the project, taking
advantage of the climate of Central Point for sun-tempered design.
2. Where possible, the main elevation should be facing within twenty-five degrees of due south.
3. In residential developments, the location of rooms should be considered in view of solar exposure,
e.g., primary living spaces should be oriented south, but a west facing kitchen should be avoided as it
may result in summer overheating.
4. Outdoor spaces should be strategically sited for solar access and the cooling summer winds.
5. Shadow impacts, particularly in winter, on adjacent buildings and outdoor spaces should be
avoided.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The majority of the buildings in the project are east-west oriented structures which is consistent with
the recommended solar orientation practices to take advantage of sunlight while also being able to
control glare. Awnings and eaves have been designed to provide shading during the summer months
(with the higher summer sun) while benefiting from passive solar heating during the winter months
when the sun is lower.
17.67.050(E) | Existing Buildings on the Site
1. Where a new building shares the site with an admirable existing building or is a major addition to
such a building, the design of the new building should be compatible with the original.
2. New buildings proposed for existing neighborhoods with a well-defined and desirable character
should be compatible with or complement the architectural character and siting pattern of
neighboring buildings.
FINDINGS OF FACT
This criterion is not applicable to the subject development as there are no existing buildings located
on-site.
17.67.050(F) | New Prominent Structures
Key public or civic buildings, such as community centers, churches, schools, libraries, post offices,
and museums, should be placed in prominent locations, such as fronting on public squares or where
pedestrian street vistas terminate, in order to serve as landmarks and to symbolically reinforce their
importance.
FINDINGS OF FACT
This criterion is not applicable to the subject development as there are no public or civic buildings
proposed.
Page 723 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 11 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
17.67.050(G) | Views
The massing of individual buildings should be adjusted to preserve important views while benefiting
new and existing occupants and surrounding neighborhoods.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The west-facing residences located adjacent to Gebhard Road will be able to benefit from the
viewshed provided by the open space lands to the west. The project generally groups similar housing
types to be across from one another (except in the transition area to the northeast), to promote a sense
of coherence within the project.
17.67.050(H) | Adjoining Uses and Adjacent Services
1. When more intensive uses, such as neighborhood commercial or multifamily dwellings, are within
or adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods, care should be taken to minimize the impact of
noise, lighting, and traffic on adjacent dwellings.
2. Activity or equipment areas should be strategically located to avoid disturbing adjacent residents.
3. All on-site service areas, loading zones and outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal
facilities, transformer and utility vaults, and similar activities shall be located in an area not visible
from a street or urban space.
4. Screening shall be provided for activities, areas and equipment that will create noise, such as
loading and vehicle areas, air conditioning units, heat pumps, exhaust fans, and garbage compactors,
to avoid disturbing adjacent residents.
5. Group mailboxes are limited to the number of houses on any given block of development. Only
those boxes serving the units may be located on the block. Multiple units of mailboxes may be
combined within a centrally located building of four walls that meets the design guidelines for
materials, entrance, roof form, windows, etc. The structure must have lighting both inside and out.
FINDINGS OF FACT
There are no commercial uses or services proposed within the development or neighboring properties.
However, the surrounding, lower-density residential uses were considered during the design of the
project and care was taken to reduce impacts to the neighboring properties by intentionally placing
the lower-density housing types adjacent to these areas as a buffer.
17.67.050(I) | Transitions in Density
1. Higher density, attached dwelling developments shall minimize impact on adjacent existing lower
density, single-family dwelling neighborhoods by adjusting height, massing and materials and/or by
providing adequate buffer strips with vegetative screens.
2. Adequate buffer strips with vegetative screens shall be placed to mitigate the impact of higher
density development on adjacent lower density development.
Page 724 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 12 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
3. New residential buildings within fifty feet of existing low density residential development shall be
no higher than thirty-five feet and shall be limited to single-family detached or attached units,
duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes.
4. New commercial buildings within fifty feet of existing low density residential development shall be
no higher than forty-five feet.
5. Dwelling types in a TOD overlay shall be mixed to encourage interaction among people of varying
backgrounds and income levels.
6. Zoning changes should occur mid-block, not at the street centerline, to ensure that compatible
building types face along streets and within neighborhoods. When dissimilar building types face each
other across the street because the zoning change is at the street centerline or more infill housing is
desired (for instance, duplexes across the street from single dwellings), design shall ensure similarity
in massing, setback, and character.
7. Density should be increased incrementally, to buffer existing neighborhoods from incompatible
building types or densities. Sequence density, generally, as follows: large lot single dwelling, small
lot single dwelling, duplex, townhomes, courtyard multifamily apartments, large multifamily
apartments, and mixed use buildings.
FINDINGS OF FACT
As previously mentioned, density within the project was designed to integrate a variety of housing
types while being harmonious with the surrounding uses. More information regarding the location of
the specific housing types can be found in the Master Plan.
17.67.050(J) | Parking
1. Parking Lot Location.
a. Off-street surface parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of buildings. Parking at
midblock or behind buildings is preferred.
b. Off-street surface parking lots shall not be located between a front facade of a building
and a public street.
c. If a building adjoins streets or accessways on two or more sides, off-street parking shall be
allowed between the building and the pedestrian route in the following order of priority:
1st. Accessways;
2nd. Streets that are nontransit streets;
3rd. Streets that are transit streets.
d. Parking lots and garages should not be located within twenty feet of a street corner.
2. Design.
Page 725 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 13 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
a. All perimeter and interior landscaped areas must have protective curbs along the edges.
Trees must have adequate protection from car doors and bumpers.
b. A portion of the standard parking space may be landscaped instead of paved. The
landscaped area may be up to two feet in front of the space as measured from a line parallel
to the direction of the bumper of a vehicle using the space. Landscaping must be ground
cover plants. The landscaping does not apply towards any perimeter or interior parking lot
landscaping requirements, but does count towards any overall site landscaping requirement.
c. In order to control dust and mud, all vehicle areas must be paved.
d. All parking areas must be striped in conformance with the city of Central Point parking
dimension standards.
e. Thoughtful siting of parking and vehicle access should be used to minimize the impact of
automobiles on the pedestrian environment, adjacent properties, and pedestrian safety.
f. Large parking lots should be divided into smaller areas, using, for example, landscaping or
special parking patterns.
g. Parking should be located in lower or upper building levels or in less visible portions of
site.
3. Additional Standards for LMR, MMR, and HMR Zones.
a. When parking must be located to the side of buildings, parking frontage should be limited
to approximately fifty percent of total site frontage.
b. Where possible, alleys should be used to bring the vehicle access to the back of the site.
4. For parking structures, see Section 17.67.070(H).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Parking will be provided by attached residential garages which will be able to accommodate one or
two vehicles, depending on the housing type and have been designed to meet the city code
requirements. On-street parking will also be available. There are no parking structures/lots proposed
for this development.
17.67.050(K) | Landscaping
1. Perimeter Screening and Planting.
a. Landscaped buffers should be used to achieve sufficient screening while still preserving
views to allow areas to be watched and guarded by neighbors.
b. Landscaping should be used to screen and buffer unsightly uses and to separate such
incompatible uses as parking areas and waste storage and pickup areas.
Page 726 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 14 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
2. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening.
3. Landscaping Near Buildings. Landscaping shall serve as a screen or buffer to soften the
appearance of structures or uses such as parking lots or large blank walls, or to increase the
attractiveness of common open spaces.
4. Service Areas. Service areas, loading zones, waste disposal or storage areas must be fully screened
from public view.
5. Street Trees. Street trees shall be required along both sides of all public streets with a spacing of
twenty feet to forty feet on center depending on the mature width of the tree crown, and planted a
minimum of two feet from the back of curb. Trees in the right-of-way or sidewalk easements shall be
approved according to size, quality, and tree well design, if applicable, and irrigation shall be
required. Tree species shall be chosen from the city of Central Point approved street tree list.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Each lot is intended to be landscaped to soften the appearance of the buildings. Drought resistant,
native plantings shall be used with water-wise irrigation practices. Street trees will be installed in the
planter strips consistent with those requirements listed in CPMC 17.67.050(K) above. More
information regarding the landscaping for the open space and recreation area can be found in the
Master Plan.
17.67.050(L) | Lighting
1. Minimum Lighting Levels. Minimum lighting levels shall be provided for public safety in all urban
spaces open to public circulation.
a. A minimum average light level of one and two-tenths footcandles is required for urban spaces
and sidewalks.
b. Metal-halide or lamps with similar color, temperature and efficiency ratings shall be used for
general lighting at building exteriors, parking areas, and urban spaces. Sodium-based lamp
elements are not allowed.
c. Maximum lighting levels should not exceed six footcandles at intersections or one and one-half
footcandles in parking areas.
2. Fixture Design in Public Rights-of-Way.
a. Pedestrian-scale street lighting shall be provided including all pedestrian streets along
arterials, major collectors, minor collectors and local streets.
b. Pedestrian street lights shall be no taller than twenty feet along arterials and collectors, and
sixteen feet along local streets.
Page 727 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 15 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
3. On-Site Lighting. Lighting shall be incorporated into the design of a project so that it reinforces
the pedestrian environment, provides continuity to an area, and enhances the drama and presence of
architectural features. Street lighting should be provided along sidewalks and in medians. Selected
street light standards should be appropriately scaled to the pedestrian environment. Adequate
illumination should be provided for building entries, corners of buildings, courtyards, plazas and
walkways.
a. Accessways through surface parking lots shall be well lighted with fixtures no taller than
twenty feet.
b. Locate and design exterior lighting of buildings, signs, walkways, parking lots, and other areas
to avoid casting light on nearby properties.
c. Fixture height and lighting levels shall be commensurate with their intended use and function
and shall assure compatibility with neighboring land uses. Baffles shall be incorporated to
minimize glare and to focus lighting on its intended area.
d. Additional pedestrian-oriented site lighting including step lights, well lights and bollards shall
be provided along all courtyard lanes, alleys and off-street bike and pedestrian pathways.
e. In addition to lighting streets, sidewalks, and public spaces, additional project lighting is
encouraged to highlight and illuminate building entrances, landscaping, parks, and special
features.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Street lighting is proposed to be similar in style to those used in the neighboring development,
Willow Bend, Phase 1. Refer to Figures 7 through 9 in the Master Plan for images of the existing
light fixtures along Gebhard Road, the internal streets and alleyways. All street lighting levels will
adhere to allowed footcandle ranges per CPMC 17.67.050(L)(1).
17.67.050(M) | Signs
1. The provisions of this section are to be used in conjunction with the city sign regulations in
Chapter 15.24. The sign requirements in Chapter 15.24 shall govern in the TOD overlay with the
exception of the following:
a. The types of signs permitted shall be limited only to those signs described in this chapter.
b. Decorative exterior murals are allowed and are subject to review and criteria by planning
commission or architectural review committee appointed by city council.
c. Signs that use images and icons to identify store uses and products are encouraged.
d. Projecting signs located to address the pedestrian are encouraged.
2. Sign Requirements. Signs within the TOD overlay shall comply with the standards in Table
17.67.050(1).
Page 728 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 16 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
3. Sign Materials. Unless otherwise exempt, or authorized by the planning commission, all signs must
comply with the following design criteria:
a. The base materials for a freestanding sign shall be natural materials including stone, brick, or
aggregate.
b. Building/sign proportionality as referenced in Table 17.67.050(1).
c. Sign illumination shall be limited to external illumination to include conventional lighting and
neon, if neon is applied to the sign plane area. External illumination is understood to include
back lit or halo lighting. Internally illuminated signs are prohibited except as provided
under Table 17.67.050(1) for scoreboards.
4. Prohibited Signs.
a. Internally illuminated signs;
b. Roof signs;
c. Reader boards;
d. Flashing signs;
e. Electronic message/image signs on which copy is created through the use of a pattern of lights
in a dot matrix configuration, which may be changed intermittently;
f. Bench signs;
g. Balloons or streamers.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Other than the required street signage, no other signs are proposed within the subject development.
17.67.060 | PUBLIC PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DESIGN STANDARDS
17.67.060(A) | General Design Requirements
Parks and open spaces shall be provided in the TOD overlay and shall be designed to accommodate
a variety of activities ranging from active play to passive contemplation for all ages and accessibility.
Page 729 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 17 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
FINDINGS OF FACT
The open space for the project has been designed in two phases to accommodate various activities.
The first phase includes two concrete walkways providing pedestrian access through the open space,
three turf grass areas of varying sizes, ornamental plantings, two benches with handicap spaces, a
drinking fountain, recycle and disposal facilities. Phase two includes a graveled area with a covered
gathering and picnic table.
In addition to recreational facilities, a majority of stormwater runoff is intended to be collected and
treated in a detention facility located within Common Area A. The detention facility may be above
or below ground (or a combination thereof which is to be determined during the detailed design phase
of the project). Should the detention facility (or a portion thereof) be above ground, the north-south
walkway may be relocated as needed. More information regarding the proposed landscaping can be
found in the Master Plan.
17.67.060(B) | Parks and Open Space Location
1. Parks and open spaces shall be located within walking distance of all those living, working, and
shopping in the TOD overlay.
2. Parks and open spaces shall be easily and safely accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists.
3. For security purposes, parks and open spaces shall be visible from nearby residences, stores or
offices.
4. Parks and open space shall be available for both passive and active use by people of all ages.
5. Parks and open space in predominantly residential neighborhoods shall be located so that
windows from the living areas (kitchens, family rooms, living rooms but not bedrooms or bathrooms)
of a minimum of four residences face onto it.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The open space has been centrally located in the project to encourage safe, pedestrian friendly access
to the park and recreation area for all of the residents. Vehicular access is also readily available as the
park is surrounded by streets and an alley along a majority of its boundaries. The park has also been
situated to be faced by four residences, being Lots 12 through 14 and Lot 57.
17.67.060(C) | Parks and Open Space Amount and Size
1. Common open spaces will vary in size depending on their function and location.
2. The total amount of common open space provided in a TOD overlay shall be adequate to meet the
needs of those projected (at the time of build out) to live, work, shop, and recreate there.
3. All TOD projects requiring master plans shall be required to reserve, improve and/or establish
parks and open space which, excluding schools and civic plazas, meet or exceed the following
requirements:
Page 730 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 18 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
a. For single-family detached and attached residences, including duplex units, townhouses and
row houses: four hundred square feet for each dwelling.
b. For multifamily residences, including multistory apartments, garden apartments, and senior
housing: six hundred square feet for each dwelling.
c. Nonresidential development: at least ten percent of the developments site area.
FINDINGS OF FACT
There are a total of 78 proposed residential dwelling units. CPMC 17.67.060(C)(a) requires a
minimum of 400 square feet of open space for each dwelling unit. The following calculation was
used to determine the minimum required open space:
78 dwelling units x 400 square feet / dwelling unit = 31,200 square feet (minimum)
Common Area A is comprised of 32,504 square feet, meeting the minimum requirement calculated
hereinabove.
17.67.060(D) | Parks and Open Space Design
1. Parks and open spaces shall include a combination garbage/recycling bin and a drinking fountain
at a frequency of one combination garbage/recycling bin and one drinking fountain per site or one
combination garbage/recycling bin and one drinking fountain per two acres, whichever is less, and at
least two of the following improvements:
a. Benches or a seating wall;
b. Public art such as a statue;
c. Water feature or decorative fountain;
d. Childrens play structure including swing and slide;
e. Gazebo or picnic shelter;
f. Picnic tables with barbecue;
g. Open or covered outdoor sports court for one or more of the following: tennis, skateboard,
basketball, volleyball, badminton, racquetball, handball/paddleball;
h. Open or covered outdoor swimming and/or wading pool or play fountain suitable for children
to use; or
i. Outdoor athletic fields for one or more of the following: baseball, softball, Little League,
soccer.
2. All multifamily buildings that exceed twenty-five units and may house children shall provide at
least one childrens play structure on site.
Page 731 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 19 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
3. For safety and security purposes, parks and open spaces shall be adequately illuminated.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A combination garbage/recycle bin and a drinking fountain have been included in the landscape plan
for the open space area. Additionally, two benches (Phase 1) and a covered picnic shelter (Phase 2)
have been implemented in the design, satisfying the criterion per CPMC 17.67.060(D)(1)(a) and (e).
The proposed street lighting will provide adequate illumination for safety and security of the open
space and recreation area.
17.67.070 | BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
17.67.060(A) | General Design Requirements
1. In recognition of the need to use natural resources carefully and with maximum benefit, the use of
sustainable design practices is strongly encouraged. In consideration of the climate and ecology of
the Central Point area, a variety of strategies can be used to effectively conserve energy and
resources:
a. Natural ventilation;
b. Passive heating and cooling;
c. Daylighting;
d. Sun-shading devices for solar control;
e. Water conservation;
f. Appropriate use of building mass and materials; and
g. Careful integration of landscape and buildings. It is recommended that an accepted industry
standard such as the U.S. Green Building Councils LEEDTM program be used to identify the
most effective strategies. (Information on the LEEDTM program can be obtained from the U.S.
Green Building Councils website, www.usgbc.org.)
2. All development along pedestrian routes shall be designed to encourage use by pedestrians by
providing a safe, comfortable, and interesting walking environment.
3. Convenient, direct and identifiable building access shall be provided to guide pedestrians between
pedestrian streets, accessways, transit facilities and adjacent buildings.
4. Adequate operable windows or roof-lights should be provided for ventilation and summer heat
dissipation.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Architectural Plans have been prepared and included as Exhibit 6. All building elements, including
roof design, window placement, porch coverings, interior layouts, garage locations, architectural
details and materials shall be constructed to be consistent with said plans. Earth tone color palettes
Page 732 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 20 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
shall be used for interior and exterior surfaces, with an emphasis placed on varying the colors on the
exterior buildings to promote variety among the development.
Where possible, sustainable building practices shall be used. Examples of such practices include the
installation of ductless heating and cooling systems, water efficient plumbing fixtures and Energy
Star Certified appliances. Windows with screened openings shall be placed throughout the structures
to allow for ventilation and summer heat dissipation.
Pedestrian access is encouraged by placing routes close to building entrances that connect to the
public sidewalk system. A trail is proposed to encompass the open space area which will be centrally
located for easy access for the residents.
17.67.060(B) | Architectural Character
1. General.
a. The architectural characteristics of surrounding buildings, including historic buildings, should
be considered, especially if a consistent pattern is already established by similar or
complementary building articulation, building scale and proportions, setbacks, architectural
style, roof forms, building details and fenestration patterns, or materials. In some cases, the
existing context is not well defined, or may be undesirable. In such cases, a well-designed new
project can establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues.
b. Certain buildings, because of their size, purpose or location, should be given prominence and
distinct architectural character, reflective of their special function or position. Examples of these
special buildings include theaters, hotels, cultural centers, and civic buildings.
c. Attention should be paid to the following architectural elements:
i. Building forms and massing;
ii. Building height;
iii. Rooflines and parapet features;
iv. Special building features (e.g., towers, arcades, entries, canopies, signs, and artwork);
v. Window size, orientation and detailing;
vi. Materials and color; and
vii. The buildings relationship to the site, climate, topography and surrounding
buildings.
2. Commercial and High Mix Residential.
Page 733 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 21 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
FINDINGS OF FACT
Willow Bend, Phase 1, of the White Hawk TOD Master Plan shares similar characteristics with this
project, including two-story attached single-family dwellings. The intent of this development is to
integrate cues from the existing structures while creating new architectural elements to provide a
pleasing combination of individuality and continuity.
For example, similar siding materials have been incorporated, such as James Hardie horizontal lap
siding and shingles that are present in the adjacent project. Also, street lighting is proposed to be
similar to the existing development to the south.
New attributes such as sill and apron windows, cantilever outlookers, false louvered vent details and
knee braces for the roof supports have been added to create architectural interest and variety among
the structures. A variety of columnar wraps and railing styles are present for the covered porches to
provide further differentiation.
Refer to Figures 12 through 14 of the Master Plan for examples of the architectural character of
several of the existing structures recently constructed as part of the Willow Bend development.
17.67.060(C) | Building Entries
1. General.
a. The orientation of building entries shall:
i. Orient the primary entrance toward the street rather than the parking lot;
ii. Connect the buildings main entrance to the sidewalk with a well-defined pedestrian
walkway.
b. Building facades over two hundred feet in length facing a street shall provide two or more
public building entrances off the street.
c. All entries fronting a pedestrian accessway shall be sheltered with a minimum four-foot
overhang or shelter.
d. An exception to any part of the requirements of this section shall be allowed upon finding that:
i. The slope of the land between the building and the pedestrian street is greater than
1:12 for more than twenty feet and that a more accessible pedestrian route to the
building is available from a different side of the building; or
ii. The access is to a courtyard or clustered development and identified pedestrian
accessways are provided through a parking lot to directly connect the building complex
to the most appropriate major pedestrian route(s).
2. Commercial and High Mix Residential.
Page 734 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 22 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
3. Residential.
a. The main entrance of each primary structure should face the street the site fronts on, except on
corner lots, where the main entrance may face either of the streets or be oriented to the corner.
For attached dwellings, duplexes, and multi-dwellings that have more than one main entrance,
only one main entrance needs to meet this guideline. Entrances that face a shared landscaped
courtyard are exempt.
b. Residential buildings fronting on a street shall have an entrance to the building opening on to
the street.
i. Single-family detached, attached and row house/townhouse residential units fronting
on a pedestrian street shall have separate entries to each dwelling unit directly from the
street.
ii. Ground floor and upper story dwelling units in a multifamily building fronting a street
may share one or more building entries accessible directly from the street, and shall not
be accessed through a side yard except for an accessory unit to a single-family detached
dwelling.
c. The main entrances to houses and buildings should be prominent, interesting, and pedestrian-
accessible. A porch should be provided to shelter the main entrance and create a transition from
outdoor to indoor space.
d. Generally, single-dwelling porches should be at least eight feet wide and five feet deep and
covered by a roof supported by columns or brackets. If the main entrance is to more than one
dwelling unit, the covered area provided by the porch should be at least twelve feet wide and five
feet deep.
e. If the front porch projects out from the building, it should have a roof pitch which matches the
roof pitch of the house. If the porch roof is a deck or balcony, it may be flat.
f. Building elevation changes are encouraged to make a more prominent entrance. The maximum
elevation for the entrance should not be more than one-half story in height, or six feet from
grade, whichever is less.
g. The front entrance of a multi-dwelling complex should get architectural emphasis, to create
both interest and ease for visual identification.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Buildings are oriented to have the primary entries facing the streets with concrete accessways
extending from the sidewalk to the front door of each dwelling. Said entries shall be sheltered as
shown on in the Architectural Plans in the Master Plan, meeting the required four foot covered
pedestrian access standard per CPMC 17.67.070(C)(1)(c) and porch requirements per CPMC
17.67.070(C)(3) .
Page 735 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 23 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
17.67.060(D) | Building Facades
1. General.
a. All building frontages greater than forty feet in length shall break any flat, monolithic facade
by including discernible architectural elements such as, but not limited to: bay windows, recessed
entrances and windows, display windows, cornices, bases, pilasters, columns or other
architectural details or articulation combined with changes in materials, so as to provide visual
interest and a sense of division, in addition to creating community character and pedestrian
scale. The overall design shall recognize that the simple relief provided by window cutouts or
sills on an otherwise flat facade, in and of itself, does not meet the requirements of this
subsection.
b. Building designs that result in a street frontage with a uniform and monotonous design style,
roofline or facade treatment should be avoided.
c. Architectural detailing, such as but not limited to, trellis, long overhangs, deep inset windows,
should be incorporated to provide sun-shading from the summer sun.
d. To balance horizontal features on longer facades, vertical building elements shall be
emphasized.
e. The dominant feature of any building frontage that is visible from a pedestrian street or public
open space shall be the habitable area with its accompanying windows and doors. Parking lots,
garages, and solid wall facades (e.g., warehouses) shall not dominate a pedestrian street
frontage.
f. Developments shall be designed to encourage informal surveillance of streets and other public
spaces by maximizing sight lines between the buildings and the street.
g. All buildings, of any type, constructed within any TOD overlay shall be constructed with
exterior building materials and finishes that are of high quality to convey permanence and
durability.
h. The exterior walls of all building facades along pedestrian routes, including side or return
facades, shall be of suitable durable building materials including the following: stucco, stone,
brick, terra cotta, tile, cedar shakes and shingles, beveled or ship-lap or other narrow-course
horizontal boards or siding, vertical board-and-batten siding, articulated architectural concrete
or concrete masonry units (CMU), or similar materials which are low maintenance, weather-
resistant, abrasion-resistant, and easy to clean. Prohibited building materials include the
following: plain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, unarticulated board siding
(e.g., T1-11 siding, plain plywood, sheet pressboard), Exterior Insulated Finish Systems (EIFS),
and similar quality, nondurable materials.
i. All visible building facades along or off a pedestrian route, including side or return facades,
are to be treated as part of the main building elevation and articulated in the same manner.
Continuity of use of the selected approved materials must be used on these facades.
Page 736 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 24 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
j. Ground-floor openings in parking structures, except at points of access, must be covered with
grilles, mesh or lattice that obscures at least thirty percent of the interior view (e.g., at least thirty
percent solid material to seventy percent transparency).
k. Appropriately scaled architectural detailing, such as but not limited to moldings or cornices, is
encouraged at the roofline of commercial building facades, and where such detailing is present,
should be a minimum of at least eight inches wide.
l. Compatible building designs along a street should be provided through similar massing
(building facade, height and width as well as the space between buildings) and frontage setbacks.
2. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Commercial.
3. Residential.
a. The facades of single-family attached and detached residences (including duplexes, triplexes,
fourplexes, townhouses, and row houses) shall comply with the following standards:
i. No more than forty-five percent of the horizontal length of the ground floor front
elevation of a single-family detached or attached dwelling with frontage on a public
street, except alleys, shall be an attached garage.
ii. Residential building elevations facing a pedestrian route shall not consist of
undifferentiated blank walls, but shall be articulated with architectural details such as
windows, dormers, porch details, balconies or bays.
iii. For any exterior wall which is within twenty feet of and facing onto a street or public
open space and which has an unobstructed view of that pedestrian street or public open
space, at least twenty percent of the ground floor wall area shall be comprised of either
display area, windows, or doorways.
iv. Architectural detailing is encouraged to provide variation among attached units.
Architectural detailing includes but is not limited to the following: the use of different
exterior siding materials or trim, shutters, different window types or sizes, varying roof
lines, balconies or porches, and dormers. The overall design shall recognize that color
variation, in and of itself, does not meet the requirements of this subsection.
v. Fences or hedges in a front yard shall not exceed three feet in height. Side yard fencing
shall not exceed three feet in height between the front building facade and the street.
Fences beyond the front facade of the building in a sideyard or back yard and along a
street, alley, property line, or bike/pedestrian pathway shall not exceed four feet in
height. Fences over four feet in height are not permitted and hedges or vegetative screens
in no case shall exceed six feet in height.
b. The facades of multifamily residences shall comply with the following standards:
Page 737 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 25 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
i. Building elevations, including the upper stories, facing a pedestrian route shall not
consist of undifferentiated blank walls, but shall be articulated with architectural
detailing such as windows, balconies, and dormers.
ii. For any exterior wall which is within twenty feet of and facing onto a pedestrian street
or public open space and which has an unobstructed view of that pedestrian street or
public open space, at least twenty percent of the ground floor wall area shall be
comprised of either display area, windows, or doorways.
iii. Arcades or awnings should be provided over sidewalks where ground floor retail or
commercial exists, to shelter pedestrians from sun and rain.
FINDINGS OF FACT
As many of the proposed residential structures are multi-plex dwellings, much attention was focused
on designing diversity within the building streetscape to avoid monotonous repetition. The alleyways
made it possible to rear load all of the triplex and four-plex structures, placing the garage doors out of
sight from street views. Main living areas for these dwellings were then arranged to be facing the
streets, with large windows and extended trim detailing providing informal surveillance of the public
spaces. Other elements that were included to add interest are pergola and metal coverings.
Variations among the rooflines, garage doors (for those structures not rear-loaded) and windows were
also integrated to create uniqueness among the building facades. Refer to the streetscapes shown on
sheets A-1 through A-3 of the Architectural Plans in the Master Plan for the overall result of how
these elements have been incorporated in the project.
17.67.060(E) | Roofs
1. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Commercial.
2. Residential.
a. Flat roofs with a parapet and cornice are allowed for multifamily residences in all TOD, LMR,
MMR and HMR districts, in which the minimum for sloped roofs is 5:12.
b. Flat roofs with a parapet and cornice are allowed for single-family attached and detached
residences (including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and row houses) in all TOD
residential districts, except the LMR zone.
c. For all residences with sloped roofs, the roof slope shall be at least 5:12, and no more than
12:12. Eaves shall overhang building walls at a minimum twelve inches deep on all sides (front,
back, sides) of a residential structure.
d. Roof shapes, surface materials, colors, mechanical equipment and other penthouse functions
should be integrated into the total building design. Roof terraces and gardens are encouraged.
Page 738 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 26 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
FINDINGS OF FACT
Roofs will be constructed as shown on sheets A-1 through A-26 of the Architectural Plans using
architectural composition shingles with a minimum of a 30-year warranty. Roof slopes will be
installed at a ratio of 5/12, with eaves extending past the building by a minimum of 12 inches.
17.67.060(F) | Exterior Building Lighting
1. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Commercial.
2. Residential.
a. Lighting shall not draw inordinate attention to the building facade.
b. Porch and entry lights are encouraged on all dwellings to create a safe and inviting pedestrian
environment at night.
c. No exterior lighting exceeding one hundred watts per fixture is permitted in any residential
area.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Exterior light fixtures on the buildings will incorporate the use of shrouds and directional lighting to
highlight architectural interest, reduce glare and illuminate the surrounding area to create an inviting
and safe atmosphere. Warm white (2700 to 3000K) or soft white (3000K - 3500K) lighting color
temperatures shall be used. More information regarding the proposed exterior lighting can be found
in the Master Plan.
17.67.060(G) | Service Zones
1. Buildings and sites shall be organized to group the utilitarian functions away from the public view.
2. Delivery and loading operations, mechanical equipment (HVAC), trash compacting/collection, and
other utility and service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building(s) and
the landscaping.
3. The visual and acoustic impacts of these functions, along with all wall- or ground-mounted
mechanical, electrical and communications equipment, shall be out of view from adjacent properties
and public pedestrian streets.
4. Screening materials and landscape screens shall be architecturally compatible with and not
inferior to the principal materials of the building.
a. The visual impact of chimneys and equipment shall be minimized by the use of parapets,
architectural screening, rooftop landscaping, or by using other aesthetically pleasing methods of
screening and reducing the sound of such equipment.
Page 739 of 1226
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 27 of 27
Tentative Plat
Paul Miller, Applicant
FINDINGS OF FACT
Any mechanical/utilities servicing the structures (e.g. HVAC equipment) shall be installed in
inconspicuous areas as to not deter from the front facade of the structures. Landscaping will also be
installed to provide a buffer to reduce the noise and reduce the visual presence of the equipment.
There are no delivery, loading or other service zones that are proposed to be integrated in the
development.
17.67.060(H) | Parking Structures
1. Parking garage exteriors should be designed to visually respect and integrate with adjacent
buildings.
2. Garage doors and entrances to parking areas should be located in a sensitive manner using single
curb cuts when possible.
3. Residential parking structures must comply with the facade requirements for residential
developments.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Attached garages are included for all proposed residential housing types. Garage doors were
designed to integrate with the structures by utilizing a mixture of traditional and carriage style design
elements as shown in sheets A-1 through A-26 of the Architectural Plans in the Master Plan. All
garage doors shall incorporate windows near the top sections of the doors in an effort to blend with
the rest of the structure and minimize their visual impact.
E. CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Planning Commission concludes that the subject application is consistent with the relevant
criteria for a land division found in Title 17 of the Central point Municipal Code and can therefore be
approved.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neathamer Surveying, Inc.
__________________________
Nathan Ruf, CFM
Dated: January 23, 2025
Page 740 of 1226
PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
File No.: MP-25001
Before the City of Central Point Planning Commission
Consideration of the Gebhard Village
Eastside Transit Oriented Development
Master Plan
Applicant:) Supplemental Findings of Fact
Lowman Revocable Trust ) and
4462 Coal Mine Road ) Conclusions of Law
Medford OR 97504 )
PART 1
INTRODUCTION
The applicant submitted the Gebhard Village Master Plan application for development of a
residential subdivision, including public streets, parks and open space, storm drain facilities and
utilities in the Eastside Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) Overlay. The property is zoned
Medium Mix Residential (MMR) and is located along Gebhard Road, north of the intersection
with Beebe Road.
A master plan application is reviewed as a Type III application. Type III applications are
reviewed in accordance with procedures provided in Section 17.05.400, which provides the basis
for decisions upon standards and criteria in the development code and the comprehensive plan,
when appropriate.
Applicable Review Criteria for TOD master plans are set forth in Chapter 17.66, Application
Review Process for the TOD Overlay and include:
1. CPMC 17.65.040 and 17.65.050 relating to the TOD Overlay
2. CPMC 17.66.030 A(3) and 17.66.030 B – Submittal Requirements
3. CPMC 17.67, Design Standards—TOD Overlay;
4. CPMC 17.60, General Regulations unless superseded by Sections 17.65.040 through 17.65.070
5. CPMC 17.65.050(F)(3), Parking Standard, and CPMC 17.64, Off-Street Parking and Loading
6. CPMC 17.70, Historic Preservation Overlay
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The property is located along the east side of Gebhard Road, north of the intersection with Beebe
Road, within the Medium Mix Residential (MMR) zoning district of the Eastside Transit
Oriented Development (ETOD) Overlay. It is the Applicant’s objective to obtain master plan
approval to facilitate development of a residential subdivision on the property within the context
of existing and planned development in the ETOD.
The proposed Gebhard Village encompasses the 8.18-acre project site. As shown on the
Vicinity Map (Figure 1), the abutting property in the ETOD to the south is under
Page 741 of 1226
development as the Willow Bend Subdivision. The property to the northeast is developed
with single-family residences in the R-3 zoning district. The properties to the southeast and
to the west across Gebhard Road are undeveloped. Gebhard Village will continue established
circulation patterns and development will be consistent with surrounding properties.
Since Master Plan compliance is required for land divisions greater than two (2) acres, the
application for master plan approval is accompanied by, and being processed concurrently with,
an application for a Tentative Subdivision Plan (see File No. SUB-25001) that reviews criteria
for subdivision design standards (CPMC 16.10).
Staff has reviewed the Applicant’s Findings, incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, and found that
they address the applicable development code criteria for the proposed master plan, except
CPMC 17.65.025 and Chapter 17.66. The following findings address the special conditions and
application review process for the TOD overlay:
PART 2 – CHAPTER 17.65
LAND USE AND ZONING REGULATIONS
TOD OVERLAY
The purpose of the Central Point Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay is to promote
efficient and sustainable land development and the increased use of transit as required by the
Oregon Transportation Planning Rule. The sections of CPMC 17.65 applicable to the application
are:
17.65.025 Special Conditions.
On occasion it may be necessary to impose interim development restrictions on certain TOD
overlay areas. Special conditions will be identified in this section for each TOD overlay.
A. Eastside Transit Oriented Development Overlay (ETOD) Agricultural Mitigation. All
development shall acknowledge the presence of active farm uses within the ETOD area
by recording a right-to-farm disclosure statement as a condition of final plat, transfer of
property, or site plan and architectural review approval. The ETOD agricultural
mitigation shall be removed at such time as the urban growth boundary is incorporated
and completely builds out.
B. Eastside Transit Oriented Development Overlay (ETOD) Shallow Wells. Prior to
development within the ETOD, a water table analysis shall be conducted to determine the
local water table depth. Any development impacting the water table will require further
analysis to determine the effect on neighboring wells and the development shall be
expected to mitigate that impact.
The ETOD agricultural and shallow wells mitigation shall be removed at such time as the urban
growth boundary is incorporated and parcels within the ETOD are built to urban standards and
connected to city water.
Page 742 of 1226
Finding 17.65.025: The project site is located in the ETOD and the Master Plan application
acknowledges the presence of active farm uses nearby. As a condition of approval, the applicant
will be required to record a right-to-farm disclosure prior to final plat.
The applicant has provided a water table analysis, completed by Apex Engineers, dated July 25,
2024, that examines the potential effects on neighboring wells from the development in the
ETOD. Based on the conclusions of the analysis and the proposed development plans for
Gebhard Village, there are no shallow wells on the project site and development is not
anticipated to impact the water table or surrounding wells unless installation of water and
sanitary sewer lines extend below the water table. As conditioned in the Public Works Staff
Report dated March 14, 2025, all underground public utilities will be required to implement the
mitigation actions necessary to avoid impacts to shallow wells in the vicinity. These will be
reviewed at the time of Civil Improvement Plan review by the City Engineer prior to the start of
any construction
Conclusion 17.65.025: Complies as conditioned.
PART 3 – CHAPTER 17.66
APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE TOD OVERLAY
This chapter describes the review procedures to be followed for development proposed
within the TOD overlay which are identified on the official city zoning map. The sections of
CPMC 17.66 applicable to the application are:
CPMC 17.66.030, Application and Review
A. There are four types of applications which are subject to review within the Central
Point TOD overlay.
1. TOD Overlay Master Plan. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan. Master
plan approval shall be required for:
a.Development or land division applications which involve two or
more acres of land; or
b.Modification to a valid master plan approval which involve one or
more of the following:
i. An increase in dwelling unit density which exceeds five
percent of approved density;
ii. An increase in commercial gross floor area of ten percent
or two thousand square feet, whichever is greater;
iii. A change in the type and location of streets, accessways,
and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected;
or
iv. A modification of a condition imposed as part of the master
plan approval.
Page 743 of 1226
2. Site Plan and Architectural Review. The provisions of Chapter 17.72, Site
Plan and Architectural Review, shall apply to permitted uses and limited
uses within the TOD overlay. For site plan and architectural review
applications involving two or more acres of land, a master plan approval,
as provided in this chapter, shall be approved prior to, or concurrently
with, a site plan and architectural review application.
3. Land Division. Partitions and subdivisions shall be reviewed as provided
in Title 16, Subdivisions. For a land division application involving two or
more acres of land, a master plan approval, as provided in this chapter,
shall be approved prior to, or concurrently with, a land division
application.
4. Conditional Use. Conditional uses shall be reviewed as provided in
Chapter 17.76, Conditional Use Permits.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(A): The Gebhard Village Master Plan is for a 67-lot subdivision
on a property of approximately 8.18 acres, with approximately 5.56 acres of net residential
area. The current application is to satisfy the master plan requirements for development and
land division proposals involving two or more acres. The master plan application is
processed and reviewed concurrently with an application for tentative subdivision plan (File
No. SUB-25001).
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(A): Consistent.
B. Submittal Requirements. A master plan shall include the following elements:
1. Introduction. A written narrative describing:
a.Duration of the master plan;
b.Site location map;
c.Land use and minimum and maximum residential densities
proposed;
d.Identification of other approved master plans within the project
area (one hundred feet).
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(1): The Master Plan provides a written analysis of the
subdivision and project area. The proposed 67-lot /78-unitsubdivision will be
completed in two (2) phases within five (5) years. The Master Plan identifies the
location of the subject property within the ETOD and other approved master plans
in the vicinity, including Willow Bend to the south of the project site.
Page 744 of 1226
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B): Consistent.
2. Site Analysis Map. A map and written narrative of the project area addressing
site amenities and challenges on the project site and adjacent lands within one
hundred feet of the project site.
a.Master Utility Plan. A plan and narrative addressing existing and
proposed utilities and utility extensions for water, sanitary sewer,
storm water, gas, electricity, and agricultural irrigation.
b.Adjacent Land Use Plan. A map identifying adjacent land uses and
structures within one hundred feet of the project perimeter and
remedies for preservation of livability of adjacent land uses.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(2): The Master Plan identifies existing and proposed
utilities and adjacent land uses. As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth
in the Applicant’s Findings, the Master Plan satisfies the approval criteria for the
TOD Corridor and is consistent with the adjacent land uses.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B)(2): Consistent
3. Transportation and Circulation Plan. A transportation impact analysis (TIA)
identifying planned transportation facilities, services and networks to be
provided concurrently with the development of the master plan and addressing
Section 17.67.040, Circulation and access standards.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(3): The Master Plan for Gebhard Village connects to
and continues the circulation patterns established by Willow Bend to the south.
Additional streets are proposed throughout Gebhard Village, with connection to
Gebhard Road to the west, in accordance with Public Works Standards and
Specifications. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed development shows
traffic from Gebhard Village will contribute to traffic signal warrants being met at
the Beebe Road/Hamrick Road intersection. As conditioned in the Public Works Staff
Report dated March 14, 2025, the Applicant is required to contribute a proportional
share of signal installation costs for the traffic signal at Beebe Road and Hamrick
Road.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B)(3): Complies as conditioned.
4. Site Plan. A plan and narrative addressing Section 17.67.050, Site design
standards.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(4): As evidenced by the Applicant’s findings and
conclusions for CPMC 17.67.050 and the Gebhard Village Master Plan, including
the Tentative Plan (Figure 1) and the Adjacent Land Use Plan (Exhibit 4), the site
design standards for the TOD Overlay are satisfied.
Page 745 of 1226
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B)(4): Consistent.
5. Recreation and Open Space Plan. A plan and narrative addressing Section
17.67.060, Public parks and open space design standards.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(5): As evidenced by the Applicant’s findings and
conclusions for CPMC 17.67.060 and the Gebhard Village Master Plan, including
the Open Space Landscape Plan (Exhibit 7), the approval criteria for parks and open
space for the TOD Overlay are satisfied.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B)(5): Consistent.
6. Building Design Plan. A written narrative and illustrations addressing Section
17.67.070, Building design standards.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(6): As evidenced by the Applicant’s findings and
conclusions for CPMC 17.66.030 and the Gebhard Village Master Plan, including
the Architectural Plans (Exhibit 6), the approval criteria for building design
standards for the TOD Overlay are satisfied.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B)(6): Consistent
7. Transit Plan. A plan identifying proposed, or future, transit facilities (if any).
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(7): The project site is not located in area planned for
future transit services. The Master Plan provides connected pedestrian facilities via
the public sidewalk system. However, no additional transit facilities are required or
proposed at this time.
Conclusion: CPMC 17.66.030(B)(7): Not applicable.
8. Environmental Plan. A plan identifying environmental conditions such as
wetlands, flood hazard areas, groundwater conditions, and hazardous sites on
and adjacent to the project site.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(8): The site does not contain mapped wetlands, flood
hazard areas, and the riparian area for Bear Creek is not adjacent to or near the
project site. The ETOD, including the project site, has been identified as an area with
soil contamination due to past farming practices and includes shallow groundwater
wells. The Master Plan includes analysis of soil conditions on site and confirms
contamination that requires mitigation prior to development of the property.
As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth in Part 2 herein, the Master
Plan satisfies the approval criteria for identifying and protecting shallow
groundwater wells in the vicinity of the proposed development.
Page 746 of 1226
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B)(8): Complies as conditioned.
CPMC 17.66.040 Parks and Open Space
Common park and open space shall be provided for all residential development within a TOD
overlay as per Section 17.67.060.
Finding CPMC 17.66.040: As evidenced in the Gebhard Village Master Plan, as shown on the
Tentative Plan (Exhibit 1) and the Open Space Landscape Plan (Exhibit 7), common park and
open space is included as part of the proposal. As evidenced by the Applicant’s findings and
conclusions for CPMC 17.67.060, the proposed common park and open space areas satisfy the
approval criteria for parks and open space for the TOD Overlay.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.040: Consistent.
CPMC 17.66.050 Application Approval Criteria
A. TOD Overlay Master Plan. A master plan shall be approved when the approval authority
finds that the following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable:
1. Sections 17.65.040 and 17.65.050, relating to the TOD Overlay;
Findings CPMC 17.65.040 and 17.65.050: As evidenced by the Applicant’s findings
and conclusions for CPMC 17.65.040 and 17.65.050, the proposed development
satisfies the approval criteria for land use and zoning standards for the TOD Overlay
as conditioned.
Conclusion CPMC 17.65.040 and 17.65.050: Complies as conditioned.
2. Chapter 17.67, Design Standards--TOD Overlay;
Findings CPMC 17.67: As evidenced by the Applicant’s findings and conclusions for
CPMC 17.67, the proposed Master Plan satisfies the approval criteria for design
standards for the TOD Overlay.
Conclusion CPMC 17.67: Consistent.
3. Section 17.65.050(F)(3), Parking Standards, and Chapter 17.64, Off-Street
Parking and Loading;
Findings CPMC 17.65.050(F)(3): As amended by Ordinance 2100, adopted June 6,
2023, Chapter 17.64 does not impose minimum or maximum parking requirements on
residential uses; therefore, parking and loading requirements are not required for
this application.
Conclusion CPMC 17.65.050(F)(3): Not applicable.
Page 747 of 1226
B. Site Plan and Architectural Review. A site plan and architectural review application shall
be approved when the approval authority finds that the following criteria are satisfied or
can be shown to be inapplicable:
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(D): The application is for a Master Plan. An application for
Tentative Plan is being processed and reviewed concurrently (see File No. SUB-25001).
There is no site plan application as part of the submittal.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050(D): Not applicable.
C. Land Division. A land division application shall be approved when the approval authority
finds that the following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable:
1. The provisions of Title 16, Subdivisions; and
2. The proposed land division complies with the approved TOD district or corridor
master plan for the property, if required; and
3. Chapter 17.67, Design Standards--TOD District and TOD Corridor.
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(C): As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth
herein, the proposed subdivision tentative plan satisfies the approval criteria.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050(C): Consistent.
D. Conditional Use.
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(D): The application is for a new Master Plan in the ETOD
Overlay. An application for Tentative Plan is being processed and reviewed concurrently
(see File No. SUB-25001). There are no conditional uses as part of the submittal.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050(D): Not applicable.
CPMC 17.66.060 Conditions of approval
The approval authority may apply reasonable conditions of approval to ensure that the applicable
standards of this code are satisfied.
Finding CPMC 17.66.060: As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein,
reasonable conditions apply to ensure the standards of this code are satisfied.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.060: Consistent.
Page 748 of 1226
PART 4
SUMMARY CONCLUSION
As evidenced in the Applicant’s findings and conclusions, as well as the application materials in
the record, along with Planning Department Supplemental Findings set forth herein, the proposed
Gebhard Village Master Plan is consistent with applicable standards and criteria in the Central
Point Municipal Code as conditioned.
Page 749 of 1226
140 South 3rd Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • 541.664.3321 • Fax 541.664.6384
PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT
March 14, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Gebhard Village (MP-25001/SUB-25001)
A proposed 78-unit subdivision along the Gebhard Road frontage. The 8.18-acre site (37S 2W 02AA, Tax Lot
2800) is within the Medium Mixed Residential (MMR) zone and is within the Transit Oriented Development
(TOD Overlay.
Applicant: Lowman Revocable Trust
Traffic:
The Applicant is proposing a 67-lot subdivision. The TIA, performed by Southern Oregon Transportation
Engineering, for this proposed development estimates this will generate 46 PHT’s. Access at the time of
development is proposed on Gebhard Road at two new local street intersections (Bryce Pelia Way and Logue
Street) and one existing local street intersection (Denson Street). The existing Annalise Street will extend
north through Gebhard Village as well.
The new local street intersections, at Bryce Pelia Way and Logue Street, on Gebhard Road were shown to
meet AASHTO recommended intersection sight distances.
The proposed new local street intersection of Logue Street and Gebhard Road is not shown to meet
intersection spacing standards as set for in the Public Works Standards and Specifications Table 300-4, which
requires 300 feet between intersections on a collector street. The proposed location, however, is approximately
235 feet south of Green Valley Way and is not shown to have any safety concerns. Sight distance is shown to
be adequate, there is no history of collisions along Gebhard Road and a center turn lane is not shown to be
warranted at the proposed location.
A supplemental letter from Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering states that the proposed development
impact at time of development will be 2.3% of traffic under design year 2027 no-build conditions.
Accordingly, this will be the proportional share for cost of construction of new traffic signals at Beebe
Road/Hamrick Road intersection.
The TIA concludes that the subdivision can be approved without causing adverse impacts to the transportation
system.
City staff concurs with the TIA findings.
Existing Infrastructure:
Water: There is an 16-inch ductile iron water line, in Gebhard Road. There is an 8-inch ductile iron
water line in Denson Street.
Streets: Gebhard Road is an unimproved Collector Street. Denson Street is a new local Street.
Public Works Department
Gregory Graves, Const. Serv. Supervisor
Page 750 of 1226
Stormwater: There is an existing 42-inch Storm Drain line, within Denson Street, existing now. Flow is east
to west. There is also a 48-inch Storm Drain line to the north of the site, running west from
Green Valley Way. Flow is east to west.
Background:
The Applicant proposes an 78-unit, Medium Mixed Residential development extending north on the existing
Annalise Street. The property fronts Gebhard Road to the west, and Denson Street to the south.
Issues:
The project must receive and treat offsite stormwater runoff from the Himmelman property to the east at two
locations. The first location is at the southeast area of the site, where surface water flows in northwesterly
direction from the Himmelmann orchard area. The second location is on the east border of the site in the area
of the proposed Bryce Pelia Way. This area has an existing approximately 8” underground pipe flowing
westerly, that currently daylights at a bubbler assembly on the site.
Onsite stormwater runoff shall be treated onsite before it enters the existing storm drain system from the
proposed subdivision.
Overhead utilities along the Gebhard Road frontage will need to be converted to underground.
Conditions of Approval:
Prior to the building permit issuance and the start of construction activities on the site, the following
conditions shall be satisfied:
1. Public Street Construction - Applicant shall construct the proposed public streets to City Street
Standards. Construction shall demonstrate compliance with the Public Works Standard Specifications
and Uniform Details for Construction. Accordingly, the improvements along the Gebhard Road
frontage must include sidewalk and landscape row.
2. Gebhard Road Existing Overhead utilities – The Applicant shall convert all overhead utilities along the
frontage of Gebhard Road to underground. No overhead utilities will be allowed.
3. Civil Improvement Plan Review – The Applicant shall submit civil improvement plans for stormwater
infrastructure construction demonstrating compliance with the approved NPDES Stormwater
Management Plan.
4. Erosion and Sediment Control – The proposed development will disturb greater than 5 acres and
requires an erosion and sediment control permit (NPDES 1200-C) from DEQ. The Applicant shall
obtain a 1200-C permit from DEQ.
Page 751 of 1226
140 South 3rd Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • 541.664.3321 • Fax 541.664.6384
Prior to the final plat, the Applicant shall comply with the following conditions of approval:
1. PW Standards and Specifications – Applicant shall demonstrate that all Public Works infrastructure
construction complies with the Standards Specifications and Uniform Details for Construction.
2. Stormwater Quality Operations & Maintenance – The Applicant shall record and submit to the Public
Works Department an Operations and Maintenance Manual and Declaration of Covenants for
Operation and Maintenance of the Stormwater Quality Features as required by the Rogue Valley
Stormwater Quality Manual.
3. Public Utilities and Street Dedication and Improvement – Dedicate the public right-of-way and
complete all street improvements within the tentative plat.
4. Over Head Utilities – Overhead utilities along the Gebhard Road frontage shall be converted to
underground facilities.
5. Public Works As-Builts – Provide an accurate and stamped set of as-built drawings.
6. Intersection Mitigation - The proposed development pay a proportional share toward the cost of a
traffic signal at Beebe Road / Hamrick Road. This is based on total entering volume, or 2.3% of
traffic, at time of proposed development.
Page 752 of 1226
Page 753 of 1226
March 11, 2025
City of Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Re: PRE 21007 – Gebhard Village Sub, Map 37 2W 02AA, Tax Lot 2800
There is an existing 10 inch sewer along the south property boundary of tax lot 2800 and a 15 inch sewer
to the north along Gebhard Road. Sewer service for the proposed development can be had by sewer
main extensions as generally shown on the submitted conceptual plan.
Rogue Valley Sewer Services requests that approval of this development be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant must submit sewer construction plans to RVSS for review and approval prior to
construction, sign a project sewer agreement, and pay all related inspection fees.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Nicholas R Bakke, PE
District Engineer
Page 754 of 1226
Planning Commission Resolution No. 931 (04/01/2025)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 931
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING
A MASTER PLAN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOD DISTRICT
TO BE KNOWN AS GEBHARD VILLAGE
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(FILE NO. MP-25001)
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a master plan application for approval of Gebhard
Village, a residential development consisting of property identified on the Jackson County
Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 02AA, Tax Lot 2800, Central Point, Oregon; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located in the Medium Mix Residential (MMR) zoning district
within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay; and
WHEREAS, the application has been found to be consistent with the applicable approval
criteria set forth in Title 17, Zoning as conditioned per the Staff Report dated April 1, 2025;
and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2025, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point
Planning Commission considered the Applicant’s request for Master Plan approval for
Gebhard Village.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
Section 1: The City of Central Point Planning Commission hereby approves the Master Plan
application for Gebhard Village File No. MP-25001 subject to the conditions in the Staff
Report dated April 1, 2025 (Exhibit 1).
Section 2: This decision is based upon the Planning Department Staff Report dated April 1,
2025, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, including all attachments thereto.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
1st day of April, 2025.
_______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Representative
Page 755 of 1226
Staff Report
Gebhard Village
Tentative Subdivision Plan
File No. SUB-25001
April 1, 2025
Item Summary
Consideration of a Tentative Plan application to develop a 67-lot/78-unit subdivision on 8.18
acres in the Medium Mix Residential (LMR) zoning district in the Eastside Transit Oriented
Development (ETOD) Ovelay. The project site is located at 4922 Gebhard Road and is
identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s Map as 37S 2W 02AA, Tax Lot 2800.
Applicant: Lowman Revocable Trust; Agent: Neathamer Surveying, Inc. (Bob Neathamer)
Approval Criteria: CPMC 16.10 (Tentative Plans) and CPMC 17.65, TOD Overlay.
Associated Files: MP-2501
Staff Source
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner III
Background
The Applicant submitted a tentative plan application for Gebhard Village to subdivide 8.18 acres
into a 67-lot ETOD subdivision (Attachment “A-2”). The project site is along Gebhard Road in
the western portion of the ETOD. The tentative plan is being reviewed concurrently with a
master plan application (MP-25001) for the subject property. The Master Plan serves as a
blueprint to guide future development of the site. The tentative plan application initiates the land
divison process that subdivides the land in accordance with CPMC 16.10, Tentative Plans,
following the guidance set by the master plan.
Description:
As shown on the Tentative Plan (Attachment “A-2”), Gebhard Village will be completed in two
(2) phases. The tentative plan proposes a new street network, with connection to Gebhard
Road. This network will provide circulation within the site, connections to existing and future
development on adjacent sites with circulation throughout the ETOD.
The proposal is within the minimum/maximum density allowed on the site by proposing 78
units on 5.56 net acres – subtracting proposed right-of-way as per Note ‘f’, Table 2, CPMC
17.65.050. The resulting 14 units/acre is consistent with the required 14-32 units/acre
required in the MMR zone. As demonstrated in the Planning Department Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law (Attachment “D”), the proposal meets the lot dimension standards
in the LMR zone.
Page 756 of 1226
Utilities are available to the site with sewer main abutting the south of the property in the right-
of-way of Denson Street. Water is available in the right-of-way of Gebhard Road and will be
extended into the project area. A drainage facility is proposed within the project area, collecting
stormwater from the development and flowing to additional facilities to the west.
Issues
There are four (4) issues relative to this application as follows:
1.Soil Mitigation. The Gebhard Village Master Plan sets forth mitigation requirements to
remediate arsenic contamination in the soils on the project site based on findings from
an Independent Cleanup Program Report, consistent with the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) standards. Based on the findings of this assessment, it is
recommended to remove organics and vegetation from the site, mix the top 12-inches of
soil to distribute the concentration levels and scarify the site prior to final grading
Comment: The applicant is responsible for the remediation of the site that ensures
proper remediation, and requirements that are designed to protect the environment and
human health. Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 1(b) requiring the applicant
to submit final authorization that the soil remediation plan was completed and no further
action on the site is required.
2.Shallow Wells. Construction of public utilities as part of the tentative plat process may
impact the water table and shallow wells within the vicinity of the project site. The
applicant submitted a report prepared by APEX dated July 25, 2024 (Attachment “C”)
addressing the potential impacts and necessary mitigation measures.
Comment: Based on the conclusions of the analysis and the proposed development
plans for Gebhard Village, the development is not anticipated to impact the water table
or surrounding wells unless installation of water and sanitary sewer lines extend below
the water table.
Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 1(d)(i) requiring the applicant to implement
mitigation actions identified in the APEX Report as necessary to avoid impacts to
surrounding wells. Mitigation plans will be reviewed by the City Engineer during the Civil
Improvement Plan review process prior to approval by the Public Works Department.
3.Agriculture Mitigation. The ETOD is identified as an area of the City that maintains
active farm uses. Urban uses and developments to urban standards may conflict with
agricultural practices. As a requirement to develop in the ETOD developments must
recognize these uses until the ETOD is completely annexed and developed.
Comment: At this time, developments in the ETOD are required to record a right-to-farm
disclosure statement as a condition of final plat. Staff recommends Condition of Approval
No. 1(c) requiring the applicant to record a right-to-farm disclosure statement prior to
final plat of Gebhard Village.
Page 757 of 1226
4.Street Names. All street names shall be approved by the City of Central Point and
regional emergency services providers.
Comment: Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 1(a) requiring the applicant to
provide documentation of approved street name for the proposed public street.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
The Gebhard Village Tentative Plan has been evaluated against the applicable criteria set
forth in CPMC 17.66 and CPMC 16.10 and found to comply as evidenced in the Gebhard
Village Tentative Plan (Attachment “B”), the Planning Department Findings (Attachment “D”)
and the Staff Report dated April 1, 2025.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall satisfy the following conditions:
a. Provide documentation of approved street names for the proposed public street.
b. Provide a copy of a “No Further Action’ letter from DEQ indicating that
remediation of on-site contamination is completed;
c. Provide recorded copies of a right-to-farm disclosure, as required by CPMC
17.65.025(A);
d. Demonstrate compliance with the conditions listed in the Public Works
Department Staff Report (Attachment “E”), including but not limited to:
i. Submit Civil Improvement Drawings for infrastructure construction,
including but not limited to, streets, landscape row and street trees,
sidewalk, access approach, street lighting, and utilities with necessary
shallow well mitigation.
ii. Submit a stormwater management plan for the proposed demonstrating
compliance with the MS4 Phase II stormwater quality standards.
iii. Obtain a 1200-C permit from DEQ and provide a copy to the Public
Works Department. The proposed development will disturb more than 5
acres and requires an erosion and sediment control permit (NPDES
1200-C) from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
iv. Pay all System Development Charges and permit fees.
e. Coordinate with Fire District #3 to plan the location of and install fire lane signs
and fire hydrants in accordance with Fire District #3 comments, dated March 12,
2025 (Attachment “E”).
Page 758 of 1226
f. Comply with conditions of approval listed in the Rogue Valley Sewer Staff
Report, dated March 11, 2025 (Attachment “F”)
2. Prior to Public Works Final Inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with
the following:
a. Complete public infrastructure and civil improvements per Civil Improvement
Plans approved by the Public Works Department and a fully executed
development agreement and bond, if applicable. The Engineer-of-Record shall
certify that all improvements were constructed per the approved plans.
b. Complete stormwater management improvements per the Stormwater
Management Plan approved by the Public Works Department. The Engineer-of-
Record shall certify that the construction of the drainage system was constructed
per the approved plans.
c. Record an operations and maintenance agreement for all new stormwater quality
features.
3. Any modifications to the site layout, including but not limited to stormwater quality
treatment facility type and location, shall be subject to review in accordance with CPMC
17.09, Modifications to Approved Plans and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments
Attachment “A-1” – Project Location Map
Attachment “A-2” – Tentative Subdivision Plan
Attachment “B” – Independent Cleanup Program Report, dated July 27, 2018
Attachment “C” – Shallow Well Assessment, dated July 25, 2024
Attachment “D” – Planning Department Findings of Fact
Attachment “E” – Public Works Department Staff Report, dated 03/14/2025
Attachment “F” – Fire District No. 3 Staff Report, dated 03/12/2025
Attachment “G” – Rogue Valley Sewer Services Staff Report, dated 03/11/2025
Attachment “H” – Resolution No. 932
Action
Open a public hearing and consider the proposed Tentative Subdivision Plan application and 1)
approve; 2) approve with revisions; or 3) deny the application.
Recommendation
Approve Resolution No. 932, a Resolution approving the Gebhard Village Tentative Subdivision
Plan application subject to the recommended conditions of approval set forth in the Staff Report
dated April 1, 2025 and the Planning Department Findings of Fact..
Page 759 of 1226
Recommended Motion
I move to approve Resolution No. 932, a Resolution approving the Gebhard Village Tentative
Subdivision Plan application per the Staff Report dated April 1, 2025.
Page 760 of 1226
Page 761 of 1226
Page 762 of 1226
EXHIBIT "8"
Page 763 of 1226
Page 764 of 1226
Page 765 of 1226
Page 766 of 1226
Page 767 of 1226
Page 768 of 1226
Page 769 of 1226
Page 770 of 1226
Page 771 of 1226
Page 772 of 1226
Page 773 of 1226
Page 774 of 1226
Page 775 of 1226
Page 776 of 1226
Page 777 of 1226
Page 778 of 1226
Page 779 of 1226
Page 780 of 1226
Page 781 of 1226
Page 782 of 1226
Page 783 of 1226
Page 784 of 1226
Page 785 of 1226
Page 786 of 1226
Page 787 of 1226
Page 788 of 1226
Page 789 of 1226
Page 790 of 1226
Page 791 of 1226
Page 792 of 1226
Page 793 of 1226
Page 794 of 1226
Page 795 of 1226
Page 796 of 1226
Page 797 of 1226
Page 798 of 1226
Page 799 of 1226
Page 800 of 1226
Page 801 of 1226
Page 802 of 1226
Page 803 of 1226
Page 804 of 1226
Page 805 of 1226
Page 806 of 1226
Page 807 of 1226
Page 808 of 1226
Page 809 of 1226
Page 810 of 1226
Page 811 of 1226
Page 812 of 1226
Page 813 of 1226
Page 814 of 1226
Page 815 of 1226
Page 816 of 1226
Page 817 of 1226
Page 818 of 1226
Page 819 of 1226
Page 820 of 1226
Page 821 of 1226
Page 822 of 1226
Page 823 of 1226
Page 824 of 1226
Page 825 of 1226
Page 826 of 1226
Page 827 of 1226
Page 828 of 1226
Page 829 of 1226
Page 830 of 1226
Page 831 of 1226
Page 832 of 1226
Page 833 of 1226
Page 834 of 1226
Page 835 of 1226
Page 836 of 1226
Page 837 of 1226
Page 838 of 1226
Page 839 of 1226
Page 840 of 1226
Page 841 of 1226
Page 842 of 1226
Page 843 of 1226
Page 844 of 1226
Page 845 of 1226
Page 846 of 1226
Page 847 of 1226
Page 848 of 1226
Page 849 of 1226
Page 850 of 1226
Page 851 of 1226
Page 852 of 1226
Page 853 of 1226
Page 854 of 1226
Page 855 of 1226
Page 856 of 1226
Page 857 of 1226
Page 858 of 1226
Page 859 of 1226
Page 860 of 1226
Page 861 of 1226
Page 862 of 1226
Page 863 of 1226
Page 864 of 1226
Page 865 of 1226
Page 866 of 1226
Page 867 of 1226
Page 868 of 1226
Page 869 of 1226
Page 870 of 1226
Page 871 of 1226
Page 872 of 1226
Page 873 of 1226
Page 874 of 1226
Page 875 of 1226
Page 876 of 1226
Page 877 of 1226
Page 878 of 1226
Page 879 of 1226
Page 880 of 1226
Page 881 of 1226
Page 882 of 1226
Page 883 of 1226
Page 884 of 1226
Page 885 of 1226
Page 886 of 1226
Page 887 of 1226
Page 888 of 1226
Page 889 of 1226
Page 890 of 1226
Page 891 of 1226
Page 892 of 1226
Page 893 of 1226
Page 894 of 1226
Page 895 of 1226
Page 896 of 1226
Page 897 of 1226
Page 898 of 1226
Page 899 of 1226
Page 900 of 1226
Page 901 of 1226
Page 902 of 1226
Page 903 of 1226
Page 904 of 1226
Page 905 of 1226
Page 906 of 1226
Page 907 of 1226
Page 908 of 1226
Page 909 of 1226
Page 910 of 1226
Page 911 of 1226
Page 912 of 1226
Page 913 of 1226
Page 914 of 1226
Page 915 of 1226
Page 916 of 1226
Page 917 of 1226
Page 918 of 1226
Page 919 of 1226
Page 920 of 1226
Page 921 of 1226
Page 922 of 1226
Page 923 of 1226
Page 924 of 1226
Page 925 of 1226
Page 926 of 1226
Page 927 of 1226
Page 928 of 1226
Page 929 of 1226
Page 930 of 1226
Page 931 of 1226
Page 932 of 1226
Page 933 of 1226
Page 934 of 1226
Page 935 of 1226
Page 936 of 1226
Page 937 of 1226
Page 938 of 1226
Page 939 of 1226
Page 940 of 1226
Page 941 of 1226
Page 942 of 1226
Page 943 of 1226
Page 944 of 1226
Page 945 of 1226
Page 946 of 1226
Page 947 of 1226
Page 948 of 1226
Page 949 of 1226
Page 950 of 1226
Page 951 of 1226
Page 952 of 1226
Page 953 of 1226
Page 954 of 1226
Page 955 of 1226
Page 956 of 1226
Page 957 of 1226
Page 958 of 1226
Page 959 of 1226
Page 960 of 1226
Page 961 of 1226
Page 962 of 1226
Page 963 of 1226
Page 964 of 1226
Page 965 of 1226
Page 966 of 1226
Page 967 of 1226
Page 968 of 1226
Page 969 of 1226
Page 970 of 1226
Page 971 of 1226
Page 972 of 1226
Page 973 of 1226
Page 974 of 1226
Page 975 of 1226
Page 976 of 1226
Page 977 of 1226
Page 978 of 1226
Page 979 of 1226
Page 980 of 1226
Page 981 of 1226
Page 982 of 1226
Page 983 of 1226
Page 984 of 1226
Page 985 of 1226
Page 986 of 1226
Page 987 of 1226
Page 988 of 1226
Page 989 of 1226
Page 990 of 1226
Page 991 of 1226
Page 992 of 1226
Page 993 of 1226
Page 994 of 1226
Page 995 of 1226
Page 996 of 1226
Page 997 of 1226
Page 998 of 1226
Page 999 of 1226
Page 1000 of 1226
Page 1001 of 1226
Page 1002 of 1226
Page 1003 of 1226
Page 1004 of 1226
Page 1005 of 1226
Page 1006 of 1226
Page 1007 of 1226
Page 1008 of 1226
Page 1009 of 1226
Page 1010 of 1226
Page 1011 of 1226
Page 1012 of 1226
Page 1013 of 1226
Page 1014 of 1226
Page 1015 of 1226
Page 1016 of 1226
Page 1017 of 1226
Page 1018 of 1226
Page 1019 of 1226
Page 1020 of 1226
Page 1021 of 1226
Page 1022 of 1226
Page 1023 of 1226
Page 1024 of 1226
Page 1025 of 1226
Page 1026 of 1226
Page 1027 of 1226
Page 1028 of 1226
Page 1029 of 1226
Page 1030 of 1226
Page 1031 of 1226
Page 1032 of 1226
Page 1033 of 1226
Page 1034 of 1226
Page 1035 of 1226
Page 1036 of 1226
Page 1037 of 1226
Page 1038 of 1226
Page 1039 of 1226
Page 1040 of 1226
Page 1041 of 1226
Page 1042 of 1226
Page 1043 of 1226
Page 1044 of 1226
Page 1045 of 1226
Page 1046 of 1226
Page 1047 of 1226
Page 1048 of 1226
Page 1049 of 1226
Page 1050 of 1226
Page 1051 of 1226
Page 1052 of 1226
Page 1053 of 1226
Page 1054 of 1226
Page 1055 of 1226
Page 1056 of 1226
Page 1057 of 1226
Page 1058 of 1226
Page 1059 of 1226
Page 1060 of 1226
Page 1061 of 1226
Page 1062 of 1226
Page 1063 of 1226
Page 1064 of 1226
Page 1065 of 1226
Page 1066 of 1226
Page 1067 of 1226
Page 1068 of 1226
Page 1069 of 1226
Page 1070 of 1226
Page 1071 of 1226
Page 1072 of 1226
Page 1073 of 1226
Page 1074 of 1226
Page 1075 of 1226
Page 1076 of 1226
Page 1077 of 1226
Page 1078 of 1226
Page 1079 of 1226
Page 1080 of 1226
Page 1081 of 1226
Page 1082 of 1226
Page 1083 of 1226
Page 1084 of 1226
Page 1085 of 1226
Page 1086 of 1226
Page 1087 of 1226
Page 1088 of 1226
Page 1089 of 1226
Page 1090 of 1226
Page 1091 of 1226
Page 1092 of 1226
Page 1093 of 1226
Page 1094 of 1226
Page 1095 of 1226
Page 1096 of 1226
Page 1097 of 1226
Page 1098 of 1226
Page 1099 of 1226
Page 1100 of 1226
Page 1101 of 1226
Page 1102 of 1226
Page 1103 of 1226
Page 1104 of 1226
Page 1105 of 1226
Page 1106 of 1226
Page 1107 of 1226
Page 1108 of 1226
Page 1109 of 1226
Page 1110 of 1226
Page 1111 of 1226
Page 1112 of 1226
Page 1113 of 1226
Page 1114 of 1226
Page 1115 of 1226
Page 1116 of 1226
Page 1117 of 1226
Page 1118 of 1226
Page 1119 of 1226
Page 1120 of 1226
Page 1121 of 1226
Page 1122 of 1226
Page 1123 of 1226
Page 1124 of 1226
Page 1125 of 1226
Page 1126 of 1226
Page 1127 of 1226
Page 1128 of 1226
Page 1129 of 1226
Page 1130 of 1226
Page 1131 of 1226
15618 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
July 25, 2024
Jack Galpin
Medford, Oregon 97504
Re: Assessment of Potential Groundwater Impacts to Shallow Wells
Proposed Sunnybrook Development
4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon
32-24007645
Dear Mr. Galpin:
This letter provides the results of an assessment of shallow wells in the vicinity of the proposed Sunnybrook
Development at 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon for Galpin Homes, LLC (Galpin). Apex Companies,
LLC (Apex) understands that the City of Central Point requires an evaluation of the potential for impacts to the water
levels in domestic wells near the development due to the installation of utilities within the subdivision. The results of
the assessment and an evaluation of potential impacts to groundwater elevations in the vicinity of the proposed
development of the Site are provided below.
SHALLOW WELL ASSESSMENT
Apex reviewed Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) online files to identify registered wells within 1,000
feet of the proposed Sunnybrook Development. Additionally, Apex reviewed the White Hawk Development – Well
Survey Results letter completed for the White Hawk Transit Oriented Development project (Apex, 2016). Sixteen
wells were identified as being potentially located within 1,000 feet of the proposed Sunnybrook Development. Table
1 summarizes the information on the identified wells, and Figure 2 shows approximate well locations by parcel.
Exact well locations have not been identified, and it is unknown how many of the wells are still in use. OWRD well
logs, where available, are included in Attachment A, and Attachment B includes the 2016 White Hawk Development
– Well Survey Results letter (Apex, 2016). Three wells were previously identified as potentially being within the
proposed Sunnybrook Development area; however, only one well has been located during pre-development surveys.
The well logs in the OWRD database suggest that, in the vicinity of the development, the soil consists of clay to
depths of 6 to 12 feet below ground surface (bgs) underlain by sand and gravel to at least 40 to 50 feet bgs in most
locations. The top of claystone, siltstone, or sandstone is present in many of the wells at depths ranging from 4 to 60
feet bgs.
Based on the information obtained from the OWRD well logs and the 2016 well survey for White Hawk development,
the completed well depths within the vicinity of the proposed development range from 10 to 50 feet bgs, where
known. The static water level at the time of drilling reported on the well logs ranges from 4 feet bgs in well 13
(JACK12241) to 41 feet bgs in well 6 (JACK52926), both located to the southwest of the property. At least three of
the well logs are for well deepening (well 6, well 9, and well 13), indicating that there is a long-term lowering in the
water table in the area and shallow static water levels reported at the time of drilling may no longer be representative
of site conditions. The depth to static water in wells drilled since 1990 ranges from 12 to 41 feet bgs and is likely
more representative of current conditions.
EXHIBIT "12"
Page 1132 of 1226
Jack Galpin, Galpin Homes, LLC July 25, 2024
Well Survey Results, Sunnybrook Development Page 2
15618 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTS DURING EXCAVATION AND UTILITY INSTALLATION
Depth to first encountered water for shallow wells in the area appears to be at least 12 feet bgs as described above.
Based on the OWRD well logs, it appears that most (if not all) of the wells are sealed to at least 9 feet bgs and are
accessing water below that depth.
During development, imported soil will be used to raise the existing grade by 3 to 4 feet. Based on development
plans provided by Galpin, utilities will be installed at a maximum depth of 9 feet below existing grade, and in many
cases at shallower depths. It is unlikely that the installation of utilities in the subdivision will intercept the water table.
In the unlikely event that groundwater is encountered, local groundwater levels could be impacted by the following:
Dewatering during construction;
Infiltration into drain lines; or
Longitudinal flow in trench backfill.
If dewatering is necessary during construction, the water table could be lowered locally and may impact the static
water levels in nearby water wells. This effect would be temporary, and conditions would be expected to return to
normal within a short period after completion of the dewatering activities.
Long-term, if the storm or sanitary lines leak, infiltration into the lines could potentially lower the water table in the
vicinity of the utilities to the base of the lines; however, this effect would likely extend only a few feet from the utility
trenches. This potential impact can be addressed through construction methodologies that meet industry
performance standards and city codes.
Given the native soil conditions (clay soils in the upper 6 to 12 feet), the trench backfill could potentially be more
permeable than the native soil in the areas where the native clay extends below the bottom depth of the utility
bedding. Depending on the depth to which the trench penetrates the water table, longitudinal flow could occur along
the trench alignment; however, the influence on the shallow water table would likely be limited to only a few feet
laterally from the utility trench.
POTENTIAL MITIGATION
The proposed Sunnybrook Development is not expected to impact groundwater levels in local wells, as excavation
and development plans provided by Galpin do not include depths that would likely be below the water table.
Additionally, the development will be provided with municipal water supply and sewer services and is not anticipated
to impact water availability. If installation does extend below the water table, low-permeability plugs can be used to
inhibit flow along the trench line. Assuming crushed rock is used for trench backfill, adding 5 percent (dry weight)
bentonite to the backfill would be sufficient to reduce the permeability of the backfill. The bentonite plugs should be
placed from the bottom of the trench to 1 foot above the water table in the full width of the trench with a minimum
length of 5 feet. A plug should be placed at the low end of each main sewer line.
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Tess Chadil Steve Misner, R.G.
Project Manager Senior Associate Hydrogeologist
Page 1133 of 1226
Jack Galpin, Galpin Homes, LLC July 25, 2024
Well Survey Results, Sunnybrook Development Page 3
15618 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
ATTACHMENTS
Table 1 – Galpin Homes Well Log Search
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Location of Wells Near Proposed Sunnybrook Development
Attachment A – OWRD Well Logs
Attachment B – White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results (Apex 2016)
REFERENCES
Apex Companies, LLC, 2016. White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results, Central Point, Oregon. November
16, 2016.
“Oregon Water Resources Department Well Report Query.” Well Report Query, Oregon Water Resources
Department, apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/gw/well_log/Default.aspx. Accessed 25 July 2024.
Page 1134 of 1226
Table 1. Galpin Homes Well Log Search
Proposed Sunnybrook Development
4613 Hamrick Road Central Point, Oregon
Map ID Location Tax Lot
Street
Number Street Owner Well Log # Well Depth
Date
Installed
Static
Water
Level
W-1 372W01 1100 4475 Hamrick Rd Muse
JACK 12222 60 1960 25
W-2 372W01 1100 4475 Hamrick Rd Muse
JACK 62111 45 2015 12
W-3 372W01 Unk. Unk. Unk. Gebhard JACK 34914 10 Pre 1948 7
W-4 372W01 2500 507 Beebe Rd Beebe JACK 52862 144 1998 12
W-5 372W02
Unk. Unk. Unk. Childress JACK 34915 14 1938 10
W-6 372W02 200 511 Beebe Rd Mingus
JACK52926 204 feet 1999 41
W-7 372W02 200 511 Beebe Rd Mingus JACK55868 2003 12
W-8 372W02 200 511 Beebe Rd Mingus
JACK52660 59 feet 1998 41
W-9 372W02 3100 600 Beebe Rd Shep. of Valley JACK 30394 90 1990 17
W-10 372W02 Unk. Unk. Beebe Rd Beebe JACK 12262 12 1966 9
W-11 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard Rd Himmelman JACK 33759 100 1994 22
W-12 372W02 2700 718 Beebe Rd Nixon JACK 12239 100 1989 28
W-13 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Rd Picollo JACK12241 60 feet 1983 4
W-14 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Rd Picollo n/a
12 feet Unk. 12
W-15 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Rd Picollo n/a
34 feet 1940 34
W-16 372W01 Unk. 4713 Hamrick Rd Houser JACK 12201 37 1963 12
Notes:
1. See Figure 1 for approximate well location
2. Static water level as measured at time of drilling
Shallow Wells Within 1,000 feet of Proposed Sunnybrook Development
Assessment of Potential Groundwater Impacts to Shallow Wells
Proposed Sunnybrook Development
32-24007645
Page 1 of 1
Page 1135 of 1226
Page 1136 of 1226
Page 1137 of 1226
Attachment A
OWRD Well Logs
Page 1138 of 1226
Page 1139 of 1226
Page 1140 of 1226
Page 1141 of 1226
Page 1142 of 1226
Page 1143 of 1226
Page 1144 of 1226
Page 1145 of 1226
Page 1146 of 1226
Page 1147 of 1226
Page 1148 of 1226
Page 1149 of 1226
Page 1150 of 1226
Page 1151 of 1226
WELL I.D. LABEL# L
START CARD #
Owner Well I.D.
First Name
Address
Zip
(1) LAND OWNER
New Well Deepening
Abandonment(complete 5a)
Conversion
(3) DRILL METHOD
Rotary Air Rotary Mud Cable Auger Cable Mud
OtherReverse Rotary
(4) PROPOSED USE Domestic Community
Industrial/ Commericial
Irrigation
Livestock Dewatering
StateCity
STATE OF OREGON
WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT
(as required by ORS 537.765 & OAR 690-205-0210)
Thermal Injection Other
(5) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION
Depth of Completed Well ft.
Explosives used: Yes Type Amount
SEAL
Material From To Amt
Other
Backfill placed from ft. to ft. Material
Filter pack from ft. to ft. Material
BORE HOLE
(Attach copy)
Dia From To
Special Standard
(6) CASING/LINER Dia
Shoe Inside Outside Location of shoe(s)
From To Gauge Stl Plstc Wld ThrdCasing Liner
(7) PERFORATIONS/SCREENSMethod
Type Material
Scrn/slot
widthToFrom
# of
slots
Tele/
pipe size
Casing/
Liner
Dia
(8) WELL TESTS: Minimum testing time is 1 hour
Yield gal/min Drawdown Drill stem/Pump depth Duration (hr)
Temperature °F Lab analysis
Water quality concerns?
Yes
From Yes (describe below)To Description
(9) LOCATION OF WELL (legal description)
Tax Lot
Lot
Twp Range E/W WM
Sec 1/4 1/4
Lat °'" or DMS or DD
Long °'" or DMS or DD
County N/S
of the
(10) STATIC WATER LEVEL
WATER BEARING ZONES
From To Est Flow SWL(psi)SWL Date
(11) WELL LOG Ground Elevation
Material To
CompletedDate Started
(unbonded) Water Well Constructor Certification
I certify that the work I performed on the construction, deepening, alteration,or
abandonment of this well is in compliance with Oregon water supply well
construction standards. Materials used and information reported above are true to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
License Number Date
Signed
(bonded) Water Well Constructor Certification
ORIGINAL - WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
THIS REPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF WORK
Depth water was first found
Temp casing Yes From To
Screen
Dia
Other
Tax Map Number
I accept responsibility for the construction, deepening, alteration, or abandonment
work performed on this well during the construction dates reported above. All work
performed during this time is in compliance with Oregon water supply well
construction standards. This report is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
License Number Date
Signed
Existing Well / Pre-Alteration
Completed Well
From
Company
Last Name
E D C B AMethodHow was seal placed:
Perf/
Screen
Date SWL(psi)
By
Amount Units
sacks/
lbs
Slot
length
Perforations
Screens
SWL(ft)
SWL(ft)
Size
Contact Info (optional)
Flowing Artesian?
(2a) PRE-ALTERATION
Alteration (complete 2a & 10)
(2) TYPE OF WORK
To sacks/lbsAmtFromMaterial
(5a) ABANDONMENT USING UNHYDRATED BENTONITE
Proposed Amount
From Dia
TDS amount
Casing:
Seal:
ORIGINAL LOG #
Actual Amount
Street address of well Nearest address
Pump Bailer Air Flowing Artesian
Dry Hole?
Form Version:
ThrdWldPlstcStlGaugeTo
Calculated
Calculated
Page 1 of 2
115720
1026408
GLADYS MUSE
4475 HAMMRICK RD
CENTRAL POINT OR 97502
45.00
125/14/2015
5/14/2015 5/14/2015
1798 5/14/2015
62111JACK
5/14/2015
GARY NEWMAN (E-filed)
Southern Oregon Well Drilling 541-772-1177
JACKSON 12222
UNDISTURBED
JACKSON 37.00 S 2.00 W
1 SW NW 1100
4475 HAMMRICK RD CENTRAL POINT OREGON 97502
6 0 60
Page 1152 of 1226
WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT -
continuation page
(6) CASING/LINER
(7) PERFORATIONS/SCREENS
(8) WELL TESTS: Minimum testing time is 1 hour
(10) STATIC WATER LEVEL
ThrdWldPlstcStlGaugeToFrom+ DiaCasing Liner
Material ToFrom
Comments/Remarks
BORE HOLE
Dia From To
Water Quality Concerns
Yield gal/min Drawdown Drill stem/Pump depth Duration (hr)
SEAL
Material From To Amt
sacks/
lbs
From To Description Amount Units
FILTER PACK
From To Material Size
SWL(ft)SWL(psi)Est FlowToFromSWL Date
(11) WELL LOG
(5) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION
(2a) PRE-ALTERATION
Perf/
Screen
Casing/
Liner
Screen
Dia From To
Scrn/slot
width
Slot
length
# of
slots
Tele/
pipe size
From Dia ThrdWldPlstcStlGaugeTo
WELL I.D. LABEL# L
START CARD #
ORIGINAL LOG #
To sacks/lbsAmtFromMaterial
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Extended casing by three feet. Casing is now approx eighteen inches above
ground level. We placed five sacks of Bentonite chips around the extended
casing.
5/14/2015
62111JACK
12222JACKSON
Page 2 of 2
Page 1153 of 1226
Attachment B
White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results (Apex 2016)
Page 1154 of 1226
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
November 16, 2016
John Boyd
People’s Bank of Commerce
1311 East Barnett Rd.
Medford, Oregon 97504
Re: White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results
718 Beebe Road
Central Point, Oregon
2251-00
Dear Mr. Boyd:
This letter provides the results of a well survey conducted in the vicinity of the proposed White Hawk Development
and updates the evaluation of the potential for impacts to the water levels in wells near the development due to the
installation of a proposed storm drain line along Gebhard Road. A preliminary evaluation was provided in a letter to
you dated August 24, 2015. Subsequent to that letter, the City of Central Point requested that a survey be performed
to identify domestic well owners in the vicinity of the development and, where possible, the construction of the wells
(e.g., depth, use, screened interval if screened, etc.) to further evaluate the potential for negative impacts to water
levels in wells located within the White Hawk transit oriented development (TOD) from the proposed construction of
the storm drain line. The survey was completed between December 2015 and April 2016. The results of the survey
and an updated evaluation on the potential impacts of the storm drain line on wells identified in the White Hawk TOD
are provided below.
WELL SURVEY
A well survey form was sent to the residents located within the White Hawk TOD; Attachment A shows the
boundaries and tax lots within the White Hawk TOD. Well surveys were sent to owners of the 31 tax lots within the
White Hawk TOD. The well survey was sent at least two times to each tax lot owner; 11 completed surveys were
returned to Apex. Attachment B includes copies of the completed surveys. Table 1 summarizes the results of the
survey; two surveys were for property outside of the TOD and were not included on Table 1. Results of the well
survey indicated the presence of six wells on five tax lots within the TOD. The location of these wells and the
reported depth of the well is shown on Figure 1. Where information on the exact location of the well is not available,
the location is approximated by placing it in the center of the tax lot for which the information was obtained.
In addition, Apex reviewed Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) online files to identify registered wells in
the TOD. Ten well logs for wells located on 6 parcels within the TOD were identified. Attachment C contains the
identified well logs and Table 2 summarizes the information on the identified wells, by parcel. Two of the parcels1
with well logs registered by OWRD sent in completed well surveys; the other well logs provided additional
information. Additionally, shown on Figure 1 are the locations of wells identified in a report prepared by
Don Haggerty, PhD in February 20002.
1 Dino Picollo, parcel 28 and Charlotte Holder, parcel 15; see Table 1.
2 Haggerty 2000. Report on Groundwater in the Vicinity of Beebe Rd., Jackson County, Oregon. February 28, 2000.
Page 1155 of 1226
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016
Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 2
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
It is unknown how many of the wells identified in the OWRD database or in the Haggarty report are still in use as only
two property owners3 with wells identified in the OWRD database and/or the Haggerty report sent back completed
well surveys (parcel owners were sent water well surveys in December 2015, January 2016, and/or March 2017).
Additionally, the Haggerty report indicated 3 wells to be present on parcel number 15, but the completed well survey
for this parcel indicated just one 50-foot deepwell. Figure 1 shows the updated information from the well survey.
Based on the information obtained from the well searches:
At least six wells are in use in the White Hawk TOD based on the well survey results; the well depths
range from 12 to 50 feet, where known.
An additional 5 to 8 wells were identified from the OWRD w ell log database. Of these, all but two are
sealed from ground surface to 20 feet or more. Additionally, the Himmelman well at parcel 30 appears
to be 100 feet deep and sealed to 35 feet.
It is unclear whether the additional wells identified in the OWRD database are still in use.
The well logs in the OWRD database suggest that, in the vicinity of the development, the soil consists
of clay to depths of 8 to 12 feet below grade, underlain be sand and gravel to at least 40 to 50 feet in
most locations.
Figure 1 shows that most of the wells are more than 100 feet from the proposed stormdrain line to be installed
beneath Gebhard Road. However, wells are reported at parcels 3, 5, and 6 (see Figure 1) and the location of the
wells are not known so the wells could be closer to the proposed utility.
EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTS DURING STORM AND SANITARY LINE INSTALLATION
Depth to first encountered water for shallow wells in the area appears to be about 9 feet below grade, but was
historically reported as shallow as 4 feet below grade in some areas. Based on the OWRD well logs, it appears that
most (if not all) of the wells are sealed to at least 9 feet below grade and are accessing water below that depth. The
proposed storm and sanitary lines may be installed to depths of up to 10 to 12 feet and therefore, may intercept the
water table in some areas. Based on this information, installation of the storm and/or sanitary lines could impact
groundwater levels (and thereby impact the nearby water wells) from the following:
Dewatering during construction;
Infiltration into sewer lines; or
Longitudinal flow in trench backfill.
If dewatering is necessary during construction, the water table would be lowered and these effects could extend to
nearby water wells. This effect would be temporary and conditions would be expected to return to normal within a
short period after completion of the work.
Long-term, if the storm or sanitary lines leak, infiltration into the lines could permanently lower the water table in the
vicinity of the utilities to the base of the lines; however, this effect would likely extend only a few feet from the utility
trench. This potential impact is addressed by quality control during construction to assure the utility lines are installed
in alignment, seals are in place, intact and tested, proper pipe bedding is used, and trench backfill is properly
compacted. These conditions assure the lines have a tight seal and meet the required performance standards prior
to acceptance by the City.
3 Dino Picollo, parcel 28 and Charlotte Holder, parcel 15; see Table 1.
Page 1156 of 1226
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016
Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 3
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
If trench backfill is more permeable than native soil, water could flow longitudinally along the trench and discharge to
surface water, permanently lowering the water table in the vicinity of the trench. Given the native soil conditions (clay
soils in the upper 8 to 12 feet), it is possible that the trench backfill could be more permeable than the native soil in
the areas where the native clay extends below the bottom depth of the utility bedding. Depending on the depth to
which the trench penetrates the water table, longitudinal flow could occur; however, the influence on the shallow
water table would likely extend only a few feet laterally from the utility trench. This localized depression in the water
table caused by the trench could be addressed by installing low-permeability plugs at intervals in the trench backfill.
Given that dewatering of local wells was reported after a drain trench was installed in Beebe Road in 1998, it is
recommended that low permeability trench plugs be installed in future utility trenches dug for the project.
MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION AND MITIGATION OPTIONS
The potential impact of the installation and presence of the proposed storm and sanitary lines was performed in 2015
and is updated herein based on the updated well information obtained from the wells survey:
Up to 21 wells may be located in the vicinity of the proposed project; it is unclear how many of these
wells are still in use, however, at least three wells that are likely in use appear to be located within
100 feet of the proposed installation along Gebhard Road. The proposed utility installation is not
expected to impact two of these wells because the wells are 35 and 140 feet deep and access water
well below the depth of utility installation. The third well, located on parcel 3 (Figure 1) is of unknown
depth. It is also unlikely that the utility installation will impact this well because the utility installations
will penetrate only a few feet into the water table, if at all, at this location.
A 12-foot depth well is reportedly located on parcel 28 that may be within 100 feet of proposed storm
and sewer lines to be installed along the eastern development boundary (Figure 1). There is the
potential that this well could be impacted by the utility installation, if the line extends into the water table
at this location.
Wells located further than 100 feet from the installation would not be anticipated to be impacted by the
utility installation.
It is also noted that three wells have been deepened over a period of 16 years, indicating that there is a
long-term reduction in water level in the area.
The following presents mitigation options to address potential concerns:
Prior to construction of the storm drain line proposed to be placed along Gebhard Road, verify the
depth of the well located on parcel 3 and, if the well is less than a total depth of 15 feet, monitor water
levels in that well during construction.
Prior to construction of storm or sewer lines tie-ins to the existing storm or sewer lines beneath Beebe
Road, verify the presence of wells located on parcel 10 identified in the Haggerty report that may be
located within 100 feet of the tie-ins and are reported to be shallower than 15 feet in depth. If these
wells are still present and in use, monitor the water levels during the construction.
If installation does penetrate the water table, low-permeability plugs can be used to inhibit flow along
the trench line. Assuming crushed rock is used for trench backfill, adding 5 percent (dry weight)
bentonite to the backfill is sufficient to reduce the permeability of the backfill. The plugs should be
placed from the bottom of the trench to 1 foot above the water table the full width of the trench and have
a minimum length of 5 feet. A plug should be placed at the low end of each main sewer line.
In areas where the lines are installed below the water table, particular care needs to be taken to ensure
that the lines have a tight seal.
Page 1157 of 1226
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016
Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 4
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Amanda Spencer, R.G.
Principal Hydrogeologist
ATTACHMENTS
Table 1 – Summary of Well Survey Results
Table 2 – OWRD Well Survey Results
Figure 1 – Location of Wells in the White Hawk TOD
Attachment A – White Hawk TOD
Attachment B – Completed Surveys
Attachment C – OWRD Well Logs for Wells Within the TOD
cc:Matt Samitore, City of Central Point
Page 1158 of 1226
Parcel
Index MAP TAX LOT Site Num Site St Owner
Owner Address
(if different from Site
Address)
Date Survey sent Survey
Returned?
Well?Well Depth Date Installed Notes
1 372W02 400
6026 Palmero Cir
Cameron Park, CA 95682 Survey sent 12/15
12/22/2015
1/25/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
2 372W02 500
10 S Oakdale Ave
Medford, OR 97501 Survey sent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
3 372W02 2500 4757 Gebhard Karen and Randall Wales Survey sent 12/15 12/28/2015 Y unknown unknown domestic use and yard/gardening
4 372W02 600
1355 Cora Ln
Auburn, CA 95603 Survey sent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
5 372W02 2601 4617 Gebhard David & Julie Webb Survey sent 12/15 12/30/2015 Y 35 feet bgs 1930?
domestic use and
yard/gardening/orchard
6 372W02 2600 4613 Gebhard Sergio Mejia
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Survey not completed but OWRD well
log found dated 5/4/2012 for a 140 foot
well
7 372W02 2602 4603 Gebhard William Jeshke
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
8 372W02D 501
PO Box 996
Medford, OR 97501
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N Undeveloped land
10 372W02D 300 587 Beebe Ken Beebe?
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but 3
OWRD well logs identified - See Table 2
11 372W02D 200 511 Beebe Mingus Survey sent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but 3
OWRD well logs identified - See Table 2
12 372W01C 2500 507 Beebe Terry & Harley Callahan
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
13 372W01C 2400 495 Beebe James and Michelle Nistler
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
14 372W01C 2300 477 Beebe Michelle Nistler
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
15 372W01C 2301 445 Beebe Charlotte Holder
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 1/11/2016 Y 50 feet 1998
lawn, gardening, watering orchard, fire
abatement
16 372W01C 2200 443 Beebe Rita Deann Tyner
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
17 372W01C 1700 4511 Hamrick James Sutton
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
18 372W01C 1800 4497 Hamrick Nick Kenneth Lee
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
19 372W01CB 1100 4475 Hamrick Gladys Muse
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
20 372W01CB 1000 4461 Hamrick Richard Smith
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF WELL SURVEY RESULTS
No Address
No Address
No Address
No Address
Page 1159 of 1226
21 372W01CB 900 4439 Hamrick Humphrey&Windsor LLC
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
22 372W01BC 10100 446 Beebe Survey sent 3/3/16 N
23 372W01BC 10200 444 Beebe Survey sent 3/3/16 N
24 372W01BC 10000 4615 Hamrick Edic Sliva
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
25 372W01BC 9800 4630 Hamrick CA Galpin
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
26 372W01BC 9900 456 Beebe Picollo LLC
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
27 372W02 3100 600 Beebe
Shepherd of the Valley
Catholic Church
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but
OWRD well log identified - See Table 2
28 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Dino Picollo Survey sent 12/15 12/23/2015 2 wells
1 - 12 feet
2 - 34 feet
1 - Unknown
2 - 1940ish
one well at back of lot used for
irrigation;
second well shared with 523 Beebe for
domestic and irrigation
OWRD well log from 2/17/1983 for a 60
foot well - see Table 2
30 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard
Steve & Carolyn
Himmelman Survey sent 12/15 1/5/2016 Y 15 feet unknown
hand dug well
domestic use/irrigation/stock watering
OWRD well log found from 10/11/1994
for a 100 foot well
31 372W02AA 2800 4920 Gebhard Survey sent 3/3/16 N
Note: yellow highlighted: surveys were returned because the post office could not deliver
Page 1160 of 1226
Parcel
Index MAP TAX LOT Site Num Site St Owner
Well Log #Well Depth Date Installed Notes
1 372W02 400 None NA NA
2 372W02 500 None NA NA
3 372W02 2500 4757 Gebhard None unknown unknown
domestic use and yard/gardening well onsite
based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
4 372W02 600 None NA NA
5 372W02 2601 4617 Gebhard None 35 feet bgs 1930?
domestic use and yard/gardening/orchard well
onsite based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
6 372W02 2600 4613 Gebhard Sergio Mejia JACK61181 140 feet 5/4/2012
sealed from 0 to 50 feet below grade; screened
from 50 to 140 feet below grade
7 372W02 2602 4603 Gebhard William Jeshke None
8 372W02D 501 None
10 372W02D 300 587 Beebe Ken Beebe?
JACK12262
JACK12264
JACK12261
12 feet
66.5 feet
13 feet
1965 and 1966
sealed 0 to 9 feet
sealed 0 to 20 feet
sealed 0 to 9 feet
11 372W02D 200 511 Beebe Mingus
JACK52926
JACK55868
JACK52660
204 feet
56 feet
59 feet
1999
2003
1998
sealed 0 to 59?
Sealed 0 to 27 feet
sealed 0 to 20 feet
12 372W01C 2500 507 Beebe Terry & Harley Callahan None
13 372W01C 2400 495 Beebe
James and Michelle Nistler None
14 372W01C 2300 477 Beebe Michelle Nistler None
15 372W01C 2301 445 Beebe Charlotte Holder None 50 feet 1998
lawn, gardening, watering orchard, fire abatement
well onsite based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
16 372W01C 2200 443 Beebe Rita Deann Tyner None
17 372W01C 1700 4511 Hamrick James Sutton None
18 372W01C 1800 4497 Hamrick Nick Kenneth Lee None
19 372W01CB 1100 4475 Hamrick Gladys Muse None
20 372W01CB 1000 4461 Hamrick Richard Smith None
21 372W01CB 900 4439 Hamrick Humphrey&Windsor LLC None
22 372W01BC 10100 446 Beebe None
23 372W01BC 10200 444 Beebe None
24 372W01BC 10000 4615 Hamrick Edic Sliva None
25 372W01BC 9800 4630 Hamrick CA Galpin None
26 372W01BC 9900 456 Beebe Picollo LLC None
TABLE 2: OWRD SURVEY RESULTS
No Address
No Address
No Address
No Address
Page 1161 of 1226
27 372W02 3100 600 Beebe
Shepherd of the Valley
Catholic Church JACK30394 90 feet 1990 Deepening of an existing well from 68 to 90 feet
28 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Dino Picollo JACK12241 60 feet 1983
Deepening of an existing well from 35 feet to 60
feet. Sealed from 0 to 35 feet.
30 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard Steve Himmelman JACK33759 100 feet 1994 sealed 0 to 35 feet
31 372W02AA 2800 4920 Gebhard None
Page 1162 of 1226
[15']
[UNK]
[14'][13']
[66.5']
[56']
[59']
[50'][12']
[35']
[140']
[12']
[34']
[90']
[45']
[13']
[11.5']
[UNK]
[97']
[UNK][23'][15']
[204']
[97']
B1 B2
M1 R1 S1
G1
T1G3
F1
C1
F2
F3
R2
M2
Base map prepared from a Well Notiofication Area figure by CES NW (12/01/2105).I
Water Well (Based on Returned Survey; Location Approximate)
Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Database Well Location
Water Well (Based on February 2000 Haggerty Report and/or OWRD Database; Existence Not Confirmed)
Depth of Well (UNK = Unknown Depth)0 500
Approximate Scale in Feet
1,000[35']
B1
Page 1163 of 1226
White Hawk TOD
Page 1164 of 1226
OF
SHEET
1
1
BEEBE ROAD
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
171819
20
21
2223
24
25
2627
28
29
30
31
32
Page 1165 of 1226
Completed Surveys
Page 1166 of 1226
Page 1167 of 1226
Page 1168 of 1226
Page 1169 of 1226
Page 1170 of 1226
Page 1171 of 1226
Page 1172 of 1226
Page 1173 of 1226
Page 1174 of 1226
Page 1175 of 1226
Page 1176 of 1226
Page 1177 of 1226
OWRD Well Logs for Wells Within the TOD
Page 1178 of 1226
Page 1179 of 1226
Page 1180 of 1226
Page 1181 of 1226
Page 1182 of 1226
Page 1183 of 1226
Page 1184 of 1226
Page 1185 of 1226
Page 1186 of 1226
Page 1187 of 1226
Page 1188 of 1226
Page 1189 of 1226
PLANNING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
File No.: SUB-25001
Before the City of Central Point Planning Commission
Consideration of a Tentative Plan for the Gebhard Village Subdivision
Applicant:) Findings of Fact
Lowman Revocable Trust ) and
4462 Coal Mine Road ) Conclusions of Law
Medford OR 97504 )
PART 1
INTRODUCTION
The applicant submitted a tentative plan application (Type III) for the Gebhard Village Subdivision to
subdivide 8.18 acres into 67 lots with a total of 78 units (“Application”). The property is located within
the Medium Mix Residential (MMR) zoning district in the Eastside Transit Oriented Development
(ETOD) Overlay.
A subdivision tentative plan is reviewed as a Type III application. Type III applications are reviewed in
accordance with procedures provided in Section 17.05.400, which provides the basis for decisions upon
standards and criteria in the development code and the comprehensive plan, when appropriate.
The standards and criteria for the proposal are set forth in CPMC Title 16, Subdivisions, and Chapter
17.66, Application Review Process for the TOD Overlay. The following findings address each of the
standards and criteria as applies to the subdivision tentative plan.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project site is along Gebhard Road in the western portion of the ETOD. The abutting property in the
ETOD to the south is under development as the Willow Bend Subdivision, formerly known as White
Hawk. The property to the northeast is developed with single-family residences in the R-3 zoning district.
The properties to the southeast, within the ETOD, and to the west across Gebhard Road are undeveloped.
The proposed density of 14 units per acre is consistent with the minimum/maximum range for density in
the MMR zoning district. Access to the proposed development will be provided to Gebhard Road by
Denson Street, established as part of the Willow Bend development, and two (2) new public street
connections. Connectivity and circulation within Gebhard Village and throughout the ETOD will be
provided by connections to Willow Bend, new internal streets and alleyways.
Page 1190 of 1226
Figure 1. Tentative Plan Cover Sheet
Page 1191 of 1226
Figure 2. Grading and Drainage Plan
Page 1192 of 1226
Figure 3. Utility Plan
Page 1193 of 1226
Figure 4. Tentative Plan
Page 1194 of 1226
PART 2
SUBDIVISIONS
Title 16 of the Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) establishes standards and criteria for land
division applications including tentative plans and final plats. The sections of CPMC 16 applicable to
the Application are:
Chapter 16.10 - Tentative Plans.
CPMC 16.10.010 Submission of application – Filing fee.
The applicant shall submit an application and tentative plan together with improvement plans and other
supplementary material as may be required to indicate the development plan and shall submit ten copies
to the city together with a filing fee defined in the city’s adopted planning application fee schedule. The
diagrams submitted shall consist of three copies at the scale specified in Section 16.10.020 and one copy
in an eight-and-one-half-inch by eleven-inch format.
Finding CPMC 16.10.010: The applicant submitted the tentative plan application along with the required
$4,700 application fee on January 23, 2025. The submittal was reviewed and accepted as complete on
March 3, 2025 for review in accordance with the submittal requirements in CPMC 16.10, CPMC 17.05,
and CPMC 17.66.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.010: Consistent.
CPMC 16.10.015 Application and review--Fees.
Applications and review thereof shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 17.05 and all applicable city
ordinances and laws of the state. All costs of administrative and legal staff time costs, plans checks,
construction inspection, preparation of agreements, in excess of the filing fee, shall be borne by the
applicant and paid upon billing by city. Failure to pay such costs as billed shall constitute grounds for
denial of final plat approval or building permits.
Finding CPMC 16.10.015: See Finding CPMC 16.10.010.
Conclusion: 16.10.015: Consistent.
CPMC 16.10.020 Scale.
The tentative plan shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen by twenty-four inches in size or a multiple thereof at
a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet or, for areas over one hundred acres, one inch equals two
hundred feet, and shall be clearly and legibly reproduced.
Finding CPMC 16.10.020: The tentative plan is drawn on a sheet that is twenty-four inches by thirty-six
inches and at a scale of one-inch equals fifty feet, which is clearly and legibly produced relative to the
project area.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.020: Consistent.
Page 1195 of 1226
CPMC 16.10.030 General information.
The following general information shall be shown on or included with the tentative plan:
A. Proposed name of the subdivision. This name must not duplicate or resemble the name of another
subdivision in the county;
Finding CPMC 16.10.030(A): The proposed subdivision is named “Gebhard Village” The proposed
name must be unique relative to other approved land divisions in Jackson County. As a condition of
approval, the applicant is required to submit a subdivision plat name approval from the Jackson County
Surveyor.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.030(A): Complies as conditioned.
B. Date, north point, and scale of drawing;
Finding CPMC 16.10.030(B): The tentative plan was drawn on January 23, 2025 and includes the scale
and north arrow.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.030(B): Consistent.
C. Location of the subdivision by section, township, and range, and a legal description sufficient to
define the location and boundaries of the proposed tract or the tract designation or other
description according to the records of the county assessor;
Finding CPMC 16.10.030(C): Figure 1 provides a site Vicinity Map and Figure 2 provides
the section, township and range (37 2W 02AA, Tax Lot 2800). Combined with the legal description
submitted with the application, these items define the location and boundaries of the project site.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.030(C): Consistent.
D. Names and addresses of the owner or owners, applicant and engineer or surveyor;
Finding CPMC 16.10.030(D): The applicant is listed on the tentative plan (Figure 5) as Lowman
Revocable Trust and the surveyor is listed as Neathamer Surveyor, Inc out of Medford, Oregon.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.030(D): Consistent.
E. A title report indicating all interests of record in the property which is the subject of the
application.
Finding CPMC 16.10.030(E): A title report prepared by First American Title on January 30, 2025 was
provided with the application.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.030(E): Consistent.
Page 1196 of 1226
CPMC 16.10.040 Existing conditions.
The following existing conditions shall be shown on the tentative plan:
A. The location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or
adjacent to the tract, easements, railroad rights-of-way and such other important features within or
adjacent to the tract as may be required by the city;
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(A): The tentative plat illustrates the location and width of Gebhard Road,
which is west of and adjacent to the project site, and Denson Street, which is south of and adjacent to the
project site. There are no other existing easements or rights-of-way within or adjacent to the tract.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(A): Consistent.
B. Contour lines related to some established bench mark or other datum as approved by the city when
the city determines that the nature of the topography or size of the subdivision requires such data.
Contour lines shall have the following minimum intervals:
1. Two-foot contour intervals for ground slopes less than five percent;
2. Five-foot contour intervals for ground slopes exceeding five percent;
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(B): Figure 2 includes topographic information at two-foot contour intervals.
The slope of the property is less than five percent.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(B): Consistent.
C. The location of at least one temporary bench mark within the plat boundaries;
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(C): The tentative plat submittal provides the basis of survey including the
bearings and elevations.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(C): Consistent.
D. Location and direction of all watercourses and drainage systems;
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(D): There is an existing drainage ditch on the project site and an existing 42-
inch storm drain line within Denson Street right-of-way to the south. Figure 3 provides location of
existing and proposed drainage systems. There are no watercourses on or immediately adjacent to the
project site.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(D): Consistent.
E. Natural features, such as rock outcroppings, marshes and wooded areas;
Page 1197 of 1226
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(E): The project site is currently undeveloped. Per staff site visits and aerial
imagery, the project site contains some vegetation including a few mature trees, but it primarily consists
of a flat, open grass field. There are no rock outcroppings or wetland areas on the project site.
Conclusion 16.10.040(E): Consistent.
F. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures which the subdivider
proposes to leave on the property after platting;
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(F): The property is currently undeveloped and there are no structures for
removal as part of the proposed subdivision.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(F): Not applicable.
G. The location within the subdivision and in the adjoining streets and property of existing sewers
and water mains, culverts and drain pipes, and all other existing or proposed utilities to be used on
the property to be subdivided and invert elevations of sewers at points of probable connections;
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(G): The Applicant’s Findings identify the location of existing infrastructure
adjacent to the subject property relative to existing conditions.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(G): Consistent.
H. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(H): Zoning designations on the project site and adjacent properties are
denoted on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1).
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(H): Consistent.
CPMC 16.10.050 Additional information.
The following additional information shall also be included on the tentative plan:
A. Streets, showing location, width, proposed names, approximate grades and approximate radii of
curves and the relationship of all streets to any projected streets as shown of any development plan
adopted by the city;
Finding CPMC 16.10.050(A): The proposed tentative plan (Figure 5) identifies proposed internal streets,
including their location and width. As shown on the tentative plan, the project proposes to align the
streets with the streets developed as part of Willow Bend to the south.
Condition CPMC 16.10.050(A): Consistent.
B. Easements, showing the width and purpose;
Page 1198 of 1226
Finding CPMC 16.10.050(B): As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), a 10-ft Public Utility Easement
(PUE) is proposed along the frontage of all proposed lots consistent with the Public Works Standards.
No other easements are proposed on the project site.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.050(B): Consistent.
C. Lots, showing approximate dimensions, area of smallest lot or lots and utility easements and
building setback lines to be proposed, if any;
Finding CPMC 16.10.050(C): Public utility easements and approximate dimensions of each proposed lot
are shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5).
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.050(C): Consistent.
D. Sites, if any, proposed for purposes other than dwellings;
Finding CPMC 16.10.050(D): As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), an open space area and
stormwater tract are proposed and centrally located within the development.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.050(D): Consistent.
E. Area in square footage of each lot and the average lot area.
Finding CPMC 16.10.050(E): The lot area for the each of the proposed lots is provided on the tentative
plan (Figure 5).
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.050(E): Consistent.
CPMC 16.10.060 Partial development.
When the property to be subdivided contains only part of the tract owned or controlled by the applicant,
the city may require a development plan of a layout for streets, numbered lots, blocks, phases of
development, and other improvements in the undivided portion, indicating inter-relationship with the
portion sought to be divided. The city shall have authority to require that any adjacent parcel or parcels
owned or controlled by the applicant but not included in the proposed subdivision boundaries be included
in the development whenever inclusion of such parcel or parcels would be an appropriate extension of the
development and in the best interests of the public, considering the development plan and the relationship
between the surrounding area and the area of proposed development.
Finding CPMC 16.10.060: The project site is approximately 8.18 acres and the proposed subdivision,
including individual lots, streets and other improvements, will occupy the subject property in its entirety.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.060: Not Applicable.
16.10.070 Explanatory information.
Any of the following information may be required by the city and, if it cannot be shown practicably on the
tentative plan, it shall be submitted in separate statements accompanying the tentative plan:
Page 1199 of 1226
A. A vicinity map showing all existing subdivisions, streets and un-subdivided land ownerships
adjacent to the proposed subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be connected to
existing streets;
Finding CPMC 16.10.070(A): As shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1), the proposed subdivision is
adjacent to the Willow Bend subdivision to the south and the Green Valley Subdivision to the north and
northeast. Figure 5 shows how the proposed streets will connect within the ETOD and the existing Willow
Bend development to the south. Green Valley Subdivision is outside the ETOD and no connections are
planned between the developments.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.070(A): Consistent.
B. Proposed deed restrictions in outline form;
Finding CPMC 16.10.070(B): The project site is located in the ETOD and the Master Plan application
(MP-25001) acknowledges the presence of active farm uses nearby. As a condition of approval, the
applicant will be required to record a right-to-farm disclosure prior to final plat.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.070(B): Complies as conditioned.
C. Approximate centerline profiles showing the proposed finished grade of all streets, including the
extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision;
Finding CPMC 16.10.700(C): Street profiles are not provided with the tentative plan application. The
Public Works Staff Report dated March 14, 2025 requires that the applicant comply with all Public Works
requirements prior to final plat to ensure the streets are completed in accordance with current standards.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.070(C): Complies as conditioned.
D. The approximate location and size of all proposed and existing water and sewer lines and storm
drainage systems.
Finding CPMC 16.10.070(D): The approximate location of existing and proposed water, sanitary sewer
and storm drainage systems are included with the tentative plan application. As required by the Public
Works Staff Report dated March 14, 2025, civil improvement plans that are designed in conformance with
City Standard Specification and Uniform Details for Construction, including the location of proposed
utilities and protection of all existing public facilities. These plans are reviewed by the City Engineer
prior to construction on site. Prior to final plat, the location of utilities must be shown on as-built
drawings and final installation verified by the engineer of record. Conditions from Rogue Valley Sewer
Services requires that the applicant comply with all RVSS requirements prior to construction to ensure
the sewer facilities are completed in accordance with current standards.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.070(D): Complies as conditioned.
CPMC 16.10.080 Tentative plan approval.
Page 1200 of 1226
A. Approval of the tentative plan shall not constitute final acceptance of the final plat of the proposed
subdivision or partition for recording; however, approval of the tentative plan shall be binding
upon city for the purpose of the approval of the final plat if the final plat is in substantial
compliance with the tentative plan and any conditions of approval thereof. A tentative plan
approval shall expire and become void one year from the date on which it was issued unless the
final plat has been approved pursuant to Chapter 16.12 or an application for extension is filed and
approved subject to the requirements of Section 16.10.100 and Chapter 17.05.
B. When it is the intent to develop a tentative plan and record a final plat in phases, the city, at the
time of tentative plat approval, may authorize a time schedule for platting the various phases in
periods exceeding one year, but in no case shall the total time period for platting all phases be
greater than five years without review of the tentative plan for compliance with the current code
and comprehensive plan. Each phase so platted shall conform to the applicable requirements of
this chapter. Phases platted after the passage of one year from approval of the tentative plan will
be required to modify the tentative plan as necessary to avoid conflicts with changes in the
comprehensive plan or this chapter.
Finding CPMC 16.10.080: Upon receipt of a final plat application within the required time limitation per
CPMC 16.12 or CPMC 16.10.100 and 17.05, the City will evaluate the final plat application to assure
that the final plat is substantially compliant with the tentative plan and that all conditions have been met.
The Applicant’s Findings propose the final plat and development will be constructed in two (2) phases
and will be completed within five (5) years.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.080: Consistent.
CPMC 16.10.090 Conditions on tentative plan approval.
The city may attach to any tentative plan approval given under this chapter specific conditions deemed
necessary in the interests of the public health, safety or welfare, including but not limited to the following:
A. Construction and installation of any on-site or off-site improvements, including but not limited to
sidewalks, curbs, gutters, streets, street signs and street lights, traffic control signs and signals,
water, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and park and recreation improvements. In requiring off-site
improvements, the city shall find that said improvements are reasonably related to the
development and would serve a public purpose such as mitigating negative impacts of the
proposed development.
B. All improvements required under this subsection shall be made at the expense of the applicant, and
shall conform to the provisions of the Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for
Public Works Construction in the City of Central Point, Oregon, however, the city, in its
discretion, may modify such standards and determine site-specific design, engineering and
construction specifications when appropriate in the particular development;
C. An agreement by the owner of the property to waive, on his or her behalf, and on behalf of all
future owners of the land, any objection to the formation of a local improvement district which
may be formed in the future to provide any of the improvements specified in subsection A of this
section;
Page 1201 of 1226
D. An agreement by the owner of the property to enter into a written deferred improvement
agreement, providing that one or more of the improvements specified in subsection A of this
section shall be made by the owner at some future time to be determined by the city;
E. Any agreement entered into pursuant to subsections B or C of this section shall be recorded in the
county recorder’s office and shall be intended to thereafter run with the land, so as to bind future
owners of the lands affected. Any and all recording costs shall be borne by the applicant;
F. Any other conditions deemed by the city to be reasonable and necessary in the interests of the
public health, safety or welfare.
Finding CPMC 16.10.090: Conditions of approval attached to the tentative plan include providing
improvements that are in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare that include sidewalks,
curbs, gutters, streets, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, water, park and recreation improvements.
Required improvements are related to the development and, as noted in the Parks and Public Works Staff
Report, dated March 14, 2025, are required to conform to City of Central Point Standard Specifications
and Uniform Details for Public Works Construction. Standards have not been modified for the proposed
development and the proposal does not include agreement for local improvement districts nor deferred
improvements. Conditions of Approval are listed in the Planning Department Staff Report, dated April 1,
2025.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.090: Consistent.
Chapter 16.20, Streets and Other Ways – Design Standards.
CPMC 16.20.010 Creation of streets.
A. Streets created by subdivisions and partitions shall be designed and constructed in
conformance with the requirements of the city’s comprehensive plan, this code, the city’s
public works standards, and all conditions established by the city.
Finding CPMC 16.20.010(A): As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), access to the proposed
subdivision will be provided by newly proposed public streets. All streets will be improved to
minimum construction standards, per the Public Works Staff Report dated March 14, 2025.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.010(A): Consistent.
B. The construction of streets shall include subgrade, base, asphaltic concrete surfacing, curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, storm drainage, street signs, street lighting, and underground utilities.
Finding CPMC 16.20.010(B): The application states that the proposed roadways will be designed to
comply with the City’s codes including the Public Works Design Specifications for street construction.
This is supported by the Tentative Plan (Figure 5) and the Public Works Staff Report dated March 14,
2025.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.010(B): Consistent.
Page 1202 of 1226
C. All streets, including the entire right-of-way necessary for the installation of the items mentioned
in the preceding paragraph, shall be dedicated to the city.
Finding CPMC 16.20.010(C): The streets, including the entire right-of-way necessary for installation,
will be dedicated to the City at the time of final plat.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.010(C): Consistent.
CPMC 16.20.020 Streets – Generally
The location, width, and grade of streets shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned
streets, to topographical conditions as they relate to drainage and the operation of the water, sewer
systems, to public convenience and safety and their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to
be served by such streets. Where location is not shown in a development plan, the arrangement of streets
in a subdivision shall either:
A. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in surrounding areas; or,
Finding CPMC 16.20.020(A): Figure 5 illustrates how the proposed streets will connect to an
existing development within the ETOD to the south, Willow Bend. Connections are not planned to the
existing development to the north and northeast, Green Valley Subdivision, that is located outside the
ETOD in the R-3 zoning district.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.020(A): Consistent
B. Conform to the plan for the neighborhood approved or adopted by the city to meet a particular
situation where topographical or other conditions make continuance or conformance to
existing streets impractical.
Finding CPMC 16.20.020(B): Figure 5 illustrates how the proposed streets will connect to an
existing development within the ETOD to the south, Willow Bend. Connections are not planned to the
existing development to the north and northeast, Green Valley Subdivision. As shown on Figure 1, the
Green Valley Subdivision is located outside of the ETOD and the development pattern does not
facilitate connection to future subdivisions in the area.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.020(B): Not applicable.
CPMC 16.20.030 Streets--Reserve strips.
Reserve strips (“street plugs”) controlling the access to public ways may be required, in the discretion of
city.
Finding CPMC 16.20.030: Per Figure 5, reserve strips are not proposed or determined necessary for
any part of the proposed Gebhard Village.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.030: Not Applicable.
CPMC 16.20.050 Streets--Extension.
Page 1203 of 1226
Where a subdivision adjoins acreage, streets which in the option of the city should be continued in the
event of the subdivision of the acreage will be required to be provided through to the boundary lines of
the tract. Reserve strips and street plugs may be required to preserve the objectives of street extensions.
Finding CPMC 16.20.050: Figure 5 illustrates how the proposed streets will connect to an existing
development within the ETOD to the south, Willow Bend, and extend to the adjacent, undeveloped
property to the east.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.050: Consistent.
CPMC 16.20.060 Existing streets.
Whenever existing streets within a tract are determined by the city to be of inadequate width, additional
right-of-way shall be provided as required.
Finding CPMC 16.20.060: There are no existing streets within the project site. The streets, including the
entire right-of-way necessary for installation, will be dedicated to the City at the time of final plat.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.060: Consistent.
CPMC 16.20.070 Half streets.
Half streets while generally not acceptable may be approved where essential to the reasonable
development of the subdivision when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations and
when the city finds it will be practical to require the dedication of the other half when the adjoining
property is developed. Whenever a half street is adjacent to a tract to be subdivided, the other half of the
street shall be platted within such tract. Reserve strips and street plugs may be required to preserve the
objectives of half streets.
Finding CPMC 16.20.070: As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), half-streets are not proposed as
part of the Gebhard Village tentative plan application.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.070: Consistent.
CPMC 16.20.080 Cul-de-sac.
A cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall in no event be more than four hundred feet long nor
serve more than twelve single-family dwellings or seventy-five dwelling units. All cul-de-sacs shall
terminate with a circular turn-around.
Finding CPMC 16.20.080: As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), a cul-de-sac is not proposed as
part of the Gebhard Village tentative plan application.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.080: Not applicable.
CPMC 16.20.090 Streets--Names.
Page 1204 of 1226
No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets except
for extensions of existing streets. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the
city and the surrounding area and shall be subject to the approval of the city.
Finding CPMC 16.20.090: The north-south street of the proposed development provides an extension of
existing street platted with a previous development. Remaining street names will be subject to approval by
the City and Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon prior to Final Plat.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.090: Consistent.
CPMC 16.20.100 Streets--Adjacent to railroad right-of-way.
Wherever the proposed subdivision contains or is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way, provisions shall be
made for a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way at a distance to be
determined by city. Such distance shall be determined with due consideration at cross streets of the
minimum distance required for approach grades to a future grade separation.
Finding CPMC 16.20.100: As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), the project site is not adjacent to
railroad right-of-way.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.100: Not applicable.
CPMC 16.20.110 Planting easements.
Where physical conditions require approval of streets less than fifty feet in right-of-way width, additional
easements for planting of street trees or shrubs may be required.
Finding CPMC 16.20.110: Per the Public Works Staff Report dated March 14, 2025, the Public Works
Department is not requiring any easements for planting of street trees or shrubs.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.110: Not applicable.
CPMC 16.20.120 Alleys.
A. Location. Alleys may be provided in commercial and industrial districts, unless other permanent
provisions for access to off-street parking and loading facilities are made as approved by the city.
Finding CPMC 16.20.120(A): As shown on the tentative plat (Figure 5), the proposed development
includes alleys for access to rear-loaded garages throughout the development. Access from the alley is
consistent with design standards and specifications.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.120(A): Consistent.
B. Intersections. Alley intersections and sharp changes in alignment shall be avoided. The corners of
necessary alley intersections shall have a radius of not less than twenty feet.
Finding CPMC 16.20.120(B): As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), the proposed development does
not include sharp changes in alignment and intersections designs are consistent with standards and
specifications for street construction.
Page 1205 of 1226
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.120(B): Consistent.
CPMC 16.20.130 Sidewalks.
Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with such standards as are adopted by the city. Sidewalk
construction shall be completed on each individual lot prior to the city building inspector granting a
certificate of occupancy for any construction upon said individual lot. No application for a building permit
shall be granted without a requirement in the building permit for construction of sidewalks to city’s
standards.
Finding CPMC 16.20.130: Sidewalks shall be constructed along Gebhard Road to the west, and along
all proposed streets within the development per public works standards.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.130: Consistent.
Chapter 16.24, Blocks and Lots—Design Standards
CPMC 16.24.010 Blocks – Length, Width and Shape
The lengths, widths and shapes of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate
building sites suitable to the special needs of the type and use contemplated, needs for convenient
access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and limitations and opportunities of topography.
Finding CPMC 16.24.010: Figure 5 illustrates how the proposed streets extend to an existing
development, Willow Bend, to the south and may connect to future development on adjacent
properties to the east.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.010: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.020 Blocks – Sizes
Blocks shall not exceed twelve hundred feet in length except blocks adjacent to arterial streets or
unless the previous adjacent layout or topographical conditions justify a variation. The recommended
minimum distance between intersections on arterial streets is three hundred feet.
Finding CPMC 16.24.020: As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), block lengths are consistent
with this section. Block length for proposed streets is measured along the proposed centerline. Access
spacing along Gebhard Raod between the northern most access to the development, Logue Street, and
the existing access to Green Valley Subdivision, Green Valley Way, does not comply with minimum
spacing standards. As noted in the Parks and Public Works Staff Report, dated March 14, 2025, the
Public Works Department concurs with Applicant’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), which analyzed the
access spacing along Gebhard Road, and found the sight-distance is sufficient to accommodate the
access spacing.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.020: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.030 Blocks – Easements
Page 1206 of 1226
A. Utility Lines. Easements for electric lines or other non-city-owned public utilities may be required,
and shall be a minimum of ten feet in width located on the exterior portion of a single property.
Easements for city utilities (i.e., water, storm drain and sanitary sewer mains) shall be a minimum
of fifteen feet in width located on the exterior portion of a single property. Tie-back easements six
feet wide by twenty feet long shall be provided for utility poles along lot lines at change of
direction points of easements.
1. Structures Located within a City Utility Easement.
a.Except for public utilities and for signs when developed in accordance with
Chapter 15.24 (Sign Code), no person shall locate, construct, or continue to locate a
structure (as defined in Chapter 16.08) within a city utility easement (as defined in
Chapter 16.08), except as provided in subsections (A)(1)(b) and (A)(2) of this
section.
b.Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city may approve fencing, concrete block
walls/fencing, retaining walls, and similar fencing/wall structures that are otherwise
in compliance with the building code, and with the clearance provisions noted
herein, over an easement subject to the following requirements:
i. Said fencing or wall structures that interfere with the installation,
maintenance, access, or operation of a public utility or city utility may be
removed by the utility provider or the city at the sole cost of owner.
ii. Any replacement or relocation of the fencing or wall structures shall be at
the sole cost of the property owner or occupant.
iii. Owners and occupants of property shall not be entitled to compensation for
damages related to removal of the fencing or wall structures.
2. Grass, Asphalt, and Concrete Installed within a City Utility Easement.
a.Subject to the limitations of the building code, lawful owners and occupants of
property may install grass, asphalt and concrete within a city utility easement.
b.In the course of installing, accessing, maintaining, or operating its facilities in a
city utility easement, a public utility or the city, as the case may be, may move or
remove any asphalt, concrete, or vegetation located within said easement. After the
same are moved or removed and after completion of the necessary work, the grass,
asphalt or concrete shall be repaired and replaced in a reasonable manner at the sole
cost of the public utility or city.
c.Owners and occupants of property shall not be entitled to compensation related to
damages to grass, asphalt, or concrete so long as the repairs and replacement are
done in a reasonable manner and in a reasonable time frame.
Page 1207 of 1226
Finding CPMC 16.24.030(A): Per the tentative plat (Figure 5) no structures or fencing are proposed in
the City Utility Easements along the proposed streets. Development of the individual lots will be required
to comply with the provisions of this section.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.030(A): Consistent.
B. Watercourses. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse, drainage way, channel or
stream, there may be required a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming
substantially with the lines of such watercourse, and such further width as will be adequate for the
purpose. Streets, parkways or access roads parallel to major watercourses may be required.
Finding CPMC 16.24.030(B): The proposed subdivision is traversed by an existing drainage ditch.
As shown on the Utility Plan (Figure 3) and the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), water from the ditch will
be collected into the proposed stormwater system and discharged into existing facilities south and
west of the site.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.030(B): Consistent.
C. Pedestrian Ways. In any block over seven hundred fifty feet in length a pedestrian way may be
required. The minimum width of the pedestrian right-of-way must be at least six feet in width
which shall be hard surfaced through the block and curb to curb in order to provide easy access to
schools, parks, shopping centers, mass transportation stops or other community services. If
conditions require blocks longer than twelve hundred feet, two pedestrian ways may be required
for combination pedestrian way and utility easement. When essential for public convenience, such
ways may be required to connect to cul-de-sacs. Long blocks parallel to arterial streets may be
approved without pedestrian ways if desirable in the interests of traffic safety
Finding CPMC 16.24.030(C): Per Finding CPMC 16.24.020, the proposed blocks are less than seven
hundred fifty feet in length and a pedestrian way is not included as part of the proposed subdivision.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.030: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.040 Lots – Uses
A. The city may, in its discretion, deny approval for the creation of any lot by any manner if the
effect of such creation of lot would be to facilitate perpetuation of a nonconforming use.
B. No lot shall be created unless it is in compliance with all applicable provision of this code.
Finding CPMC 16.24.040: As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the lots of the
proposed subdivision tentative plan satisfy the approval criteria.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.040: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.050 Lots – Sizes and Determination
Lot sizes shall conform with the zoning ordinance and shall be appropriate for the location of the
subdivision and for the type of development and use contemplated. In the case of irregular lots, the width
shall be measured along the front building line. In no case shall the average depth be more than two and
Page 1208 of 1226
one-half times the width. Corner lots for residential use shall have sufficient width to permit appropriate
building setback from and orientation to both streets.
A.In areas that cannot be connected to sewer lines, minimum lot sizes shall be sufficient to permit
sewage disposal by an engineered system in accordance with Department of Environmental
Quality, Jackson County environmental quality section, and public works standards. Such lot sizes
shall conform to the requirements of the Jackson County environmental quality section.
B. Where property is zoned and planned for business or industrial use, other widths and areas may be
required, at the discretion of the city. Depth and width of properties reserved or laid out for
commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street service and
parking facilities required by the type of use and development contemplated
Finding CPMC 16.24.050: As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the proposed
subdivision tentative plan satisfies the approval criteria.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.050: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.060 Through Lots
Through lots shall be avoided except where essential to reduce access to primary or secondary arterial
streets or streets of equivalent traffic volume, reduce access to adjacent nonresidential activities, or to
overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. A planting screen easement of at least
ten feet may be required along the line of lots abutting such adjacent street. There shall be no right of
access across such planting screen easements.
Finding CPMC 16.24.060: As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), the proposed development does
not include through lots.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.060: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.070 Lot Side Lines
The side lines of lots shall run at right angles to the street upon which the lots face, as far as
practicable, or on curbed streets they shall be radial to the curve.
Finding CPMC 16.24.070: As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), the sides of the lots are at right
angles to the proposed streets.
Conclusion 16.24.070: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.080 Large Lot Subdivision
In subdividing tracts into large lots which at some future time are likely to be resubdivided, the
location of lot lines and other details of the layout shall be such that the resubdivisions may readily
take place without violating the requirements of these regulations and without interfering with the
orderly development of streets or other utilities. Restrictions of building locations in relationship to
future rights-of-way shall be made a matter of record if the city considers it necessary.
Page 1209 of 1226
Finding CPMC 16.24.080: As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the
proposed subdivision tentative plan satisfies the lot dimension criteria and does not include large lots
to be resubdivided at a later time.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.080: Not applicable.
PART 3
ZONING ORDINANCE
The purpose of Title 17 of the CPMC is to encourage the most appropriate use of land, promote orderly
growth of the city, and promote public health, safety, convenience and general welfare. The sections of
CPMC 17 applicable to the application are:
Chapter 17.05, Applications and Types of Review Procedures
This Chapter establishes standard decision-making procedures that enable the city, the applicant, and the
public to review applications and participate in the local decision making process. There are four (4)
types of review procedures, Type I, II, II, and IV that are applied to land use and development
applications in Table 17.05.100.1. It also establishes when a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required.
Finding CPMC 17.05: As identified in Table I, Section 17.05.100.1 a subdivision tentative plan is
reviewed using Type III procedures. As evidenced by the mailed and posted notice documents in Exhibit
“A”, the application has been noticed and processed in accordance with the Type III review procedures
per Section 17.05.400.
Per Section 17.05.900, a TIA for residential development is required when Average Daily Trips (ADT)
exceed 250. The proposed Gebhard Village is estimated to generate 532 ADT. The TIA for Gebhard
Village, prepared October 2, 2024, evaluates the impacts of the development the following intersections:
1). Hamrick Road/Beebe Road, 2). Gebhard Road/Wilson Road and 3). Gebhard Road/Sunnybrook
access roads. Per the TIA, Gebhard Village contributes to the Hamrick Road/Beebe Road intersection
exceeding intersection Level of Service. As noted in the Parks and Public Works Staff Report, dated
March 14, 2025, the Applicant is required to contribute funding to a traffic signal project in this location
as proportional to the share of traffic generated.
Per CPMC 17.65.050, Table 1, single family detached housing is, “Only permitted as a transition
between lower density zones and/or when adjacent to an environmentally sensitive area.” The adjoining
property, Green Valley Subdivision, to the north and northeast is within the R-3 Multi-family Residential
zoning district and is developed with single-family homes at a density of approximately 8 units per acre.
As presented, the proposed single-family lots in Gebhard Village offer a transition between existing lower
density housing and the higher density housing proposed throughout the rest of Gebhard Village and into
the remaining areas of the ETOD
Conclusion CPMC 17.05: Consistent.
Chapter 17.65 – TOD Districts and Corridors
Page 1210 of 1226
The purpose of the Central Point transit oriented development (TOD) district is to promote efficient and
sustainable land development and the increased use of transit as required by the Oregon Transportation
Planning Rule.
Finding CPMC 17.65: The proposed tentative plan has been reviewed in accordance with the
applicable zoning regulations provided in Chapter 17.65.
Gebhard Village proposes 67 lots and 78 residential units on 8.18 gross acres. Per CPMC
17.65.070(D), Table 2, net density is the gross acreage minus any right-of-way, environmental or
civic land. Based on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), right-of-way accounts for 2.62 acres resulting in
5.56 acres (net) for the density calculation in this section. Based on the minimum/maximum density
requirement for the MMR zone, this requires 78-178 dwelling units on the site. The applicant
proposes 78 units, which is within the minimum/maximum range for density in the MMR zone.
Conclusion CPMC 17.65: Consistent.
Chapter 17.66 – Application Review Process for the TOD District and Corridor
This chapter describes the review procedures to be followed for development proposed within the
TOD district and corridor which are identified on the official city zoning map.
CPMC 17.66.030, Application and Review
A. There are four types of applications which are subject to review within the Central Point TOD
district and corridor.
1. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan. Master
plans shall be required for:
a.Development or land division applications which involve two or more acres of
land; or
b.Modifications to a valid master plan approval which involve one or more of the
following;
i. An increase in dwelling unit density which exceeds fiver percent of
approved density;
ii. An increase in commercial gross floor area of ten percent or two
thousand square feet, whichever is greater;
iii. A change in the type and location of streets, accessways, and parking
areas where off-site traffic would be affected; or
iv. A modification of a condition imposed as part of the master plan
approval.
Page 1211 of 1226
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(A)(1): The current application is for a 67-lot/78-unit subdivision
on a property of approximately 8.18 acres, with approximately 5.56 acres of net residential
area. An application for a master plan (File No. MP-25001) was submitted separately and
concurrently with the application for the Gebhard Village Tentative Plan.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(A)(1): Not applicable.
2. Site Plan and Architectural Review. The provisions of Chapter 17.72, Site Plan and
Architectural Review, shall apply to permitted uses and limited uses within the TOD
district and corridor. For site plan and architectural review applications involving two
or more acres of land, a master plan approval, as provided in this chapter, shall be
approved prior to, or concurrently with, a site plan and architectural review application.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(A)(2): The current application is for a subdivision tentative plan
and does not include a Site Plan and Architectural Review.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(A)(2): Not applicable.
3. Land Division. Partitions and subdivisions shall be reviewed as provided in Title 16,
Subdivisions. For a land division application involving two or more acres of land, a
master plan approval, as provided in this chapter, shall be approved prior to, or
concurrently with, a land division application.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(A)(3): The subject property is approximately 8.18 acres with
approximately 2.62 acres net residential area. As evidenced by the findings and conclusions
set forth herein, the proposed subdivision tentative plan satisfies the approval criteria for
Title 16, Subdivisions. The application for subdivision tentative plan was submitted
concurrently with an application for a master plan (See File No. MP-25001), which is under
separate review.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(A)(3): Consistent.
4. Conditional Use. Conditional uses shall be reviewed as provided in Chapter 17.76,
Conditional Use Permits.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(A)(4): The current application is a 67-lot/78-unit subdivision and
does not include a Conditional Use.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(A): Not applicable.
B. Submittal Requirements. A master plan shall include the following elements:
1. Introduction. A written narrative describing:
a.Duration of the master plan;
b.Site location map;
Page 1212 of 1226
c.Land use and minimum and maximum residential densities proposed;
d.Identification of other approved master plans within the project area (one
hundred feet).
2. Site Analysis Map. A map and written narrative of the project area addressing site
amenities and challenges on the project site and adjacent lands within one hundred feet of
the project site.
a.Master Utility Plan. A plan and narrative addressing existing and proposed utilities
and utility extensions for water, sanitary sewer, storm water, gas, electricity, and
agricultural irrigation.
b. Adjacent Land Use Plan. A map identifying adjacent land uses and structures
within one hundred feet of the project perimeter and remedies for preservation of
livability of adjacent land uses.
3. Transportation and Circulation Plan. A transportation impact analysis (TIA) identifying
planned transportation facilities, services and networks to be provided concurrently with
the development of the master plan and addressing Section 17.67.040, Circulation and
access standards.
4. Site Plan. A plan and narrative addressing Section 17.67.050, Site design standards.
5. Recreation and Open Space Plan. A plan and narrative addressing Section 17.67.060,
Public parks and open space design standards.
6. Building Design Plan. A written narrative and illustrations addressing Section 17.67.070,
Building design standards.
7. Transit Plan. A plan identifying proposed, or future, transit facilities (if any).
8. Environmental Plan. A plan identifying environmental conditions such as wetlands, flood
hazard areas, groundwater conditions, and hazardous sites on and adjacent to the project
site.
9. Applications shall be submitted as required in Chapter 17.05.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B): The current application is a subdivision tentative plan and the
master plan application is under separate review.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B): Not applicable.
CPMC 17.66.040 Parks and Open Space
Common park and open space shall be provided for all residential development within a TOD district or
corridor as per Section 17.67.060.
Page 1213 of 1226
Finding CPMC 17.66.040: As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), common park and open space is
included as part of the proposal.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.040: Consistent.
CPMC 17.66.050 Application Approval Criteria
A. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan. A master plan shall be approved when the approval
authority finds that the following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable:
1. Sections 17.65.040 and 17.65.050, relating to the TOD district;
2. Sections 17.65.060 and 17.65.070, relating to the TOD corridor;
3. Chapter 17.67, Design Standards--TOD District and TOD Corridor;
4. Chapter 17.60, General Regulations, unless superseded by Sections 17.65.040 through
17.65.070;
5. Section 17.65.050, Table 3, TOD District and Corridor Parking Standards, and Chapter 17.64,
Off-Street Parking and Loading;
6. Chapter 17.70, Historic Preservation Overlay Zone; and
7. Chapter 17.76, Conditional Use Permits, for any conditional uses proposed as part of the
master plan.
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(A): The current application is for a subdivision tentative plan and the
application for master plan (MP-25001) is under separate review.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050(A): Not applicable.
B. Site Plan and Architectural Review. A site plan and architectural review application shall be
approved when the approval authority finds that the following criteria are satisfied or can be
shown to be inapplicable:
1. The provisions of Chapter 17.72, Site Plan and Architectural Review, shall be satisfied; and
2. The proposed improvements comply with the approved TOD district or corridor master
plan for the property, if required; and
3. Chapter 17.67, Design Standards--TOD District and TOD Corridor.
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(B): The application is for a subdivision tentative plan and does not
include a Site Plan and Architectural Review.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050(B): Not applicable.
C. Land Division. A land division application shall be approved when the approval authority finds
that the following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable:
Page 1214 of 1226
1. The provisions of Title 16, Subdivisions; and
2. The proposed land division complies with the approved TOD district or corridor master
plan for the property, if required; and
3. Chapter 17.67, Design Standards--TOD District and TOD Corridor.
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(C): As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the
proposed subdivision tentative plan satisfies the approval criteria.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050(C): Consistent.
D. Conditional Use.
1. A conditional use application shall be approved when the approval authority finds that the
following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable:
a.The provisions of Chapter 17.76, Conditional Use Permits; and
b.The proposed conditional use complies with the approved TOD district or corridor
master plan for the property, if required; and
c.Chapter 17.67, Design Standards--TOD District and TOD Corridor.
2. A conditional use application shall not be required for a conditional use which was
approved as part of a valid master plan approval as provided in subsection (A) of this
section
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(D): The current application is a 67-lot/78-unit subdivision and does
not include a Conditional Use.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050: Not applicable.
CPMC 17.66.060 Conditions of approval
The approval authority may apply reasonable conditions of approval to ensure that the applicable
standards of this code are satisfied.
Finding CPMC 17.66.060: As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, reasonable
conditions apply to ensure the standards of this code are satisfied.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.060: Consistent.
CPMC 17.66.070 Approval expiration
A.Application approvals granted according to the provisions of this chapter shall expire and become
void one year from the date on which they were issued unless:
Page 1215 of 1226
1.An application for extension is filed and approved subject to the requirements of Chapter
17.05; or
2. Building permits for the development have been issued and construction diligently
pursued to initiate construction.
B.If the time limit for development expired and no extension has been granted, the application shall
be void
Finding CPMC 17.66.070: The application for subdivision tentative plan is reviewed as a Type
III application. Type III applications are reviewed in accordance with procedures provided in
Section 17.05.400, including approval expiration and extension requests.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.070: Consistent.
Chapter 17.67, Design Standards – TOD District and TOD Corridor
CPMC 17.67.040 Circulation and access standards
A. Public Street Standards.
1. Except for specific transportation facilities identified in a TOD district or corridor master
plan, the street dimensional standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department of
Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works
Construction, Section 300, Street Construction shall apply for all development located
within the TOD district and for development within the TOD corridor which is approved
according to the provisions in Section 17.65.020 and Chapter 17.66.
Finding 17.67.040(A)(1): The application states the proposed roadways will be designed to
comply with the City’s codes including the Public Works Design Specifications for street
construction. This is supported by the Tentative Plan (Figure 5) and the Public Works Staff
Report dated March 14, 2025.
Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(1): Consistent.
2. Block perimeters shall not exceed two thousand feet measured along the public street right-
of-way.
Finding 17.67.040(A)(2): Figure 5 illustrates how the proposed streets will connect to an
existing development, Willow Bend, on the south and extend to the proposed development.
Once development is completed, block perimeter length measured along the public street
right-of-way when development is approximately 1,400-feet.
Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(2): Consistent.
3. Block lengths for public streets shall not exceed six hundred feet between through streets,
measured along street right-of-way.
Page 1216 of 1226
Finding CPMC 17.67.040(A)(3): Figure 5 illustrates how the proposed streets will connect to
an existing development, Willow Bend, on the south and extend to the proposed development.
Once development is completed, block length along the north-south street (Annalise Street)
measured along the public street right-of-way is approximately 460-feet.
Conclusion CPC 17.67.040(A)(3): Consistent.
4. Public alleys or major off-street bike/pedestrian pathways, designed as provided in this
chapter, may be used to meet the block length or perimeter standards of this section.
Finding CPMC 17.67.040(A)(4): As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), alleys are
proposed mid-block within the interior subdivision. As evidenced in findings and conclusions
of this section, the proposed subdivision complies with block perimeter and block length
standards.
Conclusion CPMC 17.67.040(A)(4): Consistent.
5. The standards for block perimeters and lengths shall be modified to the minimum extent
necessary based on findings that strict compliance with the standards is not reasonably
practicable or appropriate due to:
a. Topographic constraints;
b.Existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical
connection of streets or accessways;
c.Railroads;
d.Traffic safety concerns;
e.Functional and operational needs to create a large building; or
f.Protection of significant natural resources.
Finding CPMC 17.67.040(A)(5): As demonstrated in Finding 17.67.040(A)(2) and (4), the
proposal is consistent with the block perimeter and length requirement; therefore, modification of
the standard is not necessary.
Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(5): Not applicable.
6. All utility lines shall be underground but utility vault access lids may be located in the
sidewalk area.
7. Connections shall be provided between new streets in a TOD district or corridor and
existing local and minor collector streets.
8. Pedestrian/Bike Accessways Within Public Street Right-of-Way.
a.Except for specific accessway facilities identified in a TOD district or corridor
master plan, the following accessway dimensional standards set forth in the City of
Page 1217 of 1226
Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform
Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 300, Street Construction
shall apply for any development located within the TOD district and for
development within the TOD corridor which is approved according to the
provisions in Section17.65.020 and Chapter 17.66.
b.In transit station areas, one or more pedestrian-scaled amenities shall be required
with every one hundred square feet of the sidewalk area, including but not limited
to:
i. Street furniture;
ii. Plantings;
iii. Distinctive Paving;
iv. Drinking fountains; and
v. Sculpture.
c.Sidewalks adjacent to undeveloped parcels may be temporary.
d.Public street, driveway, loading area, and surface parking lot crossings shall be
clearly marked with textured accent paving or painted stripes.
e.The different zones of a sidewalk should be articulated using special paving or
concrete scoring.
Finding 17.67.040(A)(6-8): The application states the proposed completion of public streets will
be designed to comply with the City’s codes including the Public Works Design Specifications for
street construction. This is supported by the Tentative Plan (Figure 5) and the Public Works Staff
Report dated March 14, 2025. As a condition of approval, sidewalks and landscape rows must be
installed along Gebhard Road and all internal subdivision streets.
Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(6-8): Complies as conditioned.
9. Public Off-Street Accessways.
a.Pedestrian accessways and greenways should be provided as needed to supplement
pedestrian routes along public streets.
b.Off-street pedestrian accessways shall incorporate all of the following design
criteria:
i. The applicable standards in the City of Central Point Department of Public
Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public
Works Construction, Section 300, Street Construction;
ii. Minimum ten-foot vertical clearance;
Page 1218 of 1226
iii. Minimum twenty-foot horizontal barrier clearance for pathway;
iv. Asphalt, concrete, gravel, or wood chip surface as approved by the city,
with a compacted subgrade;
v. Nonskid boardwalks if wetland construction is necessary; and
vi. Minimum one hundred square feet of trailhead area at intersections with
other pedestrian improvements. A trail map sign shall be provided at this
location.
c. Minor off-street trails shall be a minimum of five feet wide, have a minimum
vertical clearance of eight feet, a minimum two-foot horizontal clearance from edge
of pathway and be constructed of gravel or wood chips, with a compacted
subgrade.
Finding 17.67.040(A)(9): As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), the proposed development
does not include pedestrian accessways or greenways.
Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(9): Not applicable.
B. Parking Lot Driveways.
1. Parking lot driveways that link public streets and/or private streets with parking stalls shall
be designed as private streets, unless one of the following is met:
a.The parking lot driveway is less than one hundred feet long;
b.The parking lot driveway serves one or two residential units; or
c.The parking lot driveway provides direct access to angled parking stalls.
2. The number and width of driveways and curb cuts should be minimized and consolidated
when possible.
3. Where possible, parking lots for new development shall be designed to provide vehicular
and pedestrian connections to adjacent sites.
4. Large driveways should use distinctive paving patterns.
Finding 17.67.040(B): As shown in Figure 5, surface parking areas are not proposed as part of
the subdivision development. Driveways and on-site parking will be provided for the individual
residential lots.
Conclusion 17.67.040(B): Not applicable.
C. On-Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Attractive access routes for pedestrian travel should
be provided by:
Page 1219 of 1226
1. Reducing distances between destinations or activity areas such as public sidewalks and
building entrances. Where appropriate, develop pedestrian routes through sites and
buildings to supplement the public right-of-way;
2. Providing an attractive, convenient pedestrian accessway to building entrances;
3. Bridging across barriers and obstacles such as fragmented pathway systems, wide streets,
heavy vehicular traffic, and changes in level by connecting pedestrian pathways with
clearly marked crossings and inviting sidewalk design;
4. Integrating signage and lighting system which offers interest and safety for pedestrians;
5. Connecting parking areas and destinations with pedestrian paths identified through use of
distinctive paving materials, pavement striping, grade separations, or landscaping.
Finding 17.67.040(C): As shown in Figure 5, on-site pedestrian circulation will be provided by
completion of sidewalks along Gebhard Road and the internal public streets.
Conclusion 17.67.040(C): Consistent.
.
PART 4
GEBHARD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
The Gebhard Village Master Plan provides the framework for site development and includes a network of
public streets internal to the site (See File No. MP-25001).
Finding: The tentative plan (Figure 5) would result in creation of 67 lots, with 78 residential units,
consistent with the Master Plan.
Conclusion: Consistent.
PART 5
SUMMARY CONCLUSION
As evidenced in Planning Department Findings, as well as the application materials in the record the
proposed tentative plan application for the Gebhard Village Subdivision is, as conditioned in the Staff
Report dated April 1, 2025, in compliance with the applicable criteria set forth in Title 16 and Title 17 of
the Central Point Municipal Code.
Page 1220 of 1226
140 South 3rd Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • 541.664.3321 • Fax 541.664.6384
PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT
March 14, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Gebhard Village (MP-25001/SUB-25001)
A proposed 78-unit subdivision along the Gebhard Road frontage. The 8.18-acre site (37S 2W 02AA, Tax Lot
2800) is within the Medium Mixed Residential (MMR) zone and is within the Transit Oriented Development
(TOD Overlay.
Applicant: Lowman Revocable Trust
Traffic:
The Applicant is proposing a 67-lot subdivision. The TIA, performed by Southern Oregon Transportation
Engineering, for this proposed development estimates this will generate 46 PHT’s. Access at the time of
development is proposed on Gebhard Road at two new local street intersections (Bryce Pelia Way and Logue
Street) and one existing local street intersection (Denson Street). The existing Annalise Street will extend
north through Gebhard Village as well.
The new local street intersections, at Bryce Pelia Way and Logue Street, on Gebhard Road were shown to
meet AASHTO recommended intersection sight distances.
The proposed new local street intersection of Logue Street and Gebhard Road is not shown to meet
intersection spacing standards as set for in the Public Works Standards and Specifications Table 300-4, which
requires 300 feet between intersections on a collector street. The proposed location, however, is approximately
235 feet south of Green Valley Way and is not shown to have any safety concerns. Sight distance is shown to
be adequate, there is no history of collisions along Gebhard Road and a center turn lane is not shown to be
warranted at the proposed location.
A supplemental letter from Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering states that the proposed development
impact at time of development will be 2.3% of traffic under design year 2027 no-build conditions.
Accordingly, this will be the proportional share for cost of construction of new traffic signals at Beebe
Road/Hamrick Road intersection.
The TIA concludes that the subdivision can be approved without causing adverse impacts to the transportation
system.
City staff concurs with the TIA findings.
Existing Infrastructure:
Water: There is an 16-inch ductile iron water line, in Gebhard Road. There is an 8-inch ductile iron
water line in Denson Street.
Streets: Gebhard Road is an unimproved Collector Street. Denson Street is a new local Street.
Public Works Department
Gregory Graves, Const. Serv. Supervisor
Page 1221 of 1226
Stormwater: There is an existing 42-inch Storm Drain line, within Denson Street, existing now. Flow is east
to west. There is also a 48-inch Storm Drain line to the north of the site, running west from
Green Valley Way. Flow is east to west.
Background:
The Applicant proposes an 78-unit, Medium Mixed Residential development extending north on the existing
Annalise Street. The property fronts Gebhard Road to the west, and Denson Street to the south.
Issues:
The project must receive and treat offsite stormwater runoff from the Himmelman property to the east at two
locations. The first location is at the southeast area of the site, where surface water flows in northwesterly
direction from the Himmelmann orchard area. The second location is on the east border of the site in the area
of the proposed Bryce Pelia Way. This area has an existing approximately 8” underground pipe flowing
westerly, that currently daylights at a bubbler assembly on the site.
Onsite stormwater runoff shall be treated onsite before it enters the existing storm drain system from the
proposed subdivision.
Overhead utilities along the Gebhard Road frontage will need to be converted to underground.
Conditions of Approval:
Prior to the building permit issuance and the start of construction activities on the site, the following
conditions shall be satisfied:
1. Public Street Construction - Applicant shall construct the proposed public streets to City Street
Standards. Construction shall demonstrate compliance with the Public Works Standard Specifications
and Uniform Details for Construction. Accordingly, the improvements along the Gebhard Road
frontage must include sidewalk and landscape row.
2. Gebhard Road Existing Overhead utilities – The Applicant shall convert all overhead utilities along the
frontage of Gebhard Road to underground. No overhead utilities will be allowed.
3. Civil Improvement Plan Review – The Applicant shall submit civil improvement plans for stormwater
infrastructure construction demonstrating compliance with the approved NPDES Stormwater
Management Plan.
4. Erosion and Sediment Control – The proposed development will disturb greater than 5 acres and
requires an erosion and sediment control permit (NPDES 1200-C) from DEQ. The Applicant shall
obtain a 1200-C permit from DEQ.
Page 1222 of 1226
140 South 3rd Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • 541.664.3321 • Fax 541.664.6384
Prior to the final plat, the Applicant shall comply with the following conditions of approval:
1. PW Standards and Specifications – Applicant shall demonstrate that all Public Works infrastructure
construction complies with the Standards Specifications and Uniform Details for Construction.
2. Stormwater Quality Operations & Maintenance – The Applicant shall record and submit to the Public
Works Department an Operations and Maintenance Manual and Declaration of Covenants for
Operation and Maintenance of the Stormwater Quality Features as required by the Rogue Valley
Stormwater Quality Manual.
3. Public Utilities and Street Dedication and Improvement – Dedicate the public right-of-way and
complete all street improvements within the tentative plat.
4. Over Head Utilities – Overhead utilities along the Gebhard Road frontage shall be converted to
underground facilities.
5. Public Works As-Builts – Provide an accurate and stamped set of as-built drawings.
6. Intersection Mitigation - The proposed development pay a proportional share toward the cost of a
traffic signal at Beebe Road / Hamrick Road. This is based on total entering volume, or 2.3% of
traffic, at time of proposed development.
Page 1223 of 1226
Page 1224 of 1226
March 11, 2025
City of Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Re: PRE 21007 – Gebhard Village Sub, Map 37 2W 02AA, Tax Lot 2800
There is an existing 10 inch sewer along the south property boundary of tax lot 2800 and a 15 inch sewer
to the north along Gebhard Road. Sewer service for the proposed development can be had by sewer
main extensions as generally shown on the submitted conceptual plan.
Rogue Valley Sewer Services requests that approval of this development be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant must submit sewer construction plans to RVSS for review and approval prior to
construction, sign a project sewer agreement, and pay all related inspection fees.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Nicholas R Bakke, PE
District Engineer
Page 1225 of 1226
Planning Commission Resolution No. 932 (04/01/2025)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 932
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING
A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION FOR A 67 LOT SUBDIVISION
TO BE KNOWN AS GEBHARD VILLAGE
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(File No: SUB-25001)
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a tentative plan application to create a 67-lot
subdivision consisting of residential property identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s map
as 37S 2W 02AA, Tax Lot 2800, Central Point, Oregon; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located in the Medium Mix Residential (MMR) zoning district
within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay; and
WHEREAS, the application has been found to be consistent with the applicable approval criteria
set forth in Title 16, Subdivisions and Title 17, Zoning as conditioned per the Staff Report dated
April 1, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2025, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point Planning
Commission considered the Applicant’s request for Tentative Plan approval for Gebhard Village
subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1: The City of Central Point Planning Commission hereby approves the Tentative Plan
application for Gebhard Village subdivision File No. SUB-25001 subject to the conditions in the
Staff Report dated April 1, 2025 (Exhibit 1).
Section 2: This decision is based upon the Planning Department Staff Report dated April 1,
2025, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, including all attachments thereto.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
1st day of April, 2025.
__________________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Representative
Page 1226 of 1226