Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 789 - Eastside TODPLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. IF q A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE EASTSIDE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FILE NO. 12003 Applicant: City of Central Point; WHEREAS, the City's Regional Plan Element establishes new minimum residential density standards and the increased use of mixed - use /pedestrian - friendly development; and WHEREAS, the City's Transportation System Plan establishes as a benchmark the increased use of mixed - use /pedestrian - friendly development as a mitigation measure to decrease vehicle miles traveled as stated in the 2009 -2034 Regional Transportation Plan Alternative Measures; and WHEREAS, the City's current Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District standards as set forth in CPMC Sections 17.65 through 17.67 offer standards that meet the new minimum residential density requirement while providing a mixed - use /pedestrian - friendly environment; and WHEREAS, the Eastside Transit Oriented Development District contains a large percentage of the City's buildable residential and commercial land inventory thus providing a meaningful opportunity to apply the new residential density and mixed -use development requirements set forth in the Regional Plan Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. -7 F(9 , does hereby forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the Eastside Transit Oriented Development District proposal. This recommendation is based on the draft PC Findings as set forth in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends, subsequent to approval of the Eastside Transit Oriented Development District, that the City proceeds with the following additional actions: 1. Continue participation in development of the Interchange Access Management Plan 33 (IAMP33); 2. Upon adoption of IAMP33 by the City proceed with amendment of the City's 2008 Transportation System Plan as necessary to appropriately incorporate the City approved IAMP33; and Planning Commission Resolution No. I g Cf (02/05/2013) 3. Upon adoption of IAMP33 by the City collaborate with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in the preparation and adoption of an Intergovernmental Agreement implementing the amended TSP and IAMP33. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5th day of February, 2013. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 5th day of February, 2013. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. - X6'1 (02/05/2013) EXHIBIT "A" - draft PC FINDINGS FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE EASTSIDE TRANSIT ORIENT DEVELOPMENT (ETOD) DISTRICT Before the City of Central Point Planning Commission Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map, Zoning Map, and Code Amendments to Section 17.65 through 17.67 Transit Oriented Development District Applicant: City of Central Point 140 S. Third Street Central Point, OR 97502 I. INTRODUCTION Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law In 2000 the City amended the Zoning Ordinance creating a transit oriented development (TOD) district and standards (CPMC 17.56 through 17.67). The purpose of the TOD district is to promote the efficient use and sustainable land development to the increased use of transit as required by the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule. The use of TOD development standards was further acknowledged and supported in the Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP established as an Alternative Measure a development benchmark that supported the expanded use of TOD districts as an Pagel of 80 alternative measure for the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) compliance'. The RTP alternative measures were also incorporated as a performance benchmark in the City's 2008 Transportation System Plan (TSP)2, with the objective that by 2030 65% of all new residential development and 60% of all new employment development will have occurred within TOD districts. On August 9, 2012 the City Council approved Ordinance No. 1964 adopting a Regional Plan Element as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the Regional Plan Element was a condition of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (GBCVRP) approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission on September 14, 20123. The Regional Plan Element includes twenty (20) performance indicators as required by the GBVRP. In addition to re- affirming the importance of TOD development the Regional Plan Element4 also committed the City to a minimum density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre for the period 2010 through 2035, and 7.9 dwelling units per gross acre for the period 2036 through 20605 for all new development. Since adoption of the TOD ordinance the City has not expanded its use of TOD districts. Today approximately 17% of the City is designated as either a TOD district or a TOD corridor. In its continuing effort to achieve the TOD performance benchmarks and to comply with the new minimum density standards, the City is proposing, through the creation of an eastside TOD district, the expanded use of its existing mixed -use transit oriented development (TOD) standards. In the past the TOD standards have been successfully applied and are readily available for use in other parts of the City, particularly those areas of the City and its UGB, that have a concentration of large buildable parcels where efficient use of the TOD standards will have their greatest impact. It is the objective of the proposed Eastside Transit Orient Development District (ETOD) to expand use of the TOD district to an area on the City's eastside that contains approximately 40% of the City's buildable residential acreage and 30% of the City buildable commercial acreage. The TOD ordinance enables the City to not only meet the minimum density requirement, but also the mixed - use /pedestrian- friendly objectives of the Regional Plan Element, the Regional Transportation Plan, and Transportation System Plan Alternative Measures. Although the ETOD does not currently have transit service it is the City's object to provide a built environment that will support expanded transit service in the future. At a minimum residential density of 7.7 dwelling units per gross acre the ETOD proposal is a positive step in that direction. ' 2009 -2034 Regional Transportation Plan, Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, Table B -12 — RVMPO Adopted Alternative Measures for TPR Compliance, Measures 5 and 6. 2 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, Table 3.2 City of Central Point Performance Measures, Measures 3.2 and 3.3. 3 The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan is currently pending adoption of a final order by LCDC. 4 City of Central Point Regional Plan, Section 4.1.6 Mixed - Use /Pedestrian - Friendly Areas 5 City of Central Point Regional Plan, Section 4.1.5 Committed Residential Density Page 2 of 80 The purpose of these findings is to demonstrate that the proposed ETOD complies with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the State of Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). II. ETOD APPLICATION The creation of the ETOD district involves the following actions: A) Amendment of the General Land Use Plan Map to designate the ETO,D Project Area as a TOD district (Exhibit "A" — General Land Use Map). B) Amendment of the Zoning Map to apply TOD zoning to the ETOID Area (exhibit "B" — Zoning Map). Additionally, it is proposed that the following supporting actions be taken: C) Amend the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 17.65 through 17.67 (TOD District) for administrative corrections, and to enhance the procedural requirements relating to the master planning process (Exhibit "C" — TOD Code Amendments). The administrative and procedural code amendments can be found in following sections of Exhibit "C"— Zoning Ordinance Amendments: 1) Section 17.08 Definitions by adding definition of "Development" and "Master Plan" 2) Section 17.65.020 Area of Application, modify to include multiple TOD districts and corridors 3) Section 17.65.020 Land Use — TOD District, delete reference to corridors. 4) Section 17.65.050 Zoning Regulations — TOD District, subsection (17)(3) Parking Standards, add reference to Table 3. 5) Section 17.65 .050(F)(3)(c) Bicycle Parking, add reference to Chapter 17.64. 6) Section 17.66.03Application and Review, modify criteria for master plan requirement and include master plan elements. The master plan requirement shall now be required for all projects in excess of two (2) acres. Previously the threshold was five (5) acres. Modifications to this section also include added provisions allowing the combined use of master plan with other land use applications. 7) Section 17.66.050 Application Approval Criteria, added reference to Section 17.65.050 Table 3. 8) Section 17.67.040 Circulation and Access Standards, added reference to the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications for street and access details. The Public Works standards contain all TOD street and access standards. This section also modifies the dimensional standards for blocks to comply with the City standards in Section 17.75.031(B). 9) 17.67.050 Site Design Standards, modified criteria for addressing land uses on adjacent properties to be incorporated into the master planning process. Page 3 of 80 III. ETOD PROJECT BACKGROUND A. LOCATION The proposed ETOD encompasses an area of approximately 123 acres (Figure 3. 1, ETOD Project Area) located northeast of the I -5 interchange and within the City's current UGB (Figure 3.2, ETOD Project Area Location). Within the ETOD there are 25 existing tax lots with a total of 15 dwelling units (Figure 3.3, Aerial Map). B. CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP & ZONING MAP6 The current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the ETOD area is divided between two basic land uses; residential (83 %) and commercial (17 %). Table 3.1 identifies the acreage by each land use designation and the applicable zoning district. Figure 3.4 represents the current General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map. R -L 9.23 The following describes the current residential and commercial land use and zoning district designations within the proposed ETOD area: • RESIDENTIAL, Conventional Zoning Very Low Density (CPMC Section 17.16, R -L Residential Low -Low Density) — This residential land use classification is represented by the R -L zoning district, which is intended for a semi -rural residential environment near the border of the City. The purpose statement and development standards for the C -4 can be found 6 It is the City's policy that all lands within the UGB be pre -zoned in accordance with the designated land use. Subsequently, the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map are identical. The only exception is within the Low Density Residential land use designation, which on the Zoning Map may be designated one of three residential designations (R -1 -6, R -1 -8, or R- 1 -10). Page 4 of 80 TABLE 3.1 Current Land Use and Zoning Land Use R -L 9.23 The following describes the current residential and commercial land use and zoning district designations within the proposed ETOD area: • RESIDENTIAL, Conventional Zoning Very Low Density (CPMC Section 17.16, R -L Residential Low -Low Density) — This residential land use classification is represented by the R -L zoning district, which is intended for a semi -rural residential environment near the border of the City. The purpose statement and development standards for the C -4 can be found 6 It is the City's policy that all lands within the UGB be pre -zoned in accordance with the designated land use. Subsequently, the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map are identical. The only exception is within the Low Density Residential land use designation, which on the Zoning Map may be designated one of three residential designations (R -1 -6, R -1 -8, or R- 1 -10). Page 4 of 80 .CIV 1 RP%L POINT �� �. d t _vs —EVANIYOky yaia r T. t �- z 09�� t Lu �r. ...... ....a ` F r r -- — iRinr.uuuutat$ 61 ... !l epter EEdtc,_ TTAJ f' •••...�PENNGER RD • —1 r eu„ lot ... sees .0 -- an�ui .......u........ - ,.- .: -... r .. -- --- ,. -- r -__,._ ••••BiD�lEItOpO........rru Legend .....r Study Area - - Urban Growth Boundary ....... City Limits Proposed TOD District Proposed Eastside TOD District Page 5 of 80 AX CENTRAL POINT U E=' C f A Proposed Eastside TOD District and Urban Reserves Areas in Section 17.16 of CPMC. This land use classification can also be used as an Page 6 of 80 Aik CENTRAL Poirvr MOW ,�w �w+wr.+.wrrw srtwi �iwwi� ................ }........... �aauiiuua.�DE.RQ,- �Co •••�• ' \ 1 Tv zT 9 w z � ' Z� y� b 9L .P 1EEBE RU� _ ILiVE K LODP. � t ` i _,MISTLETOE Legend Study Area Central Point Zoning City Limits R -L Low Density Residential • • • Urban Growth Boundary R -1-8 SF Residential 8,000 R -1.6 SF Residential 6,000 R -2 Two-Family Residential C4 Tourist and Office Current Land Use and Zoning Eastside TOD District Page 7 of 80 CENTRAL POINT Legend Existing Dwelling Units ....r Eastside TOD Existing Dwelling Units Proposed Eastside TOD District Page 8 of 80 effective transitional buffer between rural and urban land uses, and also as an alternative land use in areas having unusual characteristics that make them less suitable for higher- density residential development. Within the R -L district the only housing types permitted are single - family detached and manufactured homes. Residential Homes and Residential Facilities as defined in ORS 197.660 are also permitted. The minimum and maximum density for the R -L district is illustrated in Table 3.3, Current Zoning Build -Out Scenario. Approximately 9 acres of vacant land, represented by a single parcel, within the TOD Project Area are currently designated as Very Low Density and zoned R -L. Low density (CPMC Section 17.20, R -1 Residential Single- Family District) — This residential land use classification is represented by the R -1 -6, R -1 -8, and R- 10 zoning districts. The predominant land use type is single- family detached and manufactured homes. The purpose statement and development standards for the C -4 can be found in Section 17.20 of CPMC. Residential Homes and Residential Facilities as defined in ORS 197.660 are also permitted. Planned Unit Developments are also permitted subject to the requirements of Section 17.68. The minimum and maximum density for the R -1 district is 3.07 and 5.06 dwelling units per gross acre (Table 3.3, Current Zoning Build -Out Scenario). Medium Density (CPMC Section 17.24, Residential Two - Family District) — This land use classification is represented by the R -2 zoning district. The purpose of the R -2 district is to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life at densities slightly higher than allowed in the R -I districts. The purpose statement and development standards for the C -4 can be found in Section 17.24 of CPMC. The predominant land use type is two - family (duplex) housing type. However, single - family detached, manufactured homes, Residential Homes, and Residential Facilities as defined in ORS 197.660 are also permitted. The minimum and maximum density allowed within the Residential Districts is illustrated in Table 3.3, Current Zoning Build -Out Scenario. Approximately 17 acres are designated as medium density. • COMMERCIAL, Conventional Zoning Commercial, Tourist and Office Professional (CPMC Section 17.44, C -4 Tourist Commercial and Office - Professional District) — This land use classification is represented by the C -4, Tourist and Office Professional district. The purpose statement and development standards for the C -4 can be found in Section 17.44 of CPMC. C. PROPOSED ETOD COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP & ZONING MAP The proposed ETOD will overlay the project area with the City's TOD designation, including the proposed TOD zoning designations. Table 3.2 identifies the ETOD acreage in each land use designation and the applicable zoning district. Figure 3.4 is a side -by- Page 9 of 80 side comparison of the proposed General Land Use Plan Map and the proposed Zoning Map. TABLE 3.2 Proposed ETOD Land Use and Zoning With the exception of the Civic designation the ETOD proposal retains the areas residential and commercial percentage distribution. The Civic designation is in response to the current use of the site by an existing church and related facilities. Within the residential land use classification the ETOD proposal shifts some of the Very Low and Low Density to the Medium Density classification. Although this action increases density it does not affect residential acreage, or limit housing types. Both the LMR and MMR districts allow single- family detached housing, as well as a broader choice of housing types than allowed in the conventional R -1 and R -2 districts. The shift in Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential was necessary to achieve the minimum density required in the Regional Plan Element. The following describes each of the residential and commercial land use and zoning district designations within the proposed ETOD area: • RESIDENTIAL, TOD Zoning LMR (CPMC Section 17.65.040(A)(1), Land Use TOD Districts) — Low Mix Residential, the lowest density residential TOD zoning district allowing single - family detached as the primary housing type, however; attached single- family, and lower density multi- family housing types are allowed. MMR (CPMC Section 17.56.040(A)(2), Land Use TOD Districts) — Medium Mix Residential, the medium density residential TOD zoning district allowing higher density forms of residential development, including higher density single - family residential and a variety of multiple - family housing types. Low impact commercial activities may also be allowed. • COMMERCIAL, TOD Zoning EC (CPMC Section 17.56.040(B)(1), Land Use TOD Districts) — Retail service, and office uses are primarily intended for this district. Activities oriented and complementary to pedestrian travel and transit are encouraged. Development is expected to support pedestrian access and transit use. Automobile oriented Page 10 of 80 jk CENTRAL POINT EE 7777j 1 F Lo • J _-- --..- .,_.._ Y Y" XA i a .� ... —... E.PIna St f • Legend Study Area - - Urban Growth Boundary Civic = Medium Mix Residential Low Mix Residential = Employment Commercial Comprehensive Plan Proposed Eastside TOD District Page l I of 80 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. • CIVIC, TOD Zoning C (CPMC Section 17.56.040(C), Land Use TOD Districts) — Civic uses such as government offices, schools, and community centers are the primary uses intended in the C district. These uses can play an important role-in the vitality of the TOD district_ D. BUILD -OUT COMPARISONS The Regional Plan Element contains a population projection for the City Ithrough the year 2030. It is estimated that by 2030 the City will need enough buildable land to accommodate an additional 8,605 people, or 3,442 new households at 2.5 persons per household. To accommodate the new housing demand it will be necessary that the City either expand its current UG13, or increase density, or a combination of both. The following compares the build -out of the ETOD area under three different scenarios as follows: E. CURRENT ZONING BUILD -OUT SCENARIO Under the current zoning scenario the maximum build -out capacity of the proposed ETOD area is 513 dwelling units for a density of 5.1 dwelling units per gross acre. This is based on the maximum allowable densities for the current zoning (converted to gross acres). As illustrated in Table 3.3 the current zoning does not meet the minimum density standards set forth in the Regional Plan Element. For the commercially zoned lands it is estimated that at build -out there will be 213,000 sq. ft. of commercial gross floor area. This figure is based on a prior application$ for the commercial development of the C -4 property. TABLE 3.3 Current Zoning Build -Out Scenario Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, Chapter 3 'Proposed Retail Pear Blossom Plaza (Wal -Mart), PacLand, December 17, 2003 Page 12 of 80 F. EAST PINE STREET TRANSPORTATION PLAN/TSP BUILD -OUT SCENARIO In 2004 the City had prepared an East Pine Street Transportation Plan (EPSTP), which included the proposed ETOD area. The EPSTP maximum density was later used in the modeling9 for the City's TSP, which was approved and acknowledged in 2008. For the ETOD area the assigned EPSTP build -out10 was 731 dwelling units for a density of 7.21 dwelling units per gross acre, which is consistent with the minimum density required in the Regional Plan. However, this is a maximum density and does not take into consideration the possibility of development occurring at the minimum density illustrated in Table 3.4, which illustrates the ETOD build -out used in the EPSTP /TSP. For the commercially zoned lands the EPSTP used a build -out of 207,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, slightly less than the commercial square footage used in the Current Zoning Scenario. TABLE 3.4 East Pine Street Transportation Plan Build -Out Scenario Land Use , 1MW Area i Low Density MediUrn Density G. ETOD BUILD -OUT SCENARIO Under the ETOD Scenario it is estimated that at build -out there will be a total of 1,616 dwelling units, for a maximum density of 16.9 dwelling units per gross acre (Table 3.5). The minimum density would be 7.7 dwelling units per gross acre, which is consistent with the 6.9 minimum density required in the Regional Plan Element. Based on past TOD projects (Table 3.6) it is unlikely that build -out of the ETOD will approach the maximum density shown in Table 3.5. Past TOD projects have averaged 9 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan Existing & Future Conditions Technical Traffic Report, JRH Transportation Engineering, June 30, 2007 10 Based on a conversion of p.m. peak hour trips to units from the East Pine Street Transportation Plan, JRH Transportation Engineers, Pages 18 -19 Page 13 of 80 58% of maximum allowed density. For purposes of these findings an adjusted build - out density of 70% (Adjusted Max. DUs) of the maximum allowed will be used. Table 3.5 identifies the adjusted maximum build -out (1,131) and density (11.8). The Adjusted Max. DUs is an aggressive, but realistic, build -out scenario for the ETOD area. If 60% of maximum were used (a figure consistent with past experience) then the build -out density would be 970 dwelling units for a density of 10.2 DUs per gross acre. The ETOD used the higher Current Zoning Scenario from the Table 3.3 for commercial development, but added an additional 15,461 sq. ft. of floor area representing an existing church facility previously located in the current R -1 -6 zone. As illustrated in Table 3.5 the ETOD Build -Out Scenario, at 7.7 DUs per gross acre, complies with the Regional Plan Element's minimum density requirement of 6.9. TABLE Proposed 1 Build-Out A ws a 1 .Comm. Floor Area &ffmok :232 464 325 N.A. ®, 1,151 806 N.A. N.A. N.A. IF N.A 734 1,616 N.A. 15,461 N.A. 213,000 1,131 228,461 11.8 N.A.= Gross Res Max. Approved Acres Allowable I elling Dwelling Vnits -,ems 133 2,610 1,475 13 265 172 16 173_ 1.24 " Existing church use, Shepherd of the Valley iLllir 57 %ddl 11.1 65 -Mp' 12.8 72% .. 7.9 Page 14 of 80 IV. FINDINGS The ETOD application has been evaluated for compliance with the policies of the City's various Comprehensive Plan Elements, applicable zoning ordinance regulations, and the Transportation Planning Rule as follows: A) Land Development Code (CPMC 17.05.900, Traffic Impact Analysis) B) Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660- 012 -0060, Plan and Land Use Amendments) C) Comprehensive Plan a) Urbanization Element b) Citizen Involvement Element c) Housing Element d) Environmental Management Element e) Parks & Recreation Element f) Public Facilities and Services Element g) Economic Element h) Energy Utilization & Conservation Element i) Circulation /Transportation (Transportation System Plan) Element j) Land Use Element k) Regional Plan Element A. FINDINGS SECTION 17.08.900 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Section 17.05. 100 requires the preparation of a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for certain land use actions, including comprehensive plan amendments and zone changes. The proposed ETOD project involves both an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the Zone Map, and is therefore subject to a TIA. Because the proposed ETOD does not directly involve physical development, such as a tentative map or a site plan review, the most immediate concern is whether or not the ETOD proposal will significantly affect current and planned transportation facilities as identified in the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP). The TIA was structured to focus on a determination of "significant affect" as defined in the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660 - 012 - 0060). When the ETOD area is subject to further planning actions involving tentative and final plats, or site plan review, additional site specific development TIAs will be required. Finding, Section 1 205.100: The City contracted with JRH Transportation Engineers to complete a TIA (Attached Exhibit "D'). Based on the TIA it was determined that the ETOD would not significantly affect existing and planned transportation_ facilities as approved in the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP). As projects develop in the ETOD area additional TIAs will be required to measure traffic impacts against the TPS projections and to determine needed transportation projects and their timing. In a letter (Exhibit "E') from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) it was argued that the proposed ETOD would significantly affect current and planned transportation facilities. ODOT's position was based on the use of transportation modeling information that was Page 15 of 80 different from that used by the City when preparing the TSP. The City's TSP used land use projections from the East Pine Street Transportation Plan (EPSTP), which provided for more intense development of the ETOD area. Based on the EPSTP the TSP was completed, transportation service levels and needs were forecast, and projects selected. The TSP was approved by the City Council and Acknowledged by LCDC. Conclusion, Section 17.05.100: A TIA was prepared in accordance with Section 17.05. 100 to determine "significant affect" per OAR 660- 012 -0060. It was determined that the proposed ETOD would not significantly affect existing or planned transportation.facilities as described in the 2008 TSP. B. FINDINGS, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE (OAR 660- 012 -0060, PLAN AND LAND USE AMENDMENTS) Section 660 - 012 -0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments sets forth requirements for evaluating whether or not certain projects will significantly affect existing or planned transportation. OAR 660 - 012 - 0060(1). If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3). (9), or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: 660 - 012- 0060(1)(a). Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan). Finding 660- 12- 0060(1)(a): The proposed ETOD Project does not cause a change in, or otherwise alter, the, functional classification of any existing or planned transportation facility identified in the TSP. Conclusion 660 - 012- 0060(1)(a): Consistent 660 - 012- 0060(1)(b): Change standards implementing a functional classification system. Finding 660 - 012- 0060(1)(b): The proposed ETOD Project does not cause a change, or otherwise alter standards implementing the functional classification system as defined in the 2008 TSP. Conclusion 660 - 012- 0060(1)(b): Consistent 660- 012- 0060(1)(c) Results in any of the effects listed in paragraph (A) through (C) of this subsection based projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be increased within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. Page 16 of 80 660- 12- 0060(1)(c)(A). Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility. Finding 660 - 012- 0060(1)(c)(A): The proposed ETOD Project will not alter, or otherwise affect the types of travel or access that would cause an inconsistency with existing or planned transportation systems identified in the TSP. The proposed ETOD Project does not alter land use patterns, other than increases in residential density that would be inconsistent with existing or planned functional street classifications. Currently designated residential lands will remain residential and commercially designated lands will remain commercial. There is an existing S acre parcel currently designated for residential use and used ,for church (civic) purposes that will be re- designated as a civic use. Conclusion 660- 012- 0060(1)(c)(A): Consistent 660- 12- 0060(1)(c)(B): Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. Finding 660- 12- 0060(1)(c)(B): The City's TSP identifies a minimum LOS, for its transportation facilities. The TSP also acknowledges that with time transportation facility improvements will be necessary to maintain the minimum level of service. The location, description, timing and cost of these improvements are identified in the TSP. Preparation of the TSP was based on traffic forecasts prepared by JRH Transportation Engineers (JRH)12. For the proposed ETOD area build - out was initially projected to occur by 2010 with a PMpeak trip count of 1,591 trips and an AD of 17,028 (Table 7.1). The proposed ETOD area, upon build-out under TOD zoning, would generate 1, 637 PMpeak trips and 17,567 ADT (Table 7. 2), which is 48 PMpeak trips and 539 AD more than used in the TSP (Table 7.1) for the same area. Based on the TIA (Exhibit "D') prepared.for the proposed ETOD it was determined that the additional trips generated by the ETOD were not significant and would not affect the current and planned transportation facilities identified in the TSP, per OAR 660 - 012- 0060(1)(c)(B). Table 7.1 East Pine Street Transportation Plan Build -Out Trip Generation 12 Exhibit "A" — East Pine Street Transportation Plan, JRH Transportation Engineers, 2004 Page 17 of 80 *Average of single- family and apartment land use Table 11 Build-Out ' r-elling CommerC FCTodell, E Land AM DT GFA ' Use Tri LNIR Density) ) 325 NA 210 SFR 273* 214 2,768 NINIR (Medium Density-_ 6 NA 210 i�st1h. 299* 247 3,55& NA 15,461 560 Church 9 9 141 Commercial) 13.000 820 Shoff. 1.056 220 ll.l 1,131 211,393 1,637 689 17,567 *10% reduction as allowed for TOD zoning in OAR 660 -1 - 012- 0060(6)(a) As a, further review of the possible impact the proposed ETOD may have on the TSP the Alternative Land Use Scenario (AL US) used in ODOT's draft Interchange Access Management Plan 33 (IAMP33) was compared against the TSP for the LOS of ETOD area intersections. The ALLS was an aggressive land use scenario developed by ODOT to determine the sensitivity of planned interchange improvements if the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan land use growth projections were used. Table 7.3 provides a comparison cif the projected LOS for intersections within the ETOD area per the TSP and the LOSfor those same intersections. As noted in Table 7.3 the TSP LOS forecasts are equivalent to, or more aggressive, than the, forecasts used in the AL US. Page 18 of 80 Conclusion 660 - 012- 0060(1)(c)(B): The proposed ETOD does not alter or otherwise affect the LOS beyond that which has been projected in the TSP, nor does it alter the timing or funding of planned transportation facilities /projects as identified in the TSP. 660 - 012- 0060(1)(c)(C). Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is TOD Projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. Finding 660- 12- 0060(1)(c)(C): As illustrated in Table '.2 the proposed ETOD does not cause a,further aggravation in the performance of existing or planned transportation facilities beyond that already identified in the TSP. Conclusion 660- 12- 0060(1)(c)(1: Consistent C. FINDINGS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The goal of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan is "To determine future growth of the present City to the mutual benefit of the public by consideration of proper land use planning incorporating statewide goals and guidelines in the adoption of policies to ensure a logical, orderly planning process." This goal is supported by the following nine general policies: 1. Provide for an orderly and reasonable expansion of the Central Point urbanizing area. Finding, General Policy 1: The proposed ETOD is not affecting the City's current UGB. The proposed ETOD, through use of the City's TOD standards does provide for a more orderly (master plan requirement) and efficient use (TOD density) of the City's buildable land inventory currently in the UGB. Conclusion, General Policy]: Consistent 2. Encourage the enhancement of private property values and quality of life through compatible arrangement of land uses. Finding, General Policy 2: The City's TOD standards (Section 17.67 Design Standards) addresses the concern, for land use compatibility and contains specific standards (Section 17.6 7.050 Site Design Standards) to be addressed during the master plan (Section 17.66.030 Application and Review) or site plan process. Conclusion, General Policy 2: Consistent Page 19 of 80 3. Provide flexibility of residential neighborhoods and housing opportunities to meet the changing needs of a growing population. Finding, General Policy 3: The proposed ETOD is not affecting the City's current UGB. The proposed ETOD, through use of the City's TOD standards does provide for a more orderly (master plan requirement) and efficient use (density) of the City's buildable land inventory that is currently in the UGB. The TOD standards offer more flexibility within the residential zoning districts as to density distribution and the type of housing allowed (Section 17, 65.050 Zoning Regulations, Table 1) vs. the existing conventional zoning, thus allowing_ for more diverse neighborhoods. Conclusion, General Policy 3: Consistent 4. Provide well balanced and convenient shopping opportunities for the residents of the Community. Finding, General Policy 4: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's current distribution of commercial lands. Within the ETOD there is approximately 21 acres of existing commercial land, which will be retained as commercial, but with a TOD commercial zoning. Conclusion, General Policy 4: Not Applicable Provide ease of access and circulation throughout the Community through an improved circulation /transportation system, and properly planned extensions to that system Finding, General Policy 5: Development within the proposed ETOD will be subject to the master planning requirements of the TOD district, which will require that circulation and access to and from and TOD project comply with TOD access standards (Section 17.67.040 Circulation and Access Standards). Conclusion, General Policy 5: Consistent 6. Provide increased localized employment opportunities within the community through the expansion of the commercial and industrial base. Finding, General Policy 6: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's current ability to increase local employment opportunities. Conclusion, General Policy 6: Not Applicable 7. Provide for the logical and most economical expansion of community facilities and services to accommodate the Plan's proposed land uses and continued growth of the City. Finding, General Policy 7: The proposed ETOD area contains 40% of the City's buildable residential acreage and 30% of the City's Page 20 of 80 commercial buildable acreage that is essentially surrounded by the City. Given the availability of nearby public facilities and the design and density standards of the TOD district, the proposed ETOD represents both a logical and economical expansion and use ofpublic facilities, beyond that allowed by current zoning. Conclusion, General Policy 7: Consistent 8. Ensure the protection and enhancement of existing natural environmental features and productive agricultural lands through responsible land use planning and development controls. Finding, General Policy 8: The TOD standards (Section 17.6 7.050 Site Design Standards) include provisions for not only identifying environmental features, but also the requirement to adequately incorporate these uses features into a development's site design. The proposed amendment to Section 17.6 7.50 Site Design Standards, further acknowledges the need to identify environmental features during the master planning process and to provide adequate buffering and maintained livability. With respect to agricultural lands the TOD standards provide sufficient flexibility in the site design process (not offered under conventional zoning) to mitigate conflicts between urban uses and adjacent agricultural uses. Conclusion, General Policy 8: Consistent 9. Plan for a system of parks and recreation facilities, areas and opportunities that is accessible to all residents and in balance with growth and development. Finding, General Policy 9: The proposed ETOD will not conflict with the City's recreational goals and policies, and is consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. TOD standards (Section 17.67.060 Public Parks and Open Space Design Standards) include provisions for open space and recreational facilities within a TOD development. Conclusion, General Policy 9: Consistent Policies aimed specifically at the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives are contained in each of the following eleven (11) Plan elements: A) Citizen Involvement Element B) Urbanization Element C) Housing Element D) Environmental Management Element E) Parks and Recreation Element F) Public Facilities and Services Element G) Economic Element Page 21 of 80 H) Energy Utilization and Conservation Element I) Transportation System Plan J) Land Use Element K) Regional Plan Element Each element is comprised of goals and policies. The proposed ETOD has been evaluated against these goals and their policies. The findings and conclusions are presented as follows: A. FINDINGS, CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT It is the goal of the Citizens Involvement Element is derived from the Statewide Planning Goal No. 1, which is "to develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." To attain this goal the City's Citizen Involvement Element includes six policies. 1. The Citizen Involvement Program shall involve a "cross- section" of affected citizens in all planning phases and shall include a recognized citizens advisory committee. 2. In order to assure effective communication with citizens, mechanisms shall be established, including such methods as newsletters, questionnaires, posters, and other available media, as appropriate. 3. Whenever possible, citizens shall be given the opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process, including (1) data collection, (2) plan preparation, (3) adoption, (4) implementation, (5) evaluation, and (6) revision. 4. The City will assure that all information used in the preparation of the Plan or related reports, is made available in an easy to understand form and is available for review at the community library, City Hall, or other location. 5. The City will be responsive to citizens or groups taking part in the planning process and all land use policy decisions will be documented in written form and available for public review. 6. Adequate human, financial and informational resources will be allocated for the citizens involvement program and such resources will be an integral component of the planning budget. Finding, Policies I - 6: In response to the Statewide Planning Goal I to encourage citizen involvement in the land use process the City has adopted regulations compliant with state statutes regarding citizen participation. The proposed ETOD application is classified as a Type IV (legislative) land use application and has been processed in accordance with the applicable procedures set forth in Section 17.05.500 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the City Community Development Department has conducted three (3) neighborhood meetings to discuss the ETOD proposal. Those meetings were held at Page 22 of 80 the Shepherd of the Valley church on September 20, 29, 2011 and November 27, 2012. On November 13, 2012, December 4, 2012 and January 8, 2013 the ETOD proposal was considered by the Planning Commission, the latter two dates being duly publicized public hearings. On February S, 2013 the Planning Commission, at a regularly scheduled meeting forwarded a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the ETOD. Conclusion, Policies I - 6. Consistent with Policies 1— 6. B. FINDINGS, URBANIZATION ELEMENT The goal of the Urbanization Element is: "To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." The primary emphasis of the Urbanization Element is on the establishment and management of the City's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Urbanization Element does not contain any specific policies to manage urbanization, but instead relies on seven factors. For the purpose of these findings the stated "factors" will be addressed as if they were policies. The Proposed ETOD has been reviewed against each of these factors as follows: Factor 1, Urbanization: Demonstrated need to accommodate long -range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals. Finding, Factor 1: The Proposed ETOD does not alter the City's current land use mix on which the UGB was based. Residentially designated lands, with the exception of the existing church Civic designation, remain residential and commercial lands remain commercial. Within the residential land use designation densities are increased through the replacement of conventional zoning with the City's TOD zoning standards. The use of TOD zoning standards expands the tvpes of housing allowed in the residential district. Conclusion, Factor 1: Consistent Factor 2, Urbanization: Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability. Finding, Factor 2: The proposed ETOD does not alter the City's current land use mix on which the UGB was based. The ETOD does provide for an increase in residential density consistent with the Regional Plan. The ETOD district increases the housing types allowed within the residential TOD zone beyond what was allowed under conventional zoning (R -1 and R -2). This allows greater flexibility in addressing housing demand by type and affordability, as well as allowing for life -cycle neighborhoods. Conclusion, Factor 2: Consistent Page 23 of 80 Factor 3, Urbanization: Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services. Finding, Factor 3: The proposed ETOD does not alter the City's orderly provision of public facilities and services as the City expands. Conclusion, Factor 3: Consistent Factor 4, Urbanization: Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area. Finding, Factor 4: The proposed ETOD, through housing type .flexibility and density increases, supports the more efficient use of land withinf the City's urban area. The ETOD area represents a significant percentage of the City's residential (4001o) and commercial (17%) buildable acreage. Conclusion, Factor 4: Consistent Factor 5, Urbanization: Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences. Finding, Factor 5: Factor 5,focuses on the efficient use ofthe City's natural and manmade assets in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. The proposed ETOD's primary objective is the efficient use and development of the area in a manner that meets density requirements of the Regional Plan Element while supporting the development of attractive, affordable, and safe mixed -use neighborhoods. Conclusion, Factor 5: Consistent Factor 6, Urbanization: Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest priority for retention and Class IV the lowest. Finding, Factor 6: The proposed ETOD is within the City's current Urban Growth Boundary and does not involve the conversion of agricultural lands to urban. Conclusion, Factor 6: Not Applicable Factor 7, Urbanization: Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural uses. Finding, Factor 7. The proposed ETOD includes lands within the UGB that are zoned. for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), and adjacent to the ETOD's northwesterly boundary (see Figure X, Exclusive Farm U.se Lands), The City's TOD standards (Section 17.66 Application Review Process and Section 17.67 Design Standards) provide both the opportunity to identify the presence of agricultural lands, but also reasonable standards, for mitigating any definable negative impacts between proposed urban uses and existing agricultural uses. Page 24 of 80 Conclusion, Factor 7. Consistent C. FINDINGS, HOUSING ELEMENT The Housing Element contains six goals supported by 20 policies as follows: Housing Policy 1: Undertake an analysis of the housing needs to determine whether or not any adjustments should be made to the proposed residential balance of this Plan. Finding, Housing Policy I: The proposed ETOD application will not affect the City's housing needs, but it does offer, through flexible standards, expanded opportunities in addressing market demand for housing. Conclusion, Housing Policy 1: Consistent Housing Policy 2: Provide for a range of housing types, styles, and costs, including single- family homes, condominiums, rental housing and mobile homes. Finding, Housing Policy 2: The proposed ETOD application provides ,for a broader range of housing types (Section 17. 65.050 Zoning Regulations, Table 1) than currently allowed in the R -1, R -1, and R -2 residential districts. Conclusion, Housing Policy 2: Consistent Housing Policy 3: Continue to update, as necessary, all appropriate City ordinances in order to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. Finding, Housing Policy 3: The proposed ETOD application effectively addresses the Housing goals of the City by improving the efficiency in use of residentially zoned lands and the type of housing permitted. Conclusion, Housing Policy 3: Consistent Housing Policy 4: Consider the development of a handbook that outlines specifically the development guidelines of the City for all types of residential development. Such a handbook should include all standards and guidelines for the development of residential areas and neighborhoods and should be available to and easily understood by developers and others in the field of housing. Finding, Housing Policy 4: For TOD designated lands the City has a development handbook, The Central Point TOD Design Requirements and Guidelines, which will be applicable to the ETOD area when re- designated as a TOD district. Conclusion, Housing Policy 4: Consistent Housing Policy 5: Encourage the preparation of a regional housing allocation system that would determine each community's "fair share" of low- and moderate - income housing. This would help to avoid any one jurisdiction accommodating a disproportionate share of lower cost housing. Page 25 of 80 Housing Policy S, Finding: The proposed ETOD application will not affect the City's ability to pursue collaboration with other jurisdictions to develop a regional ' fair share " allocation system. Housing Policy 5, Conclusion: Not Applicable Housing Policy 6: Undertake a complete housing condition survey of the City to determine the overall condition of the housing stock and to identify specific housing units or neighborhoods that are in need of assistance. This survey should be done to HUD guidelines for possible later use in a housing assistance grant application to HUD or another granting agency. Housing Policy 6, Finding: The proposed ETOD application does not affect the City's ability to conduct a housing condition survey. Housing Policy 6, Conclusion: Not Applicable Housing Policy 7: Consider the development of a "housing code" that will provide guidelines and requirements for residential occupancy and maintenance and will help to ensure that neighborhoods and dwellings are being properly maintained. Housing Policy 7, Finding: The proposed ETOD application does not affect the City's ability to develop or modify its housing codes. Housing Policy 7, Conclusion: Not Applicable Housing Policy 8: Enforce existing City code requirements pertaining to the use and condition of residential properties throughout the city to ensure that conditions do not exist that could lead to blighting influence on the area or adjacent areas. Housing Policy 8, Finding: The proposed ETOD application does not affect the City's ability to enforce code requirements pertaining to the use and condition of residential properties. Housing Finding 8, Conclusion: Not Applicable Housing Policy 9: Develop energy - efficient standards for new and rehabilitated housing units, including weatherization, insulation, design, and solar - efficient landscaping. Housing Policy 9, Finding: The proposed ETOD application does not affect the City's ability to develop and adopt energy - efficient standards for new and rehabilitated housing units. Housing Policy 9, Conclusion: Not Applicable Housing Policy 10: Explore available incentives that will encourage the rehabilitation and improvement of older housing, including an awareness of available rehabilitation assistance programs. Housing Policy 10, Finding: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to develop incentives that will encourage the rehabilitation and improvement of older housing. Housing Policy 10, Conclusion: Not Applicable Page 26 of 80 Housing Policy 11: Promote clustered housing and other development designs that minimize the need for costly and unnecessary streets, walks, and other municipal expenditures. Encourage the use of cul -de -sac streets in residential neighborhoods whenever possible in lieu of the "grid" pattern of streets. Housing Policy 11, Finding: The use of TOD standards provides for the opportunity to cluster housing. The use of cul -de -sacs is permitted in the TOD districts provided that there is adequate connectivity for all modes of transportation. Housing Policy 11, Conclusion: Consistent Housing Policy 12: Ensure that proper treatment is given to natural areas within the Bear Creek corridor and other creeks by any development located adjacent to them, according to provisions of the Environmental Management Element. Housing Policy 12, Finding: The TOD districts master planning process and site design standards (Section 17.67.050 Site Design Standards) assures that environmental conditions must be identified, addressed and incorporated into a projects design. This includes the Bear Creek and all other creek corridors. Note: The Bear Creek corridor is adjacent to the westerly border of the ETOD area. Housing Policy 12, Conclusion: Consistent Housing Policy 13: Develop requirements and guidelines, to be included in the Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to energy conservation in all new residential construction, including standards for insulation, solar orientation, and solar energy systems for residential structures. Housing Policy 13, Finding: The ETOD application does not affect existing or.future development requirements or guidelines relating to energy conservation. The TOD standards (Section 17.67.050(D) Site Design Standards, Solar Orientation and Section 17.67.0 70 Building Design Standards) address energy conservation. Housing Policy 13, Conclusion: Consistent Housing Policy 14: Encourage the protection of natural vegetation and existing trees whenever possible in new developments. Housing Policy 14, Finding: The TOD standards (Section 17.67.050(B) Site Design Standards, Natural Features) require consideration of natural, features in the master planning process. Housing Policy 14, Conclusion: Consistent Housing Policy 15: Provide for noise impact considerations in all new residential developments and require noise attenuation design in all dwellings located within noise impact areas, specifically along Interstate 5 Freeway and in the vicinity of the Medford - Jackson County Airport. Page 27 of 80 Housing Policy 15, Finding: The TOD standards require residential and employment development to address noise conditions and appropriately mitigate (Section 17.67.050 Site Design Standards and 17.67.070 Building Design Standards). Housing Policy 15, Conclusion: Consistent Housing Policy 16: Ensure that all new residential development along the periphery of the Urban Growth Boundary includes an adequate buffer between the urban uses and rural uses outside the boundary. Housing Policy 16, Finding: The TOD standards require that all development address adjacent land uses and appropriately adjust the site plan to mitigate any identified conflicts. (Section 17.6 7.050 Site Design Standards). Housing Policy 16, Conclusion: Consistent Housing Policy 1.7: Encourage a "neighborhood concept" of residential development, as proposed in this Element of the Plan, through the design and plan review process. Housing Policy 17, Finding: The TOD standards (Section 17.67 Design Standards) provide both a process and standards that encourage the design and development of neighborhoods that accommodate a variety of housing type and other land uses. Housing Policy 17, Conclusion: Consistent Housing Policy 18: Increase the effects of buffering by requiring that new residential development be oriented inward toward the center of the neighborhood rather than outward toward other non- residential land uses. Housing Policy 18, Finding: The TOD standards (Section 17.67.050 Site Design Standards) include provisions for site planning that are consistent with Housing Policy 18. Housing Policy 18, Conclusion: Consistent Housing Policy 19: Ensure that the land use and circulation elements of this Plan provide for a pattern of urban development that can be adequately served by public transit in the future. Housing Policy 19, Findings: The primary objective of the TOD district is to enhance, through site design and construction standards the use of transit and other modes of transportation such as pedestrian and bicycle use. Housing Policy 19, Conclusion: Consistent Housing Policy 20: Encourage through design guidelines and the plan review process, provisions for non - motorized forms of transportation as alternatives to the automobile, especially for short trips within the community. Housing Policy 20, Finding: The purpose of the TOD design standards (section 17.67.010 Purpose) is to "... to reduce auto reliance and to Page 28 of 80 increase transit use as required by the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule." TOD standards (Section 17.67 Design Standards) include requirements to provide for and support multi -modal forms of transportation. Housing Policy 20, Conclusion: Consistent D. FINDINGS, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT The Environmental Management Element is comprised of eleven areas of environmental concern and six goals. Each of the eleven areas is guided by a series of implementation policies. The proposed ETOD has been reviewed for compliance with each of these areas of environmental concern and their related policies as follows: 1. Air Quality a. Transportation Policies b. Industrial Policies c. Land Use Policies 2. Water Resources 3. Waste Water 4. Agricultural Lands 5. Mineral Resources 6. Open Space and Scenic Resources 7. Flood Hazard Reduction 8. Geologic Hazards 9. Soils and Engineering 10. Noise 11. Historic Resources 1. FINDING, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES, AIR QUALITY Air quality related environmental policies are presented in three parts; Transportation, Industrial, and Land Use. Policies, Air Quality, Transportation (Number of Policies - 6) 1. The City of Central Point shall provide for employment, shopping, and recreational opportunities and public services in locations as close as practicable to new and existing residential uses. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD does not change general land use designations. Residential densities are increased and mixed -use is encouraged in a manner that will support multi - modal transportation and thus air- quality. The proposed ETOD is also consistent with both the Regional Transportation Plan and the City's Transportation System Plan Alternative Measure Page 29 of 80 to increase the use of mixed- use /pedestrian friendly development (see Findings, Transportation System Plan). Conclusion: Consistent 2. The City shall provide bicycle lanes as new streets are built or old streets are resurfaced, whenever possible, and promote the use of bicycles as an alternative to the family car. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD does not alter or otherwise affect current street standards, which include provisions for bicycle lanes. Additionally, the City's TOD standards (Section 17.67.040 Circulation and Access Standards) requires multi -modal transportation improvements. Conclusion: Consistent 3. The City will consider local code revisions to require as much insulation as reasonably achievable in new development in order to reduce overall heating requirements. Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD does not alter or otherwise affect regulation oj'local codes regulating insulation. Conclusion: Not Applicable 4. The City will continue to enforce existing rules pertaining to the open burning of construction and agricultural waste. Finding, Policy 4: The proposed ETOD does not alter or otherwise affect regulation of local codes regulating open burning. Conclusion: Not Applicable 5. The City will continue to promote quality and appropriate location for new industrial development to ensure that it is adequately buffered, as necessary, and, whenever possible, is downwind from residences, parks, schools, etc. Finding, Policy S: The proposed ETOD does not include, nor is it adjacent to industrially zoned lands. Conclusion: Not Applicable 6. The City will consider the adoption of an ordinance aimed at reducing the tracking of dirt and mud from construction sites onto public streets and highways. Page 30 of 80 Finding, Policy 6: The proposed ETOD does not include, nor does affect the City's ability to regulate tracking of dirt and mud from construction sites onto public streets. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policies, Air Quality, Industrial (Number of Policies - 6) 1. The City will study the feasibility and benefits to be derived from a ban on open and commercial burning within the City limits and, if benefits are significant, will initiate such a ban and encourage Jackson County to do the same within the urbanizable area of Central Point. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD does not alter or otherwise affect regulation of local codes regulating open and commercial burning. Conclusion: Not Applicable 2. The City will consider implementing a permit program for wood burning heating devices that might be based on a fee schedule that will encourage efficient wood stoves while discouraging the use of open fireplaces. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD does not supersede or otherwise modify current regulations related to wood stoves. Conclusion: Not Applicable 3. The City will consider local code revisions to require as much insulation as reasonably achievable in new development in order to reduce overall heating requirements. Finding, Policy 3: The City uses the Oregon Residential Specialty Code 2011 (ORSC 2011), Oregon Energy Efficiency Specialty Code 2010 (OEESC 2010), and the Oregon Structural Specialty Code 2010 (OSSC 2010) to regulate construction standards, including insulation standards. The proposed ETOD does not supersede or otherwise modem the City's use of these codes. Conclusion: Not Applicable 4. The City will continue to enforce existing rules pertaining to the open burning of construction and agricultural waste. Finding, Policy 4: The proposed ETOD does not supersede or otherwise modify current open burning regulations. Conclusion: Not Applicable Page 31 of 80 5. The City will continue to promote quality and appropriate location for new industrial development to ensure that it is adequately buffered, as necessary, and, whenever possible, is downwind from residences, parks, schools, etc. Finding, Policy 5: The proposed ETOD does not include, nor is it adjacent to industrially zoned /planned lands. Conclusion: Not Applicable 6. The City will consider the adoption of an ordinance aimed at reducing the tracking of dirt and mud from construction sites onto public streets and highways. Finding, Policy 6: The City now has a track -out ordinance that manages the tracking of dirt from construction sites. The proposed ETOD does not supersede or otherwise modify the City's track -out regulations. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policies, Air Quality, Land Use (Number of Policies - 3) 1. Land use policies will assist in minimizing conflicts among various land uses. Finding, Policy 1: The Proposed ETOD does not cause or otherwise aggravate conflicts between land uses. The TOD standards address, through the master planning requirement (Section 17.66.030 Application and Review), the relationship between proposed and existing land uses, and to identify and mitigate conflicts as necessary to enhance neighborhood livability (Section 17.67.050 Site Design Standards), Conclusion: Consistent 2. Air quality improvements can be achieved indirectly through such energy conservation practices as conversion to solar heating, which would reduce reliance on wood heating, a major source of particulates. Finding, Policy 2: The Proposed ETOD does not alter or otherwise affect development standards related to air quality. Conclusion: Consistent 3. Central Point should plan future development to separate major air pollution sources from residential, educational, and recreational land uses. Finding, Policy 3: The Proposed ETOD does not alter or otherwise affect land use designations, or development standards related to sources of air pollution. Page 32 of 80 Conclusion: Not Applicable E. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES, WATER RESOURCES (NUMBER OF POLICIES -1) 1. Central Point should begin its own water conservation program immediately by (1) requiring low flow water devices for all new construction and (2) working with the Oregon State Extension Service (OSES), Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and other agencies on programs to reduce water usage and waste. Finding, Policy 1: The Proposed ETOD does not supersede or otherwise modify current water conservation regulationsiprograms. Conclusion: Not Applicable F. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES, WASTE WATER (NUMBER OF POLICIES - 8) 1. Support the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority's efforts to expand sanitary sewer lines to areas of greatest need and coordination within Central Point's Plan. Finding, Policy 1: The Proposed ETOD does not supersede or otherwise conflict with the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority's (now known as Rogue Valley Sanitary) planning, construction, and operation o f the waste water system. Conclusion: Not Applicable 2. Support expansion of the Medford Regional Treatment Plant's capacity as necessary to meet increases in flows from increased population and industrial growth throughout the valley. Finding, Policy 2: The Proposed ETOD does not diminish the City's support, for the continued expansion of the Regional Treatment plant as necessary to meet increasing demand. Conclusion: Not Applicable 3. Discourage industrial development having unusually toxic effluent generation, unless the proposed industry in cooperation with the Regional Treatment Plant, provides all required pretreatment prior to discharge into sewer lines. Finding, Policy 3: The Proposed ETOD does not include, nor is it adjacent to industrially zoned /planned land uses. Conclusion: Not Applicable 4. Begin a program of sewer reconstruction to replace old deteriorated pipe and joints with new lines of appropriate size and capacity to serve existing needs and future demand. Page 33 of 80 Finding, Policy 4: The Proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to reconstruct /replace old deteriorated sanitary sewer lines. Conclusion: Not Applicable 5. Support the Rogue Valley Council of Governments in its efforts to reduce non -point water pollution sources, including efforts in conjunction with the Bear Creek Greenway. Finding, Policy S: The Proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to participate programs to reduce non point water pollution sources. Conclusion: Not Applicable 6. Since urbanization is not to occur prior to annexation to the City, new septic systems will be permitted within the urbanizable area only for agricultural and rural residential type uses that are located on lands suitable for such systems, with the understanding that the owner must convert to the City's sewer system when urban growth reaches the property and facilities are available. Finding, Policy 6: The Proposed ETOD does not supersede or otherwise modify current requirements to connect to a sewer system. Conclusion: Not Applicable 7. Support Jackson County and the State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries in their efforts to control pollution from mining, quarry operations and aggregate removal activities. Finding, Policy 7. The Proposed ETOD does not regulate, endorse, or otherwise support mining, quarry operation, or aggregate removal. Conclusion: Not Applicable 8. Complete the already initiated project of separating storm sewers from the sanitary system within the City and continue the separation in all new development. Finding, Policy 8: The Proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to continue efforts to separate the storm sewers from sanitary .sewers system. Conclusion: Not Applicable Page 34 of 80 G. POLICIES, AGRICULTURAL LANDS General Policies (Number of Policies - 3) 1. Central Point will continue its existing policy of supporting agricultural land use as long as practicable, in accordance with the urbanization policies of this Plan. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD is within the City's UGB and currently includes one parcel zoned for Exclusive Agricultural Use (EFU). The ultimate conversion of this parcel (see Figure 3.6) for urban use is, by way of being in the UGB, acknowledged. Consideration of the proposed ETOD does not alter this condition. Conclusion: Not Applicable 2. Every effort will be made to reduce urban /agricultural conflicts by: a. Discouraging "leap- frog" development that is inconsistent with urbanization policies dealing with the phasing of development. b. Providing appropriate buffers between urban land uses and intensive agricultural uses, with emphasis on the periphery of the Urban Growth Boundary. c. Supporting efforts by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and the Jackson County Soil and Water Conservation District (JSWCD) to promote Best Management Practices (BPM's) reducing soil erosion and excessive irrigation runoff. Finding, Policy 2(4-c): The proposed ETOD is within the City's current UGB and will comply with City policies to buffer against intensive agricultural uses. Where applicable, the ETOD area will be subject to the Regional Plan Element's agricultural buffering standards (see Findings, Regional Plan Element). Conclusion: Consistent 3. Because of the nature and intent of the Urban Growth Boundary decisions, agricultural policies will necessarily differ for lands inside and outside the established boundary. Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD is within the City's current UGB and will comply with City policies to buffer against intensive agricultural uses. Where applicable, the ETOD area will be subject to the Regional Plan Element's agricultural buffering standards (see Findings, Regional Plan Element). Conclusion: Consistent Page 35 of 80 Ak CENTRAL POINT Legend Eastside ToD Jackson County EFU City Limits Zone RR -5 AR RR -2.5 Proposed Eastside TOD Jackson County Zoning Districts Page 36 of 80 UGB Agricultural (Number of Policies - 7) 1. Urban growth should first occur on vacant lands within the City limits. Annexations to Central Point should occur only after it can be demonstrated that the proposed land use is valuable to the City, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and will be properly serviced. In addition: a. Annexations should be contiguous to the City. b. Annexations should round out existing City limits irregularities that are presently causing some agricultural lands to be impacted from more than one direction. c. Annexations should reduce boundaries irregularities and should not be allowed to extend "urban arms" which could dramatically increase urban /agricultural conflicts. Finding, Policy I (a -c): The proposed ETOD does not alter or otherwise affect the City's current urbanization or annexation policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable 2. The policies pertaining to the phasing of growth and development within the UGB should be publicized and should indicate which areas should be developed first, etc. This will allow growers to plan their field improvements and ultimate conversions in a timely manner, according to the phasing plans of the City. This will also help to keep land speculation to a minimum. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD does not affect, nor conflict with the City's phasing plans for urban growth. Because the City's residential land use inventor y is low and the proposed ETOD has a large percentage of the available inventory it has been noted in the proceedings,for the ETOD that development of the ETOD is very likely to occur within the next S years. Conclusion: Consistent 3. No new roads will be constructed within the UGB which bisect existing agricultural lands, unless it can serve as a buffer between existing agricultural use and new urban development. Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD does not propose the construction of any roads within the EFU parcel located in the ETOD area. The ETOD does identify future roads, but only for purposes of assuring connectivity when the area develops. Conclusion: Consistent Page 37 of 80 4. As Central Point grows to near total urbanization of lands within the UGB, consideration will be given to the establishment of a "permanent" buffer between urban and agricultural uses such as: a. Agriculture - related industry along portions of the boundary that are not planned for further urban expansion. b. Permanent open space or conservation areas, possibly designed for certain recreational activities, such as trails. c. Residential rear yard setbacks of a distance determined to be adequate to minimize urban /agricultural conflicts, where residential development backs up to agriculture lands. In some cases, a peripheral road may be appropriate to define portions of the UGB and provide access to both urban and farm areas. Finding, Policy 4(a -c): For agricultural lands outside the UGB the recently adopted Regional Plan Element contains buffering provisions for the protection of agricultural lands. The ETOD area is within the UGB and is not subject to the Regional Plan Element agricultural buffering standards. Conclusion: Consistent 5. Agricultural uses will be strongly encouraged to remain in certain airport impact areas that are not suitable for urban development, particularly along runway approach corridors and safety or noise impact areas. Special consideration should be allowed in all areas east of Hamrick Road. Finding, Policy S: The proposed ETOD area is west of Hamrick Road and is not affected by airport impacted areas other than the general avigation area, which covers most of the City. Conclusion: Not applicable 6. Agriculture- related industry will be encouraged in locations having easy access to farmlands and with good transportation access to the freeway and railroad. Finding, Policy 6: The proposed ETOD does not discourage agricultural- related uses within the UGB. Lands within the ETOD area are already designated for urban use (Residential and Commercial). Conclusion: Not Applicable 7. Recognized farming organizations such as the Farm Bureau Farm Business Club, Fruit Growers League, Stockman's Association and others will be notified when major development activities and growth policy decisions are being considered that could significantly affect continued agricultural productivity. Finding, Policy 7: The proposed ETOD will not cause changes in land use policy that will impact agricultural productivity. Lands within the Page 38 of 80 ETOD area are already designated for urban use (Residential and Commercial). Conclusion: Not applicable Mineral Resources (Number of Policies -1) 1. In consideration of the existing and potential mineral resources within the Central Point UGB, the City's intent to support viable mineral resource management is as follows: a. For lands within the City Limits, Central Point will consider applicable land use control through zoning and use permit conditions to protect the viability of good mineral resource management in proportion to the anticipated long term productivity of the site. Finding, Policy la: The proposed ETOD will not cause changes in land use policy that will impact mineral resource management. Conclusion: Not Applicable b. For lands within the UGB but outside the City limits, Central Point will cooperate with the County in the administration of its Aggregate Removal Ordinance and appropriate sections of the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan. Finding, Policy Ib: The proposed will not affect the City's relationship with the County relative to aggregate removal. Conclusion: Not applicable Open Space and Scenic Resources (Number of Policies -1) 1. To preserve the existing scenic qualities and amenities and to ensure that future growth and development results in an increasingly attractive community, in harmony with the natural environment. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD, through the TOD standards (Section 17.67 Design Standards), provides greater opportunity to incorporate open space amenities into the site planning process. Conclusion: Consistent Flood Hazard Reduction (Number of Policies - 2) 1. Central point will continue to support and fully comply with all applicable provisions of the FFIPAP, including: a. Establishing elevations for 100 year and 500 year flooding; Page 39 of 80 b. Prohibit new construction within the 100 year flood areas unless the first occupiable floor is above the 100 year flood elevation, or flood control structures (dikes, etc.) are built to provide adequate protection to the development, and c. Prohibiting activities within the 100 year flood zone which in anyway aggravates flood hazards by either filling available flood retention areas (thus displacing flood water on to other areas) or inhibiting the flow of natural drainage areas. Finding, Policy 1(a -c): The proposed ETOD does not alter the City's flood hazard regulations. All development within the ETOD will remain subject to the flood hazard standards set ,forth in CPMC Chapter 8. Conclusion: Consistent 2. Central point will continue to cooperate with Jackson County to provide the same degree of flood hazard reduction planning and implementation outside the City limits but within the UGB. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD does not preclude, or otherwise interfere with, the City's continued coordination with the County in mitigation of flood hazard reduction and implementation outside the City Limits, but within the UGB. Conclusion: Not Applicable Geologic Hazard (Number of Policies - 4) 1. In conjunction with the flood hazard reduction and established Greenway policies, Central Point will encourage all new construction to set back a minimum of 100 feet from the primary floodway of Bear Creek and 50 feet back from the edge of banks along Jackson and Griffen Creeks, to ensure protection from slope stability problems in the UGB area. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD does not waive, or otherwise modify, the setback standards,from Bear Creek and Jackson and Griffen Creeks. Conclusion: Not Applicable 2. Central Point will encourage and support the expansion of the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority sewer lines wherever septic tank failures are evident. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD does not preclude, or otherwise interfere with, the City's continued support of the Bear Creek Valley Page 40 of 80 Sanitary Authority's (now known as Rogue Valley Sanitarv) of its sanitary sewer system. Conclusion: Not Applicable 3. The City will require that a registered geologist review all projects proposed in areas subject to potential slope instability or stream bank erosion problems. Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD does not preclude, or otherwise interfere with, the City's policy of requiring a registered geologist's review of projects within areas of potential slope instability or stream bank erosion. Conclusion: Not Applicable 4. The City will continue to utilize the Uniform Building Codes to govern the quality of construction of structures within the City limits, particularly in regard to Chapter 23 earthquake standards. Finding, Policy 4: The Proposed ETOD does not supersede, or otherwise interfere with, the City's continued use of the Uniform Building Code, or any replacement codes. Conclusion: Not Applicable Soil and Engineering (Number of Policies - 2) 1. Central Point will continue to utilize the most recent soils data available in evaluation of the feasibility of new development. Finding, Policy 1: All projects and activities undertaken within the proposed ETOD will continue to be based on the most recent soils and geologic data. Conclusion: Consistent 2. For major projects (greater than two - stories, with the exception of single - family homes), a soils report prepared by a registered soils engineer will be required. Finding, Policy 2: All projects and activities undertaken within the proposed ETOD, where /when applicable, will include the preparation of a soils report prepared by a registered soils engineer. Conclusion: Consistent Page 41 of 80 Noise (Number of Policies - 4) 1. The City shall continue to collect and update noise information on all major noise sources affecting the community, including the 1 -5 Freeway, Highway 99, Expo Park, Southern Pacific Railroad, commercial and industrial operations and others. Finding, Policy 1: Adoption of the proposed ETOD will not preclude, or otherwise interfere with the City's ability to collect and update noise information. Conclusion: Not Applicable 2. The City shall work with the Department of Environmental Quality on noise - related issues and take advantage of that agency's expertise and information on matters pertaining to new or revised noise ordinances for Central point. Finding, Policy 2: Adoption of the proposed ETOD will not preclude, or otherwise interfere with the City's ability to work with the Department of Environmental Quality regarding noise issues, or noise related ordinances. Conclusion: Not Applicable 3. The City shall require property owners to master plan the land use and design of new developments to control and minimize noise through such requirements as site orientation, buffering, distance separation, insulation, and other design features. Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD will use the City's TOD standards which requires master planning and the application of design standards addressing building orientation, open space, landscaping, building entries, etc. (,Section 17.66 Application Review Process and Section 17.67 Design Standards) Conclusion: Consistent 4. The City shall remain aware of airport expansion plans, changes in airport noise contours, and shall ensure that adequate land use safeguards and noise attenuation measures are in place prior to City expansion or development in areas that may be impacted by airport noise. Finding, Policy 4: Development within the proposed ETOD will be subject to current zoning restrictions, including noise related standards relative to the airport. Conclusion: Consistent Page 42 of 80 Historic (Number of Policies — 5) 1. The City of Central Point shall continue to expand and update its lists of historically significant sites and buildings and will consider the preparation of a historical brochure that can be used for educational or informational purposes. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to carry -out the above policy. The ETOD area does not have any designated historic buildings or sites. Conclusion: Not Applicable 2. The City shall continue to work toward Zoning Ordinance amendments that include specific procedures and guidelines for historical assessment and preservation, to ensure that significant sites or structures will be adequately addressed in terms of their value to the community and state whenever they are threatened by demolition, reconstruction, major remodeling or adjacent development. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to carry -out the above policy. The ETOD area does not have any designated historic buildings or sites. Conclusion: Not Applicable 3. The City shall remain in contact with the Southern Oregon Historical Society and seek its assistance in the preparation of applications for grant assistance or other projects that are related to historical inventories, placement of historical identification markers, documentation, procedures, etc. Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to carry -out the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable 4. The City shall complete an inventory of historical sites and structure for all areas within the City limits, to supplement data provided by the State and SOHS, and within the limits of the City's budget and staff. Finding, Policy 4: The Proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to carry -out the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable 5. The City will encourage the formation of a local historical society or similar organization that can generate the needed interest and volunteers to assist in local preservation efforts. Page 43 of 80 Finding, Policy S: The Proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability carry -out the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable H. PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT The Parks and Recreation Element is supported by seven goals and seventeen policies in two categories; General Policies and Greenway Policies. Goals (Number of Goals — 7) 1. To provide a sufficient range of recreation opportunities and facilities to meet the needs of all ages and interests throughout the Community. 2. To provide an equitable distribution of recreation facilities throughout the Community to ensure the easiest possible access by all residents. 3. To enhance neighborhood and Community quality by providing for the development of attractive, functional, and accessible parks and open space areas throughout the City. 4. To encourage educational opportunities through park and recreation programs that may include learning activities in the fields of music, fine arts, performing arts, nature, or other areas. 5. To encourage the balanced development of commercial recreation facilities to ensure a more diverse range of opportunities for both recreation and entertainment. 6. To provide for the development of tourist and recreational area support facilities, such as motels, restaurants, etc., in close proximity to or easily accessible to such facilities as the airport, the County's Exposition Park, downtown Central Point or other locations, as appropriate. 7. To ensure that local parks and recreation plans and programs are coordinated with those of the County and other appropriate jurisdictions. Finding, Policies I - 7: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to carry -out the above Parks and Recreation goals. The City's TOD standards (Section 17.67.060 Public Parks and Open Space Design Standards) includes standards specific to TOD development for enhancing neighborhood open space and recreational opportunities. Conclusion: Consistent Page 44 of 80 General Policies (Number of Policies —14) 1. Continue to update data related to the present and future park and recreation needs and design facilities and programs that will satisfy those needs. 2. Coordinate efforts of the City with those of the County, State, adjacent municipalities, private and quasi- public organizations, and commercial enterprises to maximize the efficient use of all recreation - related resources in and adjacent to Central Point. 3. Coordinate recreation efforts with the School District to ensure the joint and balanced utilization of City and District facilities with a minimum of costly and unnecessary duplication of services. 4. Coordinate parks and recreation planning with provisions and policies set forth in the Environmental Management Element, Energy Utilization Element and the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan to maximize the visual, aesthetic, and energy conservation impacts of these facilities on the community as a whole. 5. Encourage the development of bicycle and pedestrian trails. separate from motor vehicle traffic, that will serve to link various components of the parks and recreation system of the community. 6. Ensure that the special needs of the elderly, handicapped and otherwise disadvantaged residents of the community are provided for in the planning and design of all major recreational facilities. 7. Seek financing for recreational facilities and park land acquisition and development through all available means, including taxation, bond issues, user fees, grants, or other appropriate sources. 8. Ensure the visual and aesthetic protection of the historic Central Point Elementary School through the design and development of a historical mini -park in front of the structure (north side) as described in this element of the Plan. The park should become a part of the overall restoration plan and program. 9. Provide for the physical and environmental protection of Jackson and Griffen Creeks as open space resource areas as described in the Environmental Management Plan. 10. Support the concepts outlined in the "Trails for Oregon — A Plan for a Recreation Trails System" developed by the Parks and Recreation Branch of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and continue to take advantage of opportunities to take advantage of local linkages with this system. 11. Encourage programs of athletic activity that will promote the health and well -being of Central Point residents, especially those most popular major sports such as baseball, Page 45 of 80 football, soccer, tennis, basketball, bicycling, running and swimming. 12. Analyze and revise, if necessary, the City's Zoning and other ordinances that relate to recreation to provide for well designed and appropriately located commercial recreation and entertainment facilities that will supplement the City's and School District's public programs. 13. Develop a system of pedestrian/bicycle trails that will link with the County's bikeways system and with the Bear Creek Greenway system. 14. Utilize the State's gas tax allocation for bicycle trails and continually monitor the availability of other funds that could be utilized for the development of the parks and recreation facilities. Finding, Policies I —14: The Proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to carry -out the above general Parks and Recreation policies. The City's TOD standards (Section 17.67 Design Standards) includes standards specific to TOD development, for enhancing neighborhood open space and recreational opportunities. Conclusion: Consistent with Policies I —14. Greenway Policies (Number of Policies — 3) 1. Support the efforts of the Bear Creek Greenway Committee and Jackson County in the acquisition and development of the Greenway. 2. Include the Bear Creek Greenway in the City's future bicycle, equestrian, and pedestrian trail system. a. Interconnect the City's bicycle system with the Greenway to ensure ease of access, especially from recreation - oriented activity nodes such as schools and parks. b. Provide major connections with the Greenway system near Upton Road and near Pine Street. These locations will also provide bridge crossings over Bear Creek. 3. Ensure, through development controls and requirements, that all new development adjacent to the Greenway corridor does not result in adverse impacts on the Greenway or Bear Creek. a. Do not allow the construction of physical land improvements or structures within 100 feet of the natural watercourse, with the exception of walls or fences separating the greenway from private property. Page 46 of 80 b. Discourage direct access to the Greenway from adjacent properties, and provide a series of public accessways for this purpose. c. Require that all properties, other than public, provide a fence, wall, or other barrier between the private property and Greenway lands to help ensure privacy, security and discouragement of trespassing onto private property along the Greenway. d. Ensure that waste products from grading or construction are not deposited within the Greenway and that such activities do not encroach into the Greenway corridor. Finding, Policies I — 3: The Bear Creek Greenway is adjacent to the ETOD's westerly boundary. Development within the ETOD, through the master planning process, must address on -site and off- site natural features and accommodate in the site plan Conclusion: Consistent I. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT Public Schools (Number of Policies - 6) 1. Continue to work closely with the local school district and toward compatibility of both City and District plans and programs. 2. Invite input from the School District on any issue or development proposal that may significantly affect the provision of educational services. 3. Ensure through the subdivision ordinance and plan review procedures that school capacities and future plans will adequately accommodate the service needs generated by the proposed residential development. 4. Assist the School District in new school site planning and encourage new sites to be located in residential areas, as shown on the Comprehensive Plan map and described in the "neighborhood concept" in the Housing Element. 5. Work with the County, School District #6, and other interested agencies to investigate the feasibility of establishing a facilities development charge to more equitably distribute the costs of additional facilities and services. 6. If a future need is generated for a community college in the Valley, appoint a representative from Central Point to the County's citizens committee (proposed in the County's Comprehensive Plan) and also investigate any potential sites in the Central Point area that might be suitable for such a facility. Finding, Policy 1— 6: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to work with the school district in addressing the above policies. Page 47 of 80 Development within the proposed ETOD will adhere to the above policies. Conclusion: Consistent Library Services (Number of Policies - 2) 1. Encourage the Jackson County Library System to improve library services in Central Point in accordance with local needs and planned growth. 2. Encourage the construction of a new library facility in Central Point that would replace the existing rented retail store facility, would provide adequate access and parking, and would be an educational and cultural asset to the Community, the library service area and the County's library system. Finding, Policy 1- 2: The Proposed ETOD does not affect the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable Health Care (Number of Policies - 3) 1. Encourage the future expansion of Cascade Hospital, as illustrated on the Plan Map and construct the Hopkins Road extension to Highway 99 to provide better access to the hospital in the general vicinity. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD area does not affect plans for the Cascade Hospital area which is located on the west ide of the freeway. Conclusion: Not Applicable 2. Continue to encourage the development of a "Medical Office Park" north of the hospital site, as shown in the Land Use Element to provide for hospital- related medical offices and other facilities. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD does not include any activities or projects that would conflict with the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable 3. Continue to maintain a healthy community environment which includes adequate sewers, good quality water, clean air, and other factors that will contribute to the highest possible level of community health. Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD does not include any activities or projects that would conflict with the above policy. It is the purpose of the ETOD, through the City's TOD standards, to improve neighborhood livability and community health. Conclusion: Consistent Page 48 of 80 City Government and Facilities (Number of Policies - 6) 1. Continue to work toward the completion of the City Hall facility, including the Council Chamber. 2. When necessary, establish a separate Parks and Recreation Department to have responsibility for the planning, supervision and maintenance of those facilities. 3. Strengthen the Building Department to adequately meet the needs generated by increasing construction activity in the City. 4. Establish a separate Planning Department that would have responsibility for current planning and zoning administration as well as long -range planning, special studies, Comprehensive Plan amendments, and other panning activities, as needed. 5. Continue to use the Paterson & Stewart "City Hall Program Study" report as a guide for future staff additions and departmental adjustments. 6. Continue to provide adequate citizen involvement into the government processes and ensure that all citizens committees include active residents who will attend the meetings, perform the work required by the committee, and help ensure the success of the City's Citizen Involvement Program, described in Section I of the Comprehensive Plan. Finding, Policies 1 -6: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to pursue the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable Parks and Recreation (See Parks and Recreation Element) Communications (Number of Policies - 2) 1. Continue to provide for both public and private communication facilities, including telephone, radio, television, and others, as dictated by the local market and community needs. 2. Encourage the two coexisting local newspapers to remain in the community and to become more involved in the reporting of local government and community affairs issues, possibly through periodic news releases in addition to attendance at public meetings and community events. Finding, Policies 1 -2: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to pursue the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable Page 49 of 80 Police Department (Number of Policies — 4) 1. Continue to improve the level of services provided by the Police Department with adequate levels of funding for needed personnel and equipment. 2. Provide growth of the Department in approximate proportion to the population growth of the Community. 3. Seek ways to increase overall efficiency through the use of more energy- efficient and cost - effective patrol cars, participation in computer- assisted programs and information systems (such as SOJIS system), and other procedural alternatives. 4. Encourage the continuation of volunteer activities, especially in the public schools, that will have positive effects on crime prevention, public safety, and community support for police activities. Finding, Policies 1 -4: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to pursue the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable Fire Department (Number of Policies — 6) 1. Continue to improve the level of services provided by the Fire Department with adequate levels of funding for needed personnel and equipment. 2. Provide for the growth of the Department in accordance to the changing needs of the Community, using the projected staff levels that were included in the Patterson & Stewart City Hall report. 3. Provide for the preparation, adoption, and implementation of a Fire Protection Master Plan for the Community, preferably within the next two years. 4. Ensure that all new development is adequately serviced by utilities that include adequate fire flows and sprinkler systems in new commercial and industrial development. 5. Take appropriate actions that will help to implement the goals and objectives of the Department. 6. Encourage the continuation of activities that will have positive effects on fire prevention, public safety, and community support of Fire Dept. activities. Finding, Policies 1 -6: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to pursue the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable Page 50 of 80 Water Facilities and Services (Number of Policies — 7) 1. Continue to assure the separation of storm drains from sanitary sewers and re- establish the Parshall Flume to monitor non- sanitary flows into the sewer system. 2. Embark upon a program to implement the Water System Plan of the City, in accordance with the phasing and extension program outlined in the Plan. (Underway now) 3. Begin the Planning and necessary studies for the development of a second water storage reservoir. 4. Review the City's financial position and water rate structure; and develop a financial plan to proceed with construction of Phase I recommended improvements, as outlined in the water System Plan. Ensure that all new development bears the costs of water facility extensions and that such facilities are included in the development plans. 6. Review all development proposals and ensure that they conform to the water system plan and that they can be adequately provided water services. 7. Include all major water facilities extension, development, and replacement plans in the proposed Capital Improvements Program of the City to ensure coordination and proper scheduling and financing. Finding, Policies 1 -7. The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to pursue the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable Sewer Facilities and Services (Number of Policies — 6) 1. Establish a plan for the replacement of sewer lines in the older section of the City, as described in this Element, and include the program in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. 2. Modify the City's ordinances to include a specific penalty for refusing to hook up to the municipal sewer facilities when they are available at the property. (This is currently a requirement but is difficult to enforce.) 3. Support plans to increase the capacity of the Medford Treatment Plant to accommodate the needs of Central Point and the Bear Creek Valley. 4. Assure that all new developments bear the costs of sewer facilities and that such facilities are included in all development plans. Page 51 of 80 5. Ensure that all development plans for sewer facilities are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive plan and will provide for the extension of facilities in accordance with planned growth. Work with the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority to ensure that the most appropriate and cost effective sewer systems are provided as new growth and development occur. Finding, Policies 1 -6: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to pursue the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable Public Streets (See Transportation System Plan Element) Energy (See Energy Utilization Element) Solid Waste Disposal (Number of Policies - 3) 1. Support the activities of Jackson County related to the provision of its Solid Waste Management Plan and provision of adequate sites for waste and hazardous substance disposal. 2. Coordinate the anticipated needs of the growing community with the capabilities of the City Sanitary and disposal sites it uses. 3. Support and encourage efforts toward resource recovery programs to encourage recycling and reuse of waste materials. Finding, Policies 1 -3: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to pursue the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable J. ECONOMIC ELEMENT The City's Economic Element addresses the requirements of Goal 9 (Economy of the State). It is the ultimate goal of both the City and the state to provide for a local economy that positively contributes to the local and state economy. The term "industry" as used in the Economic Element refers to all sectors of the economy; however, the primary emphasis is on the provision of suitable sites for the location of the basic sector industries, but not to the disadvantage of the non -basic sector. The framework for the City's economic development program is presented in eight (8) elements and related policies as follows. Element 1. Information, Research and Technical Assistance (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 3) Policy 1: Utilize the results of the 1980 Census, when available, to provide the detailed data necessary to complete the profile of the community and region. Page 52 of 80 Finding, Policy 1: The City is now using the 2010 Census. The proposed ETOD does not alter or otherwise affect the source of data. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 2: Request assistance from the Department of Economic Development in the development of the economic development program, and remain aware of the ongoing plans and activities of the County and other area communities. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to pursue the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 3: Encourage the local Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Committee and other interested persons and organizations to become involved in the City's plans and programs. Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD does not affect the 00 ability to pursue the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable Element 2. Planning and Regulation (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 3) Policy 1: Continue to refine City regulations pertaining to economic development to ensure that the program can be carried out and that such development will be an asset to the Community and region. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD does allow for an expanded choice of housing types within a given residential district beyond that allowed under current conventional residential zoning. Conclusion: Consistent Policy 2: Continue to emphasize the need to maximize the potential of major existing facilities that represent major public investments, but are presently underutilized (Emphasis on railroad, Highway 99, the I -5 Freeway and the airport related to industrial development, and Pine Street/Head Road for commercial, office- professional and tourist development). Findings, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to pursue the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 3: Implement policies of the Housing and Land Use Elements pertaining to the orientation and buffering of non- industrial and non - commercial land uses by modifying existing codes to require these actions. Findings, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD, through the City's TOD standards (Section 17.67 Design Standards) includes provisions and standards building orientation, landscaping, and access. Page 53 of 80 Conclusion: Consistent Goal 3. Assembly and Disposal of Land (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 3) Policy 1: Work with developers to ensure that proposed plans are consistent with the overall development concept of the area and will not create obstacles to the future development of neighboring sites. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD, through the City's TOD standards, requires that development proposals within a TOD be master planned, and that as part of the master planning process the development future of adjacent properties must be addressed (Section 17.67.050 Site Design Standards Conclusion: Consistent Policy 2: Study the benefits of developing "concept plans" for the coordinated development of critical areas, such as the Seven Oaks Interchange Area and other industrial sites along the railroad. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD does not affect the City's ability to pursue the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable Poliey.3: Consider initiating the planning for an industrial park along the railroad that would provide for a greater degree of development coordination and might qualify for state or federal financial assistance. Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD does not interfere, or otherwise conflict, with the City's ability to plan for additional industrial parks along the railroad. Conclusion: Not Applicable. Goal 4. Provision of Physical Facilities (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 4) Policy 1: Ensure that the City's plans for public facilities and utilities are phased according to the most desirable progression of development. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise conflict 1vith the City's ability to plan and fund capital improvements. Conclusion, Policy 1: Not Applicable Policy 2: Strive to provide all necessary public facilities to the industrial (and commercial) sites prior to inquires to avoid losing potential firms because of inadequate facilities. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise conflict with the City's ability to plan and fund capital improvements. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 3: Utilize the plans for public facilities and services as a guidance instrument to implement the Plan in accordance with community needs and planned growth. Page 54 of 80 Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD will rely on the City's master infrastructure programs to assure that investments in infrastructure within the proposed ETOD are adequate in capacity. Conclusion: Consistent Policy 4: Include the development of public facilities in a capital improvements program to ensure coordinated and adequately financed development of the facilities. Finding, Policy 4: The proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise conflict with the City's ability to plan and fund capital improvements. Conclusion: Not Applicable A Goal 5. Site Development (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 4) ^ N Policy 1: Ensure that all new development is in conformance with City codes, as well as applicable state and federal requirements. Finding, Policy 1: All projects and activities of the proposed ETOD are subject to compliance with the land division and zoning regulations set forth in the City of Central Point Municipal Code. ly -,qw, Conclusion Policy, 1: Consistent with Policy 1. Policy 2: Seek ways to improve codes and repair deficiencies that may be identified as development occurs. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD includes amendments to the TOD standards (Section 17.65 through 17.67) to correct known deficiencies. Conclusion: Consistent Policy 3: Consider the development of an "industrial park ", as recommended in the Land Use Element and discussed in other elements of this Plan. Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise conflict with the City's ability to plan and fund capital improvements. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 4: Ensure through the plan review process that all proposed developments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are of the highest possible quality. Finding, Policy 4: The City's land development process as set.forth in Chapter 17 of the CPMC establishes standards and procedures for the review of all development within the City. Development within the proposed ETOD area will be subject to all applicable land development regulations of the City. Conclusion: Consistent Policy 5: Ensure that proposed development plans will not create obstacles to the future development of adjacent parcels. Page 55 of 80 Finding, Policy S: The proposed ETOD operates within the context of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. All projects and activities of the Proposed ETOD are compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Conclusion: Consistent with Policy 5. Goal 6. Non - Financial Incentives to Development (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 3) Policy 1: Strive toward implementation of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure the overall development of the community that will be attractive to prospective industries and will provide a high quality community in which to live. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD is an implementation measure that will promote flexibility in adoption to market demands, while assuring through TOD standards quality neighborhood environments for employees of prospective industrial development. Conclusion: Consistent Policy 2: Undertake promotional opportunities that will emphasize the location and quality of the community and will demonstrate the long -range plans of the City. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD will not affect, or otherwise conflict with any of the City's promotional programs. Conclusion: Not Applicable. Policy 3: Ensure that all future activities of the City are consistent with the goals directed toward continued improvement of the community. Finding, Policy 3: The purpose of the proposed ETOD is to expand the City's use of TOD development and the benefits of TOD standards in achieving quality neighborhood environments. Conclusion: Consistent Goal 7. Financial Incentives, Assistance to Development (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 3) Policy 1: The City will consider legal tax concessions only as a last resort as an inducement to deN elopment. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise conflict with the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 2: Actions that could produce a short-term economic gain should be passed over if it could also detract from the quality of the environment and become a serious detriment to the long -range plans of the Community. Page 56 of 80 Finding: The proposed ETOD is a long -term commitment to the use of transit - oriented development standards as a land use policy to pursue the efficient use of land and the development of quality, neighborhood environments. Conclusion: Consistent Policy 3: Investigate alternative financial incentives such as offering loan guarantees or direct loans financed through the issue of tax -free general obligation bonds floated by a local development corporation. Finding: The proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise conflict with the City's ability to investigate alternative financial incentives to encourage economic development. Conclusion: Not Applicable Goal 8. Advertising, Promotion, and Prospect Assistance (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 3) Policy 1: Work with state agencies, including D.E.D. and the Department of Transportation to gain contact with firms seeking to relocate. Policy 2: Encourage the City's Economic Development Committee to take a leading role in advertising, promotion and prospect assistance. Policy 3: Consider the preparation of a brochure or other types of advertising materials that can be mass produced and appropriately distributed. Finding, Policyl - 3: The proposed ETOD does not propose, or preclude the City's pursuit of'the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable K. ENERGY UTILIZATION AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT Goal 1. To work toward optimum levels of energy efficiency and conservation in structures of all types throughout the community. (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 6) Policy a: The City- shall weatherize all public buildings under its jurisdiction to the maximum extent possible, within its economic limitations. Policy b: The City, through modifications to existing codes and ordinances, will ensure that new construction will be energy efficient and will take advantage of solar energy. Policy c: The City will continue to work toward completion and adoption of solar energy applications that are currently being developed. Policy d: The City will consider future development and implementation of energy efficient requirements, to be met at time of sale. Page 57 of 80 Policy e: The City will encourage Central Point residents to participate in weatherization programs that are currently offered by various agencies and utility companies. Policy f. The City will provide information to the public pertaining to the availability of weatherization and solar system financial assistance, including information on State and Federal tax credits. Finding, Policies a -f. The proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise alter, the City's goals and policies to optimize energy efficiency and conservation development standards. Conclusion: Not Applicable Goal 2. To provide for energy efficient design in all new development that maximizes the use of natural environmental features, including topography, natural vegetation and trees, and proper solar orientation(NUMBER OF POLICIES — 5) Policy a: The City will encourage attached or clustered housing whenever such development would result in substantial energy conservation; or in areas of natural vegetation where conventional housing or subdivisions would have a detrimental impact on the natural environment. Policy b: The City will encourage the retention of existing trees and other natural vegetation in areas where they would be useful in energy conservation, such as providing`shade, cooling, windbreaks, etc. Policy c: The City will integrate solar access requirements into existing codes and ordinances, as appropriate, to protect residential solar rights. Policy d: The City will consider the possibility of additional landscaping provisions in the subdivision ordinance to help ensure energy - efficient development. Policy e: The City will consider the potential use of natural land features for the disposal of storm water, as an alternative to expensive storm drains and street gutters. Finding, Policies a - e: The proposed ETOD, through the City's TOD standards include provisions that directly addresses each of the above policies. This is accomplished through the master plan requirement (Section 17.66.030 Application and Review as modified) and development standards (.Section 17.67 Design Standards). Conclusion: Consistent L. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The transportation system goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive plan are set forth in the City of Central Point's 2008 Transportation System Plan (TSP). As illustrated in the following findings the proposed ETOD is compliant with the goals and policies of the TSP. Page 58 of 80 Chapter 3 - Land Use & Forecasting GOAL 3.1: TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THE USE OF LAND WITHIN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH, AND THAT SUPPORTS, THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (NUMBER OF POLICIES - 2) Policy 3.1.1: The City shall manage the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan in a manner that enhances livability for the citizens of Central Point as set forth in the Transportation System Plan. Policy 3.1.2: The City shall continuously monitor and update the Land Development Code to maintain best practices in transit oriented design consistent with the overall land use objectives of the City. Finding, Policies 3.1.1- 3.1.2: The proposed ETOD manages the City's land use in a manner that provides, through TOD standards, for a more efficient use of land and improvements to neighborhood quality. Additionally, the proposed ETOD addresses both the RTP and the TSP objective to increase the use of transit oriented development design. , Conclusion: Consistent Chapter 5 - Transportation System Elements f GOAL 5.1: TO MAXIMIZE, THROUGH TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES, THE EFFICIENCY, SAFETY, AND CAPACITY OF THE CITY'S EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES (NUMBER OF POLICIES - 2) Policy 5.1.1: The City shall make every effort to maintain mobility standards that result in a minimum level of service (LOS) "D." The City defines LOS D as the equivalent to a volume- capacity ratio of 0.9. Policy 5.1.2: The City shall facilitate implementation of bus bays by RVTD on transit routes as a means of facilitating traffic flow during peak travel periods. The feasibility, location and design of bus bays shall be developed in consultation between the City and RVTD. Finding, Policies 5.1.1- 5.1.2: The proposed ETOD does not propose changes, or limitations on the City's goal and policies related to transportation systems management techniques. Through the TOD standards the ETOD encourages multi -modal development, including standards and densities that support transit use. Conclusion: Consistent GOAL 5.2: TO EMPLOY ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ENSURE SAFE AND EFFICIENT ROADWAYS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR DESIGNATED FUNCTION (NUMBER OF POLICIES - 2) Page 59 of 80 Policy 5.2.1: The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain, either within the zoning ordinance or the Public Works Standards and Details manual, access management standards based on best practices. Policy 5.2.2: The City shall implement the access management strategies presented in the Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99) /Pine Street and the Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan. Finding, Policy 5.2.2 — 5.2.2: The proposed ETOD does not propose changes, or limitations on the City's goal and policies related to access management. Conclusion: Not Applicable GOAL 5.3: TO REDUCE THE DEMANDS PLACED ON THE CURRENT AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY THE SINGLE - OCCUPANT VEHICLE (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 2) Policy 5.3.1: The City shall serve as a leading example for other businesses and agencies by maximizing the use of alternative transportation modes among Cit} employees through incentive programs. The City shall provide information on alternative transportation modes and provide incentives for employees who use alternatives to the single- occupant automobile. Policy 5.3.2: The City shall offer flexible schedules and compressed work -week options whenever feasible, as a way of reducing travel demand. The City shall encourage employees to telecommute, whenever feasible. Finding, Policy 5.3.1— 5.3.2: The proposed ETOD, through the expanded use of TOD development, complies with the Regional Plan Element, RTP and TSP Alternative Measures to increase the use of transit oriented development standards. Conclusion: Consistent GOAL 5.4: To reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the Central Point Urban Area by assisting individuals in choosing alternative travel modes (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 4) Policy 5.4.1: The City shall encourage major employers to promote work arrangements providing an alternative to the 8 -to -5 work schedule. These arrangements shall include, but are not limited to, employee flex -time programs, staggered work hours, and compressed work weeks. Policy 5.4.2: The City shall encourage major employers to promote telecommuting where feasible. Policy 5.4.3: The City and major employers shall encourage ridesharing by making ridesharing more convenient. Policy 5.4.4: The City shall encourage major employers to work with RVTD to adopt trip reduction goals designed to reduce site vehicular trip generation. Page 60 of 80 Finding, Policy 5.4.1- 5.4.4: The proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise conflict with the City's ability to implement the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable GOAL 5.5: Transportation demand management (TDM) measures promoted by the City shall be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan strategies aimed at reducing reliance on the single occupant vehicle (SOV) and reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita (NUMBER OF POLICIES -1) Finding, Goal 5.5: The proposed ETOD furthers the implementation oj'the RTP's Alternative Measures 5 and 6 to increase the use of transit oriented development. Conclusion: Consistent Chapter 6 — Transportation System Elements GOAL 6.1: TO MANAGE AUTOMOBILE PARKING WITHIN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE REDUCTIONS IN PARKING SPACES CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND REGIONAL GOALS (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 3) Policy 6.1.1: The City shall manage the supply, operation, enforcement and demand for parking in the public right -of -way to encourage economic vitality, traffic safety, transportation system efficiency, and livability of neighborhoods. Policy 6.1.2: Except within the Central Business District, where on- street parking is considered an element of the Central Business District's economic vitality, the provision for on- street parking is second in priority to the needs of the travel modes (i.e., vehicle, transit, bicycle, pedestrian) using the street right -of -way, and shall be removed when necessary to facilitate street widening. Policy 6.1.3: In those areas where demand exists, an adequate supply of off - street carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be provided. The location of these spaces shall have preference over those intended for general purpose off - street parking. Finding, Policy 6.1.1- 6.1.3: The proposed ETOD does not interfere, or otherwise adversely affect the City's current or future goals and policies related to the provision o f parking. The activities and projects of the proposed ETOD comply with all parking related goals, policies, and development standards. Conclusion: Consistent GOAL 6.2: To promote and manage the parking needs of the Central Point Urban Area in a manner that reasonably balances the demand for parking against the use of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation modes, while maintaining the economic vitality and neighborhood livability (NUMBER OF POLICIES - 2) Policy 6.2.1: The City shall prepare, adopt and maintain parking standards that reflect best parking practices that further the parking goals of the City. Page 61 of 80 Policy 6.2.2: The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain effective development standards for paved off - street parking areas to include provisions for landscaping, planting strips, pedestrian walkways, curbs, and sidewalks. Finding, Policy 6.2.1- 6.2.2: The Proposed ETOD does not interfere, or otherwise adversely affect the City's current or future goals and policies related to the provision of parking. The activities and projects of the Proposed ETOD comply with all parking related goals, policies, and development standards. Conclusion: Consistent Chapter 7 - Streets System GOAL 7.1: PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREET SYSTEM THAT SERVES THE PRESENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY AND TRAVEL NEEDS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES (NUMBER OF POLICIES -16) Policy 7.1.1: The City shall fulfill its system wide travel capacity needs through the use of multiple travel modes within the public rights -of -way. Finding, Policy 7.1.1: The proposed ETOD, as a City TOD district is designed to encourage the use oj'alternative modes of travel other than the automobile. Conclusion: Consistent Policy 7.1.2: The City's street system shall contain a network of arterial and collector streets and highways that link the central core area and major industry with regional and statewide highways. Finding, Policy 7.1.2: The proposed ETOD will not add to or eliminate any of' the City's currently designated arterial and collector streets. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 7.1.3: The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain street design standards consistent with the policies of this TSP. Finding, Policy 7.1.3: The proposed ETOD will not affect the City's street design standards. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 7.1.4: The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain standards that promote connectivity of the street system consistent with the Functional Classification Map. Finding, Policy 7.1.4: The proposed ETOD will not add to or eliminate any of the City's current standards addressing connectivity. The TOD's site design standards (Section 17.67.050 Site Design Standards) support connectivity. Conclusion: Consistent Page 62 of 80 Policy 7.1.5: The City shall actively pursue construction of I -5 interchange improvements at Pine Street. Finding, Policy 7.1.5: The proposed ETOD will not affect the City's obligation to pursue improvements to the 1 -5 interchange. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 7.1.6: The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain design standards for its streets to safely accommodate pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle travel as has been accomplished in the TOD Districts. Finding, Policy 7.1.6: The proposed ETOD will not add alter or otherwise affect the City's street standards relative to the safe accommodation of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular travel. The TOD district, through its design standards (Section 17.67.040 Circulation and Access) reinforce the City's commitment to safe and convenient multi -modal trave opportunities.. Conclusion: Consistent Policy 7.1.7: The City Standards and Details shall be the basis for all street design within the Central Point urban area. Finding, Policy 7.1.7. The proposed ETOD will not add to or eliminate any of the City's street standards and details. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 7.1.8: Wherever possible the City shall incorporate safely designed, aesthetic features into the streetscape of its public rights -of -way. These features may include: street trees, shrubs, and grasses; planting strips and raised medians; meandering sidewalks on arterial streets; and, in some instances, street furniture, planters, special lighting, public art, or non- standard paving materials. Finding, Policy 7.1.8: The City's street .standards and details include provisions for aesthetic, features into the streetscape. The City's TOD standards encourage further enhancement of the City standards (Section 17.67.050 Site Design Standards). Conclusion: Consistent Policy 7.1.9: When existing streets are widened or reconstructed they shall be designed to the adopted street design standards for the appropriate street classification where practical. Adjustments to the design standards may be necessary to avoid existing topographical constraints, historic properties, schools, cemeteries, problems with right -of -way acquisition, existing on- street parking and significant cultural features. The design of the street shall be sensitive to the livability of the surrounding neighborhood. Finding, Policy 7.1.9: The proposed ETOD will not supersede or otherwise alter the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable Page 63 of 80 Policy 7.1.10: The City shall work with federal, state and local government agencies to promote traffic safety education and awareness, emphasizing the responsibilities and courtesies required of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Finding, Policy 7.1.2: The proposed ETOD will affect the City's ability to participate with federal, state or local governments in the promotion of traffic safety. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 7.1.11: The City shall place a higher priority on funding and constructing street projects that address identified vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety problems than those projects that solely respond to automotive capacity deficiencies in the street system. Exceptions are those capacity improvements that are designed to also resolve identified safety problems. Finding, Policy 7.1.11: The proposed ETOD will not affect the City's ability to prioritize traffic safety problems. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 7.1.12: The City shall select street improvement projects from those listed in the Central Point Transportation System Plan when making significant increases in system capacity or bringing arterial or collector streets up to urban standards. The selection of improvement projects should be prioritized based on consideration of improvements to safety, relief of existing congestion, response to near -term growth, system -wide benefits, geographic equity, and availability of funding. Finding, Policy 7.1.12: The proposed ETOD will not affect the City's policy on prioritizing street improvements. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 7.1.13: To maximize the longevity of its capital investments, the City shall design street improvement projects to meet existing travel demand, and whenever possible to accommodate anticipated travel demand for the next 20 years for that facility. Finding, Policy 7.1.13: The proposed ETOD will not affect the City's policy to maximize the longevity of its capital improvements. Conclusion: Not Applicable Policy 7.1.14: The City shall involve representatives of affected neighborhood associations, citizens, developers, surveyors, engineering and planning professionals in an advisory role in the design of street improvement projects. Finding, Policy 7.1.14: The proposed ETOD does not propose and street projects. Conclusion: Not Applicable Page 64 of 80 Policy 7.1.15: The City shall require Traffic Impact Analyses as part of land use development proposals to assess the impact that a development will have on the existing and planned transportation system and to identify reasonable on -site and off -site improvements necessary to mitigate impacts. Finding, Policy 7 1.1 S: A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the ETOD to determine if it would have a significant impact on transportation facilities. It was the determination of the TIA (Exhibit "D') that the ETOD would not significantly affect the level of service identified in the TSP. . Conclusion: Consistent Policy 7.1.16: The City may require new development to pay charges towards the mitigation of system -wide transportation impacts created by new growthAni the community through established Street System Development Charges (SDCs) and any other street fees that are established by the City. Finding, Policies 7.1.16: The proposed ETOD does alter or otherwise affect the City's ability to require SDCs. Conclusion: Not Applicable Chapter 8 — Bicycle and Pedestrian System GOAL 8.1: TO PLAN FOR AND FACILITATE THE INCREASED USE OF BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA BY ASSURING THAT CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 9) Policy 8.1.1: The City of Central Point recognizes bicycle transportation as a necessary and viable component of the transportation system, both as an important transportation mode, and as an air quality improvement strategy. Policy 8.1.2: The Bicycle Element of this plan shall serve as the Central Point Bicycle Master Plan. Policy 8.1.3: The City of Central Point shall progressively develop a linked bicycle network, focusing on, but not inclusive to the arterial and collector street system, and concentrating on the provision of bicycle lanes, to be completed within the planning period (20 years). The bikeway network will serve bicyclists needs for travel to employment centers, commercial districts, transit centers, schools, institutions and recreational destinations. Policy 8.1.4: The City of Central Point shall use all opportunities to add bike lanes in conjunction with road reconstruction and re- striping projects on collector and arterial streets. Policy 8.1.5: The City of Central Point shall maintain public improvement standards that assure that the design of all streets and public improvement projects facilitate bicycling by providing proper paving, lane width, traffic control, storm drainage grates, striping, signage, lighting, parking, etc. Page 65 of 80 Policy 8.1.6: The City of Central Point shall prepare, adopt, and maintain on -site development standards that assure the provision of bicycle access, parking, racks and /or shelters in business developments, institutions, duplexes and multi - family developments and other locations where bicycle parking facilities are required. Policy 8.1.7: The City of Central Point shall support the local transit provider in their efforts to facilitate "bikes on buses" and bicycle facilities at transit stations and stops. Policy 8.1.8: Except within the Central Business District, the City of Central Point shall give priority to bicycle traffic over parking within public rights -of -way designated on the Bicycle Master Plan or otherwise determined to be important bicycling routes. Policy 8.1.9: The City shall require pedestrian and bicycle easements to provide neighborhood connectors and reduce vehicle trips. The City shall modify the street vacation process so pedestrian and bicyclist through access is maintained. Finding, Policies 8.1.1— 8.1.9: The proposed ETOD does not interfere, or otherwise adversely affect the City's current or.future goals and policies related to the improvement of bicycle.facilities and safety. The proposed ETOD will, through the City's TOD standards will support the expanded use of bicycle and pedestrian modes of development, as well as future transit use. Conclusion: Consistent GOAL 8.2: The City will promote bicycle safety and awareness (NUMBER OF POLICIES —2) Policy 8.2.1: The City of Central Point shall actively support and encourage local and state bicycle education and safety programs intended to improve bicycling skills, observance of laws, and overall safety for both children and adults. Policy 8.2.2: The City shall consider the use of the media, bicycle committees, bicycle plans and other methods to promote use of bicycling for transportation purposes. Finding, Policies 8.2.1— 8.2.2: The Proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise conflict with the City's ability implement the above policies. Conclusion: Not Applicable GOAL 8.3: TO FACILITATE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS THAT WILL ENCOURAGE AND INCREASE PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL THROUGHOUT THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 6) Policy 8.3.1: The City shall establish and maintain a Sidewalk Construction Program to complete the pedestrian facility network. Policy 8.3.2: Sidewalks and walkways shall complement access to transit stations /stops and multi -use paths. Activity centers, schools and business districts should focus attention on and encourage pedestrian travel within their proximity. Page 66 of 80 Policy 8.3.3: The City of Central Point shall maintain standards that require sidewalk and pedestrian access and standards for improvement, i.e. crosswalks at signalized intersections and high volume pedestrian areas such as the Central Business District. All road construction or renovation projects shall include sidewalks. Policy 8.3.4: The City shall require pedestrian and bicycle easements to connect neighborhoods and reduce vehicle trips. The City shall modify the street vacation process so pedestrian and bicyclist through- access is maintained. Policy 8.3.5: Pedestrian walkway or accessway connections shall be required between adjacent developments when roadway connections cannot be provided. Policy 8.3.6: The City shall prepare a plan and implement a multi -use trail system. using linear corridors including, but not limited to: utility easements, rail lines, Bear Creek, Griffin Creek, Jackson Creek and other creeks that complement and connect to the sidewalk system. Finding, Policies 8.3.1 — 8.3.6: The Proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise conflict with the City's ability to implement the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable GOAL 8.4: To encourage education services and promote safe pedestrian travel to reduce the number of accidents involving pedestrians (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 3) Policy 8.4.1: The City of Central Point shall encourage schools, safety organizations, and law enforcement agencies to provide information and instruction on pedestrian safety issues that focus on prevention of the most important accident problems. The programs shall educate all roadway users of their privileges and responsibilities when driving, bicycling and walking. Policy 8.4.2: The City shall include in the Sidewalk Construction Program (Policy 9.1.1) inclusion of a street lighting system. Policy 8.4.3: The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain standards for the separation of pedestrian traffic from auto traffic on streets and, where determined appropriate, in parking lots. Finding, Policies 8.4.1— 8.4.3: The Proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise conflict with the City's ability to implement the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable Page 67 of 80 Chapter 9 — Public Transit System GOAL 9.1: IN COOPERATION WITH TRANSIT PROVIDERS, FACILITATE THE PROVISION OF A TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES CONVENIENT AND ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 3). Policy 9.1.1: The City shall work with RVTD to encourage transit services that meet the City's transit needs. Policy 9.1.2: To encourage accessibility and increased ridership, the City shall continue to encourage future transit - supportive land uses, such as mixed uses. multiple- family, and employment centers to be located on or near transit corridors. Policy 9.1.3: The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain development standards and regulations facilitating accessibility to transit services through transit - supportive streetscape, subdivision, and site design requirements that promote pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, convenience and safety. Finding, Policies 9.1.1 — 9.1.3: The proposed ETOD supports the expanded use of transit opportunities. As a proposed TOD the ETOD will be developed at densities and uses that support transit and other multi -modal transportation options. Conclusion: Consistent GOAL 9.2: Increase overall daily transit ridership in the Central Point urban area, to mitigate a portion of the traffic pressures expected by regional growth (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 1). Policy 9.2.1: Through Transportation Demand Management efforts, the City shall work with Central Point employers and other government agencies to increase commuter transit ridership. Finding, Policy 9.2.1: The proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise conflict with the City's ability to implement the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable Chapter 10 — Rail and Aviation System GOAL 10.1: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, SERVICES AND PASSENGERS BY RAIL WHILE MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 2). Policy 10.1.1: The City shall encourage both freight and passenger service as part of statewide rail transportation planning efforts. Policy 10.1.2: The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain site development standards that mitigate railroad noise and vibration. Page 68 of 80 Finding, Policies 10.1.1 — 10.1.2: The proposed ETOD area does not include, nor is it near, rail transportation services Conclusion: Not Applicable GOAL 10.2: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS VIA INTER -MODAL CONNECTIONS WITH THE ROGUE VALLEY INTERNATIONAL - MEDFORD AIRPORT (NUMBER OF POLICIES —1). Policy 10.2.1: The City shall support the Rogue Valley Transportation District efforts to provide service to the Rogue Valley International Airport from established routes serving Central Point. Finding, Policy 10.2.1: The Proposed ETOD does not affect, or otherwise conflict with the City's ability to implement the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable Chapter 1 1 — Freight System GOAL 11.1: To identify and maintain a truck freight system within the City that serves the City's and region's freight needs in an efficient and safe manner, with minimal adverse impacts on adjacent land uses (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 3). Policy 11.2.1: The City shall cooperate with the RVMPO, Jackson County, ODOT and the City of Medford in the coordination of design, funding, and improvement of the freight system within the City that enhances freight movement, while improving the overall capacity of the City's street system. Policy 11.2.2: The Freight System Map presented in Figure 11.2 shall be considered by the City as the official freight route system for the City of Central Point. The design and improvement of the street system designated on the Freight System Map shall accommodate large vehicles typical of freight movement. Policy 11.2.3: The City shall ensure access to truck freight via the local street system, with emphasis on maintaining and efficient and safe designated truck route system. Finding, Policies 11.1.1— 11.1.3: The Proposed ETOD does not modify or otherwise affect the City's_fi^eight system goals andpolicies. Conclusion: Not Applicable Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing GOAL 12.1: A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA THAT IS ADEQUATELY FUNDED TO MEET THE CITY'S CURRENT AND FUTURE CAPITAL, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS NEEDS (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 4). Policy 12.1.1: Transportation system development charges (SDCs), as defined by Oregon Revised Statutes and City ordinances, will be collected by the City to offset costs of new Page 69 of 80 capacity development. The City will continue to collect SDCs as an important and equitable funding source to pay for transportation capacity improvements. Policy 12.1.2: For all Tier 2 projects the City shall require those responsible for new development to mitigate their development's impacts to the transportation system, as authorized in the Central Point Zoning Ordinance and Oregon Revised Statutes, concurrent with the development of the property. Policy 12.1.3: The City shall continue to set aside one - percent (I %) of its allocation of State Highway Fuel Tax funds for creation of on- street bicycle, pedestrian and transit capital facilities. Policy 12.1.4: When the City agrees to vacation of a public right -of -way at the request of a property owner, conditions of such agreement shall include payment by the benefitted property owner of fair market value for the land being converted to private ownership. Funds received for vacated lands shall be placed in a trust fund for the acquisition of future rights -of -way. Finding, Policies 12.1.1 - 12.1.4: The proposed ETOD does not reduce, or otherwise adversely affect the City's current or, future funding methodologies for transportation capital, maintenance and operational needs. Conclusion: Not Applicable Transportation Goal 12.2: Secure adequate funding to implement a street maintenance program that will sustain a maximum service life for pavement surface and other transportation facilities (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 3). Policy12.2.1: Assuming no changes in State funding mechanisms, the primary, funding sources.for street system maintenance activities shall be the City's allocation of the State Highway Fuel Tax and allocation of fees supplemented by street maintenance fees. Policy 12.2.2: The City shall seek additional, funding sources to meet the long -term financial requirements of sustaining a street maintenance program, including alternative modes of transportation. Policy 12.2.3: The City shall continue to participate in cooperative agreements with other State and local jurisdictions for maintenance and operation activities based on equitable determinations of responsibility and benefit. Finding, Policy 12.2.1 - 12.2.3: The proposed ETOD does not reduce, or otherwise adversely affect the City's current or,future funding methodologies for transportation capital, maintenance and operational needs. Conclusion: Not Applicable Transportation, Goal 12.3: Secure adequate funding for the operation of the transportation system including advance planning, design engineering, signal operations, system management, illumination, and cleaning activities (NUMBER OF POLICIES — 2). Page 70 of 80 Policy 1233: Assuming no changes in State funding mechanisms, transportation system operations shall be funded primarily from the City's allocation of the State Highway Fuel Tax. Other funding sources should be pursued to augment the financial requirements of providing adequate future system operations. Policy 12.3.2: The City shall continue to pursue federal, state and private grants to augment operations activities, especially in the planning and engineering functions. Finding, Policy 123.1 and 123.2: The Proposed ETOD does not reduce, or otherwise adversely affect the City's current or future ,funding methodologies, for transportation planning, capital construction, maintenance and operational needs. Conclusion: Not Applicable M. LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element contains the goals and policies for the physical use of the land. It combines the land use aspects of all other elements into an overall arrangement of compatible land uses that is in balance with statewide goals as well as local goals, community needs, and the environment. The following are the goals and policies of the Land Use Element: General, Goal 1: To provide for an orderly overall pattern of future development and change throughout the City of Central Point and its urbanizable area that is consistent with both statewide and local goals and objectives. Finding, General Goal 1: The proposed ETOD does not alter the distribution of land use currently designatedfor the ETOD area. The residential and commercial mix of land remains the same. The only changes are increases in density.for the residential lands. Through use of the City's TOD standards the ETOD area will be able to use "Best Practices" in site design to achieve better designed neighborhoods and a more efficient use of land. Conclusion: Consistent General, Goal 2: To ensure a development pattern that will most efficiently provide for the City's anticipated growth to the year 2000 while continually increasing the quality of life for all local residents. Finding, General Goal 2: The Proposed ETOD expands the City's TOD district which offers flexibility in site design providing for the efficient and well planned use of land. Conclusion: Consistent Residential, Goal 1: To ensure a high degree of livability and environmental quality in all residential areas of Central Point. Page 71 of 80 Finding, Residential Goal 1: The proposed ETOD expands use of the City's TOD standards, the purpose of which is to improve neighborhood livability through the flexible use of development standards. Conclusion: Consistent Residential, Goal 2: To provide for a well balanced variety of residential densities and housing opportunities for all residents of the community. Finding, Residential Goal 2: The proposed ETOD expands use of the City's TOD standards allowing a broader range of housing types and densities than allowed in the City's conventional zoning districts, thus providing greater market choice. Conclusion: Consistent Residential, Policy 1: Encourage a greater distribution of housing opportunities by providing for a variety of housing densities and types throughout the City in order to avoid undesirable and inefficient concentrations of housing types and segments of the population in any one location. Finding, Residential Policy 1: The proposed ETOD expands use of the City's TOD standards allowing a broader range of housing types and densities than allowed in the City's conventional zoning districts, thus providing greater market choice. The City's TOD standards encourage a mix of housing types within proposed developments (.Section 17.65.00 70 Zoning Regulations, Table 2). Conclusion: Consistent Residential, Policy 2: Preserve the value and character of older - single- family neighborhoods through proper zoning and all reasonable efforts to encourage maintenance and rehabilitation as an alternative to transitional development at higher densities. Finding, Residential Policy 2: The proposed ETOD is not adjacent to existing older neighborhoods, or the City's efforts to enforce the above policy. Conclusion: Not Applicable Residential, Policy 3: Ensure through the established plan review process that all residential development on parcels adjacent to agricultural lands include in their plans provisions for orientation away from the agricultural lands. Finding, Residential Policy 3: Development within proposed ETOD will be subject to the City's TOD standards, which include provision to address adjacent land uses and provide appropriate buffering (Section 17.67.050 Site Design Standards as amended Exhibit "C'). Conclusion: Consistent Page 72 of 80 Residential, Policy 4: Encourage and make possible innovative residential planning and development techniques that would help increase land use efficiency, reduce costs of utilities and services, and ultimately reduce housing costs. Techniques that should be provided for include transferable development rights (TDR), planned unit development (PUD), clustered development, zero -lot line development, and others as appropriate. Finding, Residential Policy 4: The proposed ETOD expands use of the City's TOD district and standards, which provides the necessary flexibility in site design to encourage innovative residential planning. Conclusion: Consistent Residential, Policy 5: Continue to ensure that long -range planning and zoning reflects the need to locate the highest densities and greatest number of residents in closest possible proximity to shopping, employment, major public facilities, and public transportation corridors. Finding, Residential Policy 5: The Proposed ETOD includes approximately 21 acres of vacant residential land that will eventually be developed as part of the ETOD neighborhood. Additionally, the ETOD is close to other commercial areas (Albertson Shopping Center) and the Downtown. Conclusion: Consistent Residential, Policy 6: Continue to modify the Zoning Ordinance, as necessary, to take advantage of planning innovations and technological improvements that could have applications in Central Point to the benefit of the community. Finding, Residential Policy 6: The proposed ETOD includes minor modifications of the City's TOD standards. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to improve administration of the TOD standards as intended in the TOD purpose. An example of a proposed amendment is clarification in the master plan elements and additional criteria addressing adiacent land uses during the master plan process (see Exhibit "C ", Section 17.66.030 Application and Review and Section 17.67.050 Site Design Standards). Conclusion: Consistent Residential, Policy 7: Establish a "design review board" to help ensure that development proposals are of high quality and will contribute to the positive appearance and aesthetics of the community. Finding, Residential Policy 7: The proposed ETOD does not preclude the establishment of a "design review board" as per Residential Policy 7. Conclusion: Consistent Page 73 of 80 Residential, Policy 8: In areas where residential neighborhoods abut commercial or industrial areas, orient the residential structures and local streets away from these land uses to avoid any undesirable views and to strengthen neighborhood solidarity. Finding, Residential Policy 8: Development within the proposed ETOD will be subject to the TOD master plan, or site plan requirements (Section 17.66.030 Application and Review and Section 17.6 7.050 Site Design as amended Exhibit "C), which requires consideration of adequate buffering against higher intensity uses. Conclusion: Consistent with Policy 8. Residential, Policy 9: In any area where development of one or more parcels may create obstacles to the development of others, require the initial developer to develop a specific plan that would provide for the future development of the entire area, including the provision of adequate access to potential landlocked properties. Finding, Residential Policy 9: Development within the proposed ETOD will be subject to the TOD master plan, or site plan requirements (Section 17.66.030 Application and Review and Section 17.67.050 Site Design as amended Exhibit "C), which requires consideration of the development needs of adjacent properties. Conclusion: Consistent Residential, Policy 10: Where residential development is proposed on parcels adjacent to a railroad, a sub -area master plan will be required by the City which could result in subsequent rezoning or other acceptable methods to provide effective land use buffering and minimize threats to safety and /or quality of life for local residents. Finding, Residential Policy 10: The proposed ETOD area is not adjacent to, or near any railroads. Conclusion: Not Applicable Commercial, Goal 1: To create an economically strong and balanced commercial sector of the Community that is easily accessible, attractive, and meets the commercial needs of the local market area. Finding, Goal 1: The proposed ETOD does not alter the commercial acreage as shown on the General Land Use Plan. Conclusion: Consistent Commercial Policy 1: Adjust the zoning of all commercial areas of Central Point, as necessary, to conform to the year 2000 Land Use Plan. Page 74 of 80 Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD does not alter the General Land Use Plan distribution of commercial property. The ETOD area contains approximately 21 acres of C -4 (Tourist Commercial & Professional Of and which will be redesignated to the EC (Employment Commercial) TOD designation. Both commercial districts are very similar in allowed uses. Conclusion: Consistent Commercial, Policy 2: Undertake an in -depth study of the downtown business district and develop a comprehensive improvement plan that would include such considerations as traffic circulation, off - street parking, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and access, structural design guidelines, and guidelines for landscaping and signing. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD will not affect the City's ability to undertake a study of the downtown. Conclusion: Not Applicable Commercial, Policy 3: Encourage the development of shared commercial parking areas in the downtown area to be carried out by local businesses with City assistance. Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD is not within, or close to the downtown, and therefore does not affect downtown parking. Conclusion: Not Applicable Commercial, Policy 4: Promote the clustering of commercial businesses for the purpose of more efficient customer parking, better design and landscaping, coordinated signing, and increased retail sales. Finding, Policy 4: The proposed ETOD, through the City's TOD standards, encourages the construction of commercial buildings in a manner that minimizes parking while emphasizing the creation of a pedestrian environment (Section 17.67.070 Building Design Standards). Conclusion: Consistent Commercial, Policy 5: Develop and adopt a specific plan for the hospital area and consider the need to establish a "Hospital District" section to be included in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that future development is consistent with the specific plan and compatible with hospital and medical land uses. Finding, Policy 5: The proposed ETOD is not within the hospital area located on the west side of town. Conclusion: Not Applicable Page 75 of 80 Commercial, Policy 6: Undertake a study of the Highway 99 commercial areas between Beall Lane and the High School to determine what specific actions are needed to improve this corridor, improve traffic circulation, and improve the overall visual and aesthetic character of the area. Finding, Commercial Policy 6: The proposed ETOD is located on the City's east side, the area of concern in Policy 6 is located on the west side of the City. Conclusion: Not Applicable Industrial, Goal 1: To establish a strong and diversified industrial sector of-the community. Finding, Goal 1: The proposed ETOD is not include, nor is it adjacent to industrially zoned lands. Conclusion, Goal l: Not Applicable Industrial, Goal 2: To maximize industrial expansion and new development opportunities in locations that utilize existing highways, rail facilities and other infrastructure, are in close proximity to employee housing areas, and will minimize conflicts with all non - industrial land uses. Industrial, Policy 1: Maximize the industrial development potential of the Highway 99 /Southern Pacific railroad corridor through the City by providing site for industrial development along the corridor to meet the needs to the year 2000. Finding, Industrial Policy 1: The proposed ETOD is not include, nor is it adjacent to industrially zoned lands. Conclusion: Not Applicable Industrial, Policy 2: Provide locations for "General Industrial" (M -2 zone) in the northwest portion of the community where such development can take advantage of the rail, highway and freeway facilities while having a minimal impact on other non- industrial land uses within the community. Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD is not include, nor is it adjacent to industrially zoned lands. Conclusion: Not Applicable Industrial, Policy 3: Work toward the development of requirements and guidelines for the establishment of industrial parks or other forms of master planning in the larger industrial districts that could be adversely affected by individual industries being developed without proper coordination with adjacent properties. Finding, Policy 3: The proposed ETOD does not mode or otherwise affect industrial zoning or development standards related to industrial parks, or the master planning of large industrial sites. Page 76 of 80 Conclusion: Not Applicable Industrial, Policy 4: Require that all industrial land use proposals for lands adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary and agricultural land uses include provisions for buffering the facilities from agricultural land uses outside the UGB, if there is any potential for conflict between the uses. Finding, Policy 4: The proposed ETOD does not modem or otherwise affect industrial buffering standards. Conclusion: Not Applicable Industrial, Policy 5: Ensure through the plan review process that all industrial development proposals adequately address the importance of maintaining environmental quality, particularly air and water quality, and include a plan for the protection of the Jackson Creek and Griffin Creek corridors, as shown on the Plan map and discussed in the Environmental Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Finding, Policy S: The proposed ETOD does not mods or otherwise affect industrial zoning or development standards relative to environmental quality. Conclusion: Not Applicable Industrial, Policy 6: Consider the need to require a `Beautification" or "frontage Landscape" plan to be included in industrial proposals to help create an industrial environment that is attractive to community residents and prospective industries. Finding, Policy 6: The proposed ETOD does not modify or otherwise affect industrial zoning or development standards addressing "Beautification " or 'frontage landscape " requirements. Conclusion: Not Applicable Public Land Use, Goal 1: To provide suitable sites for the location of land uses related to community public facilities, utilities, and quasi- public uses that are necessary to meet the future needs of Central Point to the year 2000. Public Land Use, Policy 1: Ensure that any major public or quasi - public facility that is proposed to be located within a residential neighborhood is located along a corridor or secondary arterial street, is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and does not contribute unreasonably to traffic volumes within the neighborhood. Finding, Policy 1: The proposed ETOD does not modify, or otherwise conflict, with the City's ability to site major public or quasi public facilities. Conclusion: Not Applicable Public Land Use, Policy 2: Work with officials of School District #6 to develop and implement a school site acquisition program that is consistent with the long -range comprehensive plans of the City and the District. Page 77 of 80 Finding, Policy 2: The proposed ETOD does not modem, or otherwise conflict, with the City's ability work with School District 46 in locating future school facilities. Conclusion: Not Applicable Public Land Use, Policy 3: Whenever possible, encourage the location of public park sites adjacent to public school sites to establish neighborhood educational /recreational "centers" that can benefit by the joint utilization of both types of facilities. Finding, Policy 3: The Proposed ETOD does not modem or otherwise conflict, with the City's ability to co- locate public park sites and school.facilities. Conclusion: Not Applicable Public Land Use, Policy 4: Continue to emphasize the need for pedestrian and bicycle access to all public facilities and areas frequented by local residents. Finding, Policy 4: The proposed ETOD does not mode, or otherwise conflict, with the City's ability to properly adequate pedestrian and bicycle access to all public land uses. The City's TOD standards (,Section 17.6 7.040 Circulation and Access Standards) emphasize pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connectivity. Conclusion: Consistent Public Land Use, Policy 5: Provide expansion flexibility for Cascade Hospital and ensure that the future expansion proposals are consistent with the medical office park concept proposed directly north of the hospital site, as shown on Page XI1 -18. Finding, Policy S: The proposed ETOD does not modify, or otherwise conflict, with the City's plans for the Cascade Hospital area. Conclusion: Not Applicable Public Land Use, Policy 6: Maintain an awareness of the changing land use needs of utility companies and other public facility and service providers so that future suitable sites can be reserved in advance of long -range needs. Finding, Policy 6: The proposed ETOD does not hinder, or otherwise obscure, with the City's ability to properly plan for public /quasi public facilities. Conclusion: Not Applicable Circulation /Transportation Land Use, Goal 1: To provide for a circulation /transportation system that is closely coordinated with and provides convenient access to all land uses and properties within the community. Finding, Goal 1: The proposed ETOD does not modify, or otherwise conflict, with the circulation /transportation goals of the City. Conclusion: Not Applicable Circulation /Transportation Land Use, Policy 1: Policies for the development of these facilities are presented in the Transportation System Plan Element. Page 78 of 80 Finding, Policy 1: See transportation System Plan Element. Conclusion: Consistent with Policy 1. N. REGIONAL PLAN ELEMENT The Regional Plan Element incorporates by reference the goals and policies of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. Performance Indicator 4.1.5 Committed Residential Density. Land within a URA and land currently within an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but outside of the existing City Limit shall be built, at a minimum, to the following residential densities. This requirement can be offset by increasing the residential density in the City Limit. Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre 2010- Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre 2036- 2035 2060 Finding, Performance Indicator 4.1.5: The ETOD area contains 40% of the City's buildable residential acreage, and as such is considered as a significant geographic area and an excellent opportunity to apply the Regional Plan Element's density commitment. Through use of the current TOD standards the proposed ETOD is able to achieve the committed densities for Central Point, without having to resort to modification of the City's conventional residential zoning. As discussed in these findings (Section G ETOD Build -Out Scenario, Table 3.5) the minimum density.for the ETOD area, based on the proposed zoning, is 7.7 dwelling units per gross acre. The minimum density should be adequate_for the period 2010 -2035 minimum density commitment of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre. Conclusion: Consistent Performance Indicator 4.1.5.1. Prior to annexation, each city shall establish (or, if they exist already, shall adjust) minimum densities in each of its residential zones such that if all areas build out to the minimum allowed the committed densities shall be met. This shall be made a condition of a UGB amendment. Finding, Performance Indicator 4.1.5.1: The proposed ETOD includes pre - zoning of lands within the UGB to TOD standards assuring that the committed minimum density standard will be met. Conclusion: Consistent Performance Indicator 4.1.6. Mixed- Use/Pedestrian Friendly Areas. For land within a URA and for land currently within a UGB but outside of existing City Limit, each city shall achieve the 2020 benchmark targets for the number of dwelling units (Alternative Measure No. 5) and employment (Alternative Measure No. 6) in mixed -use /pedestrian - friendly areas as established in the 2009 Regional Transportation System Plan (RTP) or most recently adopted RTP. Beyond the year 2020, cities shall continue to achieve the 2020 benchmark targets, or if additional benchmark years are established, cities shall achieve the target corresponding with applicable Page 79 of 80 benchmarks. Measurement and definition of qualified development shall be in accordance adopted RTP methodology. The requirement is considered met if the city or the region overall is achieving the targets or minimum qualifications, whichever is greater. This requirement can be offset by increasing the percentage of dwelling units and /or employment in the City Limit. This requirement is applicable to all participating cities. Finding, Performance Indicator 4.1.5.1: The RTP Alternative Measures S and 6 measure compliance as the number of new dwelling units constructed, or the square footage of new commercial /industrial construc district. The proposed ETOD complies with RTP meth Conclusion: Consistent 8/ Page 80 of 80 EXHIBIT "A" -PROPOSED TOD GENERAL LAND USE PLAN MAP CENTRAL POINT EXHIBIT "A" - PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN a <�'�J °Beebe Rd 7 FT FT _.._..._.. _E.PirroStr • Legend Study Area Civic - Medium Mix Residential - Urban Growth Boundary Low Mix Residential - Employment Commercial Note: Enlargement of Comprehensive Plan Map included by reference Comprehensive Plan Proposed Eastside TOD District EXHIBIT "B" - PROPOSED TOD ZONING MAP EXHIBIT "B" - PROPOSED TOD ZONING MAP CENTRAL POINT ... E. Pine St'^'�� -r - � -r .`�i fn Ei?? IlIlI Legend Study Area Civic Medium Mix Residential — — Urban Growth Boundary Low Mix Residential - Employment Commercial Note: Enlargement ofAmended Zoning Map included by reference Proposed Eastside TOD District Zoning Map EXHIBIT "C -1" — AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 Chapter 17.08 DEFINITIONS 17.08.010 Definitions, specific "Development" The physical development of land, including: but not limited to partitions subdivisions, building construction, and infrastructure improvements. "Master Plan" A long -term written and illustrated plan prepared in accordance with Section 17 66 020 (A)(1), providing overall quidance and instruction for the use and development of a specific geographic areas within TOD Districts or Corridors. Chapter 17.65 TOD DISTRICTS AND CORRIDORS Sections: 17.65.010 Purpose. 17.65.020 Area of application. 17.65.030 Conflict with other regulations. 17.65.040 Land use - -TOD district. 17.65.050 Zoning regulations - -TOD district. 17.65.060 Land use - -TOD corridor. 17.65.070 Zoning regulations - -TOD corridor. 17.65.010 Purpose. 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. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 17.65.020 Area of application. These regulations apply to the Central Point TOD districts and corridors. The boundaries of these tweTOD districts and corridors areas are shown on the official city comprehensive plan and zoning maps. A. A development application within the-a TOD district shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. B. At the discretion of the applicant, a development application within the-a TOD corridor shall be subject to: 1. The normal base zone requirements as identified on the official zoning map and contained in this code; or 2. The TOD corridor requirements contained in this chapter. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 1 EXHIBIT "C -1" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 17.65.030 Conflict with other regulations. When there is a conflict between the provisions of this chapter and other requirements of this title, the provisions of this chapter shall govern. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 17.65.040 Land use - -TOD district. Four special zone district categories are applied in the Central Point TOD districtsserridor. The characteristics of these zoning districts are summarized in subsections A through D of this section. 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 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 and a variety of multifamily residences. Low impact commercial activities may also be allowed. 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 are encouraged along with complementary ground floor commercial uses. Low impact commercial activities may also be allowed. Low density residential uses are not permitted. 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. C. 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. D. OS - -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 2 EXHIBIT "C -1" -AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 TOD district becomes very important. This zone is intended to provide a variety of outdoor and recreation amenities. (Ord. 1867 §4(part), 2006; Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 17.65.050 Zoning regulations - -TOD district. 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. 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. 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. D. Density. The allowable residential density and employment building floor area are specified in Table 2. E. Dimensional Standards. The dimensional standards for lot size, lot dimensions, building setbacks, and building height are specified in Table 2. 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 lot; b. The primary residence and /or the accessory unit on the lot must be owner - occupied; c. An accessory unit shall have a maximum floor area of eight hundred square feet; d. The applicable zoning standards in Table 2 shall be satisfied. Table 1 TOD District Land Uses Use Categories Zoning Districts LMR MMR HMR J EC GC C OS Residential Dwelling, Single - Family 3 EXHIBIT "C -1" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 Large and standard lot Zero lot line, detached P P L5 P N N N N N N N N N N Attached row houses P P P C N N N Dwelling, Multifamily Multiplex, apartment P P P L1 L1 N N Accessory Units P1 P1 P1 C N N N Boarding /Rooming House N C C N N N N Family Care Family day care Day care group home P C P C P P N N N N N N N N Adult day care C C C N N N N Home Occupation P P P P N N N Residential Facility P P P N N N N Residential Home P P P N N N N Senior Housing N I P P L1 N C N Commercial Entertainment N N C P P N N Professional Office C L3 L3, L4 P P P N Retail Sales and Service Sales- oriented Personal service- oriented Repair- oriented Drive - through facilities Quick vehicle service C C N N N L3 C N N N L3 C N N N P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N Vehicle sales, rental and repair N N N P P N N Tourist Accommodations Motel /hotel N N C P P N N Bed and breakfast inn C C P P P N N Industrial EXHIBIT "C -1" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 Manufacturing N N N N P N N Industrial Service Light N N N N P N N Heavy N N N N C N N Wholesale Sales N N N N P N N Civic Community Services C C C N N P C Hospital Public facilities Religious assembly Schools C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N N C N N C C P P N N N L2 Utilities C C C C C C C Open Space Parks and Open Space P P P P P P P N - -Not permitted. P -- Permitted use. P1 -- Permitted use, one unit per lot. C-- Conditional use. L1 - -Only permitted as residential units above ground floor commercial uses. L2-- School athletic and play fields only School building and parking lots are not permitted. L3 -- Ground floor business within a multifamily building. Maximum floor area of ten thousand square feet per tenant. L4 -- Second story offices may be permitted in areas adjacent to EC zones as a conditional use. L5- -Only permitted as a transition between lower density zones and /or when adjacent to an environmentally sensitive area. 3. Parking Standards. The off - street parking and loading requirements in Chapter 17.64 shall apply to the TOD district and TOD corridor, except as modified by the standards in Table 3 of this section. EXHIBIT "C -1" -AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 a. Fifty percent of all residential off - street parking areas shall be covered. Accessory unit parking spaces are not required to be covered. b. Parking standards may be reduced when transit service is provided in the TOD district and TOD corridor and meets the following conditions: i. Parking standards may be reduced up to twenty -five percent when transit service is provided in the TOD district and TOD corridor. ii. Parking standards may be reduced up to fifty percent when transit service is provided in the TOD district and TOD corridor and when bus service includes fifteen - minute headways during the hours of seven to nine a.m. and four to six p.m. c. Bicycle parking standards in Chapter 17.64 shall not be reduced at any time. d. Shared parking easements or agreements with adjacent property owners are encouraged to satisfy a portion of the parking requirements for a particular use where compatibility is shown. Parking requirements may be reduced by the city when reciprocal agreements of shared parking are recorded by adjacent users. Table 2 TOD District Zoning Standards Standard Density - -Units Per Net Acre LMR MMR Zoning Districts HMR EC GC oS Maximum Minimum I 12 6 32 I 14 NA 30 NA NA II NA I NA NA NA _J II NA NA Dimensional Standards Minimum Lot or Land Area /Unit Large single - family 5,000 SF NA NA NA NA NA NA Standard single - family 3,000 SF NA NA NA NA NA NA Zero lot line detached 2,700 SF 2,700 SF NA NA NA NA NA Attached row houses 2,000 SF 1,500 SF 1,200 SF NA NA NA NA Multifamily and senior housing 2,000 SF LL1,5LOOF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF NA NA H Average Minimum Lot or Land 0 EXHIBIT "C -1" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 Area /Unit Large single - family Standard single - family 7,500 SF 4,500 SF NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IFZero lot line detached 3,000 SF 3,000 SF NA NA NA NA NA Attached row houses 2,500 SF 2,000 SF 1,500 SF NA NA NA NA Multifamily and senior housing Minimum Lot Width 2,500 SF 2,000 SF 1,500 SF 1,500 SF NA NA NA Large single - family Standard single - family 50' 50' NA NA NA F NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zero lot line detached 30' 30' NA NA NA NA NA Attached row houses 24' 22' 18' NA NA NA NA Multifamily and senior housing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Minimum Lot Depth 50' 50' 50' NA NA NA ENA:] Building Setbacks Front (min. /max.) 10715' 101/15' 01/15' 01 15' 5' 15' Side (between bldgs.) 5' detached 5' detached 5' detached 0' 0' 5' (detached /attached) 0' 0' 0' 10' (b) 15' (b) AU(b) attached (a)(c) attached (a)(c) attached (a) Corner (min. /max.) Rear 5'110' 15' 5710' 15' 0'/10' 10' 5'/10' 0' 15'/30' 15' (b) 0' 5'/10' 0' 15' /NA 5' 10' (b) 20' (b) Garage Entrance (d) (d) (d) (e) 7(e) =(1)NA Maximum Building Height 35' 45' 60' 60' 60' 45' 35' Maximum Lot Coverage (g) 80% 80% 85% 100% 100% 85% 25% Minimum Landscaped Area (i) 20% of site area 20% of site area 15% of site area 0% of site 15% of 15% of NA (j) area (h) site area site area Housing Mix EXHIBIT "C -1" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 1 Required housing types as listed under < 16 units in development: 1 housing type. NA NA NA NA Residential in Table 1. Large and standard lot Zero lot line, detached Attached row houses 16 -40 units in development: 2 housing types. > 40 units in development: 3 or more housing types (plus approved master plan) Notes: NA - -Not applicable. (a) The five -foot minimum also applies to the perimeter of the attached unit development (b) Setback required when adjacent to a residential zone. (c) Setback required is ten feet minimum between units when using zero lot line configurations. (d) Ten feet behind front building facade facing street. (e) Garage entrance shall not protrude beyond the face of the building. (f) Net acre equals the area remaining after deducting environmental lands, exclusive employment areas, exclusive civic areas and right -of -way. (g) Lot coverage refers to all impervious surfaces including buildings and paved surfacing. (h) Parking lot landscaping and screening requirements still apply. (i) Landscaped area shall include living ground cover, shrubs, trees, and decorative landscaping material such as bark, mulch or gravel. No pavement or other impervious surfaces are permitted except for pedestrian pathways and seating areas. (j) Rooftop gardens can be used to help meet this requirement. Table 3 TOD District and Corridor Parking Standards Use Categories Minimum Required Parking Residential Dwelling, Single - Family 2 spaces per unit. Large and standard lot Zero lot line, detached Attached row houses EXHIBIT "C -1" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 Dwelling, Multifamily 1.5 spaces per unit. Plexes Apartments and condominiums Dwelling, Accessory Unit 1 space per unit. Boarding /Rooming House 1 space per accommodation, plus 1 space for every 2 employees. Family Care 1 space for every 5 children or clients (minimum 1 space); plus 1 space for Family day care every 2 employees. Day care group home Adult day care Home Occupation Shall meet the parking requirement for the residence. Residential Facility 1 space per unit. Residential Home 1 space per unit. Senior Housing 1 space per unit. Commercial Entertainment 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area, except for theaters which shall provide 1 space per 4 seats. Professional Office 1 space per 400 square feet of floor area. Retail Sales and Service Sales- oriented 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area. Personal service - oriented 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area. Repair- oriented 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area. Drive - through facilities Parking as required by the primary use. Quick vehicle service 1 space per 750 square feet of floor area. Vehicle sales, rental and repair 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Tourist Accommodations 1 space per guest unit, plus 1 space for every 2 employees. Motel /hotel Bed and breakfast inn Industrial Manufacturing 1 space per employee of the largest shift. Industrial Service 1 space per employee of the largest shift. Light Heavy Wholesale Sales 1 space per employee of the largest shift. EXHIBIT "C -1" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 Civic Community Services Number to be determined as part of site plan or conditional use review. Hospital Public Facilities Religious Assembly Schools 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area. Number to be determined as part of site plan or conditional use review. 1 space per 100 square feet of floor area for the main assembly area. 2 spaces per classroom. Utilities Number to be determined as part of site plan or conditional use review. Open Space Parks and Open Space Number to be determined as part of site plan or conditional use review. (Ord. 1867 §4(part), 2006; Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 17.65.060 Land use - -TOD corridor. Four special zone district categories are applied in the Central Point TOD corridor. The characteristics of these zoning districts are summarized in subsections A through D of this section. 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 are also allowed and encouraged. The housing types within this zone are intended to support pedestrian - friendly access beyond five hundred feet of the primary transit route. 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 and a variety of multifamily residences and is intended to support pedestrian - friendly access within five hundred feet of the primary transit route. Low impact commercial activities may also be allowed. 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 10 EXHIBIT "C -1" -AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 encouraged. Residential uses above ground floor commercial uses are also consistent with the purpose of this zone. (Ord. 1867 §5(part), 2006; Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 17.65.070 Zoning regulations - -TOD corridor. A. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses in Table 4 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. B. Limited Uses. Limited uses in Table 4 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. C. Conditional Uses. Conditional uses in Table 4 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. D. Density. The allowable residential density and employment building floor area are specified in Table 5. E. Dimensional Standards. The dimensional standards for lot size, lot dimensions, building setbacks, and building height are specified in Table 5. F. Development Standards. 1. Housing Mix. The required housing mix for the TOD zoning districts is shown in Table 5. 2. Accessory Units. Accessory units are allowed as indicated in Table 4. Accessory units shall meet the following standards: a. A maximum of one accessory unit is permitted per lot. b. The primary residence and /or the accessory unit on the lot must be owner - occupied. c. An accessory unit shall have a maximum floor area of eight hundred square feet. d. The annlirnhle 7nninn standgrrls in Tahla F shall ha cnticfiarl Table 4 TOD Corridor Land Uses Use Categories Zoning Districts LMR MMR EC GC Residential Dwelling, Single - Family Large and standard lot P L4 FN N 11 EXHIBIT "C -1" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 Zero lot line, detached P P N N Attached row houses P P N N Dwelling, Multifamily Multiplex, apartment P P L1 L1 Accessory Units P1 P1 C N Boarding /Rooming House N C N N Family Care Family day care Day care group home P C P C N N N N Adult day care C C N N Home Occupation P P P N Residential Facility P P N N Residential Home P P N N Senior Housing N P L1 N Commercial Entertainment N N P P Professional Office C L3 P P Retail Sales and Service Sales- oriented Personal service - oriented C C L3 C P P P P Repair- oriented Drive - through facilities Quick vehicle service N N N N N N P P P P P P Vehicle sales, rental and repair N N N P Tourist Accommodations Motel /hotel N N P P Bed and breakfast inn C C P P Industrial Manufacturing N N N P Industrial Service 12 EXHIBIT "C -1" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 Light N N N P Heavy N N N C Wholesale Sales N N N P Civic Community Services C C N N Hospital C C C N Public Facilities Religious Assembly Schools C C C C C C C C N C N N Utilities C C C C Open Space Parks and Open Space P P P P N - -Not permitted. P -- Permitted use. P1 -- Permitted use, one unit per lot. C -- Conditional use. 1-1- -Only permitted as residential units above ground floor commercial uses. L2-- School athletic and play fields only. School building and parking lots are not permitted. L3 -- Ground floor business within a multifamily building. Maximum floor area of ten thousand square feet per tenant. L4 - -Only permitted as a transition between adjacent lower density zones and /or when adjacent to an environmentally sensitive area Table 5 TOD Corridor Zoning Standards Standard Zone Districts LMR MMR EC GC Density - -Units Per Net Acre (f) Maximum 12 32 NA NA Minimum 6 14 NA NA Dimensional Standards 13 EXHIBIT "C -1" -AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 Minimum Lot Area or Land Area /Unit Large single - family 5,000 SF NA NA NA Standard single - family 3,000 SF NA NA NA Zero lot line detached 2,700 SF 2,700 SF NA NA Attached row houses 2,000 SF 1,500 SF NA NA Multifamily and senior housing 2,000 SF 2,000 SF 1,000 SF NA Average Minimum Lot or Land Area /Unit Large single - family 7,500 SF NA NA NA Standard single - family 4,500 SF NA NA NA Zero lot line detached 3,000 SF 3,000 SF NA NA Attached row houses 2,500 SF 2,000 SF NA NA Multifamily and senior housing 2,000 SF 2,000 SF 1,000 SF NA Minimum Lot Width Large single - family 50' NA NA NA Standard single - family 50' NA NA NA Zero lot line detached 30' 30' NA NA Attached row houses 24' 22' NA NA Multifamily and senior housing NA NA NA NA Minimum Lot Depth 50' 50' NA NA Building Setbacks Front (min. /max.) 10715' 10715' 0' 15' Side (between bldgs.) 5' detached 5' detached 0' 0' (detached /attached) 0' attached (a) (c) 0' attached (a) (c) 10' (b) 15' (b) Corner (min. /max.) 5710' 5710' 5710' 15730' 14 EXHIBIT "C -1" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 Rear 15' 15' 0' 0' 10' (b) 15' (b) Garage Entrance (d) (d) (e) (e) Maximum Building Height 35' 45' 60' 60' Maximum Lot Coverage (g) 80% 80% 100% 85% Minimum Landscaped Area (i) 20% of site area 20% of site area 0% of site 15% of area site area Housing Mix Required housing types as listed < 16 units in development: 1 housing type NA NA under Residential in Table 3. 16 - -40 units in development: 2 housing types > 40 units in development: 3 or more housing types (plus approved master plan). NA - -Not applicable Notes: (a) The five -foot minimum also applies to the perimeter of the attached unit development. (b) Setback required when adjacent to a residential zone. (c) Setback required is ten feet minimum between units when using zero lot line configurations. (d) Ten feet behind building facade facing street. (e) Garage entrance shall not protrude beyond the face of the building. (f) Net acre equals the area remaining after deducting environmental lands, exclusive employment areas, exclusive civic areas and right -of -way. (g) Lot coverage refers to all impervious surfaces, including buildings and paved surfacing. (h) Parking lot landscaping and screening requirements still apply. 15 EXHIBIT "C -1" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.65 (i) Landscaped area shall include living ground cover, shrubs, trees, and decorative landscaping material such as bark, mulch or gravel. No pavement or other impervious surfaces are permitted except for pedestrian pathways and seating areas. 3. Parking Standards. Parking standards shall be as specified in Section 17.65.050(F)(3). (Ord. 1867 §5(part), 2006; Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 16 EXHIBIT "C -2" AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.66 Chapter 17.66 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE TOD DISTRICT AND CORRIDOR Sections: 17.66.010 Purpose. 17.66.020 Applicability. 17.66.030 Application and review. 17.66.040 Parks and open spaces. 17.66.050 Application approval criteria. 17.66.060 Conditions of approval. 17.66.070 Approval expiration. 17.66.010 Purpose. The purpose of the Central Point TOD (transit oriented development) district and corridor is to promote efficient land development, pedestrian /bike travel, and the increased use of transit as required by the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule. 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. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 17.66.020 Applicability. These regulations apply to land within the Central Point TOD district. As provided in Section 17.65.020 of this code, these regulations may also apply to land within the Central Point TOD corridor. The boundaries of the district and corridor are shown on the official city zoning map. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 17.66.030 Application and review. A. Application Types. 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. Master plan approval shall be required for all: a. Development or land division applications which involves two or more tha;, five acres of land GF feFty GlWelli .,4+ ; or b. Modifications to a valid master plan appr- v 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; 1 EXHIBIT "C -2" AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.66 iv. A change in the type and location of streets, accessways, and parking areas where off -site traffic would be affected; or v. A modification of a condition imposed as part of the master plan approval. 2. Site Plan, and Architectural Review. The provisions of Chapter 17.72, Site Plan ' andS(3^pi ^g and + +' Plan and Architectural ReviewAppro�, shall apply to permitted and limited uses within the TOD district and corridor. For development er land divisioplapplications involving two acres or more- +tee acres of land , a master plan approval, as provided OR this GhapteFTshall be approved prior to, or concurrently with, a site plan, landscaping and construction plan application. 3. Land Division. Partitions and subdivisions shall be reviewed as provided in Title 16, Subdivisions. For land division applications involving two acres or more acres of land a master plan, as provided in this chapter, shall be approved prior to or concurrently with a site plan landscaping and construction plan application. 4. Conditional Use. Conditional uses shall be reviewed as provided in Chapter 17.76, Conditional Use Permits. For development applications involving two acres or more acres of land a master plan, as provided in this chapter, shall be approved prior to or concurrently with a site plan landscaping and construction plan application. B. Submittal Requirements. AppliGatiORS shall be submitted as required iR GhapteF !7.()5 of thiS Gede. rnrd 1815 §1 (part), Exh 6(part) 2000)-.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 proiect area (100 feet) 11. Site Analysis Map. A map and written narrative of the project area addressing site amenities and challenges on the project site and adjacent property or within 100 feet of the project perimeter, whichever is greater. a. Master Utility Plan. A plan and narrative addressing existing and proposed utilities and utility extensions for water, sanitary sewer, storm water, gas electricity, agricultural irrigation b. Adjacent Land Use Plan A map identifying land uses and structures on adjacent Property or within 100 feet of the project perimeter, whichever is greater, and remedies for preservation of livability of adjacent land uses: 111. Circulation Plan. A plan and written narrative addressing section 17 67 040 Circulation and Access Standards. 2 EXHIBIT "C -2" AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.66 1V. Site Plan. A plan and narrative addressinq section 17 67 050 Site Design Standards The Site Plan V. Recreation & Open Space Plan. A plan and narrative addressing section 17 67 060 Public Parks and Open Space Design Standards. Vi. Building Design Plan. A written narrative and illustrations addressing section 17 67 070 Building Design Standards. Vii. Transit Plan. A plan identifying proposed or future transit facilities (if any). + -Vlll. Environmental Conditions Plan. A plan identifying environmental conditions such as wetlands, hazardous sites, flood hazard conditions groundwater conditions that are on adjacent property or within 100 feet of the project perimeter, whichever is greater. 17.66.040 Parks and open spaces. Common park and open space shall be provided for all residential development within a TOD district or corridor as per Section 17.67.060. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 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. B. Site Plan, LandSGapiRg and GGRGtF61GtiGR PlaR an Architectural Review -fir- v . A Site 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, Approval, shall be satisfied; and EXHIBIT "C -2" AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.66 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. 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. 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 Section 17.66.050(A). (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 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. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 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: 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. 4 EXHIBIT "C -2" AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.66 B. If the time limit for development expired and no extension has been granted, the application shall be void. (Ord. 1941 §5, 2010; Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. B(part), 2000). 5 EXHIBIT "C -3" —AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 Chapter 17.67 DESIGN STANDARDS - -TOD DISTRICT AND TOD CORRIDOR Sections: 17.67.010 Purpose. 17.67.020 Area of application. 17.67.030 Conflict with other regulations. 17.67.040 Circulation and access standards. 17.67.050 Site design standards. 17.67.060 Public parks and open space design standards. 17.67.070 Building design standards. 17.67.010 Purpose. The purpose of the Central Point TOD district and TOD corridor design standards is to complement and support efficient and sustainable land development, to reduce auto reliance and to increase transit use as required by the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. C(part), 2000). 17.67.020 Area of application. These regulations apply to the Central Point TOD districts and TOD corridors. The boundaries of the district and corridor are shown on the official city zoning map. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. C(part), 2000). 17.67.030 Conflict with other regulations. When there is a conflict between the provisions of this chapter and other requirements of this title, the provisions of this chapter shall govern. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. C(part), 2000). 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 s?GWn in Table 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. 2. Block perimeters shall not exceed Anp wo thousand si adrec -feet measured along the public street right -of -way. 3. Block lengths for public streets shall not exceed five 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. 1 EXHIBIT "C-3"- AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 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 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 in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 300 Street Construction Table 1 and Figure 1 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 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; iii. Distinctive paving; iv. Drinking fountains; and v. Sculpture. 2 EXHIBIT "C -3" -AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 c. Sidewalks adjacent to undeveloped parcels may be temporary. d. Public street, driveway, loading area, and surface parking lot crossings shall be clearly marked and 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. 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 ConstructionTa"l° 4 and Figure , 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. 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. 3 EXHIBIT "C-3"- AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 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. 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 stripings, grade separations, or landscaping. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. C(part), 2000) 17.67.050 Site design standards. The following standards and criteria shall be addressed in the master plan, land division, and /or site plan review process: A. Respect fGr ExiGti ^g FaGil 'ties and On Site + Adjacent Off -Site Structures and Uses. 4 All off -site structures including septic systems, drain fields, and domestic wells on adjacent property or within 100 feet whichever is greater 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 district and to improve the overall relationship of a development or an individual building to the surrounding context. 4 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 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. 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. 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. 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. 0 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 F. New Prominent Structures. 1. 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. G. Views. The massing of individual buildings should be adjusted to preserve important views while benefiting new and existing occupants and surrounding neighborhoods. 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. 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. 59 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 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 four- plexes. 4. New commercial buildings within fifty feet of existing low density residential development shall be no higher than forty -five feet. 5. Dwellings types in a TOD district or corridor 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. 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: 1 st. 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. 7 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 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 groundcover 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, MR, 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). 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. 2. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening. �3 EXHIBIT "C-3"- AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 a. Parking areas shall be screened with landscaping, fences, walls or a combination thereof. i. Trees shall be planted on the parking area perimeter and shall be spaced at thirty feet on center. ii. Live shrubs and ground cover plants shall be planted in the landscaped area. iii. Each tree shall be located in a four foot by four foot minimum planting area. iv. Shrub and groundcover beds shall be three -feet wide minimum. v. Trees and shrubs must be fully protected from potential damage by vehicles. b. Surface parking areas shall provide perimeter parking lot landscaping adjacent to a street that meets one of the following standards: i. A five - foot -wide planting strip between the right -of -way and the parking area. The planting strip may be interrupted by pedestrian - accessible and vehicular accessways. Planting strips shall be planted with an evergreen hedge. Hedges shall be no less than thirty -six inches and no more than forty -eight inches in height at maturity. Hedges and other landscaping shall be planted and maintained to afford adequate sight distance for vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot; ii. A solid decorative wall or fence a minimum of thirty -six inches and a maximum of forty -eight inches in height parallel to and not closer than two feet from the edge of right -of -way. The area between the wall or fence and the pedestrian accessway shall be landscaped. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians and shall be constructed and maintained to afford adequate sight distance as described above for vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot; iii. A transparent screen or grille forty -eight inches in height parallel to the edge of right -of -way. A two -foot minimum planting strip shall be located either inside the screen, or between the screen and the edge of right -of -way. The planting strip shall be planted with a hedge or other landscaping. Hedges shall be a minimum thirty -six inches and a maximum of forty inches in height at maturity. c. Gaps in a building's frontage on a pedestrian street that are adjacent to off - street parking areas and which exceed sixty -five feet in length shall be reduced to no more than sixty -five feet in length through use of a minimum eight- foot -high screen wall. The screen wall shall be solid, grill, mesh or lattice that obscure at least thirty percent of the interior view (e.g., at least thirty percent solid material to seventy percent transparency). 9 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 d. Parking Area Interior Landscaping. i. Amount of Landscaping. All surface parking areas with more than ten spaces must provide interior landscaping complying with one or both of the standards stated below. (A) Standard 1. Interior landscaping must be provided at the rate of twenty square feet per stall. At least one tree must be planted for every two hundred square feet of landscaped area. Groundcover plants must completely cover the remainder of the landscaped area. (B) Standard 2. One tree must be provided for every four parking spaces. If surrounded by cement, the tree planting area must have a minimum dimension of four feet. If surrounded by asphalt, the tree planting area must have a minimum dimension of three feet. ii. Development Standards for Parking Area Interior Landscaping. (A) All landscaping must comply with applicable standards. Trees and shrubs must be fully protected from potential damage by vehicles. (B) Interior parking area landscaping must be dispersed throughout the parking area. Some trees may be grouped, but the groups must be dispersed. (C) Perimeter landscaping may not substitute for interior landscaping. However, interior landscaping may join perimeter landscaping as long as it extends four feet or more into the parking area from the perimeter landscape line. (D) Parking areas that are thirty feet or less in width may locate their interior landscaping around the edges of the parking area. Interior landscaping placed along an edge is in addition to any required perimeter landscaping. 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. Prohibited screening includes chainlink fencing with or without slats. a. Acceptable screening includes: i. A six -foot masonry enclosure, decorative metal fence enclosure, a wood enclosure; or other approved materials complementary to adjacent buildings; or 10 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 ii. A six -foot solid hedge or other plant material screening as approved. 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, 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. 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. 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. 11 EXHIBIT "C -3" -AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 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. M. Signs. 1. The provisions of this section are to be used in conjunction with the city sign regulations in the Central Point Sign Code, Chapter 15.24. The sign requirements in Chapter 15.24 shall govern in the TOD district and corridor with the exception of the following: 2.S a. The types of signs permitted shall be limited only to those signs described in this chapter. b. All signs in the TOD district and corridor shall comply with the design standards described in this chapter. c. Decorative exterior murals are allowed and are subject to review and criteria by planning commission or architectural review committee appointed by city council. d. Signs that use images and icons to identify store uses and products are encouraged. e. Projecting signs located to address the pedestrian are encouraged. irements. Sign Type LMR, MMR, HMR (a), C, and OS Zones EC and GC Zones Freestanding Maximum Number 1 1 Height 4 feet. 20 feet. Sign area per 16 square feet. 50 square feet. building face Total sign area - -all 32 square feet. 100 square feet. building faces 12 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 Location At entry point(s) to housing complex or Outside of the public right -of -way. subdivision. Wall and Projecting Maximum Number 1 No limit. Height Lowest part at least 8 feet above underlying Lowest part at least 8 feet above underlying grade for projecting signs. grade for projecting signs. Sign area per 8 square feet. 1 -1/2 square feet with a maximum of 50 building face square feet per sign. Total sign area - -all 16 square feet. .25 square feet per lineal foot of building building faces perimeter. Location Signs shall not project more than 4 feet from a Signs shall not project more than 4 feet from building wall unless attached to a canopy. a building unless attached to a canopy. Temporary Maximum Number A maximum of 2 lawn signs are permitted. All 4 other temporary signs are not permitted. Height 3 feet maximum. 4 feet for freestanding signs and up to parapet or roof eaves for wall signs. Sign area per face 6 square feet. 32 square feet. Total sign area - -all 24 square feet. 64 square feet. faces Location Outside of the street right -of -way. Outside of the street right -of -way. Time limit 120 days. 120 days. Directional Maximum Number 1 sign per driveway. 2 signs per driveway. Height 3 feet. 3 feet. Sign area per 6 square feet. 6 square feet. building face Total sign area - -all 24 square feet. 32 square feet. building faces Location Adjacent to private driveway or sidewalk. Adjacent to private driveway or sidewalk. 13 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 Total Sign Area Per 8 square feet in LMR .25 square feet per lineal foot of building Lot 32 square feet in MMR, HMR, C, and OS. perimeter. All sign faces Note: * For ground floor commercial uses in HMR. — For residential uses in HMR. 3. Sign materials. a. The base materials for a freestanding sign shall be natural materials including stone, brick, or aggregate. b. Signs and supporting structural elements shall be constructed of metal or stone with wood or metal informational lettering. No plastics or synthetic material shall be allowed, except for projecting awning signs, which may be canvas or similar fabric. c. Sign lettering shall be limited to sixteen inches maximum in height. d. Sign illumination shall be limited to external illumination to include conventional lighting and neon, if neon is applied to the sign plane area. Internally illuminated signs are prohibited. 4. Prohibited Signs. a. Internally - illuminated signs; b. Roof signs; c. Reader boards; d. Sidewalk A -board signs; e. Flashing signs; f. Electronic message /image signs; g. Bench signs; h. Balloons or streamers; i. Temporary commercial banners. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. C(part), 2000). 17.67.060 Public parks and open space design standards. 14 EXHIBIT "C-3"- AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 A. General. Parks and open spaces shall be provided in the TOD districts and TOD corridors and shall be designed to accommodate a variety of activities ranging from active play to passive contemplation for all ages and accessibility. 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 TOD districts. 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. 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 district or corridor 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: 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 development's site area. 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 15 EXHIBIT "C -3" -AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 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. Children's 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, hand ball /paddleball; or 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 children's play structure on site. 3. For safety and security purposes, parks and open spaces shall be adequately illuminated. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. C(part), 2000). 17.67.070 Building design standards. 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; 16 EXHIBIT "C-3"- AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 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 Council's LEEDTM program be used to identify the most effective strategies. (Information on the LEEDT " program can be obtained from the U.S. Green Building Council's 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. 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); 17 EXHIBIT "C -3" -AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 v. Window size, orientation and detailing; vi. Materials and color; and vii. The building's relationship to the site, climate, topography and surrounding buildings. 2. Commercial and High Mix Residential. a. Buildings shall be built to the sidewalk edge for a minimum of seventy -five percent of their site's primary street frontage along collector and arterial streets in C, EC, GC, and HMR zones unless the use is primarily residential or the activity that constitutes the request for increased setback is intended to increase pedestrian activity, i.e., pedestrian plaza or outdoor seating area. b. Commercial structures and multi - dwellings should be sited and designed to provide a sensitive transition to adjacent lower density residential structures, with consideration for the scale, bulk, height, setback, and architectural character of adjacent single - family dwellings. c. In multi - dwelling structures, the plan layout, orientation and window treatment of the building design should not infringe upon the privacy of other adjacent dwellings. 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 building's 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: 18 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 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. a. For nonresidential buildings, or nonresidential portions of mixed -use buildings, main building entrances fronting on pedestrian streets shall remain open during normal business hours for that building. b. Nonresidential and mixed -use buildings fronting a pedestrian street shall have at least one main building entrance oriented to the pedestrian street. i. Such an entrance shall not require a pedestrian to first pass through a garage, parking lot, or loading area to gain access to the entrance off or along the pedestrian street, but the entrance may be through a porch, breezeway, arcade, antechamber, portico, outdoor plaza, or similar architectural feature. ii. If a building has frontage on more than one street, the building shall provide a main building entrance oriented to at least one of the streets, or a single entrance at the street intersection. iii. A building may have more than one main building entrance oriented to a street, and may have other entrances facing off - street parking and loading areas. 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. 19 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 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 half -a -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. 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. 20 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 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 district or corridor, 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, terracotta, 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. j. Ground -floor openings in parking structures, except at points of access, must be covered with grills, mesh or lattice that obscure 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. I. 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. 21 EXHIBIT "C -3" -AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 a. In areas adjacent to the transit station, sidewalks in front of buildings shall be covered to at least eight feet from building face to provide protection from sun and rain by use of elements such as: canopies, arcades, or pergolas. Supports for these features shall not impede pedestrian traffic. b. Canopies, overhangs or awnings shall be provided over entrances. Awnings at the ground level of buildings are encouraged. c. Awnings within the window bays (either above the main glass or the transom light) should not obscure or distract from the appearance of significant architectural features. The color of the awning shall be compatible with its attached building. d. Ground floor windows shall meet the following criteria: i. Darkly- tinted windows and mirrored windows that block two -way visibility are prohibited as ground floor windows. ii. On the ground floor, buildings shall incorporate large windows, with multi -pane windows and transom lights above encouraged. iii. Ground floor building facades must contain unobscured windows for at least fifty percent of the wall area and seventy -five percent of the wall length within the first ten to twelve feet of wall height. iv. Lower windowsills shall not be more than three feet above grade except where interior floor levels prohibit such placement, in which case the lower windowsill shall not be more than a maximum of four feet above the finished exterior grade. v. Windows shall have vertical emphasis in proportion. Horizontal windows may be created when a combination of vertical windows is grouped together or when a horizontal window is divided by mullions. 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 percent of the horizontal length of the ground floor front elevation of a single - family detached or attached dwelling shall be an attached garage. ii. When parking is provided in a garage attached to the primary structure and garage doors face the street the front of the garage should not take up more than 40 percent of the front facade in plan, and the garage should be set back at least ten feet from ►ia EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 the front facade. If a porch is provided, the garage may be set back 10 feet from the front of the porch. In addition, garage doors that are part of the street - facing facade of a primary structure should not be more than square feet in area, and there should not be more than one garage door for 16 feet of building frontage. iii. 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. iv. 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. v. 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. vi. 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: 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. E. Roofs. 23 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 1. Commercial and High Mix Residential /Commercial. a. 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. b. When the commercial structure has a flat parapet roof adjacent to pitched roof residential structures, stepped parapets are encouraged so the appearance is a gradual transition of rooflines. 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. F. Exterior Building Lighting. 1. Commercial and High Mix Residential /Commercial. a. Lighting of a building facade shall be designed to complement the architectural design. Lighting shall not draw inordinate attention to the building. i. Primary lights shall address public sidewalks and /or pedestrian plazas adjacent to the building. b. No exterior lighting shall be permitted above the second floor of buildings for the purpose of highlighting the presence of the building if doing so would impact adjacent residential uses. 2. Residential. a. Lighting shall not draw inordinate attention to the building facade. 24 EXHIBIT "C -3" - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.67 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. 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. 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. (Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh. C(part), 2000). 25 E N G I N E E R S P R O J E C T M A N A G E R S P L A N N E R S EXH I BIT I'D" TIA January 29, 2013 Matt Samitore City of Central Point 140 South Third Street, Central Point, Oregon 97502 RE: Transportation Impact Analysis addressing "Significant Effect" per TPR 660 -012- 0060 Dear Mr. Samitore: JRH has evaluated the transportation impacts of the proposed rezoning of parcels contained within the East Pine Street Transportation Plan (EPSTP) to facilitate the proposed Eastside Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) for this area. As the subject parcels (see figure 1) are subject to a zone change, a findings of no "significant effect" as per OAR 660 -012- 0060 need to be met for the adjacent transportation system. For an ODOT transportation facility, the mobility standards provided in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) Policy IF, Highway Mobility Policy, need to be met. "The Highway Mobility Policy establishes ODOT's mobility targets for state highways as the standards for system performance in compliance with the TPR (OAR 660 -12) and are to be used to determine significant affect specifically related to Section -0060 of the TPR ". As per the Oregon Highway Plan Policy 1 F.2, "To determine the effect that an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation has on a state facility, the capacity analysis shall include the, forecasted growth of traffic on the state highway due to regional and intercity travel and consistent with levels ofplanned development according to the applicable acknowledged comprehensive plan over the planning period. Planned development, for the purposes of this policy, means the amount of population and employment growth and associated travel anticipated by the community's acknowledged comprehensive plan over the planning period. " The City of Central Point amended their Comprehensive Plan in 2008 (Ordinance #1922) to include their updated Transportation System Plan (TSP). The TSP evaluated and adopted the development scenarios within the East Pine Street Transportation Plan (EPSTP). The land uses and development scenarios for parcels within the EPSTP are included as attachment 1, the parcels that are part of the TOD and zone change request have been highlighted within the attachment. voicE 541.687.1081 FAx 541.345.6599 WEB JRHWE6.COM 4765 VILLAGE PLAZA LOOP SUITE 201 EUGENE OREGON 97401 Letter From: Kelly Sandow PE RE: Central Point East Pine Street TOD — Findings of No- Significant Effect January 29, 2013 Page 2 The parcels contained within the proposed ETOD had a previously approved use within the TSP as part of the East Pine Street Transportation Plan. As this plan was adopted within the TSP, the levels of development approved within the EPSTP are the basis to which any further land use amendments are compared. As provided within the TSP, the I -5 MP 33 interchange facilities are projected to operate at a v/c of 1.45 for the northbound ramp terminal and 1.26 for the southbound ramp terminal at the end of the planning horizon (year 2030). This analysis included the levels of development projected and approved as part of the EPSTP. The mobility standard for these facilities is a v/c 0.85. As described in OHP Policy 1 F.5; "For Purposes of evaluating amendments to transportations system plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations subject to OAR 660 -12 -0060 in situations where the volume to capacity ratio .... is projected to be above the mobility targets at the planning horizon,... the mobility standard is to avoid further degradation. " "In applving `avoid further degradation' for state highway facilities... projected to be above the mobility targets at the planning horizon, a small increase in traffic does not cause further degradation' of the facility. The thr °eshold for a small increase in traffic between the existing plan and the proposed amendment is defined in terms of the increase in total average daily trip volumes as follows: • Any proposed amendment that does not increase the average daily trips by more than 400. • Any proposed amendment that increases the average daily trips by more than 400 but less than 1001 for state facilities where: • The annual average daily traffic is less than 5, 000 for a two -lane highway. • The annual average daily traffic is less than 15, 000 for a three -lane highway. • The annual average daily traffic is less than 10, 000 for a four -lane highway. • The annual average daily traffic is less than 25, 000 for a five -lane highway. • If the increase in traffic between the existing plan and the proposed amendment is more than 1000 average daily trips, then it is not considered a small increase in traffic and the amendment causes further degradation of the facility and would be subject to existing processes for resolution. " Letter From: Kelly Sandow PE RE: Central Point East Pine Street TOD — Findings of No- Significant Effect January 29, 2013 Page 3 JRH evaluated the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and ADT traffic volumes for the parcels within the proposed ETOD under the approved EPSTP development scenarios and the proposed ETOD zoning designation. The development scenarios and trip generation characteristics identified in the EPSTP and used within the TSP for these parcels are illustrated within Table 1 below. The reasonable "worst -case development scenario" consistent with the city's ETOD zoning will generate traffic as illustrated in Table 2. Table 1: Development Traffic as Approved in the EPSTP and TSP AUTWU Average ast Pine Street T Gros vetopme .Land our P ally Acre Scenario Use rips T raffic 1) Commercial Parcel north of East Pine 207,000 SF 820 Shopping 1,035 216 10,887 Street and West of Hamrick Road 2) Housing Development South of Beebe 211 units 220 Apartment 131 107 1,402 3) Beebe Road Concept Plan Area 520 units 210 Single * 424 374 4.739 Family Totals 0.00 -b,, 1,589 697 17,028 ' ':average of single family and apartment land uses Table 2: Development Traffic for Proposed ETOD Zoning ros vetopme Land A e Scenario Use rej reak Dail y Traffic LMR (Low Density Mixed Use Residential 49.39 325 Units 210 SFR *273 *214 '2 768 MMR (Medium Density Mixed Use Residential) 46.05 806 units 230 TH `299 *247 `3,557 Civic 5.93 15,461 SF 560 Church 9 9 141 EC (Employment Commercial) 21.39 213,000 SF 820 Shopping 1.056 220 11.102 Totals 122.76 1,637 689 17;567 *using a 10% reduction as allowed for TOD zoning in OAR 660- 12- 0060(6)(a) The proposed zoning will generate 48 more trips during the PM peak hour and 539 more daily trips than the development scenario for the EPSTP already approved for these parcels. The proposed comp plan amendment and zone change will increase traffic by less than 1000 ADT. This increase in traffic falls under the "small increase" in traffic, therefore, a findings of no "further degradation" and no "significant effect" are made. JRH distributed the ADT traffic volumes from the EPSTP development scenario and the TOD scenario. The trip distribution follows the distribution pattern used in the EPSTP. The distribution pattern is provided in Attachment 1. The following summarizes the development trip ADT volumes added to the interchange: Letter From: Kelly Sandow PE RE: Central Point East Pine Street TOD — Findings of No- Significant Effect January 29, 2013 Page 4 Northbound Ramps: • EPSTP ADT Trips: 6,810 • TOD ADT Trips: 7,028 Southbound Ramps: • EPSTP ADT Trips: 5,107 • TOD ADT Trips: 5,270 The proposed TOD zoning will generate 218 more ADT trips at the northbound ramp and 163 more ADT trips at the southbound ramp than the EPSTP approved development scenario. The proposed comprehensive plan and zone change increases the ADT on the ODOT facilities less than 400 trips meeting the threshold for what ODOT would consider a "small increase" in traffic as defined in OHP Policy 1 F.5. Therfore, the proposed zoning does not create a "significant effect" on the ODOT transportation system. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions you may have. Sincerely, Kelly R. Sandow � 7�7 9 2 9PE OREG f t 4. r R. gP RENEWAL 06/30/14 POINT U ji VANNAH 6R t-- -! O ow T + NE1M�HA� Mrrai� Iirw 71 3 r of-, z 9Vr W f . .. L a � Lo iH.Jr.JaJJJ ,.,k... J..uer.H.BiariBi.l�D �....... E6BE Z Z Tr7g!j 71 i i 1 �[K/E OAK LbDP �C � JMHJH.iJJM4C = ' �f�STLE�TOrE �F � � �� T L(P 1 � • E.�•GERRD� •L_.!I Mto H...........: Y # --r _. -- _ .HHi......H...� .Ri��.Tin%%1 w rrrwl �. �B1DF Legend Study Area — •• - — Urban Growth Boundary •••.... City Limits Proposed TOD District Figure 1 Proposed Eastside TOD District Page 4 of 30 ATTACHMENT 1 0 TABLE 6 - PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION OF EAST PINE STREET DEVELOPMENTS Kentucky Fried Chicken on Peninger south of East Pine Street Completed 108 29 25 54 Commercial Parcel north of East Pine Street and West of Hamrick Road (Former Pear Blossom Plaza Property) 2005 1,035 340 385 310 Beebe Wood Village and Remaining Units in Brookdale Housing Development 2005 118 74 44 0 Blue Grass Downs Housing Development 2005 124 78 46 0 Development at North End of Peninger Road 2007 115 43 26 46 Hamrick Business Park 2007 380 133 165 82 Layton Office Park 2007 436 119 135 182 Housing Development South of Beebe 2007 131 85 46 0 Beebe Road Concept Plan Area 2007 424 271 153 0 Development at South End of Peninger Road 2008 406 147 147 112 Modoc Orchard Property South of Hamrick Road 2008 126 55 71 0 Parcels in Southwest Corner of Pine Street and Hamrick Road 2010 94 25 37 32 Parcels in Southwest Corner of Biddle Road and Table Rock Road 2010 311 84 121 106 Parcels in Northeast Corner of Pine Street and Hamrick Road 2010 108 25 61 22 Development on property between Bear Creek; Peninger Road north of East Pine Street, and East Pine Street. 2010 547 216 219 112 Brookdale Gardens +2010 44 21 17 6 Parcels in Northwest Corner of Biddle Road and Table Rock Road +2010 105 28 41 36 Parcels East of Layton Office Park +2010 55 15 22 18 Parecels in Northwest Corner of Table Rock Road and Hamrick Road +2010 34 7 27 0 TOTAL TRIP GENERATION: 4,701 1,795 1,788 1,118 NOTE: The pass -by trip total includes inbound and outbound trips (i.e., one pass -by visitor contributes two trips). 3.2.3 Trip Distribution and Assignment After determining the trip generation, the next step in the analysis requires distributing and assigning the trips to the existing traffic network. Trip distribution allocates the trips generated from the developments to generalized destinations. Trip assignment routes trips to these generalized destinations via the actual street network. The regional EMME /2 model was used to determine the trip distribution using the existing and future -year models (Year 2000 and Year 2023 models). In order to determine the distribution from the model, a select -link analysis was performed. The select -link analysis assigns only those JRH TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING I October 2004 1 East Pine Street Transportation Plan 119 r N Y s R a+ Q M r O M M O O O N N U a � o N m E w � m o N � _ d i/i coo voi M N � Q o 0 N N O v o 0 N O C O O N N N N m 2 � N O O V � t0 « O N N N A r U .0 r O N N � N N O pl N 'o fr N O d a O and O N N c C N N N O d W O O c a N r o r o N l0 W S n � O � N N r A r r m � EL N N N N E 0 N N N o O fl] N O N N aU) W W a `o o L o �n a Q r o o z w P. � � a a; o O N N N O M O U � E � d o o. ro � Z c 0 R 0 0 E � � o a 5 O r ° w N o r N m m ry o 0 E cn E o � 'a o 2 CT3 W r N N° N o O M a0 0 ° 0 CO) 0 0 O O cn W N O O N N A L- O O N O O N M -^,W W VJ f1 O O N d N N r r E in 1L+ i in y y m o c ° Q N d CL LL d . L W O r 1� YO i 7 N C v t a Q N N M M N M C C O N U a m m, m c S d � co O v O N � O M C � N N M M N N o c M N M M N O N 5 N O M 9 m 0 U, O O d O o "° c � m c � M O c d LU 0 0 m N m � o 0 m o N O' O N N N � O O W W m N N N M N O N M O f0 y � O O E N o m o N`a c o 0 o z w o 0 °n n° o � ,� o r o 6 t`0 MW W C a d 15 N N N C O N E O 0 (� a° a = o O M ry ry O O d CO E C75 � N 'a O U) W EF O V O ^O W O O Q O O ° e a o o a e e e V 7 wR N N N N N O O W i U) a L p y L N V O W O M L ^v` W O O C U U N O m 0 0 M z i ` N ° v W a a rn Q 1 2 29 mo M N C N s `Y Q Q w Q U O U co O W CL -Q as U) co C� Ea ~ L (0 E a c2 N b b � o N O O N N c CL `o a 46 N L a L @ O S d@ Z o 'a ° LL -L { a F m 0 0 �lol� N @ U a o m rn .E o N C = O O U a O O Q O O � O O O O O O O O O O O a0 c0 � V O r O) O � � d O O a m o m 5 K ma m c o � o o w a v rn rn w m rn m w m � N O � W d« M M N N O O Z W O O o � o W � N � OJ Ip o o an d o 0 E m c O m @ O N U) w o � o a v v a v a v M �a LLa L iq W yr. o o W o o � o 0 0 M M m d @ m 0 @ D C O O N C 1 O O r r p l @ O V @ c H 9 C C f0 E N d @ r N j LL @ ] O (J d rn E p a a a s o, a` O F m a c2 N b b � o N O O N N c CL `o a 46 N L a L @ O S d@ Z o 'a ° LL -L { a F m 0 0 �lol� N @ U a o m rn .E o N C = O O U a O O Q O O � O O O O O O O O O O O a0 c0 � V O r O) O � � d O O a m o m 5 K ma m c o � o o w a v rn rn w m rn m w m � N O � W d« M M N N O O Z W O O o � o W � N � OJ Ip o o an d o 0 E m c O m @ O N U) w o � o a v v a v a v M �a LLa L iq W yr. o o W o o � o 0 0 M M r4 E 5 2 < /� \ \, � R " ` { q G { \, U) 0 w LU � G § 3 § CL§ E E §° 0 \ /} � � ) {�0 ƒ0� �:! / of , U) LLI m , c � ■� ILp ,,r =,��„ 4�0 !! $ & (n C ■^ 4) . � /� & {)k( � 0 � ;m U) -/f ■� � 2 ) § § W � k� 0)E F !:: Ln N i+ C CN G s m 2 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 0 0 c N N U a � y N = ¢ 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 co m 0 0 0 0 m w m � � y t0 K U) ma c .. C y o d w o 0 � n W N O CO O OJ O N N E � tn0 (�O �n a C O 0 0 N Z Lj O O O r r W U N N O O c (9 0 n F- m m c 0 m E cNO v M t0 0 O r E a c m a m m r o N m c n y N 0_ w E � 9 �, aoo ° U) w O N O M o m N N N M M N N ''r 0 m 6 c c o .Q 4i a `o L L d N W FLs Y2 �o = o N o E a E o o m� .C. N L N Z U) -p W d H F m N N 0 { E « Ex < t §: /k \ % \ §{ k± 00 [k \ \ \, \ \ .. �\ \ \� \ \�\ / It \ R { E0 f» �zd /)/ /) : _ U m ) § §q 8g <w,a£«2 \% ; 2 \�\ _ �Q �O a 2 m ;a _ o _ § / /_ /u 3 :*} } 3k\ , / \ t §?! w k I) ƒ2 ƒ$ /ƒ2)2 R R �; F4 '� � O.ffi F 11". o January 8, 2013 Urecion John A. Kitzhaher, M.D., Governor Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director City of Central Point 140 S_ 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 Re: Eastside TOD District (File: 12003) Mr. Humphrey: EXHIBIT "E" ODOT Letter Department of Transportation p p nation Region 3 3500 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97470 Phone: (541) 957- 3692/Fax: (541) 957 -3547 Thomas-Guevara@odot.state.or.us Thank you for sending agency notice for a proposed Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map Amendment re- designating approximately 123 acres from Residential and Commercial to Transit Oriented District (TOD) located northeast of Interstate 5 Exit 33 (Pine Street Interchange). ODOT understands the proposed project increases residential density to an average of 9.6 dwellings per acre on 95.44 acres, and maintains 196,000 square feet of employment commercial uses on 21.39 acres. As an affected agency, we reviewed the City staff report and draft findings of facts to assess potential impacts on state transportation facilities. ODOT provides the following comments addressing the proposed project's traffic impacts to the Pine Street Interchange and provides recommendations to assure the Eastside TOD's compliance with OAR 660 -012- 0060 (a.k.a. Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)). Traffic Assumptions The City's 2008 Transportation System Plan (TSP) shows that existing land uses will cause the Pine Street Interchange to fail by Year 2030 (See TSP Table 7.3). The I -5 Exit 33 Northbound Ramp /East Pine Street intersection has a projected 1.45 volume -to- capacity (v /c) ratio and the 1 -5 Southbound /East Pine Street intersection has a 1.26 v /c. These performance values significantly affect the Pine Street Interchange mobility target of 0.85 v /c. Moreover, the 2008 TSP does not identify any planned or programmed interchange projects to mitigate significant effects by the end of the planning period. Therefore, OHP Action 1F.5 Further Degradation Policy applies to the Pine Street Interchange. ODOT Performance Targets OHP Action 1F.5 applies to ODOT's evaluation of amendments to transportation system plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations subject to the TPR. In situations where the applicable v/c target for an interchange is projected to be above the OHP mobility target at the planning horizon and transportation improvements are not planned within the planning horizon to bring the performance consistent with the established OHP mobility target, then the applicable mobility target is to "avoid further degradation ". In applying the further degradation mobility target for state highway facilities, a small increase in traffic does not cause "further degradation" of the facility. ODOT's threshold for a small increase in traffic to a 5 -lane state transportation facility is 1,000 ADT between the existing land uses and proposed land uses (OHP Policy IF Revisions -- 12/21/11). ODOT considers traffic increases of more than 1,000 ADT as a significant affect pursuant to the TPR. TPR Significant Affects The City's draft findings show that existing land uses generate 1,405 PM peak hour trips (approximately 14,050 ADT) and the proposed TOD land uses generate 1,516 PM peak hour trips (approximately 15,160 ADT). According to the City's own findings, the proposed TOD increases ADT by 1,110 trips, which further degrade the Pine Street Interchange function, capacity and performance standards (OHP Action 1F.5). The City's traffic evidence does not identify any acceptable TPR remedies to mitigate significant affects. Moreover, the 2008 TSP does not identify a funding program to construct interchange improvements nor are future interchange improvements "reasonably likely" to be funded in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) by the end of the planning period. According ODOT traffic engineering analysis, the existing land uses generate 12,664 ADT and the proposed TOD increases trips by 3,619 ADT totaling 16,283 ADT. The additional trips exceed the 1,000 ADT threshold established in OHP Action iF.5. As stated above, the 2008 TSP forecasts the I -5 Exit 33 Northbound Ramp /E. Pine Street and Southbound Ramp /E. Pine Street intersections to exceed the OHP mobility target of 0.85 We by the end of the planning period. The additional 3,619 ADT further degrades the Pine Street interchange's function, capacity and performance (See Attached Technical Memorandum). Options /Solutions Further traffic analysis is necessary to assure compliance with the TPR. The City has the option to adopt the draft 33 IAMP analysis and transportation improvements to mitigate significant effects at the Pine Street Interchange. The other option is for the City to submit a detailed Traffic Impact Study (TIS) that assesses traffic impacts to the interchange's function, capacity and performance standards, identifies transportation improvements with cost estimates, and a funding program to construct the transportation improvements by the end of the planning period (OAR 660 -012- 0060(2)). ODOT recognizes that developing a new TIS may be time consuming. In light of the fact that much of the traffic analysis has been vetted through the recent transportation planning work for the draft Exit 33 TAMP Alternative Land Use Scenario (ALUS), ODOT is willing to accept that analysis for this proposed amendment. The analysis assumes a total of 1,649 PM peak hour trips for the project area. The draft 33 IAMP also shows that existing land uses will cause the Pine Street Interchange to fail by Year 2034. It forecasts a 1.06 We at the 1 -5 Exit 33 Northbound Ramp/East Pine Street intersection and a 0.88 v/c at the I -5 Southbound/East Pine Street intersection. This analysis identifies needed transportation improvements (i.e. both state and local improvements) totaling approximately $22 Million. If the City chooses to use the draft LAMP 33 analysis and transportation improvements, it will still need to identify funding sources for the required interchange improvements totaling approximately $3 Million when it considers adoption of the proposed TOD. It is ODOT's understanding that the remaining $19 Million is for local street improvements to be funded by the City and/or the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) sources. Recommendation ODOT recommends the City concurrently: (1) amend the 2008 TSP to incorporate the draft Exit 33 IAMP Alternative Land Use Scenario analysis and transportation improvements; (2) enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with ODOT to fund and construct the needed transportation improvements; and (3) adopt a Condition of Approval requiring the Exit 33 interchange improvements to be in place prior to City authorization of development exceeding 1,649 PM peak hour trips in the project area. Please enter this letter into the record and send me a copy of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Sincerely, 0 /A THOMAS GUEVAW; ,➢R. Development Review Planner ' Attachments CC: RVDRT Matt Crall, DLCD Dan Moore, RVMPO John Vial, Jackson County Roads Dept. City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008 -2030 The following identifies each of the nineteen intersections and a general description of the improvements needed to meet a minimum LOS "D ": Table 7.3. Year 2030 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point Intersection Control LOS & V/C Year 2030 AAL Year 2030 P.M. Type Standard Performance Performance WEST SIDE Beall & Freeman Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS C Beall & Bursell Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Beall & Grant Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Beall & Hanley Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS D Beall & Hwy. 99 Signalized V/C 0 90 V/C 1.01 V/C 0.92 Taylor & Grant (south) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS B Taylor & Grant (north) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS B Bursell & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Htvy. 99 & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS LOS (Front) 2"d & East Pine Stop /Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/C (signal) 3`d & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS BB ( unsignaled) LOS B/F (unsignaled) 4`1' &.East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS B 6 'h & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/B (signal) I & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS D LOS E Grant & Scenic Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Scenic & Hwy. 99 Stop/Unsignalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.31 V/C 1.82 Haskell & Taylor Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Haskell & West Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Freeman & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS D Hazel & 3r'& 2nd Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Haskell & Beall Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS D EAST SIDE Meadowbrook & East StoptUrnsignalized LOS D LOS F/B restricted LOS FIB restricted Pule Beebe & Hamrick Stop /Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/C (signal) Peninger & East Pine S igialized LOS D LOS ( unsignaled) LOS ( unsignaled) Hanirick & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F Upton & Peninger Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C I -5 NB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.93 V/C 1.45 I -5 SB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.88 VIC 1.26 Table Rock & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F Wilson & Table Rock Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F LOS F Vilas & Table Rock Signalized LOS D LOS D LOS F New Hagen & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F LOS F Gebhard & Wilson Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Gebhard Rd. & E. Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F St. CHAPTER 7 — STREET SYSTEM PLAN Page 71 of 16I City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008 -2030 L 10`x' Street & Pine Street & Freeman. Signal timing improvements. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2030 during the P.M. peak hour, but can be mitigated with signal timing. 2. New Signal on East Pine Street. A new north -south public street is proposed between the existing Peninger Road and Hamrick Road. The new roadway will extend from Beebe Road to a new east -west street south of East Pine Street. The new east -west street will allow Peninger Road traffic to use the new signalized intersection at East Pine Street. A new east -west street is also proposed north of East Pine Street to accommodate traffic to and from the Fairgrounds site once the Peninger Road and East Pine Street signal is removed. The new public streets will relieve traffic demand on East Pine Street to facilitate the regional function of this roadway while accommodating local access. 3. I -5 & East Pine Street Interehange2D. Currently, there are no planned or programmed improvements scheduled or approved for Exit 33. There is a need for detailed analysis of the interchange to ensure that projects will meet long- term needs. Initial improvements will add capacity to the northbound off -ramp to accommodate the right -turn volume demand. Additional capacity improvements are needed to accommodate added local development traffic. 7.3. Recorrmended Street System Improvements Based on the above, a listing of recommended street projects has been prepared and presented in Table 7.5. Projects are presented by short-tenn (2008- 2012), medium (2013 -20), and long -term (2021 -2030) implementation. It is important to note that the recommendations in this table are based on the most recent growth forecasts. Throughout the planning period 2008 -2030, the City needs to continuously monitor its needs and make adjustments to this TSP as justified, both on a need basis and a financial basis. Circumstances will change and so will street improvement needs. It is also important to understand that some of the listed projects are dependent on other projects to either precede them or to be developed concurrently. If developed alone, they will not resolve any traffic capacity issue and most likely would aggravate existing levels of service. An example of such a project would be removing the signals at Peninger Road and East Pine Street. Without new bridge crossings of Bear Creek and the extension of Hamrick Road and Beebe Road an unacceptable level of service would immediately occur. Tables 7.6 and 7.7 list Jackson County and ODOT projects within the City's urban area that have been identified as necessary to support the City's transportation objectives. These listed projects, although a part of this TSP, are not Included in Chapter 12 Transportation System Financing Program, as a financial responsibility of the City. It is expected that as the County and state update their transportation plans that the projects listed in Tables 7.6 and 7.7 will be included in those plan updates. 20 Ibid. CHAPTER 7 — STREET SYSTEM PLAN Page 72 of 161 pp� V4 ViN�S Date: To: From: Subject: regon January 8, 2013 Thomas Guevara Jr., Development Review Planner (Department of Transportation Region 3 "Michael" Wei Wang, Development Review Traffic Engineer TECH MEMO Central Point Eastside TOD Amendment Traffic Assessment (DRS Case #5548) r a 1 The City of Central Point is proposing an amendment re- designating 123 acres from standard residential and commercial zoning to Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Zoning. The proposed TOD area is near the Interchange #33. It is located at the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Hamrick Road and E. Pine Street. In according to the City of Central Point Eastside TOD Proposal (File No. 1300X), currently there are 9.23 acres R -L (Low Density), 55.16 acres R -1 -6 (Single - FamiIy), 20.02 acres R -1 -8 (Single - Family), 16.96 acres R -2 (Two - Family) and 21.39 acres C -4 (Tourist & Professional Commercial). The proposed TOD area will have 49.39 acres LMR (Low Density Mixed), 46.05 acres MMR (Medium Density Mixed), 5.93 acres Civic (Church) and 21.39 acres EC (Employment Commercial). I have completed a Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) assessment of the proposed amendments to the City of Central Point from standard residential and commercial zoning to TOD. A reasonable usage scenario for the current and proposed land used was established based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 9t11 Edition. Table 1 and 2 show the calculated PM peak hour trips and average daily trips (ADT) which will be generated from the current and proposed TOD zoning. Table 1: Current Zoning PM Peak Hour Trips and ADT Current Zoning Max Density Max Units or Acreage ITE Code PM Peak Rate Max PM Peak Trips ADT Rate ADT R -L 1.8 17 DU 210 1.02 17 9.52 162 R -1 -6 4.7 259 DU 210 1.02 264 9.52 2466 R -1 -8 3.9 78 DU 210 1.02 80 9.52 743 R -2 9.4 159 DU 230 0.52 83 5.81 924 C-4 N/A 196K SQFT. 820 3.71 727 42.70 8369 Total 1171 12664 -1- Table 2: Proposed TOD PM Peak Hour Trips and ADT Proposed TOD Max Density Max Units ITE Code PM Peak Rate Max PM Peak Trips ADT Rate ADT LMR 9.4 325 DU 210 1.02 332 9.52 3094 MMR 25 806 DU 230 0.52 419 5.81 4683 Civic (Church) N/A 15K SQFT. 560 0.94 14 9.11 137 EC N/A 196K S FT. 820 3.71 727 42.70 8369 Total 1492 16283 I have reviewed the 2008 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan (TSP). According to Table 7.3 in the TSP, the year 2030 v/c will exceed the OHP standard v/c ratio at the intersections of I -5 Exit 33 SB &NB Ramps @ E. Pine Street. Future projects will be required to mitigate the future year 2030 v/c ratios back to OHP standard at these two intersections. In according to the results from Table 1 and Table 2, the proposed TOD will generate an additional 3,619 ADT which will exceed the 1,000 ADT threshold in OHP Action 1F.5. Therefore, the proposed TOD will result in a significant impact to the state facility. Since the intersections of I -5 Exit 33 SB &NB ramps @ E. Pine Street are failing by year 2030, the proposed significant impact will cause, a "further degradation" to the ODOT's facility. I have also reviewed the JRH prepared Trip Generation for the East Pine Street TOD District dated in January 4, 2013 and the Draft Findings of Fact for East Pine Street TOD. We have some disagreements with the trip generation results calculated in these documents. In Table 2 of the JRH prepared Trip Generation assessment, we generally concur with the calculated results, with the removal of the Urban Reserve Area/AR. However, JRH incorrectly lists 232 K square feet of commercial building in zoning C -4 versus 196 K square feet listed in the Draft Findings of Fact for the East Pine Street TOD. In Table 7.1 of the Draft Findings of Fact for the East Pine Street TOD, the dwelling units are inconsistent with the numbers identified in the City's latest trip generation worksheet which we received on January 7, 2013. Please refer to the attachment for the trip generation worksheet. In summary, the proposed TOD will generate 16,283 ADT, an increase of 3,619 ADT. The City's TSP identifies the interchange will exceed the adopted performance standards for the interchange by year 2030 without this land use change. The increase in trips for this land use change will cause "further degradation" to the state interchange facility. The additional ADT expected from this land use change is identified as significant effect under OHP Action 1F.5 and under the state transportation planning rule (TPR). Further traffic analysis and mitigations will be required to protect the state transportation facility. You may contact me at 541 -774 -6316 if you have questions or require additional information. -2- Page 1 of 1 WANG Wei * Michael From: GUEVARA Thomas Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 1:00 PM To: WANG Wei * Michael Subject: FW: Central Point Attachments: JRH TOD Trip Comparison 1 3 13.xlsx Thomas Guevara Jr. I ODOT Planning & Finance section Region 3 13500 NW Stewart Parkway I Roseburg, OR 97470 �, : 541- 957 -36921 8: 541- 957 -3547 I �: Thomas.Guevara @odot.state.or.us From: Don Burt [mailto: Don. Burt@centralpointoregon.gov] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 11:49 AM To: GUEVARA Thomas Subject: Central Point Tom, Attached are my latest figures for the TOD proposal vs. Current Zoning. This includes a 10% trip reduction for residential only. I'll see you tomorrow. If you need to get a hold of me today try 541 -601- 9634. The 70% reduction in maximum density is based on existing TOD projects. The average is 58 %. Sincerely, CENTRAL POINT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Don Burt, Planning Manager 140 South Third Street Central Point, OR 97502 Desk: 541 -664 -3321 (x259) Fax: 541 - 664 -2598 www.centralpointoregon.gov This electronic communication, including any attached documents, may contain confidential and /or legally privileged information that is intended only for use by the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the communication and any attachments. 1/8/2013 -i m CC). O O cD p CD N o (D X p CD 0 C1 7 1= _N O 7 Cn a7 0 N O O� =j g X N V O O o O D m m o go tD N N O O m O Vf M C— 7 �• 11 f �' Y O d � X N O 00 V V J eDC Q°, ., Co 0} •A W N �- N 00 CA m X H e•M 00 N O 7 m O4 �O H a N N w .n, •-i O O U7 CD fD W Z P N W O V D V .p N W 7 �• 11 Q' O d � X N O 00 V V Q h ` Q°, ., Co M i 0 n3i 3 0 a D to cn cn X c! LO r cr °? y m NW D D D y D c ul 3 = N (i V VNi N Q W LO 00 lO V O 0 O W Z P N W O V D V .p N W 7 �• 11 O d � X N D 4p Lo ` Q°, ., Co 3 O 1-+ O O O {_f 0 Ln Z- 0 a D to cn cn LO r D ao y m NW D D D y D °1 O a m 00 N N N N N N N W N N N O 1-+ O O O {_f Ln Z- a D to cn cn r D ao to °1 x 3 = 0 00 l0 i N ~• 00 00 I77 Ul 00 V N W to 'N O 0 O p X x W LDD i 00 N w 00 00 A 00 N 00 N '8 N DRAFT 1AMP: 1 -5 Exit 33 (Central Point) 2.6.3. Future Intersection Operations December 2012 The future baseline traffic analysis results are summarized in Table 6 for all major study area intersections. Figure 6 shows the results for intersection movements for the 2034 RTP Scenario and Figure 7 shows the same for the ALUS Scenario. Table 6. Traffic Operations - Future Baseline Conditions uperatlons wltn [u54 K I N forecasts - AM Peak Hour 1-5 SB Ramps &East Pine St (Signalized) Overall 180.60 C SB L/T 0.85 1 -5 NB Ramps & East Pine St (Signalized) Overall A _ _. None 0.85 Operations With 2034 RTP Forecasts - PINA Peak Hour 7th St & East Pine St SB L/T /R 0.90 None LOS D Sth St & East Pine St SB L/T /R 0.17 None .... ............ LOS D 9th St & East Pine 5t NB L/T /R 0.17 C None LOS D 10th St /Freeman Rd & East Pine St (Signalized) Overall 0.88 1. D All Approaches 0.95 /LOS D Jewett School R East Pine St SB L/T /R 0.22 �....... EB L, WB 0 95 /LOS D 15 SB Ramps & East Pine St (Signalized) _ ..._. _. _... Overall . ......... ...... 0.75 .. ..._. . A WB L 0.85 1 -5 NB Ramps & East Pine S (Signalized) Overall 0.83 . . _. _...... B EB L WB T NB .R _ .._ . , 0.85 Peninger Rd & East Pine S (Signalized) Overall 0.94 _ _ . C EB, WB, NB 0.95 Hamrick Rd & East Pine S (Signalized) Overall + D EB, SB ........... _ 0.95 Operations With ALUS Forecasts - AM Peak Hour I -5 SB Ramps & East Pine St (Signalized) Overall + D �Noln 0.85 1- B Ramps East Pine St (Signalized) Overall 0.72 13' 0.85 Operations With ALUS Forecasts - PM Peak Hour 7th St & East Pine St SB L /T /R + SB L /T /R LOS D 8th St &East Pine St SB L/T /R 0.21 SB L/T /R LOS D 9t St East Pine St NB L/T /R 0.22 C None LOS D 10t St Freeman R & East Pine St (Signalized) __ Overall 0.93 D . All Approaches 0.95 /LDS D Jewett School Rd & East Pine St SB L/T /R 0.29 D EB L WB 0 95 /LOS D 1 -5 SS Ramps & East Pine St (Signalized) C WB L, 5B 0.85 5 Nl3 Ramps & East Pine S (Signalized) iA C All approaches 0.85 Peninger R &East Pine S (Signalized) E All a roaches pp 0.95 Hamrick Rd &East Pine S (Signalized) E All approaches 0.95 Acronyms: NB= northbound, SB= south bound, EB= eastbound, WB= westbound, L =left -turn movement, T= through movement, R= right- turn movement. Two or more travel movements permitted in one lane group are indicated with a slash. Notes: 1. At signalized intersections, the critical movement is represented bythe overall intersection operations. At unsignalized intersections, the critical movement was identified as the stopped movement with the worsts /c ratio. 2. The v/c ratios and levels of service (LOS) are calculated from the Synchro macrosimulation analysis, which cannot account for the influence of signalized intersections on unsignalized intersection operations or reflectthe effects of queue spillover. 3. Queuing issues were identified through the SimTraffic microsimulation analysis. 4. Mobility standards are based on the Oregon Highway Plan and the Jackson County and Central Point Transportation System Plans. 1 results indicate where mobility standards are not met. source: Synchro HCM Intersection Analysis Report and SlmTraftic microsimulation Evaluation of Boseline Conditions we 24 DRAFT LAMP: 1 -5 Exit 33 (Central Point) Table 12. Preferred ,alternative Prelinninary Cost Estimates noro.,,har �na� BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS TO ADDRESS EXISTING DEFICIENCIES South Sidewalk between Ramp Terminals $1,200,000 Bicycle Signal at 1 -5 Southbound Ramp Terminal $25,000 Subtotal $1,225,000 ROADWAY PROJECTS NEEDED TO MEET 2034 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN FORECAST DEMAND 1 -5 Southbound Ramp Terminal at E Pine Street Intersection Improvements - - -_- - -- _...._ _ -- .. -- $1,30D,000 1 -5 Northbound Ramp Terminal at E Pine Street Intersection Improvements $1,700,000 E Pine Street at 10th Street /Freeman Road Improvements $2,200,000 E Pine Street at Peninger Road Intersection Improvements $50,000 E Pine Street at Hamrick Road Improvements (TSP Tier 1 Project #216) $600,000 Subtotal $5,800,000 ROADWAY PROJECTS NEEDED TO MEET FORECAST DEMAND UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIO Central Point Tier 2 TSP Project #236 _.--- - . - -- -.._.... -- -- - - -.. _ - $150,000 Central Point Tier 2 TSP Project #240 & 245 Combined $14,400,D00 Central Point Tier 2 TSP Project #233 $1,000,000 Subtotal $15,550,000 TOTAL $22,575,000 NmU5: Cost estimates were prepared in year 2012 using present day dollars and are consistent with standard estimating methods. The costs of these TSP projects were combined because the cost of constructing both bridges appeared to be included in Project #245 while Project #240 did not include any bridge construction costs. Concept Development and Analysis 38