HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP050814Central Point
City Hall
541- 664 -3321
City Council
Mayor
Hank Williams
Ward I
Bruce Dingler
Ward 11
Kelly Geiger
Ward III
Ellie George
Ward IV
Allen Broderick
At Large
David Douglas
Rick Samuelson
Administration
Chris Clayton, City
Manager
Deanna Casey, City
Recorder
Community
Development
Tom Humphrey,
Director
Finance
Bev Adams Director
Human Resources
Barb Robson, Director
Parks and Public
Works
Matt Samitore,
Director
Jennifer Boardman,
Manager
Police
Kris Allison Chief
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
City Council Meeting Agenda
May 8, 2014
Next Res. 1394
Next Ord. 1988
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER -7:00 P.M.
II�]174HYULIUYHLI�[.h
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - This time is reserved for citizens to comment
on items that are not on the agenda.
VI. CONSENTAGENDA
Page 2 -7
A. Approval of April 10, 2014 Council Minutes
8
B. Approval to Ca ncel May 22, 2014 Regular Council
meeting
9-10
C. Approval of OLCC Application for Astro Express Mart
11 -17
D. Acceptance of the Quarterly Financial Statements
VIII. PUBLIC HEARING, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS
19 -21 A. Ordinance No. ___, Deleting Section 9.54.020
Drunkenness of the Central Point Municipal Code
(Allison)
22 -78 B. Public Hearing - First Reading of an Ordinance
Amending CPMC 17.05, Applications and Types of
Review Procedures; Chapter 17.08, Definitions; Chapter
17.10, Zoning Map and Text Amendments and Chapter
17.96 Amendment to the Comprehensive Land -use Plan
(Humphrey)
79 -81 C. Public Hearing - Resolution No. Approving a Supplemental
Budget for the 2013/2014 Fiscal Year (Adams)
83-84 D. Resolution No. A Resolution and Notice of Intent to move to a
Biennial Budget (Adams)
86 -164 E. Resolution No. , A Resolution Approving the Seven Oaks
Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP35) Adopted by the Oregon
Transportation Commission (OTC)
W. BUSINESS
-- A. Planning Commission Report (Humphrey)
X. MAYOR'S REPORT
XI. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
XI I. COUNCIL REPORTS
1711�979e1 .lid OFA170Yi873U8&1
XIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The City Council may adjourn to executive session underthe provisions of ORS 192.660.
Under the provisions of the Oregon Public Meetings Law, the proceedings of an
executive session are not for publication or broadcast.
FtT9 ,1931911]90 1 X9170Yi
Consent Agenda
CAP050814 Pg.1
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2014
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Mayor Williams called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL: Mayor: Hank Williams
Council Members: Allen Broderick, Bruce Dingler, Kelly
Geiger, Rick Samuelson, and David Douglas were present.
Ellie George was absent.
City Manager Chris Clayton; City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer;
Police Chief Kris Allison; Community Development Director
Tom Humphrey; and City Recorder Deanna Casey were
also present.
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - None
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of March 27, 2014 City Council Minutes
B. Approval of OLCC Application for Schmi=a Pub and Grill
Bruce Dingier moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. David
Douglas seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Kelly
Geiger, yes; Allen Broderick, yes; David Douglas, yes; and Rick Samuelson, yes.
Motion approved.
VI. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA - None
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Ordinance No. 1985, Amending CPMC Chapter 5.40.040 Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries License Registration Required and
Declaring an Emergency
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey and City Attorney Sydnee
Dreyer explained that with direction from the Council in regards to enacting a
moratorium staff felt a clause needed to be included in Chapter 5.40.040. The
proposed Ordinance states that a license will not be issued for this type of
business while a moratorium in in place. The ordinance includes an Emergency
Clause and will be enacted upon adoption.
Mayor Williams opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward and the Public
Hearing was closed.
CAP050814 Pg.z
City "f c,0, d PC, n t
City cc?"C"l MinOc.
Apri110, 2014
Pngc 2
Allen Broderick made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 1985, Amending
CPMC Chapter 5.40.040 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries License
Registration Required and Declaring an Emergency. David Douglas
seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Kelly Geiger, yes;
Allen Broderick, yes; David Douglas, yes; and Rick Samuelson, yes. Motion
approved.
B. Ordinance No. 1986, An Ordinance of the City of Central Point
Declaring a Moratorium on Medical Marijuana Facilities, and
Declaring an Emergency
City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer explained that the rights of local government and
their ability to regulate or ban Medical Marijuana Dispensaries has been an issue
for the a few months. The State originally declared that cities could not ban the
facilities, they agreed to allow moratoriums for one year. The intent of the
moratorium is to allow the city time to determine the best way to regulate such
facilities, and to determine whether the legislature will provide further clarification
or laws with regard to the city's right to ban such facilities.
The proposed Ordinance will temporarily prohibit the operation of these facilities.
The state is allowing the cities and counties to enact a moratorium but it must be
approved by May 1, 2014 with a sunset clause of no later than May 1, 2015. The
city may remove the moratorium prior to the end date. This Ordinance has an
emergency clause so that the moratorium will be in effect by the May 1"
deadline.
City Manager Chris Clayton explained that currently 47 cities and several
counties have declared a moratorium on the Dispensaries. Enacting the
moratorium allows the cities time to make adjustments if the state makes
changes during the May legislative session.
Mayor Williams opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward and the Public
Hearing was closed.
Bruce Dingier made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 1986, An
Ordinance of the City of Central Point Declaring a Moratorium on Medical
Marijuana Facilities, and Declaring an Emergency. Kelly Geiger seconded.
Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Kelly Geiger, yes; Allen
Broderick, yes; David Douglas, yes; and Rick Samuelson, yes. Motion approved.
C. Ordinance No. 1987, Amending CPMC Chapter 10.04.100 Parking
Prohibitions and 10.04.112 Mobile Home, Motor Home, Camper, Van,
Car or Truck Parking Prohibitions.
Police Chief Kris Allison explained the amount of calls the city has received
regarding vehicles such as motor homes being parked on the street. The current
code allows parking on the street for 72 consecutive hours without being cited.
There are a few individuals that move their vehicle at the 71" hour, and avoiding
CAP050814 Pg.s
City "f c,0, d PC, n t
City cc?"C"l MinOc.
Apri110, 2014
Pngc 3
• citation, yet still storing their vehicle in the public right -of -way. There is currently
• loophole in our code and the citations get dismissed in court. The
recommended ordinance states that it is no defense that the vehicle has been
moved from one place to another, as long as it is left on the street, alley, or other
right -of -way more than the 72 hrs. She explained that the Community Service
Officer will have the ability to make a judgment call for extenuating
circumstances. There is a provision allowing for persons that are temporarily
residing in the vehicle to stay for two weeks in any one calendar year.
Kelly Geiger made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 1987, Amending
CPMC Chapter 10.04.100 Parking Prohibitions and 10.04.112 Mobile Home,
Motor Home, Camper, Van, Car or Truck Parking Prohibitions. Rick
Samuelson seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Kelly
Geiger, yes; Allen Broderick, yes; David Douglas, yes; and Rick Samuelson, yes.
Motion approved.
D. First Reading — An Ordinance Deleting Section 9.54.020
Drunkenness of the Central Point Municipal Code
Police Chief Allison explained that recently Honorable Judge Joe Charter stated
that CPMC 9.54.020 was in violation of ORS 430.402(1). In short this ORS states
that local government cannot make public intoxication against the law. Judge
Charter stated that any person who is intoxicated or under the influence of
controlled substances in a public place may be taken or sent home or
transported to a treatment facility by the police.
City Attorney Dreyer agreed with Judge Charter's decision and recommended
deleting section 9.54.020 Drunkenness from the Central Point Municipal Code.
This change will not stop the enforcement of intoxicated people who are a danger
to themselves or others. It does not limit the ability of the Central Point Police
Department from assisting citizens to their homes or a treatment facility.
Allen Broderick moved to second reading An Ordinance Deleting Section
9.54.020 Drunkenness of the Central Point Municipal Code. Rick Samuelson
seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Kelly Geiger, yes;
Allen Broderick, yes; David Douglas, yes; and Rick Samuelson, yes. Motion
approved.
VIII. BUSINESS
A. Discussion regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Mr. Humphrey explained that a public hearing notice was posted for this meeting
to discuss amendments to the Central Point Municipal Code in regards to Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion. The Planning Commission would like to
discuss those changes at their May 6' meeting before sending a
recommendation to the Council. Mr. Humphrey explained that this item was
added to the agenda in the event citizens interested in the process were in
attendance and wished to speak at the public hearing.
CAP050814 Pg.4
City "f c,O, d PC, n t
City cc?"C"l MinOc.
Apri110, 2014
Pngc 4
He stated that the municipal code amendments will clarify and update code
language relative to changes in the state land use law. Jackson County brought a
few inconsistencies to our attention upon the submission of an Urban Growth
Boundary Amendment. Changes need to be made in order for the process to
move forward and to minimize the possibility for appeal.
There was discussion regarding the limited amount of property available within
the current UGB. The first expansion request will be for employment lands. When
that has been approved, the city will begin the process for residential property to
be included in the UGB.
The first reading and public hearing of the ordinance will be brought before the
Council on May S'. A motion is recommended to continue this item to date
specific.
Allen Broderick made a motion to continue the discussion regarding
Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the Council meeting on May 8, 2014.
Kelly Geiger seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Kelly
Geiger, yes; Allen Broderick, yes; David Douglas, yes; and Rick Samuelson, yes.
Motion approved.
B. Planning Commission Report
Mr. Humphrey presented the Planning Commission Report from April 1, 2014:
• The Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a resolution
forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve
Municipal Code Amendments to Chapters 17.05 Applications and Types
of Review Procedure, Chapter 17.08 Definitions, Chapter 17.10 Zoning
Map and Text Amendments and Chapter 17.96 Amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. They discussed minor
revisions to review at their May meeting before making a final
recommendation to the City Council.
• The Commission was given an update about the Council's decision to
impose a moratorium on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and to postpone
action on amendments to Chapter 17 adding dispensaries as a
conditional use in the C -2M, C -4 and C -5 zoning districts.
• Police Chief Allison made a presentation about her departments position
on regulating medical marijuana grow sites in the city limits. The
Commission raised a question about this at a previous meeting and
wondered what authority, if any, the city had in regulating this.
• The Commission was informed about the expiration of two phases in the
North Village Subdivision in Twin Creeks. It is expected that CLOMR
approval and revisions to the Twin Creeks Master Plan later this year will
result in a new subdivision configuration. Mr. Clayton explained the
current process with the CLOMR and the Twin Creeks Rail Crossing. The
deadline for submitting the CLOMR is June 15', after that is done the
CAP050814 Pg.5
City "f C',C t' d PC, n t
City cc?" C"I Min"tc.
Apri110, 2014
11""C '5
maps can be formally changed to take properties out of the flood way,
then the master plan can be amended.
IX. MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Williams reported that he attended the Medford Water Commission. They
talked about the Cities Coalition Study on conservation and was told that the
cities were not following the conservation recommendations. Mr. Clayton
addressed the commission on this issue stating that the cities are doing what
was recommended as they can make the changes. Mayor Williams also attended
the Central Point Chamber Auction Dinner.
X. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Chris Clayton reported that the city received a request for street
closure this week. There will be a Block Party on Oak Street between 3" and 4"
Streets. A request was submitted by Rick Deetes for Council approval. There will
not be another meeting in April and a motion is required for this type of street
closure.
Allen Broderick made a motion to approve the street closure request for
Oak Street between 3" and 4t" Street for May 3". Kelly Geiger seconded.
Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Kelly Geiger, yes; Allen
Broderick, yes; David Douglas, yes; and Rick Samuelson, yes. Motion approved.
XI. COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Member Allen Broderick reported that he attended the City Park Tour
with the Parks Commission.
Council Member Kelly Geiger reported that he attended the Central Point
Chamber Auction Dinner and attended a SOREDI meeting. SOREDI is working
on the new program and getting good donation pledges.
Council Member Rick Samuelson reported that he attended the Central Point
Chamber Auction Dinner.
Council Member Bruce Dingler had no report.
Council Member David Douglas reported that he attended the Chamber Auction
XII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Police Chief Kris Allison reported that:
• The suspect for the florist robberies in February has been charged with
several other crimes and is now behind bars.
• The DARE kids are currently working on their essays and the DARE
Graduation and Daze will be in May. Council members are invited to
attend both events.
CAP050814 Pg.6
City "f c,0, d PC, n t
City cc?" C"I Min Oc,
Apri110, 2014
Pngc ti
• There will be a Reserve Officer Graduation in May, Council members are
encouraged to attend.
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey updated the Council on the
Destination Business Marketing program going on in Central Point. There has
been a lot of interest from our local business owners.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION —ORS 192.660(2)(h)
Rick Samuelson moved to adjourn to Executive Session under ORS
192.660(2)(h) to receive Legal Opinion. Kelly Geiger seconded. All said "aye'
and the meeting adjourned to executive session at 8:13.
Council returned to regular session at 9:12. No action was taken.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Kelly Geiger moved to adjourn, Rick Samuelson seconded, all said "aye" and the
Council Meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the April 10, 2014, Council meeting were approved by the City
Council at its meeting of May 8, 2014.
Dated:
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
Return to Agenda
CAP050814 Pg.7
Staff Report
CENTRAL
POINT
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM Deanna Casey, City Recorder
SUBJECT: Cancellation of May 24, 2014 Council Meeting
DATE: May 8, 2014
May 24, 2014 Meeting Cancellation
Administration Department
Chris Clayton, City Manager
Deanna Casey, City Recorder
Due to light agenda items and proximity to the Memorial Day Holiday staff is
recommending and prepared to cancel the May 24, 2014 City Council meeting.
The Study Session on May 19" will be at the City of Medford for FEMA Executive
Training.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Approve the Consent agenda as presented.
CAP050814 Pg.8
a
- 155 South Second Street • Central Point, OR 97502 Kristine Allison
Ph: (541) 664 -5578 • Fax: (541) 664 -2705 • www.centrallmintoregon.gov Chief
Date: 04/11/2014
From: Chief Kristine Allison
To: Honorable Mayor Williams
Subject: Request for OLCC License
RE: Astro Express Mart #240 / Persons associated therewith
Files of the Central Point Police Department contain no information pertinent to the
request.
Respectfully.
Chief rs
Central Point Police Department
CAP050814 `r(/BF(/OQ&Fl !Q JCIKr1CePat�'dM'MILLeA /o &Knee?, rr
ggMg OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION M6St QFR�F Pe,. 1,133
LICENSE TYPES
ACTIONS
❑ Full On- Premises Sales ($402.60 /yr)
M Change Ownership
❑ Commercial Establishment
❑ New Outlet
❑Caterer
❑ Greater Privilege
❑ Passenger Carrier
❑ Additional Privilege
❑ Other Public Location
❑ Other
❑ Private Club
(city)
❑ Limited On- Premises Sales ($20260 /yr)
(ZIP code)
0Off- Premises Sales ($100 /yr)
0 with Fuel Pumps
❑ Brewery Public House ($252.60)
❑ Winery ($2501yr)
❑Other:
90 -DAY AUTHORITY
❑x Check here if you are applying for a change of ownership at a business
that has a current liquor license, or if you are applying for an Off - Premises
Sales license and are requesting a 90 -Day Temporary Authority
APPLYING AS:
❑Limited F1 Corporation ❑ Limited Liability ❑Individuals
Partnership Company
CITYAND COUNTY USJE OIpLY
Dale application received: �/ %r / 4
The C ^y CoupciIt or Cognty Co remission:
cra list n`IF+
(name of rT, or county)
recommends that this license be:
J Granted J Denied
By:
s: g • to)
p a c e n .
C Name
Title: CAN n . r I f
OLCC USE ONLY
Application Recd by:A-77—
Date: 14 4 - &
90 -day authority: ;,'Yes IJ No
1. Entity or Individuals applying for the license: [See SECTION 1 of the Guide]
(1 ) WSCO Petroleum Corp.
2. Trade Name (dba):Astro Express Mart #240
3. Business Location'. 16 N Front Street
Central Point Jackson
Oregon
97502
(number, street. rural route)
(city) (county)
(state)
(ZIP code)
4. Business Mailing Address: 2929 NW 29th Avenue
Portland
Oregon
97210
(PO box, number street, rural route)
(city)
(stare)
(ZIP code)
5. Business Numbers: (541) 6644495
(phone)
(tax)
6. Is the business at this location currently licensed by OLCC? ❑+Yes ❑No
7. If yes to whom: Bi -Mor Stations, Inc. Type of License: Off - Premises Sales
8. Former Business
9. Will you have a manager? DYes ❑No Name: Darrell Looney
(manager must fill out an Individual History form)
10, What is the local governing body where your business is located? Central Point
(name of city or county)
11. Contact person for this application. Phil Units (503) 243 -2929 x123 or (503) 347 -3275
(name) (phone number(s))
2929 NW 29th Avenue, Portland, OR 97210 (503)234 -7874 philb @wscoccrp. cam
(address) (fax number) (e -mail address)
I understand that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCC may deny my license application.
Applicant(s) Signature(s) and Date:: /ice
O "Al fec- �,...`_ —?u � /- 'r'4DateMar 24, 2Q1� Date
Date
CAP050814 1 -600- 452 -OLCC (65226. 15rww.codgon govlolcc ha., 0812o•.1)
d-
CENTRAL Finance Department
Staff Report POINT Bev Adams,FmnceDireRar
To: Mayor & Council
From: Bev Adams, Finance Director
Date: May 8, 2014
Subject: Quarterly financial statements
Background:
Attached are the City of Central Point's financial statements as of March 31, 2014. At this date we were three -
quarters (75%) through the 2013/14 budget year.
Pages lthru 5 are the Revenue and Expenditure statements; and page 6 is a Budget Compliance report which
recaps expenses by department. In review of page 6 please note that total city operations are 69.21% of budget,
well within the acceptable range and target for this time period.
Two areas where expenses appear unusually high in comparison to the budget, the High Tech Crime Fund
(13348%) and Street SDC Improvements (132.7896), are due to unanticipated events that qualify fora
supplemental budget. A supplemental budget request has been prepared and will be presented to the Council for
their consideration this evening.
Other than items that will be addressed within the supplemental budget, revenues and expenses throughout the
funds are appropriate, are in line with budgeted expectations, and on track to meet year end carryover
projections. We will continue to monitor revenues and will make adjustments in expenditures as much as
possible (those expenses within our control) to meet the carryover needed for the new 2o15 budget year.
Recommended Action:
That Council review and accept the March 31, 2013 financial statements.
9
c
m
rn
a
0
9
d
CAP050814 Pg.11
City of Central Point
Council Financial Statements
For period ending March 31, 2014
General Fund -10
Revenues
Taxes
Licenses & Fees
Intergovernmental
Charges for Service
Fines and Forfeitures
Interest Income
Miscellaneous
Transfers In
Total Revenues
Expenditures by Department
Administration
City Enhancement
Technical Services
Mayor & Council
Finance
Parks & Recreation - Parks
Parks & Recreation - Recreatior
Planning
Police
Interdepartmental
Transfers Out
Contingency
Total Expenditures by Department
Net Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
High Tech Crime Task Force Fund
Revenues
Intergovernmental Revenue
Charges for Services
Miscellaneous
Interfund Transfers
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operations
Capital Outlay
Contingency
Total Expenditures
Net Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Ri,[f Year to Cafe 75.00°%
Year to Date
2013/14 Revenues & Percentage
Budget Expenditures Difference Received /lJSed
$5,928,500
$5,295,261
$633,239
89.32%
0
52,670
49,285
3,385
93.57%
4,00D
653,400
382,482
270,918
58.54%
0
816,500
622,355
194,145
76.22%
363.69%
147,500
94,855
52,645
64.31%
0
30,000
23,476
6,524
78.25%
0
141,100
38,325
102,775
27.16%
(32,313)
0
0
0
000%
7,769,670
6,506,039
1,263,631
83.74%
668,600
467,147
201,453
69,87%
199,000
123,216
75,784
61.92%
555,500
351,241
204,259
63.23%
59,750
41,147
18,603
68.87%
870,900
586,100
284,800
67.30%
785,400
521,752
263,648
66.43%
495,350
264,975
230,375
53.49%
462,800
281,306
181,494
60.78%
4,010,440
2,873,605
1,136,835
71.65%
236,000
120,265
115,735
50.96%
98,500
98,500
0
100.00%
150,000
0
150,000
0.00%
8,592,240
5,729,255
2,862,985
66.68%
776,784
2,518,770 2,553,192 34,422
1,696,200 3,329,976 1,633,776
2013114 Revenues & Percentage
Budget Expenditures Difference Receivedi
$50,000
$230,585
($180,586)
461.17%
0
D
0
0.00%
0
4,00D
(4,000)
0.00%
20,000
20,000
0
100.00%
70,000
254,586
(184,586)
363.69%
96,500
128,813
(32,313)
133.48%
0
0
0
0.00%
0
0
0
0.00%
96,500
128,813
(32,313)
133.48%
125,773
35,200 62,800 27,600
8,700 188,573 179,873
Coun it Stmts 4/0/2,`)14
!`AP050814 g. 2
City of Central Point
Council Financial Statements
For period ending March 31, 2014
Street Fund -20
Revenues
Franchise Tax
Charges for Services
Intergovernmental Revenue
Interest Income
Miscellaneous
Transfers In
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operations
SoC
Contingency
Total Expenditures
Net Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Housing Fund - 25
Revenues
Interest Income
Loan Principal Payments
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Materials and Services
Transfers Out
Total Expenditures
Net Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Capital Improvement Fund -30
Revenues
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services
Interest Income
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Parks Projects
Parks Projects -SCC
Transfers Out
Total Expenditures
Net Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
FMaWYearm dare 75.00%
2013114 Revenues & Percentage
Budget Expenditures Difference Received /Used
$105,000
$91,010
$13,990
8668%
60,000
487,500
467,417
20,083
95.88%
489
1,413,000
1,179,132
233,866
83.45%
15,093
15,000
7,366
7,634
49.11%
0.00%
3,000
3,746
(746)
124.87%
65,000
0
0
0
0.00%
80,002
2,023,500
1,748,672
274,828
86.42%
2,030,800
$1,668,679
362,121
82.17%
247,700
328,887
(81,187)
132.78%
100,000
0
100,000
0.00%
2,378,500
1,997,566
380,934
83.98%
(248,894)
1,897,500 1,964,675 67175
1, 542, 500 1,715,7131 173, 281
$0 $0 $0 0.00%
10,000 0 10,000 000%
10,000 0 10,000 0.00%
0 1,490 (1 490) 0.00%
0 0 0 0.00%
0 1,490 (1,490) 0.00%
(1,490)
0 0 0
10,000 (1 490) (11490)
$50,000
$0
$50,000
0.00%
60,000
95,178
(35,178)
15863%
760
489
271
64,37%
60,760
95,667
15,093
157.45%
37,000
0
37,000
0.00%
52,000
15,002
36,998
28.85%
65,000
65,000
0
600%
154,000
80,002
73,998
51.95%
15,665
88,940 117,955 29,015
45,700 133,620 87,920
Council Stmts 4/30/2014
CAP050814 Pg.13
City of Central Point
Council Financial Statements
For period ending March 31, 2014
Council Stmts 4/30/2014
CAP050814 Pg.1a
Flscal Year fa d.W
75.00%
Year to Date
2013/14
Revenues &
Percentage
Budget
Expenditures
Difference
Received /Used
Reserve Fund- 35
Revenues
Interest
$4,000
$2,093
$1,907
52.33%
Transfers In
80,000
80,000
0
100.00%
Total Revenues
84,000
82,093
0
97.73%
Net Change in Fund Balance
82,093
Beginning Fund Balance
487,500
487,096
(404)
Ending Fund Balance
571,500
569189
(2311)
Debt Service Fund- 40
Revenues
Charges for Service
$591,500
$175,262
$416,238
29.63%
Interest Income
250
88
162
35.03%
Intergovernmental
162,900
162,864
36
99.98%
Special Assessments
60,050
47,318
12,732
78.80%
Transfers In
198,600
198,800
0
100.00%
Total Revenues
1,013,500
584,331
429,169
57.65%
Expenditures
Debt Service
1,009,650
536,964
472,686
53.18%
Total Expenditures
1,009,650
536,964
472,686
53.18%
Net Change in Fund Balance
47,367
Beginning Fund Balance
21,900
47,016
25,116
Ending Fund Balance
25,750
94,383
68,633
Building Fund- 50
Revenues
Charges for Service
$119,000
$134,541
($15,541)
113.06%
Interest Income
1,500
715
785
47.67%
Miscellaneous
0
65
(65)
0.00%
Total Revenues
120,500
135,322
(14,822)
112.30%
Expenditures
Personal Services
157,000
124,495
32,505
79.30%
Materials and Services
14,100
9,643
4,457
68.39%
Contingency
2,500
0
2,500
0.00%
Total Expenditures
173,600
134,138
39,462
77.27%
Net Change in Fund Balance
1,183
Beginning Fund Balance
158,800
137,823
(18977)
Ending Fund Balance
103,700
139 006
35,306
Council Stmts 4/30/2014
CAP050814 Pg.1a
City of Central Point
Council Financial Statements
For period ending March 31, 2014
Council Stmts 4/30/2014
CAP050814 Pg.15
Fiscal Year m dam
75.00%
Year to Date
2013/14
Revenues &
percentage
Budget
Expenditures
Difference
Received /Used
Water Fund - 55
Revenues
Charges for Services
$ 2,779,500
$2,163,820
$615,680
77.85%
Interest Income
10,000
4,510
5,490
45.10%
Miscellaneous
5,000
153,621
(148621)
3072.42%
Total Revenues
2,794,500
2,321,951
472,549
83.09%
Expenditures
Operations
2,657,500
1,943,943
713,557
73.15%
SDC Improvements
5,000
0
5,000
0.00%
Contingency
145,000
0
145,000
0.00%
Total Expenditures
2,807,500
1,943,943
863,557
69.24%
Net Change in Fund Balance
378,008
Beginning Fund Balance
1,242,400
1,299,427
57,027
Ending Fund Balance
1,299,900
1,677,435
377,535
Stormwater Fund - 57
Revenues
Charges for Services
$838,000
$643,852
$194,148
7683%
Interest Income
5,000
2,695
2,305
53.89%
Miscellaneous
0
105
(105)
0.00%
Total Revenues
643,000
646,652
196,348
76.71%
Expenditures
Operations
686,750
515,698
171,052
75.09%
SDC
41,500
13,558
27,942
32.67%
Contingency
43,000
0
43,000
0.00%
Total Expenditures
771,250
529,256
241,994
68.62%
Net Change in Fund Balance
117,396
Beginning Fund Balance
606,300
662,025
55,725
Ending Fund Balance
576,050
779,421
203,371
Council Stmts 4/30/2014
CAP050814 Pg.15
City of Central Point
Council Financial Statements
For period ending March 31, 2014
Coun I Stri 413012014
AP050914 Pg.16
Fiscal Year to date
75.00%
Year to Date
2013/14
Revenues &
Percentage
Budget
Expenditures
Difference
Receivedl
Internal Services Fund - 60
Revenues
Charges for Services
$1,157,300
$879,434
$277,866
75.99%
Intergovernmental
0
0
0
0.00%
Interest Income
2,500
1,214
1,286
48.58%
Miscellaneous
5,000
14,751
(9751)
295.01%
Total Revenues
1,164,800
895,399
269,401
76.87%
Expenditures
Facilities Maintenance
284,000
140,588
143,412
49.50%
PW Administration
655,750
454,258
231,492
66.24%
PW Fleet Maintenance
294,800
234,752
60,048
7963%
Contingency
0
0
0
0.00%
Interfund Transfers
80,000
80,000
0
000%
Total Expenditures
1,344,550
909,598
434,952
67.65%
Net Change in Fund Balance
(14,199)
Beginning Fund Balance
314,800
233,315
(81,485)
Ending Fund Balance
135,050
219,116
84,066
Coun I Stri 413012014
AP050914 Pg.16
City of Central Point
Budget Compliance Report
For period ending March 31, 2014
Capital Projects Park Projects
Park Projects - SDC
Transfers
Debt Service Debt Service
Building Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Contingency
Water Operations
SDC Improvements
Contingency
37,000
0
0.00%
37,000
Fracar Year to dare
76.00%
100.01%
(2)
2013114
Year to Date
Percent
0
117,000
80,002
Budget
Expenditures
Used
Difference
General
Administration
$668,600
$467,147
69.87%
$201,453
1,009,650
City Enhancement
199,000
123,216
61.92%
75,784
PW Administration
Technical Services
555,500
351,241
63.23%
204,259
PW Fleet Maintenance
Mayor and Council
59,750
41,147
68.67%
18,603
Finance
870,900
586,100
67.30%
254,800
Total City Operations
Parks 8 Recreation - Parks
785,400
521,752
66.43%
263,648
Parks B Recreation - Recreation
495,350
264,975
53.49%
230,375
Community Development
462,800
281,306
60.78%
181,494
Police
4,010,440
2,873605
71.65%
1,136,835
Interdepartmental
236,000
120,265
50.96%
115,735
Transfers
98,500
98,500
100.00%
0
Contingency
150,000
0
0.00%
150,000
8,592,240
5,729,255
66.68%
2,862,985
HTCTF
Materials and Services
96,500
128,813
133.48%
(32313)
96,500
128,813
133.48%
(32313)
Street
Operations
2,030,800
1,668,679
82.17%
362,121
SDC Improvements
247,700
328,887
132.78%
(81,187)
Contingency
100,000
0
0.00%
100,000
2,378,500
1,997,566
83.98%
380,934
Housing
Materials and Services
0
1 490
0.00%
(1,490)
Transfers
0
0
0.00%
0
0
1,490
0.00%
(1490)
Capital Projects Park Projects
Park Projects - SDC
Transfers
Debt Service Debt Service
Building Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Contingency
Water Operations
SDC Improvements
Contingency
37,000
0
0.00%
37,000
15,000
15,002
100.01%
(2)
65,000
65,000
0.00%
0
117,000
80,002
68.38%
36,998
43,000
771,250
529,256
68.62%
241,994
1,009,650
536,964
53.18%
472,686
157,000
124,495
79.30%
32,505
14,100
9,643
68.39%
4,457
2,500
0
0.00%
2,500
173,600
134,138
77.27%
39,462
2,657,500
1,943,943
73.15%
713,557
5,000
0
0.00%
5,000
145,000
0
0.00%
145,000
2,807,500
1,943,943
69.24%
863,557
Shane ter Operations
666,750
515,698
75.09%
171,052
SDC Improvements
41,500
13,558
32.67%
27,942
Contingency
43,000
0
0.00%
43,000
771,250
529,256
68.62%
241,994
Internal Services Facilities Maintenance
284,000
140,585
49.50%
143,412
PW Administration
685,750
454,258
66.24%
231,492
PW Fleet Maintenance
294,800
234,752
79.63%
60,048
1,264,550
829,598
65.60%
434,952
Total City Operations
$17,210790
$11,911026
69.21%
$5,299,764
MarcPMQM ndal Statemenlxlsx 4 /P3d /21'14
Ordinance
Deleting Section
9.54.020
Drunkenness
CAP050814 Pg.18
STAFF REPORT
To:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From:
Kris Allison, Chief of Police
SUBJECT:
Amendment to Delete Section 9.54.020 Drunkenness from the CPMC
Date:
April 10, 2014
Executive Summary:
During a recent municipal court appearance regarding a citation for public drunkenness,
Honorable Judge Joe Charter dismissed a citation issued by one of our officers and stated that
the defendant had correctly pointed out that ORS 430.402(1) provides "a political subdivision in
this state shall not adopt or enforce any local law or regulation that makes any of the following
an offense, a violation or the subject of criminal penalties or sanctions of any kind: (a) public
intoxication."
Judge Charter's decision stated that CPMC 9.54.020 was in violation of ORS 430.402(1) which
provides that any person who is intoxicated or under the influence of controlled substances in
a public place may be taken or sent home or to a treatment facility by the police.
This decision /opinion was sent to our city attorney and she agreed with Judge Charter's
decision and that the City would need to remove 9.54.020 Drunkenness as to not violate the
above mentioned statue.
It is my recommendation that we delete CPMC 9.54.020 form the Central Point Municipal Code
to be consistent with Oregon Revised Statues.
With the deletion of this section, this does not limit the officer's ability to be effective with the
issues of intoxicated individuals in our city. The officers have a wide variety of options that
they can utilize at their discretion such as referenced in ORS 430.402 (1).
CAP050814 Pg.19
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION
9.54.020 DRUNKENNESS OF
THE CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE
Recitals:
A. Words 1 Red through are to be deleted and words in bold are added.
B. Deleting Central Point Municipal Code 9.54.020 to remove section
Drunkenness from the Central Point Municipal Code due to this section
violating existing state statute.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 9.54.020 of the Central Point Municipal Code is deleted and
amended to read:
Chapter 9.54
INTOXICATION
Sections:
9.54.010 Drinking in public places.
Q
rn Q:2Q DrupkAR AR
9.54.030 Dealings with intoxicated persons.
9.54.010 Drinking in public places.
It is unlawful for any person to drink any intoxicating liquor upon any street or in
any public place; provided, however, that nothing contained in this section
applies to the drinking of any intoxicating liquor in any establishment or its
associated sidewalk cafe wherein the same may be sold for premises
consumption under the laws of the state.
Ordinance No. (041014)
CAP050814 Pg. 20
It is unlawful for any pawnbroker, junk dealer, chattel -loan broker or any person
to purchase property from any person who is in an intoxicated condition or under
the influence of any narcotic drug, or to advance or to loan money to such person
or to have any dealings with any such person respecting the title of property.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage
this day of 20
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
Return to Agenda
Pg.2 Ordinance No. L / /_)
CAP050814 Pg.21
Ordinance
Chapter 17
Amendments
CAP050814 Pg. 22
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14002
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
May S. 2014
Planning Department
lom Humphrey, AICP,
Community Development Director
First Reading of Municipal Code Amendments to Chapters 17.05 Applications and Types of Review Procedure, 17.08
Definitions, 17.10 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, and 17.96 Amendments to the Comprehensive Land -Use Plan.
Applicant: City of Central Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
fom Humphrey, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND:
At the March 4, 2014 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments to the above referenced
Chapters. The Community Development Department introduced these municipal code amendments to clarify and update
language relative to changes in the state land use law. Inconsistencies with the City's code were brought to our attention
upon the submission of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Amendment to Jackson County. Changes should be made in
order for our two processes to coincide and to minimize the possibility for appeal. At their April 1, 2014 meeting the
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed the proposed amendments. Sonic revisions were
discussed at the meeting and the Commission wanted to see the changes again before making a recommendation of
approval to the City Council. The public hearing was closed and final consideration was continued to the May 6 "'
Planning Commission meeting at which tune staff was directed to respond to the following.
The restated questions and staff response (italic) are:
Page 3, "such as reference" some concerns about not addressing a broader range of what
ifs.
Response. The "such as reference" is a direct quote from the Statewide Planning Goals
& Guidelines, Goal 2: Land Use Planning, Part - Use of Guidelines, Subsection 1
Major Revisions
2. Page 3, Annexation as a Type III is ok, but there may be times when a Type IV is needed
(large areas).
Response. An additional category for legislative annexations was added to Table
17.05.1. (Yellow Hi -Lite)
3. Page 17, ix should be viii. There was some confusion relative to the requirement that
DLCD be noticed.
Response. Appropriately renumbered. Notice to DLCD is .stated as an option per ORS
197.763(2)(C)(c). (Yellow Hi -Lite)
Page I of 2
CAP050814 Pg. 23
4. Page 20, Section Ld replace "shall" with "may"
Response. Replaced the term ".shall" with "mar "giving the Planning Commission the
discretion to continue a public hearing, or not. (Yellow Hi -Lite)
5. Page 33, 120 -day rule conflict.
Response. The 120-day rule only applies to limited land use decisions per ORS 197.
Limited Land Use Decisions are identified in Table 17.05.1.
6. Page 47, Section 17.10.400.3, concern regarding findings for Type III zone changes that
services are available, or will be available within five years.
Response. Replaced the specific time reference with "or planned fn- construction in the
City's public facilities master plans,' " (Yellow Hi Lite)
7. Page 50, Section 17.96.500.0, same concern as above.
Response. Replaced the .specific time reference with "or planned fn- construction in the
City's public facilities master plans,' " (Yellow Hi Lite)
ISSUES:
None. The corrections are pending review and a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission and are
expected to pass. The proposed changes were also sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD) who had no comment in favor of or opposition to the code changes. The Council will conduct its own public
hearing but staff expects there to be no further changes.
EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A — Proposed Amendments ", dated May 6, 2014. Ordinance No. An Ordinance Amending CPMC
Chapter 17.05, Applications and Types of Review Procedures; Chapter 17.08, Definitions; Chapter 17. 10, Zoning Map
and Text Amendments and Chapter 17.96, Amendment to the Comprehensive Land -Use Plan
ACTION:
Consider proposed amendments and 1) forward the ordinance to a second reading, 2) make revisions and forward the
ordinance to a second reading or 3) deny the ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss ordinance proposal and forward ordinance and amendments to a second reading.
Return to Agenda
Page 2 of 2
CAP050814 Pg. 24
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CPMC CHAPTER 17.05, APPLICATIONS AND TYPES OF
REVIEW PROCEDURES; CHAPTER 17.08, DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 17.10, ZONING MAP
AND TEXT AMENDMENTS AND CHAPTER 17.96 AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE LAND -USE PLAN
RECITALS:
A. Pursuant to CPMC, Chapter 1.01.040, the City Council, may frmn time to time make revisions to
its municipal code which shall become part of the overall document and citation.
B. On May 6, 2014, the Central Point Planning Commission recommended approval of a code
amendment to CPMC Chapter 17.05; Chapter 17.08 and Chapter 17.10 (zoning)
clarifying the procedures for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Application
Review.
C. On May 8, 2014, the City of Central Point City Council held a property advertised public hearing;
reviewed the Staff Report and findings; heard testimony and comments, and deliberated on
approval of the Municipal Code Amendment.
D. Words 'lined t�Hg1„ are to be deleted and words underlined are added.
THE PEOPLE OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Amendments to Chapter 17.05; Chapter 17.08 and Chapter 17.10 adds language
to the zoning code to clarify procedures for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Application
Review.
Chapter 17.05
APPLICATIONS AND" I PFSv OF DEN ELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW'
PROCEDURES
Sections:
17.05.100
Propose and applicability of review procedures.
17.05.200
Type I procedure (administrative).
17.05.300
Type II procedure (administrative).
17.05.400
Type III procedure (quasi- judicial).
17.05.500
Type IV procedure (legislative).
Pave l of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 25
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
17.05.600 General provisions -- One - hundred - twenty -day rule- -Time computation- -
Pre- application conferences— Acceptance and review--Planning
, Communily Dcvclopmcnl Dimclor s duties -- Amended
4r;p,..e,.rnars. Dccision Process— Resubmittal Process Ci1v Council
Rcvicw.
17.05.700 Special procedures.
1T01.800 Reserved
17.05.900 Traffic impact analysis.
17.05.100 Purpose and applicability of review procedures.
A. Propose. The propose of this chapter is to establish standard decision - making
procedures that will enable the city, the applicant, and the public to review development
pcnnit applications and participate in the local decision - making process in a timely and
effective way consistent with the C'itizen's Imoh anent Glcmcnt of the comprehensive
plan. Table 17.05.1 provides a key Pti deo.,mining to identify the review procedures,
applicable mgulations, and the dapprovin,, authority for pi nieukn
Epp] evuls dc' clopmcnt pcnnit applications.
B. Applicability of Review Procedures. All I..ndu.;, nd development permit applications
and ppin), .-1, idcntilied in Tablc 17.05. h3:Gopt -aging building . shall be decided by
using the appropriate procedures contained in 4us-chapter 17.05. The procedurale
"tyyeTypc" assigned to each development permit application governs the decision -
making process for that Penn it,ku i pfrt.+fi. There are four type! "Types" of
permit i ppi ev iprocedures: Type 1, 11, 111, and IV, which arc . The. ;e pi ,eedin es k 1e
described as follows: i,r.;oh! .. eeneu. TE h -. _. , fsps
I. Type I Preeeeure (A cv. Type 1 1, (", ei;. +proecdums are apply «t
administrative decisions made by the community development director or designee
without public notice and without a public hearing. ThrType t procedures dare
used only when there are clear and objective approval standards and criteria, the
application of which does not inquire the um of discretion aud appk iug e4N
Pave 2 of 53
CAP050814 Pit 26
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
A Tvpc I dccision is the Cm s final dccision. Thcrc arc no appeals to a Tvpc I
procedural dccision.
2. Type 11 P-'. Type 11.,.:.rnroccdures apple m
administrative dccisions that involve clear and obicctivc approval standards and
critcria the application of which rcuuims the um of limited discretion.. TNpc 11
dccisionsa+d are made by the community development director or designee with
public notice, and an opportunity for a public hearing if appealed. The appeal of a
Type 11 decision is tenated as a Tvpc 111 penccduen. except that the scope of the
hcarim, is limited as provided in Scction 17.05.100(13)(3). and is considered ha a a (I
lb -the ,.a r4ii4g Gk)144144ii i ika4, - 14k) 144akoi the city's final decision.
3. Type III:- rte:al). Type III c,iog,, proccdums are gtual
judicial dccisions that involve the application of ceistinu policies. Tv pc 111
dc cis ions Pcncm11, use discrct io nary approval criteria, and do not have a
s Pni li cant c fir ct bcxond the immediate area oft hc application. Tx pc III dc cis ions
arc based on Special Studics orothcr in to moat ion N'hlch a i I I SCNC as the (actual
basis to support the dccision. Tx pc III dccisions, when made bx the p]annine
commission, max be appealed to the city council.
4. Type IV procedure:o,. Type IV f-zlccisions manic
legislative r wpp dccisions that establish by law Pencral policies and rceulations
liar future land use dccisions. such as the adoption orrcvision of the comorchcnsivc
plan, and envisions to the zonim, and the land division ordinance i;..(
tad+G) ( o�r., that have widespread and si milicant impact hcvond the immediate
area, i.c. qua mitat ivc chances penducinP Iarec volumes of traffic, or qua Iitati vc
cham,c in the chamctcr o f the Iand um itscII. Such as conxcrsion of residcmiaIto
industrial um: or spatial chance that allccts Iarec aenas or Inane dillcrcm
owncrships a 40 G ,
i
Pave 3 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 27
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
Unless otherwise noted all Tync IV decisions arc considered initially by the
citizens advisory committee and the Plannin; commission. with final decisions
made by the city council. T ' o P ' iii h) . !140 pjal4l4il4g
Tablc 17.05.1 provides a kcy to identity the rcviCV PnlCCdOrC RlrCach land
development PCnnit.
TABLE 17.05.1
LAND DEN'ELOPNILN'I
PROCEDL RAL
APPLICABLE
APPRON'INC,
LINI PIED
LAND LSE
DECISION
PERMIT*
TYPE
REGE LA 'I IONS
AL 'I HORI'IY
Annexation
pnasi -.Judicial
Lcoislatiec
type III
Tvpc IV
Chapter 1 '0
Chapter 1'0
Cily CopnC11
City Council
Ao
Ao
Comprehensive Plan & LGB
Tvpc IV
Tvpc I I I
Cheptcr 17.96
Cal Council
No
No
Amendments
Major
Min nr
Cheptcr 17.96
Cal Council
Conditional Lse Permit
type III
Chapter 17.76
Planning
Commission
Vo
Conversion Plan
Tvpc II
Cheptcr 1632
Dirccror
YCS
Extensions
T vpc l Procedures
'I vpc ll Procedures
ll
type ll
Chi
1- 0,
D12alor
Di2alor
A0
Ao
Chi
170�+OOIID
Home Occnpatinn
Tvpc I
Cheptcr 17.60.190
Dirccror
No
Land Uici si un
T cntatiec Plan,
Partition
I cntaticc Plan
lypell
pc Ill
Chapter 16_±6
Chapl, 1610
Di2alor
Plannine
Yes
Yes
Pave 4 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 28
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
Subdivision
Pmalpila
Ivpcl
(huptcr 16. 12
Commission
Di1cctor
�0
P.wnv Line
Adi ustmendConsnlid ation
Typc I
Chaptcr 16.50
Dircctor
Ycs'
Modification of Approval
Nfaiol.
Nfh.
I"', III
Iypc II
C hap lcr 17.09. t 0p
Pl all Ili ne
Commission
Ycs
Ycs
Chuplcr 17.09.400
Die ctor
Non- Conforming Use
Designation
TTvpc III
Chaptcr 17.56.040
Plan�nin,
Commis's'ion
No
Planned Unit Development
Iypc III
Chuplcr 17 68
Plmining
Commission
Ycs
Right- of -%N av Vacation
TTvpcIII
Chaptcr 12.28
City Council
No
Site P 12 11 91111 Ar Ch lte ItLH al
lvpcI
I
Chapt" 17 T_
Chupt” 17.-22
Di2ctor
Di2ctor
Ycs
Ycs
Renesc
NIh.
nf:ii „1.
lOD Distr icVC orr id or M aster
Tvpc III
Chaptcr 17.66
Plan�nino
Commis's'ion
Y c s
Plan
I Re in ov al
IypcII
Chaptcr 1236
Di1cctor
Ycs
Variance
Class A
Class R
Class C
Typc 11
TyTs III
Tvpc III
Chaptcr 17.13300
Dircctor
Plam,,i ,
Commis's'ion
Ycs
Ycs
Ycs
Chaptcr 17.13.400
Chaptcr 17.13.500
Planning
Commis's'ion
Zoning Map and Zoning and
I"', III
I"', IN
Chaptcr 17. 10
Cit, 01111a1
A0
A0
Land Dnision Code lest
A... end melts
t3Ih.
07a1or
Chapt"17.10
Cit, COp11a1
Pave 5 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 29
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
"fable 17.05.1
n ........... ..
mr�f
o,,.g,,.. Proc,n p
n.,.. k,.., �. , o,. .,r......
��
Annexation
Tvpc IV
Chxptcr 120
�;.
Tvpc4
-`
Code Amendment
TvpcN
Chxptcr) ?.10
Tan
Trf::`lc14c iii p Tm
T.,1\
`./
Conditional G.c Permit
Tvlx 111
Chxptcr 1776
I lome Occupation
TYpcI
Section 1760.190
Tay -144
(,^
Modlllcanon to Approval
- 14xiot
Major
Tvpc -44
Tvlx'111
(
Chapter 17.09
TIP-14T
JcrtT.,mmm�xmr —c-�c
-p -H
C Mj3tcrr. --r
PAr+HHH
- Tz,;,,,t, -crmrt
I Inalplat
TNpe 11
TVpcI
( 's6
Chapter 16.1
"
T p, ,4
Sltc Plan, Ldnd5caping and ion Stiuctlon Plan RcV104
Typc ❑
( haptcr 1'72
Pave 6 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 30
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
�1 ,. I I
* An applicant may be required to obtain approvals from other agencies, such as the Oregor
Department of Transportation, or Rogue Valley Sewer. The city may notify ,thci agencies of
applications that may affect their facilities or services.
(Ord. 1941 §§ 1, 2, 3, 2010; Ord. 1874 § l(part), 2006).
17.05.200 Type I proccdurc ° :�.
A. Prc .Application Con Fcfcncc. A prc- application conhcrcncc is not fcquircd For a Typc I
permit application.
B. Application Requirements.
1. Application Forms. Type L �n �rniit applications shall be made on forms provided
by the planning department.
2. Application Submittal Requirements. Type I applications shall include:
a. .m I dh- .xThe information requested on the application form:
b. Findings addressing Iddo, . the Applicahlc Rculations per Tahlc
I-DOS 1( 1 iucrie:.: � . - and
Pave 7 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 31
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
c. '-„-Thcrequired fee.
BC. Administrative D,- ion Requirements. The community development director's or
designee's decision shall address all rcicvant,441re approval criteria and standanls. Based
on the Applicable Rc!mlations (Table 1 _D5 I ) er�and the facts contained within the
record, the community development director or dcsumcc shall approve or deny the
requested permit r n lion. A written record of the decision shall be provided to the
applicant and kept on file .n GitsI I Fin the Community Dcvdopmcnt Department.
(`D. Final Decision. A decision on a Type 1(],-( i� ion permit application is the final
decision of the city and may not be appealedx-r.
DL. Effective Date. A Type 1 decision is final on the date it is made per Scction
17.05.200((), and unless construction has hccn started and diliecnth pursued shall cxpirc
onrvcal four the decision date.
F, Appcal. A decision on a Tvpc I application max not be appealed.
fiG. Extension_. The community development director shall, upon written request by the
applicant and payment of the required fee, grant a written one -year extension of the
original or last extension approval period; provided+Gra:
I. The land dev clopment permit authorizes extension
2. No changes are made to the original application as approved by the city;
23. There have been no changes in the zonim,. land division code, or applicahlc
comprehensive plan provisions on which the approval was based. In the case where
the plan conflicts with a code or comprehensive plan change, the extension shall be
either:
a. Denied; or
b. At the discretion of the community development director the rcepmst for
extension mayhc re- reviewed as a modification per Section 17.09.300;
Pave 8 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 32
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
94. The extension request is naad(liIcc] on or before the expiration of the original
or latest extension approval per Scction 17.05200(6)plux,
45. If the time limit expired and no extension rcuncst has been Bled -d, the
application shall be void. (Ord. 1941 §4, 2010; Ord. 1874 §I(part), 2006).
17.05.3 00 Type II procedure (administrative).
A. Pre - Application Conference. A pre - application conference is optional for a Type II
retie -, permit application. The requirements and procedures for a pa:- application
confcmncc arc dcscrihcd in Scction 17.05.600(C). r -nee
B. Application Requirements.
I. Application Forms. Type II applications shall be made on forms provided by the
planning department for the land development permit mqucsted.
2. Submittal . u'rF,:,..n,aiRcquircmcnts. Th A Typc II permit application shall
include
a. In ... ,,i,;,The information requested on the application form:
b.In -1t, ,e ---�.;..rl�indings a ddressing the Appl ica blc
Regulations per Tablc 17.OS.l.x,lairr.;ho'. the aqp;};�atio. -ter.
trkine. Note: at the discmtion of the community dcvdm
opcnt dimm
cr
additional information may be required during the application proccssrand,
1 -,05, 1 ;
a In rd, an Onc set of pre-addressed mailing labels for all real property
owners of record who will receive a notice of the application as required in
subsection C of this section. The records of the Jackson County assessor's
office are the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall
Pave 9 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 33
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
produce the notice list using the most current Jackson County assessor's real
property assessment records to produce the notice list. The city shall mail the
notice of application: and
d. Bc .: he required fee.
3. Noticc of Acccptan cc. l5'ithin fourteen (13) d a v s of nihmittaI the community
development director or dcsiencc shall notifv the applicant in wri tin P o
a. The procedural type used for the application. In some circumstances, a
Tvpc 11 application may be rcfcrrcd to a Tvpc 111 proccdum. W hcn such a
mfcrral is made it shall be made at the time of Noticc of Acceptance,
after which the application shall be processed as a Tvpc III application.
when a Tvpc 11 application is mfcrrcd to a Tvpc III application no new
application is required: and
b. Acceptance of the application: or
c. Non acceptance of the application with an itemization of the
deficiencies and deadline for correction of the deficiencies;
C. Notice of Application for Type It- lduu...� IF w(Decision.
I. Before making a Type It..o:.r:. i an4: decision, the community development
director or designee shall mail notice to:
a. All owners of record of real property within a minimum of one hundred
(100) feet of the exterior houndarics of the subject site;
b. All city- recognized neighborhood groups or associations whose boundaries
include the site;
c. Any person who submits a written request to receive a notice; and
Pave 10 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 34
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
d. Any governmental agency that is entitled to notice under an
intergovernmental agreement entered into with the city. The city may notify
other affected agencies. The city shall notify the county or ODOT, and the
rail authority, when there is a proposed development abutting or within one
hundred ( 100 feet of an affected transportation facility and allow the agency
to review, comment on, and suggest conditions of approval for the
application.
pooplo tire oppoFtaniv to hout , Fill( n �"ruuu nl bout tire appliGation lbol�nv thc
+3. Notice of a pending Type II administrative decision shall:
a. Provide a fourteen.kw 14 dev period for submitting written comments
before a decision is made on the permit;
b. List the relevant approval criteria by name and number of code sections;
c. State the place, date and time the comments are due, and the person to
whom the comments should be addressed;
d. Include the name and telephone number of a contact person regarding the
administrative decision;
e. Describe the proposal and identify the specific permits or approvals
requested;
f Describe the street address or other easily understandable reference to the
location of the site;
g. State that, if any person fails to address the relevant approval criteria with
enough detail, they may not be able to appeal to the land use board of appeals
Pave 11 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 35
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
or circuit court on that issue and that only comments on relevant approval
criteria are considered relevant evidence;
h. State that all evidence relied upon by the community development director
or designee to make this decision is in the public record, available for public
review. Copies of this evidence may be obtained at a reasonable cost from the
city;
i. State that, after the comment period closes, the community development
director or designee shall issue a Type 11 administrative decision, and that the
decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to anyone else who submitted
written comments or who is otherwise legally entitled to notice;
j. Contain the following notice: "Notice to mortgagee, lien holder, vendor, or
seller: The City of Central Point Land Development Code requires that if you
receive this notice it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser."
D. Administrative Decision Requirements. The community development director or
designee shall make a Type II written decision addressing all of the relevant approval
criteria and standards. Based upon the criteria and standards, and the facts contained
within the record, the community development director or designee shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the requested permit or action.
L. Notice of Decision.
1. Within five (days after the community development director or designee signs
the decision, a notice of decision shall be sent by mail to
a. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the site
that is the subject of the application;
Page 12 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 36
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
b. Any person who submitted a written request to receive notice, or provides
cmannui s during the application review period;
c. Any city- recognized neighborhood group or association whose boundaries
include the site; and
T Any governmental agency that is entitled to notice under an
intergovernmental agreement entered into with the city, and other agencies
that were notified or provided comments during the application review
period.
2. The community development director or designee shall cause an affidavit of
mailing the notice to be prepared and made a part of the file. The affidavit shall
show the date the notice was mailed and shall demonstrate that the notice was
mailed to the parties above and was mailed within the nine required by law.
3. The Type 11 notice of decision shall contain:
a. A description of the applicant's proposal and the city's decision on the
proposal (i.e., may be a summary);
b. The address or other geographic description of the property proposed for
development, including a map of the property in relation to the surrounding
area, where applicable;
c. A statement of where a copy of the city's decision may be obtained;
T The date the decision shall become final, unless appealed;
e. A statement that all persons entitled to notice may appeal the decision; and
f. A statement briefly explaining how to file an appeal, the deadline for filing
an appeal, and where to obtain further information concerning the appeal
process.
F. Win ° ' _ i,ni aid Effective Date. A Type 11 ..flu:,;: ;u: in, ( decision is final for
purposes of appeal when the Noticc of Dccision per Scction I7.05.300(E)it is mailed by
Pave 13 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 37
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
the city and hccomc,. A T oini_ trati, 0 d( i, ual i, effective al I - c, g I I, .tcn 10
days from the date of maiIin" of the Noticc of Dccision -aftoi the ar poal poi i od If
an appeal is tiled within the tcn (10) day period, the decision isdocs not hccomc effective
v ha n until the appeal is decided.
G. Appeal. A Type 11 ..oIiuin..,u in, ( decision may be appealed to the planning
commission as follows:
I. Who May Appeal. The following people have legal standing to appeal a Type It
..,han,F.ri,( decision:
a. The applicant or owner of the subject property;
b. Any person who was entitled to written notice of the Type II ..�Iu:ni, IF in,�
decision;
c. Any other person who participated in the proceeding by submitting written
comments.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in
;.h- _;nion Scction I- .0S.300(G.)(k 1) a'dhi, tion, may appeal aType 11
..oIaa i, at i, , decision by filing a notice of appeal according to the following
procedures;
b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the community
development director or designee within 4um:teenten (10) days ollftom the
date the notice of decision was mailed;
c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal shall contain:
i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of
the decision;
ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has
standing to appeal;
Pave 14 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 38
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal;
iv. If the appellant is not the applicant, a statement demonstrating that
the appeal issues were raised during the comment period; and
v. The applicable filing fee.
3. Scope of Appeal. The appeal of a Type 11 ..o:.r:ni� u ni, ( decision by a person
with standing shall be ahearing before the planning commission. The appeal shall
be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and
specific issues raised in the Type 11 ..glun ni: n -ii, ( review.
4. Appeal procedures. Type 111 notice, hearing procedures. and decision process
shall 4so be used for all Type 11 ..cufi:,f.. , ( appeals, as provided in
Sections 17.05.400 (C) through (E);
5. Final Decision. The decision of the planning commission regarding an appeal of
a Type It cn ii u, i, — decision is the final decision of the city. (Ord. 1874
y5' I(part), 2006).
11. Extensions. The community dcvclopmcnt dimctor shall. upon written rwucst FN the
applicant and payment of the rccuiral fec. Brant a written one -Near extension of the
original or last extension approval period: pro, idol:
I. The land dcvclopmcnt permit authorizes extensions
2. No chances am made to the original application as approval hN the city:
3. Them have hecn no changes in the zoning, land division code or applicahlc
comprehensive plan provisions on which the approval was hasal. In the case whom
the plan conflicts with a code or comprehensive plan change, the extension shall he
either
Lt. Dcnicd: or
Pape 15 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 39
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
h. At the discretion of the community dcvclopmcnt dircctor the raiucst for
cxtcnsion mavhc rc- reviewed us a modi ficution par Scction 17.09.300:
4. The cxtcnsion rcqucst is filed on or bcfom the expiration of the orwinaI or latest
cxtcnsion approval per Section 17.05.300(1);
5. II the time limit cep red and no extension mqucst has been lined. the application
shall be void.
17.05.400 Tvpe III procedure (quasiyudiciall.
A. Pre - Application Conference. A pre - application conference is required for all Type III
applications. The requirements and procedures for a pre - application conference are
described in Section 17.05.600(C).
B. Application Requirements.
I. Application Forms. Type III applications shall be made on forms provided by
the community development director or designee for the land dcvclopmcnt pc nil it
rccucstcd. � he, e ,
Fequ Ilea.
2. Submittal harms I roaRcquircmcnts. When a Type III application is required, it
shall include:
a.include the inhunianen Teque.ded en the applueanen filonA complctcd
application Ibnn with rcquimd attachments,
b. 13 .;-Onc copy of a narrative statement (findings and
conclusions) that explains how the application satisfies each and all of the
relevant criteria and standards in sufficient derail for review and decision-
making. Note: additional information may berequired under thespecific
applicable regulations for each approval as referenced in Table 17.05.1;
Pave 16 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 40
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
c. Do lb� th The required fee; and
d..,a all - :aaOnc set of pre - addressed mailing labels for all real prop env
owners of record who will receive a notice of the application as required in
Sections I7.0i.400(C) , ' ' ' ', ' aud t;. The records of the Jackson
Comity assessor's office are the official records for determining ownership.
The applicant shall produce the notice list using the most current Jackson
Comity assessor's real property assessment records to produce the notice list.
The city shall mail the notice of application. The 11111prC of a p¢lpCrly owner
to mccivc noticcas parvided in Section 17.05.400(() shall not im alidatc such
pr)cccvhn,>S provi 1cd the city can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice
was given.
C. y of Notification Requirements.
I . Mailed Notice. The city shall mail the notice of the Type LLL.. Pa a:hcaring.
hip. Notice of a Type III :. �;r,.:.= e.:.= arhearine :e:..
-shall be given by the communi ty development director or designee in the
following manner:
a. At least twenty [2adays before the hearing date. or if two or mom
hwrings arc, allowed. tcn (10) days bcfon; the first hcaring, notice shall be
mailed to
i. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the
property on the most recent property tax assctismcnt role that is the
subject of the application;
ii. All property owners of record on the most recent property tax
assctismcnt role within nc- hundred (100) feet of the site. including
tenants of a mobile home or manufactured dwelling park;
iii. Any governmental agency that is entitled to notice under an
intergovemmental agreement entered into with the city. The city may
Pave 17 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 41
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
notify other affected agencies. The city shall notify the county road
authority, or ODOT, and rail authority „�, q -Ffor applications that
arc o1olauout abutting or affecting their
transportation facility and allow the agency to review, comment on, and
suggest conditions of approval for the application.
iv. Owners of airports in the vicini w shall be notified of a proposed zone
change in accordance with ORS 227.175:
v. Any neighborhood or community organization recognized by the city
council and whose boundaries include the property proposed for
development:
vi. Any person who submits a written request to receive notice:
vii. For appeals, the appellant and all persons who provided testimony in
the original decision: and
u th ORS —7 7c
viii. At the applicants discretion noticc may also be provided to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development.
b. The commmtiry development director or designee shall prepare an affidavit
of notice and the affidavit shall be made a part of the file. The affidavit shall
state the date that the notice was mailed to the persons who were sent notice.
Pave 18 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 42
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
2. Content of Notice. Notice of ap p ° a T_
+ sofa Type 111 hearingshalltebe mailed... d per e.�.aScetion
17.0s,g00(C)( -4 of tlnis section end shall contain the following information:
a. An cz)L.m.ition of the mature of the application and the proposed land
use or uses that could be authorized for the property;
b. The applicable criteria and standards from the zonintl and suhdi, ision
�4t codeU4. and comprehensive plan that apply to the application;
c. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the
subject property;
d. The date, time, and location of the public hearing
e. A statement that the failure to raise an issue in person, or in writing at the
hearing, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the
decision -maker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the
final hcarin-, means that an appeal based on that issue cannot be raised at the
State Land Use Board of Appeals;
f. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number and
email address where additional information on the application may be
obtained;
g. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence
submitted by or for the applicant. and the applicable criteria and standards can
be reviewed at the city of Central point City Hall at no cost and that copies
shall be provided at a reasonable cost;
h. A statement that a copy of the city's staff report and recommendation to the
hearings body shall be available for review at no cost at least sevens days
before the hearing, and that a copy shall be provided on request at a
reasonable cost;
Pave 19 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 43
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
i. A general explanation of the requirements to submit testimony, and the
procedure for conducting public hearings; and
j. The following notice: "Notice to mortgagee, lien holder, vendor, or seller:
The City of Central Point Land Development Code requires that if you
receive this notice it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser."
D. Conduct of the Public Heroine.
I. At the commencement of the hearing, the hearings body shall state to those in
attendance:
a. The applicable approval criteria and standards that apply to the application
or appeal;
b. A statement that testimony and evidence shall be directed at the approval
criteria described in the staff report, or other criteria in the comprehensive
plan or land use regulations that the person testifying believes to apply to the
decision;
c. A statement that failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to give the
hearings body and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue means
that no appeal may be made to the State Land Use Board of Appeals on that
issue;
d. Before the conclusion of the first evidentiary hearing, any participant may
ask the hearings body for an opportunity to present additional relevant
evidence or testimony that is within the scope of the hearing. The hearings
body, It -11 rnav grant the request by scheduling a date to finish the hearing (a
"continuance ") per Section 17.05.400(0)(1), or by leaving the record open for
additional written evidence or testimony per Section 17.05.400(0)(2).
2. If the pla uuiug ,u hearings body grants a continuance, the
�oluplotiou of re hearing shall be continued to a date, time, and place at least
seven Ladays after the date of the first evidentiary hearing. An opportunity shall
be provided at the second hearing for persons to present and respond to new
Pave 20 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 44
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
written evidence and oral testimony. If new written evidence is submitted at the
second hearing, any person may request, before the conclusion of the second
hearing, that the record be left open for at least seven 171 additional days, so that
they can submit additional written evidence or testimony in response to the new
written evidence;
3. If the,;,aritrt4d :m hearings body leaves the record open for
additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least
seven Ladays after the hearing. Any participant may ask the city in writing for
an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period that the
record was leftopen. If such a request is filed, the hearings body shall reopen the
record to allow rebuttal evidence.
a. If the hearings body reopens the record to admit new evidence or
testimony, any person may raise new issues that relate to that new evidence or
testimony;
b. An extension of the hearing or record for a limited land use granted
pursuant to Section 17.05.400(H) is subject to the limitations of ORS 227.178
(`one - hundred - twenty -day rule "), unless the continuance or extension is
requested or agreed to by the applicant,
c. If requested by the applicant, the hearings body shall allow the applicant at
least seven (7) days after the record is closed to all other parties to submit
final written arguments in support of the application, unless the applicant
expressly waives this right. The applicant's final submittal shall be part of the
record but shall not include any new evidence. I'or limitcd land use dccisions
the seven (7) day period shall not be subject to the limitations of ORS
227.178 and ORS 227.179:
d. The record shall contain all testimony and evidence that is submitted to the
city and that the hearings body has not rejected;
e. In making its decision, the hearings body may take official notice of facts
not in the hearing record (e.g., local, state, or federal regulations; previous
Pave 21 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 45
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
city decisions; case law; staff reports). The review authority must announce
its intention to take notice of such facts in its deliberations, and allow persons
who previously participated in the hearing to request the hearing record be
reopened, if necessary, to present evidence concerning the noticed facts:
f. The city shall retain custody of the record until the city issues a final
decision and all appeal deadlines have passed.
4. participants in a Type 111 hearing are entitled to an impartial review authority as
free from potential conflicts of interest and pre - hearing ex parte contacts (see
Section 17.05.400(D)(5) of this section) as reasonably possible. However, the
public has a countervailing right of free access to public officials. Therefore:
a. At the beginning of the public hearing, hearings body members shall
disclose the substance of any pre - hearing ex parte contacts (as defined in
Section 17.05.400(D)(5) of this section) concerning the application or appeal.
He or she shall also state whether the contact has impaired their impartiality
or their ability to vote on the matter and shall participate or abstain
accordingly. Hearing participants shall be entitled to question hearing body
members as to ex parte contacts and to object to their participation as
provided in Section 17.05.400(D)(5)(b) of this section:
b. A member of the hearings body shall not participate in any proceeding in
which they, or any of the following, has a direct or substantial financial
interest: their spouse, brother, sister, child, parent, father -in -law, mother -in-
law, partner, any business in which they are then serving or have served
within the previous two (2� years, or any business with which they are
negotiating for or have an arrangement or understanding concerning
prospective partnership or employment. Any actual or potential interest shall
be disclosed at the hearing where the action is being taken;
c. Disqualification of a member of the hearings body due to contacts or
conflict may be ordered by a majority of the members present and voting. The
person who is the subject of the motion may not vote on the motion to
disqualify;
Pave 22 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 46
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
d. If all members of the hearings body abstain or are disqualified, the city
council shall be the hearing body. If all members of the city council abstain or
are disqualified, a quorum of those members present who declare their
reasons for abstention or disqualification shall be re- qualified to make a
decision;
e. Any member of the public may raise conflict of interest issues prior to or
during the hearing, to which the member of the hearings body shall reply in
accordance with this section.
5. Ex Parte Communications.
a. Members of the hearings body shall not:
i. Communicate directly or indirectly with any applicant, appellant,
other party to the proceedings, or representative of a party about any
issue involved in ahearing without giving notice per Section
17.05.400(C);
ii. Take official notice of any communication, report, or other materials
outside the record prepared by the proponents or opponents in
connection with the particular case, unless all participants are given the
opportunity to respond to the noticed materials.
b. No decision or action of the hearings body shall be invalid due to ex parte
contacts or bias resulting from ex parte contacts, if the person receiving
contact:
i. Places in the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte
communications concerning the decision or action: and
ii. Makes a public announcement of the content of the communication
and of all participants' right to dispute the substance of the
communication made. This announcement shall be made at the first
hearing following the communication during which action shall be
considered or taken on the subject of the communication.
Pave 23 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 47
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
c. A communication between city staff and the hearings body is not
considered an ex parte contact.
6. Presenting and Receiving Evidence.
a. The hearings body may set reasonable time limits for oral presentations and
may limit or exclude cumulative, repetitious, irrelevant or personally
derogatory testimony or evidence;
b. No oral testimony shall be accepted after the close of the public hearing.
Written testimony may be received after the close of the public hearing only
as provided in Section 17.05.400(D)(3);
c. Members of the hearings body may visit the property and the surrounding
area, and may use information obtained during the site visit to support their
decision, if the information relied upon is disclosed at the beginning of the
hearing and am opportunity is provided to dispute the evidence under Section
17.05.400(D)(5)(b).
F. The Decision Process.
I. Basis for Decision. Approval or denial .;f-„ ..;:weal or of
Type 111 application shall be based on standards and criteria in the development
code. The standards and criteria shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary
development permit application to the development regulations and, when
appropriate, to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development
would occur and to the development regulations and comprehensive plan for the
city as a whole;
2. Findings and Conclusions. Approval or denial shall be based upon the criteria
and standards considered relevant to the decision. The written decision shall
explain the relevant criteria and standards, state the facts relied upon in rendering
the decision, and justify the decision according to the criteria, standards, and facts;
3. Form of Decision. The plauuiug c ,:.;:,u— .iotthcarim s hodv shall issue a final
written order containing the findings and conclusions stated in rrh , ;ott Scc ion
Pave 24 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 48
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
1 7.05.400 (E)(2) of this section, which either approves, denies, or approves with
specific conditions. The plaun;.3g colurmu >.:hc it imm bodv may also issue
appropriate intermediate rulings when more than one permit or decision is required.
if tho application is for a quasi judicial zono change, tho planning
tho planning decides in favor oftho zono change, it' ]III I
o,dgi held a hearing and
change.
4. Decision - Making Time Limits. A final written order for any Tiy o 11
.. dauuis u aii, o appoal of Type III action shall be filed with the community
development director or designee within ten (10) E -� iq days after the close of
the deliberation;
5. Notice of Decision. Written notice of a T i
e Type III decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to all participants of record
Within ten I 10) 1, days after the hearings body decision. Failure of any
person to receive mailed notice shall not invalidate the decision; provided, that a
good faith attempt was made to mail the notice.
6. Final Decision and Effective Date. The decision of the hearings body on any
T) po 11 appeal oi au) Type III application is final for purposes of appeal on the
date it is mailed by the city. The decision is effective on the day after the appeal
period expires. If an appeal of a Type III decision is filed, the decision becomes
effective on the day after the appeal is decided by the city council. An appeal of a
land use decision to the State Land Use Board of Appeals must be filed within
twenty-one days of the city council's written .I x i� uxl ccision is mailed by the
Win.
G. Appeal. A Type 111 decision made by the nlanninK Commission may be appealed to the
city council as follows:
I. Who May Appeal. The following people have legal standing to appeal a Type III
decision:
Pave 25 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 49
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
a. The applicant or owner of the subject property;
b. Any person who was entitled to written notice of the Type III decision;
c. Any other person who participated in the proceeding by submitting written
comments.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in
rch-: -( ulg Scclion I- ,OS,g00(F)(1)om, may appeal a Type III
decision by filing a notice of appeal according to the following procedures;
b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the community
development director or designee within ten (10) days of the date the notice
of decision was mailed;
c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal shall contain:
i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of
the decision;
ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has
standing to appeal;
iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal;
iv. If the appellant is not the applicant, a statement demonstrating that
the appeal issues were raised during the comment period; and
v. The applicable filing fee.
3. Scope of Appeal. The appeal of a Type 111 decision is limitcd to the issucs and
cvidcnccinthercc ordbclbrcthcf4a4u .;.;hearinP body: �.
Pave 26 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 50
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
4. Appeal Procedures. Type 111 notice, hearing procedure and decision process shall
also be used for all Type 111 appeals, as provided in Scctionccb; .-( io,
I- ,OS.400(C) through (E)��,..,
5. Final Decision. The decision of the city council regarding an appeal of a Type 111
decision is the final decision of the city. (Ord. 1874 §I(part), 2006).
11. Extensions. The community dcvclopmcnt director shall. upon written rWUCSt by the
applicant and payment of the required fec. grant a writtcn one -war extension of the
original or last extension approval period' provided:
I_ The land dcvclopmcnt permit authorizes Cxtension�S
2. (\o chanecs am made to the original application as approved by the city
3. Thcmha,c hccn no chanecs in thczonin % land division code, or app Ii cahI
comprchcnsiv c plan provisions on which the approval was hascd. In thccasc whcm
the plan conflicts with a code or comprch en si ve plan change, the extension shall he
ci th cr
a. Dcnicd: or
h. At the discretion of the community dcvclopmcnt director the rauicst for
extension mavhc re- reviewed as a modification par Section 17.09.400:
4. The extension rcqucst is filed on or befom the expiration of the original or latest
extension approval per Section 17.05,400(1)(6):
S. If the time limit expired and no extension request has been filed. the application
shall be void.
17.05.5 00 Type IV procedure (legislative).
A. Pre - Application Conference. A pre - application conference is required for all Type IV
applications initiated by a party other than the city of Central Point. The requirements and
procedures for a pre- application conference are described in 17.05.600(C).
Pave 2J of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 51
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
B. Timing of Requests. Acceptance timing varies IorTvpe IV applications (sec Tablc
17.05.1 for applicable section rcicmncc) FTho c I v ate OF i n g I
C. Application Requirements.
I. Application Forms. Type IV applications shall be made on forms provided by
the community development director or designee.
2. Submittal Information. The application shall contain:
a. The information requested on the application form;
b. A map and/or plan addressing the appropriate criteria and standards in
sufficient detail for review and decision (as applicable);
c. The required fee; and
d. One copy of a letter or narrative statement (fumdings and conclusions) that
explains how the application satisfies each and all of the relevant approval
criteria and standards applicable to the specific Tvpc IV application.
D. Notice of Hearing.
I. Required Hearings. A minimum of two hearings, one before the planning
emmmission and one before the city council, are required for all Type IV
applications. except N _ a hoalule h_
.
2. Notification Requirements. Notice of public hearings .:;the ioquoi1 shall be
given by the community development director or designee in the following
manner:
a. At least tvvcoo cn (10) days, but not more than forty (a0) days, before the
date of the first hearing
Pave 28 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 52
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
, a notice, i,hall he prepared ;,.emu h
OR 227 95shaII he mdmailed to
iii. Any affected governmental agency;
iiiiii. Any person who requests notice in writing;
park. all loading .- !he- pt;-.. in ,noc
iw 1 x.
F. 0'. no :.l k4aiqik)rii i hall hetuai-. ,.lo change in
noc », -
b. At least ten LIOndays before the first se -,�..�I- r,.a,:.:�.:.
public hearing date, and fourteen days before the city council hearing
date, public notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in
the city.
c. The community development director or designee shall:
i. For each mailing of notice, file an affidavit of mailing in the record as
provided by Scetion.a.b,00n I-DSs00(D)(2)(a) u . . . c; i m; and
ii. For each published notice, file in the record the affidavit of
publication in a newspaper that is required in Scetion, uh, -coon
I-D s00(D)(2)(b) of this section.
d. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
shall be notified in writing of proposed comprehensive plan and development
code amendments within the time period presribcd by DLCD i�,
Pave 29 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 53
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
� ,. The notice to DLCD shall include a DLCD Certificate of
Mailing.
3. Content of Notices. The mailed and published notices shall include the following
information:
a. The number and title of the file containing the application, and the address
and telephone number of the community development director or designee's
office where additional information about the application can be obtained;
b. The proposed site location, if applicable;
c. A description of the proposal in enough detail for people to determine what
change is proposed, and the place where all relevant materials and
information may be obtained or reviewed;
d. The time(s), place(s), and date(s) of the public hearing(st; a statement that
public oral or written testimony is invited; and a statement that the hearing
will be held under this title and rules of procedure adopted by the council and
available at City Hall (see ms. ... n Scction 17.05.500(1-));
and
Pave 30 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 54
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
L. Hearing Process and Procedure. Conduct of Public I IwrinP
I. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of procedure adopted by the city council:
a. The presiding officer of the planning conmtission and of the city council
shall have the authority to:
i. Regulate the course, sequence, and decorm of the hearing:
ii. Direct procedural requirements or sintlar matters;
iii. Impose reasonable time limits for oral presentations: and
iv. Waive the provisions of this chapter so long as they do no prejudice
the substantial rights of any party.
b. No person shall address the commission or the council without:
i. Receiving recognition from the presiding officer; and
ii. Stating his or her full name and address.
c. Disruptive conduct such as applause, cheering, or display of signs shall be
cause for expulsion of a person or persons from the hearing, terntination or
continuation of the hearing, or other appropriate action determined by the
presiding officer.
2. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of procedures adopted by the council, the
presiding officer of the conmtission and of the council shall conduct the hearing as
follows:
a. The presiding officer shall begin the hearing with a statement of the nature
of the matter before the body, a general summary of the procedures, a
summary of the standards for decision - making, and whether the decision
which will be made is a prelin inary decision, such as a recommendation to
the city council or the final decision of the city:
Pave 31 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 55
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
b. The community development director or designee's report and other
applicable staff reports shall be presented:
c. The public shall be invited to testify:
d. The public hearing may be continued to allow additional testimony or it
may be closed: and
e. The body's deliberation may include questions to the staff, comments from
the staff, and inquiries directed to any person present.
F. Continuation of the Public Hearing. The planning conmtission or the city council may
continue any hearing, and no additional notice of hearing shall be required if the matter is
continued to a specified place, date, and time.
G. Decision- Making Criteria Decision Proccss. The recommendations by the citizcn
advisory commiucc the planning eonmtission and the decision by the city council shall
be based on the annlicahlc criteria as mfcrcnccd in Tahlc 17.05. L . .;ter
H. Approval Process and Authority.
I. The citizcn advisor committee and planning commission shall:
a. The citizens advisor committee. ahcrAft,4 notice and discussion at a
public , mcctim,, vote on and prepare a recommendation to the city
Pave 32 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 56
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
council to approve, approve with modifications, approve with conditions,
deny the proposed change, or adopt an alternative; and
b. Thcplannim, commission. adcr notice and it public hwrinP. vote on and
Pmparc it FCC (au mcndatI on to the city council to approve. approve with
moth licati on'. app rove with conditions. dcm the prop oscd change. oradopt
an alt cmathvc; and
b. Within .',un —it tcn (10) No, _ it - , days of adopting a recommendation, the
presiding officer shall sign the written recommendation, and it shall be tiled
with the community development director or designee.
2. Any member of the citizen advisory commiucc or planning commission who
votes in opposition to the pla r,r:.r, conarn uir' rnajority reconanendation may
file a written statement of opposition with the community development director or
designee before the council public hearing on the proposal. The community
development director or designee shall send a copy to each council member and
place a copy in the record;
3. If the citizen advisory committee or planning eormnission does not adopt a
recormnendation to approve, approve with modifications, approve with conditions,
deny the proposed change, or adopt an alternative proposal within sixty L6rZdays
of its first public hearing on the proposed change, the community development
director or designee shall:
a. Prepare a report to the city council on the proposal, including noting the
citizens advisory committee's or planning commission's actions on the
matter, if any; and
b. Provide notice and put the matter on the city council's agenda for the city
council to hold a public hearing and rnake a decision. No further action shall
be taken by the citizen advisow commiucc or planning conanission.
4. The city council shall:
Pave 33 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 57
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
a. Consider the recommendation of the citizcn advisory committcc and
planning commission; however, the city council is not bound by the
commiucc s or the commission's recommendation;
b. Approve, approve with modifications, approve with conditions, deny, or
adopt an alternative to an application for legislative change, or remand the
application to the planning commission for rehearing and reconsideration on
all or part of the application; and
c. If the application Eu logi aw o charge is approved, the council shall act by
ordinance, which shall be signed by the mayor after the council's adoption of
the ordinance.
I. Vote Required for a Legislative Change.
I. A votc by it majority of the gualif icd votin, mcmbca of the citizcn, advi,ory
committcc prescnt i, mquimd fora rccommcndation for approval. approval with
modification,. approva l with condition,. dcnial or adoption of an altcrnativc.
2. A vote by a majority of the qualified voting members of the planning
commission present is required for a recommendation for approval, approval with
modifications, approval with conditions, denial or adoption of an alternative.
3_. A vote by a majority of the qualified members of the city council present is
required to decide any motion made on the proposal.
J. Notice of Decision. Notice of a Type IV decision shall be mailed to the applicant, all
participants of record, and the Department of Land Conservation and Development,
within five L5 ) ru, „ , , days after the city council decision is filed with the community
development director or designee. T _ hall al _ _ ou _ a _
K. Final Decision and Effective Date. A Type IV decision, if approved, shall take effect
and shall become final as specified in the enacting ordinance, or if not approved, upon the
datcof mailing of the notice of decision to the applicant.
Pave 34 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 58
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
L. Record of the Public Hearing.
I. A verbatim record of the proceeding shall be made by stenographic, mechanical,
or electronic means. It is not necessary to transcribe an electronic record. The
ntinutes and other evidence presented as a part of the hearing shall be part of the
record;
2. All exhibits received and displayed shall be marked to provide identification and
shall be part of the record;
3. The official record shall include:
a. All materials considered and not rejected by the hearings body;
b. All materials subnnitted by the community development director or
designee to the hearings body regarding the application;
c. The verbatim record made by the stenographic, mechanical, or electronic
means; the ntinutes of the hearing; and other documents considered;
d. The final decision;
e. All correspondence; and
f. A copy of the notices that were given as required by this chapter. (Ord.
1874 §1 (pail), 2006).
17.05.600 General procedural provisions — uo inunn - - ill - Ti,.
A. One - Hundred- Twenty -Day ( 120) Rule. In accordance with ORS 227.178 the city
shall take final action on all limited land use decisions as identified in Tablc 17.05.1,
including msolution of all appwlsTyFe .
..,;Tchapti-, l _ ! , within one hundred twenty ( 120) days
from the date the application is deemed as complete, unless the applicant requests an
extension in writing. Thom...o, or, ..;a total of all extensions may not exceed two
Pave 35 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 59
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
hundred forty -five R2 days. Any exceptions to this rule shall conform to the provisions
of ORS 227.178. (The one hundred . Type l'
B. Time Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this
chapter, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to
ern shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless
it is a Saturday or legal holiday, including Sunday, in which event the period eons moil
the end of the next day which is not a Saturday.. Sunday. or legal holiday.
C. Pre - Application Conferences.
1. Participants. When a pre - application conference is required, the applicant shall
meet with the community development director or his /her designee(s) and such
other parties as the community development director deems appropriate;
2. Information Provided. At such conference, the community development director
or designee shall:
a. Cite the comprehensive plan policies and map designations that appear to
be applicable to the proposal;
b. Cite the ordinance provisions, including substantive and procedural
requirements that appear to be applicable to the proposal;
c. Provide available technical data and assistance that will aid the applicant;
d. Identify other governmental policies and regulations that relate to the
application; and
e. Reasonably identify other opportunities or constraints concerning the
application.
3. Disclaimer. Failure of the community development director or designee to
provide any of the information required in Scctionha , ui.... h, - ,.r'
Pave 36 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 60
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
n 17.05.600f C) shall not constitute a waiver of any of the standards, criteria
or requirements for the application;
4. Changes in the Law. Due to possible changes in federal, state, regional, and local
law, the applicant is responsible for ensuring that the application complies with all
applicable laws.
D. Acceptance and Review of Applications.
I. Initiation of Applications.
a. Applications for approval under this chapter may be initiated by:
i. Order of city council;
ii. Resolution of the planning commission;
iii. The community development director or designee;
iv. A record owner of property tperson(s) whose name is on the most
recently recorded deed), or contract purchaser with written permission
from the record owner.
b. Any person authorized to submit an application for approval may be
represented by an agent authorized in writing to make the application on their
behalf.
2. Consolidation of Proceedings. When an applicant applies for more than one type
of land use or development permit (e.g., Type II and III) for the same one or more
parcels of land, the proceedings may, at the option of the applicant, be consolidated
for review and decision.
a. If more than one approval authority would be required to decide on the
applications if submitted separ ately, then the decision shall be made by the
respective approval authority having origt4al urisdietion over each tame
proccd urc:4o �aui ,. Ldlov i 14g order of prefol -., ...T,.
Pave 3J of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 61
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
b. When proceedings are consolidated:
i. The notice shall identify each application to be (I - irkdconsolid.nal;
ii. The decision on a plan map amendment shall precede the decision on
a proposed land use district change and other decisions on a proposed
development. Similarly, the decision on a zone map amendment shall
precede the decision on a proposed development and other actions; and
iii. Separate findings shall be made c fu each consolid.nal application.
3. Check for Acceptance and Completeness. In reviewing an application for
completeness, the following procedure shall be used
a. Acceptance. When an application is received by the city, the community
development director or designee shall immediately determine whether the
following essential items are present. If the following items are not present,
the application shall not be accepted and shall be immediately returned to the
applicant
i. The required form;
ii. The required fee;
iii. The signature of the applicant on the required form and signed
written authorization of the property owner of record if the applicant is
not the owner.
b. Completeness.
i. Review and Notification. After the application is accepted, the
community development director or designee shall review the
application for completeness. If the application is incomplete, the
community development director or designee shall notify the applicant
in writing of exactly what information is missing within thirty LM days
Pave 38 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 62
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
of receipt of the application and allow the applicant one hundred eighty
I( 80) days to submit the missing information.
ii. Application deemed complete for review. In accordance with the
application submittal requirements of this chapter, the application shall
be deemed complete upon the receipt by the community development
director or designee of all required information. The applicant shall have
the option of withdrawing the application, or refusing to submit further
information and requesting that the application be processed
notwithstanding any identified incompleteness. For the refusal to be
valid, the refusal shall be made in writing and received by the
community development director or designee.
iii. If the applicant does not submit all of the missing information or
provide written notice that no further information will be provided
(whether some of the additional information has been provided or not)
within one hundred eighty I( RU) days of the date the initial submittal
was accepted per 17A5 .000(3)(a), the application is void.
iv. Standards and Criteria That Apply to the Application. Approval or
denial of the application shall be based upon the standards and criteria
that were applicable at the time it was first accepted, unless the
application is for a change to the comprehensive plan or land use
regulations.
v. Coordinated Review. The city shall also submit the application for
review and comment to the city engineer, road authority, and other
applicable county, state, and federal review agencies.
4. Changes or Additions to the Application -Duri io d. Once an
application is deemed complete per 1 T05 600(3)(b):
a. All documents and other evidence relied upon by the applicant shall be
submitted to the community development director or designee at least seven
days before the notice of action or hearing is mailed. Documents or other
Pave 39 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 63
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
evidence submitted affer that date shall be received by the community
development director or designee, and transmitted to the hearings body, but
may be too late to include with the staff report and evaluation:
b. When documents or other evidence are submitted by the applicant during
the review period but affer the notice of action or hearing is mailed, the
assigned review person or body shall determine whether or not the new
documents or other evidence submitted by the applicant significantly change
the application:
c. If the assigned reviewer determines that the new documents or other
evidence significantly change the application, the reviewer shall include a
written determination to the approving authority that a significant change in
the application has occurred as part of the decision. In the altemate, the
reviewer may inform the applicant either in writing, or orally at a public
hearing, that such changes may constitute a significant change, and allow the
applicant to withdraw the new materials submitted, in order to avoid a
determination of significant change:
d. If the applicant's new materials are determined to constitute a significant
change in an application that was previously deemed complete, the city shall
take one of the following actions, at the choice of the applicant:
i. Suspend the existing application and allow the applicant to submit a
revised application with the proposed significant changes. Before the
existing application can be suspended, the applicant must consent in
writing to waive the one - hundred- twenty LM -day rule I, 1b, -( ; roa
I- ,0s.000(A)^o,�,u on the existing application. If the
applicant does not consent, the city shall not select this option;
ii. Declare the application, batted on the significant change, a new
application and reprocess accordingly.
e. If a new application is submitted by the applicant, that applicant shall pay
the applicable application fee and shall be subject to a separ ate check for
Pave 40 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 64
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
acceptance and completeness and will be subject to the standards and criteria
in effect at the time the new application is accepted.
C. Community Development Director's Duties. The community development director or
designee shall:
I. Prepar e application forms based on the criteria and standards in applicable state
law, the city's comprehensive plan, and implementing ordinance provisions;
2. Accept all development applications that comply with this section;
3. Prepare a staff report that summarizes the application(s) and applicable decision
criteria, and provides findings of conformance and /or nonconformance with the
criteria. The staff report may also provide a recommended decision of: approval;
denial; or approval with specific conditions that ensure conformance with the
approval criteria;
4. Prepare a notice of the proposal decision:
a. In the case of an application subject to a Type I or II review process, the
community development director or designee shall make the staff report and
all case -file materials available at the time that the notice of the decision is
issued;
b. In the case of an application subject to a up blic hearing (Type III or IV
process), the community development director or designee shall make the
staff report available to the public at least sevens days prior to the
scheduled hearing date, and make the case -file materials available when
notice of the hearing is mailed, as provided by cam;. I7.05.300IC) (Type
LL), 17.05.400IC4 (Type 111), or I7.05.500(-D) (Type IV);
5. Administer the application and hearings process;
6. File notice of the final decision in the city's records and mail a copy of the notice
of the final decision to the applicant, all persons who provided comments or
Pave 41 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 65
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
testimony, persons who requested copies of the notice, and any other persons
entitled to notice by law;
7. Maintain and preserve the file for each application for the time period required
by law. The file shall include, as applicable, a list of persons required to be given
notice and a copy of the notice given; the affidavits of notice, the application and
all supporting information, the stuff report, the final decision (including the
findings, conclusions and conditions, if any), all correspondence, minutes of any
meeting at which the application was considered, and any other exhibit,
information or docu memation which was considered by the decision - makers) on
the application; and
S. Administer the appeals and review process.
F. Amended Decision process.
I. The purpose of an amended decision process is to allow the community
development director or designee to correct typographical ertors, rectify
inadvertent omissions and /or make other ninor changes that do not materially alter
the decision.
2. The community development director or designee may issue an amended
decision after the notice of final decision has been issued but before the appeal
period has expired. If such a decision is amended, the decision shall be issued
within fourteen ( 14) business days after the original decision would have become
final, but in no event beyond the one - hundred - twenty -day (1201 period required by
state law. A new ten -day ( 10) appeal period shall begin on the day the amended
decision is issued.
3. Notice of an amended decision shall be given using the same mailing and
distribution list as for the original decision notice.
4. Modifications to approved plans or conditions of approval requested by the
applicant shall follow the procedures in rxryn - 17.09. All other changes to
Pave 42 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 66
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
decisions that are not modifications under F 17.09 shall follow the appeal
process.
G. Resubmittal of Application Following Denial. An application or proposal that Ilas
been denied, or that was denied and on appeal or review has not been reversed by a
higher authority, including the Land Use Board of Appeals, the Land Conservation and
Development Commission or the courts, may not be resubmitted as the same or a
substantially similar proposal for the same land for a period of at least twelve months
from the date the final city action is made denying the same, runless there is substantial
change in the facts or a change in city policy that would change the outcome, as
determined by the community development director or designee.
H. City Council Review. The city council shall have the authority to call up any Type It
or Type III application for review. The decision to call up an application may occur at
any time after the application is filed until the decision is otherwise final. When the city
council calls up an application, the council shall, in its order of call up, determine the
procedure to be followed, including the extent of preliminary processing and the rights of
the parties. At a minimum, the council shall follow the procedures in
Section -I 7.05.400(F), regarding appeals from Type 111 decisions. (Ord. 1874 §5' 1(part),
2006).
17.05.700 Spotial pFctodaFosLxpcducd Lund Divisions.
A. Lxpcdilcd Land Divisions. An expedited land division (ELD) shall be defined and may be used as
provided under ORS 197.360 through 197.380.
I. Selection. An applicant who wishes to use an ELD procedure for a partition, subdivision or
planned development instead of the regular procedure type assigned to it, must request the use of
the ELD in writing at the time the application is filed, or forfeit his/her right to use it;
2. Review Procedure. All applications for expedited land divisions shall comply with ORS 197.360
through 197.380 and the Central Point comprehensive plan; ORS 197.360 through ORS 197.380
details the criteria, application and notice requirements, and action and appeal procedures for
expedited land divisions.
Pave 43 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 67
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
3. Appeal Procedure. An appeal of an LLD shall follow the procedures in ORS 197.375. (Ord. 1874
§ I (part), 2006).
17.0_s -800 Reserved
17.05.900 Traffic impact analysis.
The purpose of this section of the code is to assist in determining which road authorities participate in
land use decisions, and to implement Section 660 - 012- 0045(2)(e) of the State Transportation Planning
Rule that requires the city to adopt a process to apply conditions to development proposals in order to
minimize impacts and protect transportation facilities.
This chapter establishes the standards for when a dcvdopmcnt proposal must be reviewed for potential
traffic impacts; when a traffic impact analysis must be submitted with a development application in order
to detemrine whether conditions are needed to minimize impacts to and protect transportation facilities;
what must be in a traffic impact analysis; and who is qualified to prepare the study.
A. When a Traffic Impact Analysis is Required. The city shall require a traffic impact analysis (TIA) as
part of an application for development, a change in use, or a change in access in the following situations:
L If the application includes residential development, a TLA shall be required when the lend
uscdcvclopmcnt application involves one or more of the following actions:
a. A change in zoning or a plan amendment,
b. An increase in site traffic volume generation by two hundred fifty (250 average daily trips
or more;
c. An increase in peak hour volume of a particular movement to and from the State highway
by twenty percent or more; or
d. An increase in use of adjacent streets by vehicles exceeding the twenty thousand (20.000)
pounds gross vehicle weights by ten (10) vehicles or more per day;
2. If the application does not include residential development, a TLA shall be required when a land
use application involves one or nore of the following actions:
a. A change in zoning or a plan amendment designation;
Pave 44 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 68
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
b. Any proposed development or land use action that a road authority, including the city,
Jackson County or ODOT, states may have operational or safety concerns along its
facility(ies);
c. An increase in site traffic volume generation by two hundred fifty average (250 daily trips
(ADT) or more;
d. An increase in peak hour volume of a particular movement to and from the State highway
by twenty percent or more;
e. An increase in use of adjacent streets by vehicles exceeding twenty thousand (20.000
pounds gross vehicle weight by ten (10 ) vehicles or more per day;
f. The location of the access driveway does not n eet minimmn sight distance requirements, as
determined by the city engineer, or is located where vehicles entering or leaving the property
are restricted, or such vehicles queue or hesitate on the state highway, creating a safety hazard
in the discretion of the community development director; or
g. A change in internal traffic patterns that, in the discretion of the cmmmunity development
director, may cause safety problem~, such as back -up onto a street or greater potential for
traffic accidents.
B. Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation. A traffic impact analysis shall be prepared by a traffic engineer or
civil engineer licensed to practice in the state of Oregon with special training and experience in traffic
engineering. The TIA shall be prepared in accordance with the public works department's document
entitled "Traffic Impact Analysis." If the road authority is the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT), consult ODOT's regional development review planner and OAR 734 - 051 -180. (Ord. 1874
p1(pan),2006).
Pave 45 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 69
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
Chapter 17.08
DEEIN H IONS
"Development" means making a malcrial chalwc in the us or phwical appearance of a
slniclurc or land, dividing land into hao ormorc parcels, including pal hhons and
subdivisions as provided in ORS 92010 to 92285. and crcalinc or Icrminalinc a riflhl of
acccss..,:� p.:�s loal d� .,
Pave 46 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 70
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
Chapter 17.10
ZONING MAP AND ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS
Sections:
17.10.100 Amrndncin,- Purpose.
17.10.200 Legislative Initiation of Amcndmcnl ufinendmenb.
17.10.300 Major and Minor Amcndmcnl .Quasi - judicial amcndmrnb.
I-, 10.400 17.10.400 Approval Clilcria ( onditionsof approval on quasi - judicial amcndmcnls.
17.10.500 Record ofamendmenl.Ccoati oils o f Approval.
17.10.600 Record of Amcndmcnl.Tmnsporlxlion planning rtlle compliance.
17.10.100 'no-ndonctil
The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for Icgislxlivc maiorand quasi -
judicialminoramendlrlents to this Code and /orthe Central Point city zoning map (zoning map). herein .
These will be referred to as "map and or text amendments.' Amendmrnl, may be necessary from lime to
time to reticc( e lid neine community condition, need, and desire... to correct mistakes, or to addrew
chances in the law.(Ord. 1874 p3(part), 2006).
17.10.200 Inilialion of Amcndmcnls.
A proposed amcndmcnl to the Codc or zoning man may be initiated by either.
A. A msolution by the planning commission to the cir, councih
13. A resolution of inlcnl by the cax council' or forzonal" man amendments
C. An application by one or more properh owners (zoning map
amcndmcn(s only), or Ihcir agcnls, of properly affccicd by the proposed
amcndmcnl. The amcndmcnl shall be accompanied by a Icgal description
of the property or properlics affccicd; proposed findings of facts
Supporting the proposed amcndmcnl, justifying the same and addressing
the sL1b S(a11(11C standards for SLICK an amcndmcnl aS reQLllrcd by (his
chaplcr and by the Land Conservation and Dcvclopmcnl Commission of
the Slalc.
17.05.300 Major and Minor Amcndmcnls
Thcrc arc Iwo lypcs of map and Ic.el amcndmcnls
A..�— (Major amendments.
Pave 4J of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 71
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
,tea Major amendments are Ic gislalivc policy decisions in irIf b. Y
city councillhal establish by law general policies and rcgulalions for
fplprC land use decisions, such as revisions to the utning and land
division ordinance Thal have widespread and significant impact beyond
the immcdialc area. Thcy Major amcndmcnls are reviewed using the
Type IV procedure in S( ',on 17.05.500 an (I ,h
P .. . . ille
pic, ii icti, c .. ',on n Ann . , ti (Ord. 1874 §3(part),
2006).
13. _ Minor amendments.
A. Applicability of Quasi - Judicial Amcndmcnts. Quasi -judiciaMinor amendments are those that involve
the application of adopted policy to a specific development application or code mvision, and not the
adoption of new policy (i.e., through legislative dccisionsMaim Amcndmcnts). Quasi -judiciaMinor
zoning map amendments shall follow the Type III procedure, as govcmcd sct forth in by
Section 17.05.400, using standards of approval in subsection B of this section. The approval authority
shall be fe",.,�,:r° ^:the Citv Council after review and recommendation by the Planning Commission.
el, `..__.,,_kelis;_Pima _ ,e,a
.6..11 40eatle balk HpPlieRt ..
1317.10.300. Approval Criteria for Quasi - Judicial Amcndmcnts. A recommendation or a decision to
approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial text or map amendment
shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address all of the following criteria:
I. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals ( Muioi
amendments onlv);
2. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan (Major and
Minor amendments);
Pave 48 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 72
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
3. II it zoninn map amendment findings dcmonst Lit ing shut adequate public services and
transportation networks to serve the piopertv arc either av ai l able or identified for construction in
the C'itv's public facilities master plans; and'. Mu or
and Minot amcndmc lit sl:
mw�mnen�sen�nenawee�m�enn�nwnenwtawtn�rtnnsne�nnwanee��nw!
34. The amendment
Soctiou 17.1 n rnncomplics with OAR 660 -012 -0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule (Ord.
1874 §3(part), 2006).
17.10. 1001 00 Conditions of approval Cot ..
A. Major amendments decisions may onh be appiowd ordenied.
B. A quasi- judicial Minot amendments decision may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions.
Conditions shall be based on applicable regulations and factual evidence in the record. A legislative
amendment may only 1x approved ordcnicd. (Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006).
17.10.500 00 Record of amendments.
The city recorder shall maintain a record of alnendlnents to the text of this code and the zoning snap in a
format convenient for public use. (Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006).
Pave 49 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 73
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
Chapter 17.96
.... 10 CONIPUFlUFNSP .. CONIPREIIENSIN E PL ,1N ,1ND
LRBAN GRON% Ill BOLNDAR1 AINENDINEN I S
Sections:
oin 17.96.100 P�(-.Amcndmrnls— Pumps
17 96.200 Inilialion of Amcndmcnls
'9�2^ 17.96300 �n.:.A7aior Revisions and Minor Chance..
7i mn nn.' Tilmc 0.1796.400 Submittal Timno of
proposals
7i n.n c
4;7A n 1796500 ..; ,.. �Appmval C'rltcrla.
4;7A 1796.600 :,rRcconl oC Amend mcnts
17.96.010 100 Amendments - Purpose Procedure.
The moose of this chapter is to provide procedures for amendments to the city's comprehensive plan.
including amendments to the urban growth boundary. that may be necessary from time to time as the
public necessity and comcnicnce and general 15clfarc requires. Amendments may be made to the
comprchensisc plan by followinc the proccduml requirements sct forth in 17.05.500 and this chapter.
011,110- roop.+,m,t<G, aloondlonan, h� jollov . , - the trooroditco r�.oi� (Ord. 1436 p2(part), 1981).
17.96.020 200 Initiation of amendments.
A proposed to the comprchcnsi,c plan or urhan eiomh houndary may be
initiated by either.
A. A icsoltitionRe,olclion ofmalealion h�ef the planning commission to the city council;
B. A resolutionR e,,olclion of intention by the city council; or
C. An applicationA;,n by one or more property owners, or their agents, of property affected by the
proposed amendment. The oreadoreal be - h) a legal olci cliptiell ef zhe trPtlert) el
Pave 50 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 74
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
Cclli el, aticil and Dc, citi .nern Co a.; i -e—(Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981).
17.96.4',1 ,00 Major revisions and minor changes
In accordance with state -wide planning goal two, prolx)scciPronoscd amendments to the comprehensive
plan, including urban growth boa ndary amendments, shall bcurc categorized as either major revisions or
ntinorchanges amendments as ddlncd in IZ05.100.4undcr thegoal two definitions of said terms.
Proposals for major revisions shall be processed as a T,pc IV procedure per 17.05.500.. as provided for in
this chapter. not more than ever, lanuar, of even- numbered,cars. and proposals Proposals for minor
changes shall likcwiscbe processed as a T,pc III procedure per I Z05AOO.not more h- cyuen1w than each
January. Notwithstanding the schedule set Ibnh in this section. applications Ibr Plan amcmdmcnts ma, he
processed concurrcntl, with applications Ibr annexation under I haptcr 1.20. (Ord. 1615 §60, 1989; Ord.
1436 §2(part), 1981).
17.96.010 1100 Scho o: Submittal Timing of
Proposals. Applications for an amendment to the comprehensive Plan, or
urban growth boundar,. ma, be submitted at an, time. Once accented
proposals shall be scheduled b, the cit, council b, resolution of intent.
The applications and review thereof shall conform to the provisions of
17.05 of this code and all applicable laws of the state.
c4,1alim 7 c si'dils (Ord. 1533A(part), 1984; Ord. 1436
§2(part), 1981).
17.96.050 500 Substantive standardsApproval Criteria.
A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an application for
an amendment to the comprehensive plan, or urban growth boundary
shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address the
following critcria.
A. Approval 01 the reuucst is consistent with the applicablestatewide planning goals
B, Approval 01 the muucst is consistent with the Central Point comprch ensi v plan:
Pave 51 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 75
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
C FoI Llrhen growth houndary amendments findings demonstrat e that adequate PUhlic services and
transportation networks to serve the piopcuy arc either a, aiIahle or identibcd for constmction in
the (It y's PUhlic facilities must cr plans . Dior and
Minor amendments); and
D. The amendment complies with OAR 660 -011 -0060 of the Transport Lit ion Planniiw Rule.
A.Followingn;ccipt ofthc finding, ofthc citizen. advisory commute.; and planning commission on the
proposal amendment, n;ccipt of any staff rclxrn s, and all evidence n;ccival at the public hearing held at
the city council Icvcl, the city council shall n;ndcr its decision within sixty days after said hearing, and
said decision shall include findings as ra{uiral in Scction 1796.050. Ifthc council proposes to adopt an
amendment that is substantially altcral from that n;commcndcd by the citizen. advisory committee or the
planning commission, 111c council may tifci said proposal amendment back to the citizen. advisory
committee or the planning commission for n;pon and n;commcndation priorto adoption.
13. When adoptal, any changes shall be suitably notal in a prominent place in thccitv's comprehensive
plan, 6lal with the city n;cordcr, and copies thcn;of shall be made available to the public.
C. In the event a petition for an amendment to the comprehensive plan is denied by the council, said
petition shall not be eligible for resubmission until the next date scheduled for review of proposed
amendments to the comprehensive plan. (Ord. 1436 §2(pan), 1981).
1796.600 Record of amendments.
Pave 52 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 76
EXHIBIT "A — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS"
Dated: May 6, 2014
The city rcconlcr shall maintain a record ofanp amendments to the comprchcnsieo plan in a Rtnnat
convenient fior public tic.
PASSED by the Council and siLmcd by me in aulhcnlicalion of ils passacc this day of Mav ?014.
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
Return to Agenda
Pave 53 of 53
CAP050814 Pg. 77
Resolution
Supplemental
Budget
CAP050814 Pg. 78
i_
CENTRAL Finance Department
Staff Report POINT Bev Adams, FinanceDirectar
To: Mayor & Council
From: Bev Adams, Finance Director
May 8, 2014
Subject: 2013/14 Supplemental budget
Background:
The High Tech Crime Unit fund has received approximately si5o,000 more in Federal Operating Grant
money than anticipated. The original budget for this grant line item is $20,000; we have now received just
over $170,000. We are requesting that the Council appropriate an additional s15o,000 to the Federal
Operating Grant revenue line item, and $150,00o additional to the Federal Grant Expense line item.
In accordance with Oregon budget law (ORS 294.480), when funds are made available by another unit of
federal, state, or local government and the funds were not known for certain at the time the budget was
prepared, we may add the appropriation by supplement budget. Because the grant amount is more than 10%
of the High Tech Crime Fund adopted expenditure total, it requires a public hearing prior to adoption of the
supplemental budget
The Highway 99 Beautification project also requires additional appropriation. This Street Fund project,
beginning in fiscal year 2012/13 and continuing into fiscal year 2013/14, did not progress on schedule.
Due to unforeseen weather conditions and a right -of- way acquisition issue, the project was delayed in
2012 /13 resulting in higher expenses this fiscal year than budget for. We are requesting that Council
appropriate an additional s1lo,000 into the Street capital outlay and $85,000 into the Street SDC capital
outlay to cover final expenses on the Highway 99 Beautification project. The revenue to offset these
increases will come from the Street Fund carryover as there are no new revenues associated with this
project.
The Street SDC portion of the supplemental budget also exceeds 1oe/a of the appropriated balance;
therefore, according to Oregon budget lawthis must also be included in the public hearing prior to the
adoption of the addition.
A resolution to adopt and appropriate these changes is attached.
Recommendation:
That Mayor and Council appropriate the fiscal year 2013/14 supplemental budget.
CAP059914 Pg. 79
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
FOR THE 2013/14 FISCAL YEAR
RECITALS:
A. The City of Central Point's High Tech Crime Unit (HTCU) received $150,000 more in
Federal Operating Grant funds than unanticipated when the 2013/14 budget was
adopted.
B. The Highway 99 Beautification project beginning in fiscal year 2012/13 and continuing
into fiscal year 2013/14 did not progress on schedule. Due to unforeseen weather
conditions and a right -of -way acquisition issue, the project was delayed resulting in
higher expenses than budgeted for in the 2013/14 fiscal year.
The City of Central Point resolves:
To amend the 2013/14 budget in accordance with ORS. 294.480.
As such, the budget changes will appear as follows:
Section 1.
Summary of Proposed Budget Changes
High Tech Crime Fund
Resource
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Federal Grant Revenue
$150,000
Federal Grant Expense
$150,000
Revised Total Fund Resources $275,200 Revised Total Fund Resources $275,200
Street Fund
Resource Amount Expenditure Amount
Carryover Balance $195,000 Capital /Hwy 99 Project $150,000
SDC Capital /Hwy 99 Project 85,000
Revised Total Fund Resources $4,116,000 Revised Total Fund Resources $4,116,000
CAP050814 Pg. 80
Passed by the Council and signed by mein authentication of its passage this day of
May, 2014.
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
CAP050814 Pg. 81
m
a
c
v
rn
Q
0
c
3
v
K
Resolution
Intent to go to
Biennial Budget
CAP050814 Pg. 82
4w\
CENTRAL
Staff Report POINT
To: Mayor &Council
From: Bev Adams, Finance Director
Date: May 8, 2014
Subject: Biennial budget consideration
Background:
Finance Department
Bev Adams, Finance Director
In recent years several Oregon cities and districts have moved from an annual budget cycle to a biennial
cycle. This March atthe Oregon Municipal Officers Association (OMFOA) conference I had the opportunity
to sit in a presentation on biennial budgeting and to hear from several finance officers about their personal
experience with a two -year budget. The consensus of those on the biennial cycle was overwhelming
positive. These area few of the benefits discussed with us that day:
• Encourages long range financial planning
• Longerterm stability of operations
• More flexibility for capital projects
• Avoids the time and workload associated with an annual budget
Oregon state government and PERS budget is biennial
Increased time to focus on service and program management
Cost savings in budget notices, documents and meetings
The legal requirements for our City to move to a biennial budget are:
• Council declares the intent by resolution
• Citizen appointments to the budget committee become 4 year terms
• The City's municipal code references to an annual budget will need to be modified
One of the questions that I asked was "what is the downside of a biennial budget ?" The overwhelming
response from the presenters and others was "none ". Granted, it will require additional work and a period of
transition for staff for to adapt worksheets, software and processes to accommodate a two year budget -
and I was assured that it is worth the effort.
Recommendation:
That Mayor and Council favorably consider moving to a biennial budget and adopt the attached `resolution
of intent" to do so.
CAP050814 Pg. 83
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION AND NOTICE OF INTENT
TO MOVE TO A BIENNIAL BUDGET
RECITALS:
A. Enacted in 2001 and beginning in 2003, the State of Oregon by legislative action
provided local governments the option of preparing either an annual or a two year
(biennial) budget.
B. The Mayor and City Council have considered the benefits of a biennial budget and are
hereby stating their intention to move from the annual budget to a biennial budget.
The City of Central Point resolves:
To direct City staff to prepare the budget for the City on a biennial basis beginning with the
2014/15 budget year.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this day of
May, 2014.
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
CAP050814 Pg. 84
M
v
c
m
m
Q
0
c
m
o'
Resolution
Seven Oaks
Interchange
IAMP35
CAP050814 Pg. 85
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14005
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
May S. 2014
Planning Department
lom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
Consideration of Oregon Department of Transportation Interchange Area Management Plan forth e Seven Oaks
Interchange Area (IAMP35); Applicant: City of Central Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND:
Over the course of several years the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has been preparing an Interchange
Area Management Plan for the Seven Oaks /I -5 interchange (IAMP35). Although ODOT is not required to obtain city
approval for IAMP35 they did coordinate their findings and proposed plans with the City. The final draft of IAMP35 has
been reviewed by the City and determined to be consistent with what has been discussed in the past. In September of 2013
the Oregon Transportation cormmission adopted IAMP35.
As a condition of the City's Regional Plan Element it is necessary that the City "adopt" IAMP35 prior to the expansion of
the Central Point's urban growth boundary into CP - IB. The City has received an application to expand the UGB into CP-
I B which includes approximately 50 acres. As a pre- requisite to the City's final action on the UGB expansion it is
necessary that the City and County `adopt' IAMP35. The Regional Plan conditions do not specify how adoption should
occur so staff is advocating approval of the attached resolution (Attachment "A ") with Council direction to incorporate
IAMP35 into the City's Transportation System's Plan (TSP) at a later date.
The purpose of IAMP35 is to improve the performance and safety of the Interstate Highway and to protect the function of
the interchange during the foreseeable future (2034). A copy of IAMP35 is attached (Attachment `B "). WMP35
concludes with a `Preferred Alternative" (WMP35, page 27). The Preferred Alternative includes a list of proposed
improvements to the:
1 -5 lnwrchange;
Blackwell /Kirkland Rd. intersection;
Local street network north and south of the interchange; and
OR 140
The IAMP35 addresses actions to be undertaken by ODOT, Jackson County, and the City. For the City there will be the
following road improvements that need to be made as development occurs:
I. Two new streets paralleling Blackwell Road,
2. The rerouting of Dean Creek Road.
3. Closure of the Seven Oaks RR -Xing and improvement of a local street network to serve the area.
The Planning Commission has recommended in favor of adopting IAMP35 and of incorporating it into the City's TSP
during fiscal year 2014 -15 (Attachment `C'). The improvements and relevant policies in IAMP 35 may be discussed at
the Council meeting.
Page I oft
CAP050814 Pg. 86
ISSUES:
IAMP35 is an ODOT document. There are no issues relative to the City's approval of IAMP35. It is recommended in the
near future (one year) that the City amend its Transportation System Plan (TSP) to include IAMP35.
EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A — Resolution No. A Resolution Approving the Seven Oaks Interchange Area Management Plan
(IAMP35) Adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC)"
Attachment 'B— IAMP35, ODOT Memo and Exhibits"
Attachment "C — Planning Commission Resolution No. 80 1 " (Distributed at Council meeting)
ACTION:
Consider proposed Resolution No. and 1) approve the resolution, 2) make revisions and approve the resolution or 3)
denv the resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. _ A Resolution Approving the Seven Oaks Interchange Area Management Plan
(IAMP35) Adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC).
Page 2 of 2
CAP050814 Pg. 87
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SEVEN OAKS INTERCHANGE AREA
MANAGEMENT PLAN (IAMP35) ADOPTED BY THE OREGON TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION (OTC)
WHEREAS, in September 2013, the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) adopted the I -5,
Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP35); and
WHEREAS, the City has participated in the preparation of IAMP35 and has reviewed the final
document; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of the Regional Plan Element of the City of Central Point it is
required that IAMP35 be adopted by the City prior to the expansion of the City's urban growth
boundary (UGB) into Urban Reserve Area CP -IB; and
WHEREAS, the City has a pending application to expand its UGB into CP -I B;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS, that the
City Council approves and adopts the I -5. Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) Interchange Area
Management Plan (IAMP35).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the City Manager and the
Community Development Department to amend the Central Point Transportation Systems Plan
(TSP) during fiscal year 2014 -15 to include the projects, policies and development standards set
forth in IAMP35.
PASSED by the City Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this day
of 12014.
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Recorder
Return to Agenda
City Council Resolution No. (5/8/2014)
CAP050814 Pg. 88
R
JOh
J
I.
4- Central Pt.
Blackwell Rd. -lo
! STATE POLICE
-
"
M ,
I.
1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
Jackson County
Interchange Area Management Plan
Prepared for
Oregon Department of Transportation, Region
3500 NW Stewart Parkway
Roseburg, Oregon 97470
Prepared by
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
2100 SW River Parkway
Portland, Oregon 97201
September 2013
cna050814 Pg. 90
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The development of this Interchange Area Management Plan has been the collective effort of
the following people:
Technical Advisory Committee Members
John McDonald, Region 3 Planner
Mike Kuntz, Jackson County Roads
Kelly Madding, Planning Director, Jackson County
Don Burt, City of Central Point
Tom Humphrey, City of Central Point
John McDonald, ODOT Region 3
Kent Belleque, ODOT Preliminary Design Unit
Ron Hughes, ODOT Region Access Management Engineer
Consultant Team — David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Jennifer Danziger, P.E.
Shelly Alexander, P.E.
Christian Snuffin, P.E.
Angela Rogge, E.I.T.
John Stutesman, AICP
Georgia Cooper, AICP
Anneke Van der Mast
Adam Argo, AICP
Christine Immroth
IF
CAP059914 Pg. 91
TAMP, I -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.......
1.1. Interchange Function.........
1.2. Problem Statement...........,
1.3. IAM P Study Area ................
1.4. IAMP Goals and Objectives
1.5. Planning Process ................
2. EVALUATION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS ...................... ...............................
2013
1
1
1
2
4
4
2.1. Overview of the Regulatory Framework ............................................. ............................... 6
2.2. Land Use .............................................................................................. ............................... 8
2.3. Environmental, Community, and Cultural Resources ....................... ............................... 12
2.4. Existing Transportation Conditions ................................................... ............................... 13
2.5. Future Baseline Conditions ............................................................... ............................... 19
3. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS.....
...... 26
3.1. Preliminary Concepts to Address Operational Deficiencies ............. ............................... 26
3.2. Local Street System Concepts ........................................................... ............................... 27
3.3. Preferred Alternative ........................................................................ ............................... 27
4. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ...................................................................... ............................... 37
4.1. Access Management Plan ................................................................. ............................... 37
4.2. Transportation Demand Management Measures ............................ ............................... 39
4.3. Transportation System Management Measures .............................. ............................... 40
4.4. Land Use Management Measures ....... ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.5. Summary of Recommended Actions ................................................ ............................... 40
IAMP VOLUME 2: REFERENCE N
Technical Memorandum #1
Technical Memorandum #2
Technical Memorandum #3
Technical Memorandum #4
Technical Memorandum #5
Technical Memorandum #6
Table of Contents
IATERIAL (COMPANION DOCUMENT;
Definition and Background
Review of Plans and Policies
Existing Traffic Conditions
Future Baseline Traffic Conditions
Concept Development
Interchange Management Actions
AP050914 Pg. 92
I
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
IAMP 35 Study Area Roadway Inventory.. - ..... . ......................................
14
Table 2.
Existing 2008 PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations Analysis Results .... ...............................
17
Table 3.
Traffic Operations — 2034 RTP Scenario —Future Baseline Conditions ..........................
23
Table 4.
Traffic Operations — GBCVRP Scenario — Future Baseline Conditions ............................
24
Table S.
Future Conditions Preferred Alternative Peak Hour Traffic Operations ........................
34
Table 6.
Preferred Alternative (TAMP Improvements) Phasing Summary ..... ...............................
35
Table 7.
Preferred Alternative Preliminary Cost Estimates .......................... ...............................
36
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
IAMP Study Area and Street Network .............................................. ...............................
3
Figure 2.
Jackson County Comprehensive Plan ............................................... ...............................
9
Figure 3.
Jackson County Zoning Designations .............................................. ...............................
10
Figure 4.
Existing Development Patterns Map .............................................. ...............................
11
Figure 5.
Existing Access Inventory ................................................................ ...............................
16
Figure 6.
Year 2008 PM Peak Hour Conditions .............................................. ...............................
18
Figure 7.
2034 RTP Scenario — Traffic Operations & Lane Configurations — Future
Baseline Conditons ................................................................. ...............................
21
Figure 8.
GBCVRP Scenario— Traffic Volumes & Lane Configurations — Future Baseline
Conditions.............................................................................. ...............................
22
Figure 9.
Preferred Alternative ...................................................................... ...............................
29
Figure 10. [AMP Improvements and Access Management Areas ................. ...............................
38
Table of Contents !!
CAP050814 Pg. 93
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) encourages the development of Interchange
Area Management Plans (IAMPs) to maintain and improve highway performance and safety by
improving system efficiency and management before adding capacity. The development of this
Interchange Area Management Plan is intended to protect the function of the interchange for
the foreseeable future.
1.1. Interchange Function
Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) is principally a rural interchange that connects Interstate 5 (1 -5)
with Oregon Highway (OR) 99 to the south and Blackwell Road to the north. OR 99 is a district -
level highway that serves the nearby community of Central Point to the south. Blackwell Road
serves some employment lands northeast of the interchange and provides a connection with
White City to the southeast. Blackwell Road serves significant truck trips between the
interchange and White City, and is part of the OR 140 Freight Route connecting OR 62 and 1 -5.
The intended function of Interchange 35 is to safely and efficiently accommodate future traffic
demands. Typically, the traffic demands are based on the current rural and limited future
employment land uses in the interchange vicinity. However, as a result of the Greater Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan (GBCVRP), the interchange improvements outlined in this IAMP are
designed to accommodate proposed future development as well. This IAMP is NOT intended to
facilitate major commercial or residential development in the interchange area.
1.2. Problem Statement
Interchange 35 includes the Blackwell Road overpass on 1 -5, which was found to be functionally
obsolete and structurally deficient. The safety and function of both the overpass and the
connections with OR 99 and Blackwell were recently improved at the interchange. In addition
to the Blackwell Road overpass replacement, the southbound off -ramp was reconfigured as a
loop ramp connecting to OR 99 from the east. The other ramps were also constructed to meet
highway design standards and improve spacing between ramps. With this investment in
interchange improvements, a plan to assist Jackson County (the County), the City of Central
Point (the City), and ODOT with the long -term transportation system management in the area
around the Interchange is critical.
Although Interchange 35 is a rural interchange, it currently serves as the north access to the
City of Central Point and also provides freeway access to the Told employment area.
Additionally, it connects to White City via Blackwell and Kirtland Roads. In the future, traffic
demand at the interchange is expected to increase as a result of nearby development as well as
growth from the City of Central Point to the south.
Introduction
CAP050814 Pg. 94
]AMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
The current Central Point population is approximately 17,275' residents. By the year 2030,
Central Point's population is estimated to be almost 26,000, making it the second largest city in
the Rogue Valley. Interchange 35 will be affected by growing traffic volumes on OR 99 and
more traffic destined for 1 -5.
The Told employment area lies primarily north of Interchange 35. Although the development
density is currently low, its nearby access to 1 -5 makes this area more desirable in the future.
The development potential for the interchange area is documented in the GBCV Regional Plan.
In the long term, it is expected that this area will become part of the City of Central Point,
functioning as an intermodal employment hub, with increasing demand at the interchange and
the interchange area's higher order streets.
Interchange 35 also functions as the western terminus of OR 140, which connects OR 62 in
White City and 1 -5. A corridor plan has been developed for this statewide freight route that
identifies short- and long -term improvements to facilitate traffic flow and accommodate future
growth. Over time, more traffic will be accessing the interchange from the north via Blackwell
Road. Not only will the freight route increase demand at the interchange, but the potential for
conflicts with access to adjacent employment land will become a greater concern.
1.3. IAMP Study Area
The IAMP study area delineates the vicinity in which transportation facilities, land uses, and
approaches may affect operations at the interchange. The study area includes the existing
interchange, the immediate surrounding area where the new ramps were constructed,
commercial and industrial parcels immediately north and west of the interchange, and the area
south of the interchange that is of mutual concern to Jackson County and the City of Central
Point. The IAMP study area is partially located within the City of Central Point's Urban Reserve
Area CP -4D and Urban Reserve Area CP -113. See Volume 2 for maps of Central Points Urban
Reserve Areas. Although the IAMP study area is under County jurisdiction, development within
the urban reserves will be coordinated in accordance with an Urban Reserve Management
Agreement (URMA) and the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement adopted by the
City and County as part of the GBCV Regional Plan.
The IAMP study area is roughly bound by Bear Creek to the east, Scenic Avenue to the south,
and Kirtland Road to the north. North of the interchange, the western boundary is the CORP
railroad line. South of the interchange, the western boundary is approximately 2,700 feet west
of OR 99. Figure 1 shows the IAMP study area.
i Population Estimate, Portland State University, July 1, 2012
City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008 to 2030, Draft July 18, 2008, page 14.
Introduction Ta
CAP050814 P9. 95
Rd
T CITY
a�
N
Y
c � Newland Rd
M /
of
4a�
oy
is
J �
---Gibbon I
c 0,
_ ow On s Rd p.
[' f 1
Eric'
R
CAP050814 Pg. 96
L
pC
J
O
n
rl
;`
rkLtL
V
y'
�.
1
=I
m
t
�ENNT
u '
>, —POINT
,
,,om 500 0 1,000 F.r
Legend
Figure 1
4�.[ IAMP Study Area
Source: JacYmn COi,* GIs
TAMP Study Area
Mep Prepereafiy
L „_j Central Point UGB
and Street Network
• Study Intersections
0
I -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
Interchange Area Management Plan
CAP050814 Pg. 96
]AMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
1.4. IAMP Goals and Objectives
The goal of this IAMP is to maintain the function of Interchange 35 and maximize the utility of
the recent investment in upgrading the interchange.
The objectives of the IAMP are to:
• Protect the function of the interchange as specified in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP)
and Jackson County Transportation System Plan (TSP).
• Provide safe and efficient operations on I -5 and OR 99 as specified in the OHP and
Jackson County TSP.
• Identify system improvements and management techniques that would not preclude
connection of the newly designated OR 140 to the OR 62/140 junction.
• Develop an access management plan that provides for safe and acceptable operations
on the transportation network, and meet OHP requirements and the access spacing
standards in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734 -051.
• Incorporate the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan into the design and
management systems for Interchange 35, including recommended strategies for land
use control.
• For areas outside of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, identify future land
uses that would be inconsistent with the operation and safety of the new interchange
and develop strategies for recommended land use controls.
1.5. Planning Process
The IAMP for Interchange 35 was developed through a series of technical analyses.
Key elements of the process include:
• Evaluation of baseline conditions, such as existing and future traffic operations,
environmental constraints, land use designations, and community facilities (Evaluation
of Baseline Conditions); and evaluation of the projected URA impacts within the
planning horizon
• Alternatives development and evaluation (Concept Development and Analysis)
• Creation of the IAMP, including access management and local system improvements
(Management Strategies)
• Implementation measures (Summary of Recommended Actions)
This document provides a summary of each of these elements. A second volume provides the
detailed analysis and supporting documentation that led to the development of the plan.
Three advisory committee meetings were held for Interchange 35 that included technical,
citizen, and City staff. ODOT and the City of Central Point provided technical representation.
The meetings included graphic presentations and facilitated discussion to solicit input. The
meetings occurred on January 16, 2009, February 24, 2009, and September 23, 2009.
Introduction
CAP050814 Pg. 97
TAMP. 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
September 2013
Consistency with the OR 140 Corridor Plan was also an element of the planning process because
the study areas overlap between the intersection of Blackwell /Kirtland Road and Interchange
35. Technical, citizen advisory and public meetings were conducted as part of the OR 140
Corridor Plan project and focused on alternatives, the freight route status and designation
throughout the corridor, and safety. These meetings included representatives from ODOT,
Department of Land Conservation Department (DLCD), Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization (RVMPO), and Jackson County, the City of Central Point, Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and Rogue Valley Transit District (RV--D).
Introduction
CAP050814 Pg. 98
TAMP: I -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
2. EVALUATION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
This section summarizes baseline conditions in the IAMP study area including an overview of
the regulatory framework that guides the process. Land use within the study area is presented
and potential land use or environmental constraints are identified. Existing transportation
system and traffic conditions in the study area are evaluated to identify deficiencies. Future
traffic operations and safety are then assessed to determine how conditions may worsen.
2.1. Overview of the Regulatory Framework
State and local regulations, policies, and transportation and land use plans provided the legal
framework for preparing the TAMP. (For a complete list of the guiding framework, refer to the
summary description of all relevant plans and policies included in Technical Memorandum #2 in
Volume 2 of this IAMP.) The language contained within these documents provides guidance to
the state and local jurisdictions on how to manage transportation facilities and land uses in the
study area to protect the interchange function, provide for safe and efficient operations, and
minimize the need and expense for making major improvements to the interchange through
the 2034 planning horizon.
The operational standards for study area roadway facilities designated by ODOT and Jackson
County, and the access management standards designated by COOT are all discussed below.
2.1.1. Operational Standards
The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP)' has established several policies that enforce general
objectives and approaches for maintaining highway mobility. Of these policies, the Highway
Mobility Policy (Policy 1F) establishes mobility targets for peak hour operating conditions for all
highways in Oregon based on the location and classification of the highway segment being
examined. These targets are based on the volume -to- capacity (v /c) ratio, where volume is the
traffic demand and capacity is maximum throughput. The OHP policy also specifies that the v/c
ratio standards be maintained for ODOT facilities through a 20 -year horizon. For the concept
evaluation, the Highway Design Manual (HDM)4 was used.
A v/c ratio of less than 1.00 indicates that the volume is less than capacity. When it is closer to
0.00, traffic conditions are generally good with little congestion and low delays for most
intersection movements. As the v/c ratio approaches 1.00, traffic becomes more congested
and unstable with longer delays. Another standard for measuring traffic capacityand quality of
service of roadways at intersections is level of service (LOS). Six standards have been
3 Table 6: Volume to Capacity Targets for Peak Hour Operating Conditions, 1999 Oregon
Highway Plan, OHP Policy IF Revisions Adopted by Oregon Transportation Commission:
December 21, 2011, Oregon Department of Transportation.
4 Table 10 -1: 20 year Design - Mobility Standards (Volume /Capacity [V/Cl Ratio), Highway Design
Manual, Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, OR, 2003.
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions
CAP050814 Pg. 99
TAMP: I -S Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
2013
established ranging from LOS A where there is little or no delay, to LOS F, where there is delay
of more than 50 seconds at unsignalized intersections, or more than 80 seconds at signalized
intersections.
The applicable target for the freeway (1 -5) is a maximum v/c ratio of 0.85, but the freeway
ramps are guided by requirements of the intersecting roadway system. The Interchange 35
ramps intersect with two state highways —OR 140 and OR 99. OR 140 begins at the
northbound ramp terminal and runs northward along Blackwell Road as a statewide highway
and designated freight route. Between the ramp terminals, OR 99 is classified as a statewide
highway and designated freight route. South of the southbound ramp terminal, OR 99 is a
district highway. The interchange is located just outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for
the City of Central Point but lies within the City's urban reserve area, and the Rogue Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) boundaries.
For interchange ramp terminals, the OHP states the maximum v/c ratio shall be the smaller of
the v/c ratio of the crossroad or 0.85. The v/c ratio in the OHP for a statewide highway (freight
route) is 0.85. The applicable standard for both the ramp terminals is 0.85.
2.1.2. Applicable Access Management Standards
Managing access to the roadway system around the interchange protects the public investment
in the interchange facilities, thus the OHP devotes an entire sections to the discussion of access
management for state facilities and the surrounding roadways. More detailed requirements,
definitions of actions, and the access spacing standards for state highways are specified in
OAR 734 -051 (Division 51): Highway Approaches, Access Control, Spacing Standards, and
Medians s Ideally, a project will include provisions by which access within the project limits can
be made fully compliant with Division 51. In many instances, however, access needed for
existing development will not allow these standards to he met. When the requirements and
standards cannot be met, progress toward meeting the applicable standards must be
demonstrated by increasing access spacing closer to the standard in Division 51.
Interchange 35 is located outside of a UGB and thus is subject to the rural spacing standards.
On the freeway, the desired spacing between interchanges (ramp -to -ramp) is 2 miles. On the
intersecting roadway, the desired spacing between the interchange ramps and the next closest
access is'' /. mile (1,320 feet). Private accesses (driveways) are generally subject to the same
spacing standards as public accesses, with exceptions for those grandfathered in (legally
constructed prior to 1949) or where a right of access has been given through a reservation of
access or a grant of access.
s Appendix C: Access Management Standards, 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Technical
Amendment 06 - 21 to include changes adopted as Amendments 04 - 13 and 05 - 16, Oregon
Department of Transportation.
6 A complete copy of Division 51 can be found online at,
http://www.cregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ACCESSMGT/docs/DIVISION-51.pdf
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions
CAP050814 Pg. 100
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
2.2. Land Use
Existing and planned land uses affect traffic patterns and the operations of transportation
facilities.
2.2.1. Existing Land Uses
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the interchange is mostly agricultural -based except for
Erickson Air - Crane, which is located west of the interchange and north of Willow Springs Road.
The area east of Blackwell Road in the study area is used for rural uses, agricultural, and rural
residential. West of Blackwell Road, rural uses, agricultural, and rural residential still dominate;
however, there are small areas of industrial uses.
1.2.2. Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning
The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan map identifies most of the parcels immediately
around the interchange as Agricultural (see Figure 2). Just north of the interchange, between
1 -5 and Blackwell Road, there is a small pocket of parcels designated Commercial. The Erickson
Air Crane property is designated Industrial, as is the majority of land north of 1 -5 on both sides
of the railroad line (and Gold Ray Road). Farther north of the interchange, there are lands
designated Agricultural west of Blackwell Road and lands designated Aggregate Resource east
of Blackwell Road.
Jackson County zoning immediately surrounding the interchange is primarily Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU), except for a small pocket north of the interchange that is zoned Interchange Commercial
(IC) (see Figure 3). The remaining parcels in the study area are designated EFU, Open Space
Reserve, Woodland Resource, Aggregate Resource, and Urban Residential 1. There are three
clusters of parcels zoned Rural Residential (RR -5) within the study area. One is west of Erickson
Air Crane, one is east of OR 99 and north of Eric Avenue, and the third is off of Lark Lane. There
are clusters of parcels zoned Urban Residential (UR -1) west of Blackwell Road. The Erickson Air
Crane property and a portion of the area east of Talc Road north of the interchange are zoned
General Industrial (GI). East of Blackwell Road and south of the railroad tracks are parcels
zoned Aggregate Removal.
2.2.3. Future Jackson County Land Use
The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (GBCVRP) identifies the Tolo area as an urban
reserve designated for future employment lands (CP -1B) and open space lands (CP -4D).
Figure 4 shows the Urban Reserve Area (URA) boundaries for CP -113 and CP -4D, and the existing
Jackson County designations and development patterns.
There have been discussions between ODOT and property owners regarding commercial uses
ancillary to and supportive of industrial land. Any future commercial uses will need to go
through the local approval process and ODOT will provide comment at that time.
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions g
CAP050814 Pg. 101
CAP050814 Pg. 102
111. LIVIOII Lmo 111F1. .m, ,,
CAP050814 Pg. 103
6
Legend
\ eGne OUener Xlrle OGP PUMar
JG G Wlh 5rnnd— ((IGRI
G11Lne(11W
11L R er-
Ts: Lvte
Lnv Lmrae
Ovrna[ 3WOyhcea_
... n(y Campcehensrca Plan
Poas(m / OVan Spe¢ Lau C
,,,gar Rem—1 Land
�y culWml L. my
Cnmme val Lan
� lidusl,al L—,
Lm(u1CxLed
Rurel Res uental La tl
lliryan P.ce,tlenAal LanC
3,000 1,500 0
3,000 Feet
S..
G.1( Bear Creek vanar Regional Plan.
ExWing Bevebpnent Pad —W,,
C..., PO /nt Novem0er 4009.
kta0 Praparetl By
CAP050814 Pg. 104
CP-4D
...
• J
CiPAC y ti
Y � .
aL) r= [
_. '••. . •... .� ..
r�
\ aT�
Figure 4
Existing Development
Patterns Map
1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
Interchange Area Management Plan
TAMP: 1 -5 interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
The City of Central Point is in the process of amending its UGB and annex this land area, likely
through multiple UGB updates. The GBCVRP designates 100 percent of the 521 net acres (544
gross) in Central Point Urban Reserve CP -113 (Tolo area) for employment, and 100% of CP -4D is
designated for open space.. "Employment land" includes three categories: retail, industrial,
and public. However, the GBCVRP envisions the Tolo area employment land as primarily
designated for industrial uses similar to those in an industrial park:
Consequently, and subject to the above TAMP condition, CP -1B was found to be
suitable for Urban Reserve designation as it will efficiently accommodate identified
urban land needs, has reasonable access to public facilities and services including
sewer and water (Atlas, Map 5 — Water and Sewer), and is and will continue to be
predominately devoted to industrial uses in a manner compatible with nearby
agricultural and forest activities [emphasis added]. Regional buffering standards
will improve the current situation. Also, designation of the Tole Area CP -16 will
provide a substitute land base for the previously adopted Seven Oaks Interchange
Area of Mutual Planning Concern which will be retained as Agricultural land rather
than preserved for future Industrial use.
The current City of Central Point Industrial designations (M -1, Industrial District and M -2,
Industrial General District) allow a broad range of uses and have no site area (size)
requirements. The districts are sufficiently flexible to accommodate industrial development.
addition, the districts conditionally permit "business offices and commercial uses that are
compatible with and closely related in their nature of business to permitted uses in the M -1
district, or that would be established to serve primarily the uses, employees, or customers of
the M -1 district." The Tolo area is identified to serve as a strategic transportation hub (the
convergence of railroad, OR 99, and 1 -5) and potentially to include a nearby truck -train freight
transfer site.
2.3. Environmental, Community, and Cultural Resources
In 2005, a narrative' was prepared summarizing existing environmental, community, and
cultural resources in the vicinity of Interchange 35 to help inform the development of
conceptual alternatives for the Blackwell Road overpass and the associated interchange
improvements. The narrative is based on previous work' prepared as part of the Oregon
Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) III that focused on replacing deficient bridges across the
state.
Existing Soils, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Narrative, David Evans and Associates, Inc.,
2004.
' Environmental Baseline Report for the OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program, Jackson
County, COOT Region 3, Southern Oregon Coastal Basin, Oregon Highways 99 and 66,
Interstate 5, Parametric, 2004, and a Supplemental Environmental Baseline Report, Mason,
Bruce & Girard, 2004.
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions
CAP050814 Pg. 105
12
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
The narrative addressed the following resources:
• Aquatic resources
• Botanical protected species habitat
• Anadromous fish
• Hazardous materials
• Noxious weeds
• Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources
• Historical and archaeological resources
• Sensitive noise receptors
• Water quality
• Wetlands
• Floodplains
• Wildlife
Potential resource issues identified because of the proximity of the resources to the study area
include:
• Bear, Willow, and Dean Creeks flow through the IAMP study area and support various
fish species. Bear Creek supports the Southern Oregon /Northern California Coasts
Evolutionarily Significant Unit coho salmon, Chinook salmon, steelhead, and resident
fish species (rainbow trout and sculpin). It is also highly likely that the creeks support
the federal and state species of concern Pacific lamprey.
• Two resources were identified as "Eligible` in the Oregon Historic Sites Database for
National Register listing in the study area between Blackwell Road and 1 -5 just north of
the interchange.
• Three single - family residences were identified as Sensitive Noise Receptors.
• Two hazardous materials sites were identified near the interchange.
Design of the interchange and Best Management Practices (BMPS) minimize and mitigate
impacts to resources. Additionally, construction associated with the IAMP will follow all
applicable federal and local regulatory processes and permitting associated with protection of
environmental, community, and cultural resources.
2.4. Existing Transportation Conditions
This section summarizes existing (2008) PM peak hour intersection operations and safety
issues. At the time of the existing conditions analysis, Interchange 35 was completing
construction to replace the functionally obsolete and structurally deficient Blackwell Road
overpass. The newly constructed overpass Includes reconfiguration of the southbound ramp
terminal to provide a looping southbound off ramp and a standard diamond on -ramp. The
northbound terminal remains in the standard diamond configuration. The overpass is a three -
lane structure with bicycle lanes. 1 -5 runs underneath with two travel lanes each in the
northbound and southbound directions. These improvements were assumed to be completed
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions 13
CAP056614 Fs 106
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
for the existing analysis. (Detailed discussions of existing conditions can be found in Technical
Memorandum #3 in Volume 2 of this IAM P.)
2.4.1. Roadway Inventory
The roadways within the Interchange 35 study area are largely rural in nature, with no
sidewalks and few bike lanes. The major roadways in the study area include 1 -5, OR 99, OR 140,
Blackwell Road, Kirtland Road, Willow Springs Road, Seven Oaks Road, and Scenic Avenue.
Table 1 presents an inventory of study area roadways and their general characteristics.
Table 1. IAMP 35 Study Area Roadway Inventory
Notes'.
1. From Interchange 35 to Mlle Point (MP] 0.51(approximately 0 1 miles north of Eric Avenue).
2. From MP 0.51 to southern boundary of (AMP study area.
3. Basic Rule applies Motorist must drive at speed that is reasonable and prudent at all times by considering other traffic, road, and weather
conditions, dangers at Intersections, and any other conditions that affect safery and speed.
4. Widths may vary at realigned Blackwell Read/Kirtland Road intersection.
1 -5 runs northwest to southeast through the study area. For the purposes of the TAMP, 1 -5 is
assumed as an east -west facility. Parallel facilities to the north include Kirtland Road and to the
south Willow Springs Road, Eric Avenue, Seven Oaks Road, and Scenic Avenue. Blackwell Road,
also known as OR 99 (between the ramp terminals and south) and as OR 140 (north of the
interchange), provides access to the interchange and also serves north -south travel through the
study area. The interchange is the northernmost 1 -5 access to the City of Central Point,
connected by OR 99. Additionally, Interchange 35 connects to the White City area and many
industrial developments via OR 140.
2.4.2. Existing Access Inventory
The OHP standards for access locations are two miles between interchange ramps on 1 -5, and
1,320 feet (Ya mile) between on- and off -ramps and roadway intersections or driveways. This Y4-
mile area is called the Influence Area of the interchange. Along the statewide section of OR 99
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions M 14
CAP050814 Pg. 107
State
County
Posed
Right of
Paved
Shoulder
No of
Functional
Functional
I
speed
Way Width
Width
yor
Travel
Roadway
CI—I vatmn
Classdrathen
Imph)
(feet)
(feat(
(ha)
lanes
oaouurediaion
1 -5
Interstate Highway
65
250
NB'. 3e
NB '.6
Q
SB: 38
5 6
OR 99 South of 1 SB Ramps
District Highway
Arterial
05' /5S'
105' /80°
48r/60°
3'/4°
6
Statewide Highway/
OR 99 Between l -5 Ramps
Arterial
45
105
48
6
3
Freight Route
Statewide Highway/
Minot Arterial
45
30 -32
Blackwell Hal 140
60`
34
2
Freight Route
Statewide Highway/
Kirtland Rd /OR 140
Minor Arterial
45
60`
26
1 -2
2
Freight Route
Jackson County Jurisdiction
Blackwell Rd (we. of
Rural Major
Minor Arterial
45
60
32
4
2
Kirtland Read)
Collector
Willow Springs Rd
Local
Local
not posed'
60
2fi
2
2
Seven Oaks Rd
Local
Local
not posted'
60
26
2
2
Minor Collector
Minor
Scenic Ave
45
60
2fi
Z
2
Collector
Notes'.
1. From Interchange 35 to Mlle Point (MP] 0.51(approximately 0 1 miles north of Eric Avenue).
2. From MP 0.51 to southern boundary of (AMP study area.
3. Basic Rule applies Motorist must drive at speed that is reasonable and prudent at all times by considering other traffic, road, and weather
conditions, dangers at Intersections, and any other conditions that affect safery and speed.
4. Widths may vary at realigned Blackwell Read/Kirtland Road intersection.
1 -5 runs northwest to southeast through the study area. For the purposes of the TAMP, 1 -5 is
assumed as an east -west facility. Parallel facilities to the north include Kirtland Road and to the
south Willow Springs Road, Eric Avenue, Seven Oaks Road, and Scenic Avenue. Blackwell Road,
also known as OR 99 (between the ramp terminals and south) and as OR 140 (north of the
interchange), provides access to the interchange and also serves north -south travel through the
study area. The interchange is the northernmost 1 -5 access to the City of Central Point,
connected by OR 99. Additionally, Interchange 35 connects to the White City area and many
industrial developments via OR 140.
2.4.2. Existing Access Inventory
The OHP standards for access locations are two miles between interchange ramps on 1 -5, and
1,320 feet (Ya mile) between on- and off -ramps and roadway intersections or driveways. This Y4-
mile area is called the Influence Area of the interchange. Along the statewide section of OR 99
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions M 14
CAP050814 Pg. 107
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
and OR 140 the access spacing standard is 990 feet.' The district highway section between the
interchange and Eric Avenue is 500 feet,10 while south of Eric Avenue the district highway
spacing standard is 700 feet."
Interchange 35 spacing on 1 -5 currently meets access spacing standards. It is approximately 2
miles from the next full interchange to the south (Interchange 33) and approximately 5 miles
from the next full interchange to the north (Interchange 40).
At the southbound ramps, Willow Springs Road connects to OR 99 opposite the southbound on-
and off - ramps. The connection was actually rebuilt with the construction of the interchange
improvements but does not meet CHID standards, which prohibit local road connections at
ramp terminals.
North of the interchange, multiple driveways and roadways in the study are closer to the ramp
terminals than ODOT's standards (see Figure 5). North of 1 -5, the first access point is the
realigned Dean Creek Frontage Road, which is located approximately 600 feet away and does
not meet the spacing standard of 1,320 feet. The Dean Creek Frontage Road provides access to
farm parcels and a residence but has been under consideration for higher intensity
development by a number of developers. Between the realigned intersection of
Blackwell /Kirtland Road and Dean Creek Frontage Road on the west side, there are 17
driveways with an average access spacing of 360 feet. In this same section on the east side,
there are 20 driveways with an average access spacing of 315 feet. In this section of roadway,
neither side meets the COOT access spacing standard of 990 feet.
South of the interchange, there are four driveways along OR 99 (three to the west and one to
the east) within 1,320 feet of the southbound ramps that provide single - family residential,
farm, and commercial access. Average spacing between these driveways is approximately 370
feet, compared to the standard of 500 feet. Eric Avenue is located approximately 1,500 feet
from the southbound ramps.
Because Willow Springs Road connects to OR 99 opposite the southbound ramp terminals,
accesses along this county road were also inventoried. There are four access points (three to
the north, one to the south) along Willow Springs Road providing single - family residential, farm,
and business access (Erickson Air Crane) to the interchange. The average access spacing is
approximately 300 feet; however, there is no COOT spacing standard along Willow Springs
Road.
9 Posted speed is 45 miles per hour north of Interchange 35.
10 Posted speed is 45 miles per hour south of Interchange 35.
" Posted speed is 55 miles per hour south of Eric Avenue.
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions
CAP050814 Pg. 108
15
a
i• i!' - _ r� III , I A
ry r �7
® 4w s t:
¢may
s 1 ,z 4
•
�r
4
Access Locations Figure 5
P _ atv 6isdu,,A=sslnvenbo
• Public
®veeo...amek.m.a. w.�mlo�eo.
�wliPAe50AdAncouniv. ESw P9. 109 it
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
2.4.3. Existing Traffic Volume Development
Traffic counts were collected prior to construction of the interchange improvements (year
2008) and seasonally adjusted to correspond to traffic volumes that are seen in the peak
months of the year (July /August), also known as the Design Hourly Volume (DHV). The ODOT
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU) procedures were followed. After peak hour count
data was seasonally adjusted, volumes were balanced to achieve a uniform dataset for analysis.
These volumes, including percentages of trucks (heavy vehicles), are illustrated in Figure 6.
Note that volumes at the interchange were rerouted to reflect the interchange improvements
that were under construction in 2008. However, designation of the OR 140 extension and
construction of the Blackwell Road /Kirtland Road intersection improvements had not begun,
thus the existing conditions analysis reflects the lane configuration in 2008.
2.4.4. Existing Intersection Operations
Table 2 summarizes the analysis results for all study area intersections and Figure 6 shows
volumes and lane configurations.
Table 2. Existing 2008 PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations Analysis Results
Intersection
critical
Movement'
V/c
Ratio'
Delay
(seconds)°
L053
Mobility
Standard°
Signalized Intersections
1 -5 Southhound Ramps at OR 99/Willow Springs
Overall
0.67
23.0
c
0.85
Unsigna/ized Intersections
Kirtland Road at Blackwell Road
SB L/R
82.0
0 85
F
I -5 Northbound Ramps at Blackwell Road
WB LT /R
0.58
17.0
D
0.85
OR 99 at Eric Avenue
we
0.02
1-0.04
5.0
B
0.95
OR 99 at Seven Oaks Road
EB L
8.0
B
0.95
Acronyms'. NB = northbound, 5R = southbound, ER = eartbound, W a = 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 by the overall intersection operations. At unsignalized Intersections, the
critical movement was identified as the stopped movement with the worst v/c ratio,
2. The v/c ratios and levels of service (LOS) are calculated tram the Synch no mac rosimulation analysis, which cannot account for the
influence of signalized intersections on unsignaliied intersection operations or reflect the effects of queue spillover from adjacent lanes
or nearby Intersections.
3. The delay is based on the SmTrafflc microsimulation analysis and reflects the effects of queuing from upstream Intersections.
4, The applicable mobility standards are 0.85 for OR 140 (statewide, freight route In MPOlantl 0.95 for OR 99 (district highway In MPO)
based on the 1999 Oregon Highway Plad .
results indicate where mobility standards are not met.
Source: Stromm NCM m era'ectlon Analysis Report and SimTrafJic m¢mslmuradive
With the exception of the Kirtland /Blackwell Road intersection, all study area intersections
meet applicable operational standards. The southbound Kirtland Road approach at Blackwell
Road is calculated to operate with a v/c ratio greater than 1.00 with substantial delay and
queuing. However, this intersection has subsequently been reconstructed and has no
significant operational issues at this time
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions
CAP050814 Pg. 110
17
ii—eayncrr..
CM - Critical Movement
We - Critical volume -to- capacity ratio (unsignalized)
Intersection volume-to-capacity ratio (signalized)
Del = Critical movment control delay (unsignalized)
Intersection average control delay (signalized)
LOS = Critical movement level of service (unsignalized)
Intersection level of service (signalized)
HV = Percent Heavy Vehicles
Central
ciV
ro wHrt
CM: SB
45�
"loa'10°
az
R zas
o
LOS r
:
P-
V e%
h'. "a
oe¢1v
k✓ 10%
PJe.IRe
/
ciV
ro wHrt
LM'. E9 �p � • . 1�` �_ �.
L:
b
C
N
L
r,
930 465 0 930 Feet Legend Figure 6
[AMP Study Area
Source: Jackson Coi GIs �_ Year 2008 PM
Men Procured l Central Point 1108
O Study Intersections Peak Hour Conditions
a Stop Control 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
... a Traffic Signal Interchange Area Management Plan
CAP050814 FO 111
L K
LM:We
130
q
4> a
h'. "a
oe¢1v
a5
Hv: 1IIyz� %1
/u,
05:0
�
�
�
I
OiWfi
J
1
♦
q
�
Hsap
CM: WB HV O%
C
MV B%
rl0 nsz
j
�'
LOS' BBB
`\�
V
ow rings Rd
g
V
y
orcsR ma
\\
O'er
F \
'�
xl
'O
5
v..12 i
^HI 10
N ` \\
1p
as r
3 215
OS:L
Hv 13
,w Springs Rd
Eric
o.ce
�*f
G�.
c Ave
1 ae
\
ree
mH,
19L
K
is
a C
LM'. E9 �p � • . 1�` �_ �.
L:
b
C
N
L
r,
930 465 0 930 Feet Legend Figure 6
[AMP Study Area
Source: Jackson Coi GIs �_ Year 2008 PM
Men Procured l Central Point 1108
O Study Intersections Peak Hour Conditions
a Stop Control 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
... a Traffic Signal Interchange Area Management Plan
CAP050814 FO 111
TAMP. 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
1.4.5. Crash History Analysis
A crash history analysis was conducted to determine whether any significant, documented
safety issues exist within the study area. The summary includes data from years 2003 through
2007. The crash patterns presented in this summary for the southbound ramps at
OR 99 /Willow Spring Road and Kirtland Road /Blackwell Road intersections do not reflect the
recent modifications because construction was either underway or had not yet begun at the
time the analysis was completed. With the possible exception of the OR 99 /Scenic Avenue
intersection, it appears that no safety countermeasures are necessary beyond those that were
recently constructed.
Of the 53 total crashes reported during this five -year period of analysis, there was one fatality
along Blackwell Road, and 33 injury - related crashes. The intersection with the greatest number
of crashes was OR 99 and Scenic Avenue, which accounted for over a quarter of the crashes in
the study area. Six fixed - object collisions, one rollover fatality, and three rear -end collisions
occurred on Blackwell Road between the interchange and the Kirtland Road intersection. An
evaluation of the circumstances surrounding each of the crashes reveals no consistent pattern.
Most of the crashes occurred on curved sections and were caused by motorists driving too fast
for conditions.
There are no 2008 Top 10% Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) locations on either 1 -5 or OR 99
near Interchange 35.
1.4.6. Alternative Modes
The Bear Creek Greenway runs through the study area. The intersection of Blackwell /Kirtland
Road was recently reconfigured with a pedestrian tunnel under OR 140 to provide for the safe
movement of bicyclists and pedestrians.
2.5. Future Baseline Conditions
The analysis of future baseline conditions examines long -term operational and safety concerns
of the financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) system for two land use
scenarios. (Detailed discussions of existing conditions can be found in Technical Memorandum
#4 in Volume 2 of this TAMP.)
1.5.1. Land Use Scenarios
The future baseline analysis is based on two land use scenarios. One of the land use scenarios
for the future baseline analysis is consistent with the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization (RVMPO) RTP forecasts through the year 2034. The second land use scenario
examines the long -term impact of potential development in the area based on the Greater Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan (GBCVRP).
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions W 19
CAP050814 Pg. 112
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
2.5.2. Future Baseline Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Turning movement traffic forecasts far the study area intersections were developed from the
2006 and 2034 forecasting models and the 2008 existing traffic data. The process followed the
procedures in ODOT's APM.
The resulting volumes are shown in Figure 7 for the 2034 RTP Scenario and Figure 8 for the
GBCVRP Scenario. Note that the GBCVRP scenario does not have a specific forecast year but is
assumed to occur sometime beyond the 2034 forecast year for the RTP Scenario.
ea
a
c
a
s
Q
0
c
a
K
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions
CAP050814 Pg. 113
20
Legend
CM = Critical Movement Kirtland Rd ITE GITV
vie = Critical volume-to-capacity ratio (unsignalizetl) TO %N
Intersection volume -to- capacity, ratio (signalized)
Dal = Critical movment control delay (unsignalizetl) Cannel Oregon 6 PES01 Rallmad
Intersection average control delay (signalized)
LOS = Critical movement level of service (unsignalizetl) a �"
Intersection level of service (signalized)
2y Newland Rd
Pd
LOS 33
hack" EO: F
K �mC dc,F II
�p @. �CM'.Ws ��170
LOS i
cm: We
. o.1 11
Lose �' `.� VL�ISow rings Rd y.
Pf 0 � ss
m u '11T Air —
N ae� LOS D
Wm. I
Willow Springs Rd �p �, Eric Sp3nw
C Ave nv
cm. sa o • :�. �. �. a m Lark Ln
roeos �g a —
B
�LOS.0
h n I —{
ap c NTRAL
t7 POINT
i
i
ssp aeo o ssp F. Legend Figure 7
�IAMPStudyArea Future Baseline Conditions
sou¢e: Jackson Count, GIS
Map PrappmdBy. L „_j Central Point UGI3 2034 RTP Scenario
O Study Intersections PM Peak Hour
LI i_ Stop Control 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
If Traffic Signal Interchange Area Management Plan
CAP050814 Pg. 114
Legend
CM - Critical Movement
Kirtland Rtl
CITY
We = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio (unsignalized)
70 WN1TE
Intersection volume -to- capacity ratio (signalized)
Dal = Critical movment control delay (unsignalized)
Central Oregon 6 Pacd Rudiment
Intersection average control delay (signalized)
LOS = Critical movement level of service (unsignalized)
Y.
level of service (signalized)
�Intersecticon
¢
$
Newland Rd
as
Fh
20 Sa �1
ygfi q
IDSF
$ o
n
� Wa
a 5 o�n � rsamo
C. we c
�e 1a 52 �5 i �+�^
Lon c I s yyMow rings Rd
r E11aV. j e Air � onSS.
..,
�
31 an
.� a �s • a°�
., ras r
ow Springs Rtl Eric
`& Ave a� or
B L _gym
t r
rcM: ea A ai 6-.. C 's Lark Ln 1
s r..
°ei�le \ N -�
oJyms:c +
is-
A cl NTRAL
(7
1 POINT
sro 4e5 o Wn Feel Legend Figure B
�;,' � IAMP Study Area
Future Baseline Conditions
Spurts: Jackson County GIS r.
Man Pranoree By L._: Central Point UGe GBCVRP Scenario
ye C O Study Intersections PM Peak Hour
u a Stop Control 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
. -. g Traffic Signal Interchange Area Management Plan
CAP050814 Pg. 115
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
2.5.3. Future Intersection Operations - 2034 RTP Scenario
The 2034 RTP Scenario future baseline traffic analysis results are summarized below. Table 3
presents the operational analysis results for all major study area intersections. Figure 7 shows
volumes and lane configurations for the 2034 RTP Scenario. The future condition assumes the
completed Blackwell Road /Kirtland Road intersection reconfiguration.
Table 3. Traffic Operations— 2034 RTP Scenario— Future Baseline Conditions
Intersection
Critical
Movement'
WC
Ratio
LOS''
Average
Delay'
Mobility
Standard'
Signalized Intersections
-S Southbound Ramps at OR 99 /Willow Springs
Overall 0
72 sec
0.85
Unsignalized Intersections
_ _
Blackwell Road at OR 1401Kirtland /Blackwell Road)
1- 5Northbound Ramps at Blackwell Road (OR 140)
OR 99 at Eric Avenue
OR 99 at Seven Oaks Road
EB L./R
WB L/T /R
WBL /R
EB L/R
0 3 i F
-.. F
0.85
43 sec
11 sec
0.85
0.95
0.03 B
0.05 C
11sec
8 sec
0.95
Acronyms NB = northbound, SB = southbound, EB = eastbound, W N = 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 by the overall intersection operations. At unsignals ed intersections, the
critical movement was identiFled as the stopped movement with the worst we ratio.
2. The we ratios and levels of service (LOS) are alculated from the Synch reacropimulatlon analysis, which cannot account for the
influence of signalized intersections on unsl m gnallzed Intersection operations or reflect the effect s of queue spillover from adjacent lanes
or nearby Intersections.
3. The delay Is based on the AmTrafflc microslmuladon analysis and reflects the effects of queuing from upstream intersections.
4. The app Icable mobility standards are 0.85 for OR 140 (statewide, freight oute In M PC) and GI RS for OR 99 (district highway In MPG)
based on the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan.
E.results in hunts where mobility standards are not met.
Son =: 5ynchm NCM Intersection Aredysis sooner and SimTra fic miooenclumen
Under future baseline conditions, two of the study area intersections would not meet mobility
standards:
• The 1 -5 southbound ramps at OR 99 /Willow Springs Road would operate with a v/c ratio
of 0.95 and at LOS D during the peak hour for the 2034 RTP Scenario. Moderate
queuing in the northbound direction and minimal queuing in the southbound direction
are anticipated.
• The estimated v/c ratio of 1.33 for the 1 -5 northbound ramps at Blackwell Road would
exceed the CHIP mobility standard as well as the capacity of the intersection. The
intersection is expected to exceed the OHP mobility standard within the next five years.
However, traffic simulations indicate that average delays for the westbound left -turn
movement would average about 11 seconds, which is generally considered acceptable.
Simulations also show that queues would remain relatively short, although they would
increase delays for vehicles turning right. ODors preliminary traffic signal warrants do
not support the need for a traffic signal at this location for the next 20 years.
The analysis above assumes the new Blackwell Road /Kirtland Road intersection which is STOP -
controlled on the eastbound (Blackwell Road) approach with free - flowing movements on the
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions
CAP050814 Ing. 116
23
TAMP: I -S Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
2013
northbound (Blackwell Road) and southbound (Kirtland Road) approaches. Future traffic
operations analysis indicates that the eastbound left -turn movement would experience some
congestion during peak conditions; however, the extent of that congestion depends on how
drivers execute the left -turn movement. Some drivers turn left directly into the northbound
travel lane while others may be using the center median refuge to execute a "two- stage' left
turn. A two -stage turn is made when the eastbound driver at the STOP sign seeks a gap in the
southbound traffic and turns left into the median, waits for a gap in the northbound traffic,
then pulls into the northbound travel lane. If drivers take advantage of the center median
refuge, the forecast v/c could be below 0.50. A survey of driver behavior at this location has
not been conducted, so the number of left turns that are executed in the two -stage method is
not available.
2.5.4. Future Intersection Operations - GBCVRP Scenario
The GBCVRP Scenario future baseline traffic analysis results are summarized below. Table 4
presents the operational analysis results for all major study area intersections. Figure 8 shows
volumes and lane configurations for the GBCVRP Scenario.
Table 4. Traffic Operations — GBCVRP Scenario — Future Baseline Conditions
Intersection
critical
Movement'
V/C
Ratior
LOS,
Average
Delays
Mobility
Standard
Signalized Intersections
1- 55outhbound Ra mps at OR 99 /Willow Springs
Overall
F
266 sec
0.85
Unsignalized Intersections
Blackwell Road at OR 140(Kirtland /Blackwell Road)
EB L/R
r
87 sec
0.85
1
0.03
0.06
1-5 Northbound Ramps at Blackwell Road (OR 140)
OR 99 at Eric Avenue
OR 99 at Seven Oaks Road
WB L /T /R
WB L/R
F
C
C
> 500 sec
0.85
0.95
0.95
52 sec
18 sec
EB L/R
Acronyms: Nn= northbound, S9 = stormbound, LR = eastbound, Wn= westbound, L =left-turn movement, IF -through movement, R= rigFt
-
turn movement. Two or more travel movements permitted In one lane group are undiluted with a slash.
Notes:
1. At signalized intersections, the critical movement is represented by the overall intersection operations. At unegnalized Intersections, the
critical movement was identified as the stopped movement with the worst v , ratio.
2. The we ratios and levels of service (LOS) are calculated from the wormy macrosimulation analysis, which cannot account for the
influence of sight llzed Intersections on unsignallzed Intersection operations or reflect the effects of queue spillover from adjacent lanes or
earbylntersecoions.
3. The delay Is based on the senTraffic memsimulation analysis and reflects the effects of queuing from upstream Intersections.
4. The applicable mobility standards are 0.85 for OR 140 (statewide, freight route In MPO)and 0 .95 for OR 99 (district highway In M P0)
based on the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan.
results Indicate where mobility standards are not met.
Source.- synehm HCM mitersecHOn Analysts geport
The results show that, future baseline conditions with the GBCVRP Scenario would significantly
worsen at three study area intersections. All three intersections would exceed capacity and
mobility standards:
• The 1 -5 southbound ramps at OR 99 /Willow Springs Road would operate with a v/c ratio
of 1.31 and at LOS F during the peak hour for the GBCVRP Scenario. Significant queuing
on all approaches is anticipated, and southbound queues would Interfere with
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions MA 24
CAP050814 Pg. 117
TAMP. 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
operations at the northbound ramps. The northbound queues would extend southward
through the OR 99 intersections with Eric Avenue and Seven Oaks Road.
• The eastbound Blackwell Road approach to the realigned Kirtland /Blackwell Road
(OR 140) is calculated to operate with a v/c ratio of 1.67, with substantial delay and
queuing under future baseline conditions with the GBCVRP Scenario.
• The estimated v/c ratio for the 1 -5 northbound ramps at Blackwell Road would worsen
considerably under the GBCVRP Scenario and future baseline conditions. The v/c ratio is
expected to exceed 2.0. A review of delay and queuing indicates that LOS F conditions
would prevail for the critical westbound left -turn movement on the ramp, and queues
would worsen, likely impacting mainline 1 -5 travel. Traffic simulations support this
finding.
m
a
c
v
rn
Q
0
c
3
v
K
Evaluation of Baseline Conditions
CAP050814 Pg. 118
25
TAMP. 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
3. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS
This section summarizes the development of alternatives to address long -range deficiencies at
Interchange 35 and at the Kirtland /Blackwell Road intersection, as well as local street system
alternatives to support future development and address access in the vicinity of the
interchange. The improvements were developed to meet the identified goals and objectives of
this plan, and specifically address issues identified in the problem statement. (Detailed
discussions of concept development can be found in Technical Memorandum #5 in Volume 2 of
this TAMP.)
Further improvements east of the interchange are identified in the OR 140 Corridor Plan
3.1. Preliminary Concepts to Address Operational Deficiencies
After evaluating existing and future baseline conditions, an initial list of solutions was created
to address operational deficiencies. These solution concepts were to provide an understanding
of the diverse range of actions that could be implemented. Concepts initially targeted
improvements unique to individual intersections knowing that different combinations of
improvements could be paired together.
Three intersections were identified as having deficiencies under either the 2034 RTP Scenario or
with the longer -range forecast for the GBCVRP scenario. The concepts considered for each
intersection include:
1 -5 Southbound Ramps (SR) at OR 99 /Willow Springs:
• SR Concept la -Slip Ramp without Willow Springs Connection
• SR Concept lb - Flyover Ramp with Willow Springs Connection
• SR Concept 2a - Dual Lefts without Willow Springs Connection
• SR Concept 2b - Dual Lefts with Willow Springs Connection
• SR Concept 3a - Northbound Through without Willow Springs Connection
• SR Concept 3b - NB Through with Willow Springs Connection
1 -5 Northbound Ramps (NR) at Blackwell Road:
• NR Concept 1- Left -Turn Lane
• NR Concept 2- Traffic Signal
• NR Concept 3 - Signal and Left -Turn Lane
Blackwell Road (BK) at OR 140 (Kirtland /Blackwell Road):
• BK Concept 1 - Traffic Signal
• BK Concept 2- Roundabout
Operational analyses were performed at key intersections for some of the concepts to help
determine their efficacy in addressing deficiencies. In addition, right -of -way needs, concept
resource impacts, and preliminary-level cost estimates were prepared to compare the concepts
to each other.
Concept Development and Analysis WE 25
CAP059914 Pg. 119
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
Finally, the preferred alternative was developed by combining the most promising concepts for
intersection and local street improvements, as described later in this section.
3.2. Local Street System Concepts
One of the elements of an Interchange Area Management Plan (TAMP) is an access
management plan and policy that preserve the functionality of the interchange, protecting its
ability to accommodate traffic volumes safely and efficiently into the future. Access to the
roads connecting to the interstate system is vital to the adjacent property owners who need
access for their businesses and residences. It has also been shown, however, that a
proliferation of driveways and minor street intersections near a ramp terminal can drastically
increase conflicts, causing operational problems, decreasing the capacity of the intersections,
and generally degrading service for all system users.
Several local street system concepts were developed to support future development and
address access in the vicinity of the interchange. These concepts would likely be implemented
over time as additional interchange improvements are implemented or as future development
begins to occur.
On the north side of the interchange, one local network concept was developed by COOT in
cooperation with local property owners for the north side of the interchange through
discussions between ODOT staff and local property owners. The north side concept was built
around two new parallel streets that connect with Blackwell Road (OR 140) at locations at least
mile north of the interchange ramps.
On the south side of the interchange, four local network concepts were initially developed
around the idea of closing the non - conforming Willow Springs Road connection to OR 99
opposite the southbound ramps. Four street network concepts were developed for the area
south of the interchange to address this closure. One element of all four concepts is the
closure of the Seven Oaks Road rail crossing.
3.3. Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative was developed as a result of screening the intersection and local
street network concepts with the City of Central Point. The Preferred Alternative addresses
deficiencies at each ramp terminal, the Blackwell /Kirtland Road intersection as well as local
street networks, while limiting the impacts to nearby Willow Springs Road.
3.3.1. Preferred Alternative Improvements
The improvements that have been incorporated into the Preferred Alternative are intended to
address future capacity issues at three of the study area intersections, preserve the
functionality of the interchange, and protect its ability to accommodate traffic volumes safely
and efficiently into the future. The Preferred Alternative includes elements of the following
intersection concepts: SR Concept 3b, NR Concept 3, BK Concept 1. Phased implementation has
been identified for some of the improvements.
Concept Development and Analysis
CAP050814 Pg. 120
27
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
The proposed improvements are summarized below and are organized by the deficiency or
issue they address. Additionally, benefits of the improvement and options for future
consideration are also included. Figure 9 shows the proposed improvements. Two of the three
preferred alternatives shown have been constructed.
Concept Development and Analysis 28
CAP050814 Pg. 121
s
or
rV
° aP4
q i d 1
p� aa 1
c�e7c i
%
\ I
J �
C
V ,ow rings Rd g
s�
EM, sr\
Rd Eric
C� c Ave
r
a�
{' za munzironn J
as ono Feu xmnmg�iee �
§tea
°m Lark I
TO WHITE OffY
1
VIC-
i1 sNa
oaon
Ramp
a 5
a 5
1 s.
q *I I I
CAP050814 Pg. 122
A
NTRAL �
m
�
i
POINT
i
1
950 490 0 950 Feet
Legend
Figure 9
f, j , TAMP Study Area
Spurzp: Jackson County GIS
Map Prepe.ae ayr�0
L• _f Central Point GGB
Preferred Alternative
05
O Study Intersections
TOT
Traffic Signal
1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
Interchange Area Management Plan
CAP050814 Pg. 122
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
1 -5 Southbound Ramp Improvements
2013
Description:
• Maintain the Willow Springs Road connection in its current configuration.
• Widen the north leg of intersection to receive two northbound through lanes, tapering
to a single lane prior to the bridge structure.
• Restripe to add additional westbound left -turn capacity to the east leg of the
intersection (southbound loop off - ramp).
• Restripe /widen south leg of intersection to receive dual westbound left -turn
movements from the southbound loop off -ramp and restripe northbound right -turn
lane to shared through -right lane.
Benefits and Considerations:
• Operational benefits are similar to installing the slip ramp but without requiring closure
of Willow Springs Road which would impact existing businesses.
• Operations would meet CHIP mobility standards for the 2034 RTP Scenario and would
also meet the Highway Design Manual (HDM) v/c ratios for roadway improvements.
• Operations would be below capacity with the longer term GBCVRP scenario.
• Improvements could be phased.
• Preliminary costs were lower than other alternatives, including the slip ramp with
closure of Willow Springs Road.
Phasing and Triggers:
• Phase 1: Construct the extra northbound through lane capacity when overall
intersection operations exceed applicable mobility standards. Based on straightline
growth between existing and future analysis years, mobility standards will likely be met
or exceeded within the next 10 to 15 years.
• Phase 2: Restripe the southbound off -ramp and restripe /widen the south leg of the
intersection when the Phase 1 improvements are no longer adequate to meet mobility
standards. This is not expected to occur within the next 20 years unless substantial
development in the Told area occurs.
1 -5 Northbound Ramp Improvements
Description:
• Widen the northbound off -ramp to provide a designated westbound left -turn lane with
a minimum storage distance of 200 feet.
• Install a traffic signal.
Benefits and Considerations:
• Queue length on the northbound off -ramp would be reduced by providing extra storage
for the left- turning vehicles.
• Improvements could be phased.
• Signal warrants are not currently met at the intersection and may not be met unless
substantial development in the Told area occurs. (Meeting preliminary signal warrants
Concept Development and Analysis
CAP050814 Pg. 123
mo
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
does not guarantee placement of a traffic signal; rather, approval of the State Traffic
Engineer would be needed.)
Signal timing can be coordinated between the ramp terminals.
The OR 140 Corridor Plan may consider widening Blackwell Road to three or more lanes
in the future. Coordination will be required. This project has been identified in the
Draft 2015 STIP.
Phasing and Triggers:
• Phase 1: Construct a left -turn lane when the intersection operations exceed mobility
standards or queue lengths along the off -ramp no longer provide safe stopping distance
for traffic exiting 1 -5. Based on straightline growth between existing and future analysis
years, mobility standards could be exceeded within the next 5 years. However, with the
drop in traffic volumes and slow recovery, standards may not he exceeded for 5 to 10
years.
• Phase 2: Install the traffic signal when warrants are met or when queue lengths along
the off -ramp no longer provide safe stopping distance for traffic exiting I -5. This is not
expected to occur within the next 20 years unless substantial development in the Tolo
area occurs.
Blackwell /Kirtland Road (OR 140) Intersection Improvements
Description:
• Investigate striping modifications to facilitate two -stage left turns from the eastbound
STOP- controlled approach.12
• Install a traffic signal, but no additional lane capacity.
Benefits and Considerations:
• Use of the median for two -stage left turns is apparent from tire track patterns visible in
the roadway but it is not yet confirmed whether or not restriping to indicate travel
movements are legally permitted In the median can be implemented.
• If roadway striping can be modified to encourage the two -stage left -turn maneuver and
drivers adjust, sufficient capacity may be available with the current STOP - controlled
configuration under the 2034 RTP Scenario.
• Signal warrants are not currently met at the intersection, though preliminary signal
warrants indicate that the intersection would meet warrants within the planning
horizon. (Meeting preliminary signal warrants does not guarantee placement of a traffic
signal; rather, approval of the State Traffic Engineer would be needed.)
• The OR 140 Corridor Plan may consider widening Blackwell Road to three or more lanes
in the future. Coordination will be required.
Phasing and Triggers:
12 This improvement was identified in the OR 140 Corridor Plan Concept Development.
Concept Development and Analysis
CAP050814 Fr 124
31
IAMP.: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
2013
• Phase 1: Modify striping to facilitate the two -stage left turns from the eastbound STOP -
controlled approach. This should occur when the crash rate elevates this to a SPIS site,
traffic growth warrants, or substantial development in the Tolo area occurs.
• Phase 2: Install the traffic signal when warrants are met. This may occur within the next
20 years especially if substantial development in the Told area occurs.
Local Network Circulation Improvements North of the Interchange
Description:
• Construct a local road parallel and east of Blackwell Road to serve development with
connections to Blackwell Road that meet the minimum % -mile access spacing from the
interchange as well as spacing standards for a statewide freight route (OR 140).
• Construct a local road parallel and west of Blackwell Road to serve development with
connections to Blackwell Road that meet the minimum Y -mile access spacing from the
interchange as well as spacing standards for a statewide freight route (OR 140).
• Extend existing Dean Creek Frontage Road to connect with the local road east of
Blackwell Road. Coordinate with Jackson County to close or restrict access at the
current connection immediately north of the interchange should safety or operational
conditions warrant, and upon completion of the eastside local road network that has
been accepted for operations by a public agency.
• Orient new driveway connections along these newly created parallel routes north of the
interchange.
Benefits and Considerations:
• This north side local street network would meet access management spacing standards
and provide a local street network to serve adjacent land use and accommodate the
forecast demand.
• This north side local street network concept would generally improve safety by
consolidating driveways but it may result in some out -of- direction travel.
• This north side local street network concept could be developed to minimize impacts to
properties, developable acreage, and resource lands (until the Told area is rezoned).
• This north side local street network concept could impact area resources including, but
not limited to, Willow Creek and a potentially eligible historic property.
• Consideration will need to be given to new driveway requests along Blackwell Road
before this concept is implemented.
• The OR 140 Corridor Plan may consider widening Blackwell Road to three or more lanes
in the future. Coordination will be required.
Phasing and Triggers:
• Construction of the local road network will most likely occur incrementally as adjacent
properties develop or redevelop and phasing will depend on development patterns
rather than specific volume triggers.
Concept Development and Analysis 32
0
CAP050814 Pg. 125
LAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
2013
Local Network Improvements South of the Interchange
Description:
• Maintain Willow Springs Road connection with OR 99 (opposite the southbound ramps).
• Close Seven Oaks Road railroad crossing and connection to OR 99.
Benefits and Considerations
• This concept will not improve access spacing south of the interchange but existing
access points are all low volume driveways with little potential to develop to higher trip
generators.
Phasing and Triggers:
• Close the Seven Oaks Road railroad crossing and connection to OR 99 when the Twin
Creeks railroad crossing is constructed and the Scenic Road railroad crossing and
connection to OR 99 is improved. These projects are independent of the TAMP. These
projects may require multiple phase funding and may need to be constructed
independently.
OR 140 Corridor Plan Improvements
During development of the IAMP a corridor plan was developed for the OR 140 corridor,
extending from the Interchange 35 to a point approximately four miles east of the OR 140
connection with OR fit.
The OR 140 Corridor Plan recommends the following improvements in the Interchange
Management Area:
• Widen Blackwell Road to three (3) lanes, and provide a setback for five (5) lanes.
• Install a traffic signal at the Kirtland Road intersection with OR 140.
• Install additional roadway delineation, such as textured striping or rumble strips.
For a complete explanation of the recommended improvements, see the OR 140 Corridor Plan.
3.3.2. Future (2034) Operations with Preferred Alternatives
The Preferred Alternative network includes phased improvements at three intersections as well
as local street network improvements. The evaluation uses future traffic volumes from the
2034 RTP and GBCVRP land use scenarios to confirm that the combined concepts would
address operational deficiencies identified under baseline conditions.
It must be noted that the GBCVRP land use scenario is historic, and that development patterns
may not occur precisely as envisioned. Future traffic studies maybe needed to determine the
exact impact of an individual development, and whether and to what degree any of the
preferred alternatives are required to be implemented.
The Preferred Alternative results were compared to the mobility standards set forth in the
HDM; however, a design exception can be supported for improvements that meet the CHIP
mobility targets. The applicable HDM standard for the v/c ratio for statewide freight route is
Concept Development and Analysis
CAP050814 Pg. 126
33
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) Septentber1013
0.85 and the standard fora district highway is 0.85. The operational results for the Preferred
Alternative are presented in Table 5.
The Preferred Alternative results do not include the OR 140 Corridor Plan improvements.
Table 5. Future Conditions Preferred Alternative Peak Hour Traffic Operations
Intersection -
Critical -
Movement'
1034 RTP scenario GBLVRPScenarlo
Vi Ratio'
Los' V/C Ratta'
LOS'
1 -5 Southbound Ramps at OR 99 /Willow Springs
C r r
C r r
F _ ®i
B
E
—_F—
F
Phase 1 -Add Northbound Through Lane
_ -
Phase 2 -Add Westbound Left-Turn Lane
Overall
0.71
0.59
-- _. - _tree..
Overall
1 -5 Northbound Ramps at Blackwell Road (OR 140)
Phase 1 -Add westbound Left -Turn Lane
AT L
Overall
0.62
Phase 2 —Add Traffic Signal
BK Concept 1— Traffic Signal
Phase 1— Stripe Two -Stage Left -Turn Lane'
EB L
C
0 .56
c
0.46
_ — Were
Phase e —Add Traffic Signal
Overall
0.46
A
__ _
0.58
B
OR 99 at Eric Avenue (No Changes)
OR 99 at Seven Oaks Road (Closed)
WR L/R
0.03
13
—
0.03
--
C
—
--
—
Acronyms. NB = northbound, 56 -south bound, ES = eastbound, W B = westbound, L -left turn movement, T= through movement, R = right
turn movement. Two or more travel movements permuted in one lane group are indicated with a slash.
Notes.
1. At signalized intersections, the critical movement is represented by the overall Intersection operations.
3. The v /cratios and levels of service (LOS) are calculated from the Synchro macrosimula tion analysis.
3. The v/c ratio and delay estimate for the two -stage left -turn is dependent on the portion of users that opt to use the median lane to
execute left turns. The range shown reflects high usage to low usage.
=results indicate where HBM mobility standard of 0]5 (statewide freight route) or 85 (district highwayl Is not met
Source: Davidctors and Associates, Inc.
When all phases of the identified intersection improvements are implemented, the Preferred
Alternative would result in adequate operations for study area intersections. However, there is
an operational challenge for the Preferred Alternative, which includes meeting signal warrants
at the northbound ramp terminal and at Blackwell /Kirtland Road intersection.
3.3.3. Phasing Options
Table 6 summarizes the phased improvements in Preferred Alternative. For each phase,
recommendations for timing of the improvements or triggers for the need are identified.
Whether or not the phase is contingent upon other phases or development is also identified.
m
v
c
m
m
Q
O
C
J
d
Concept Development and Analysis Ill
Iff
CAP050814 Pg. 127
34
IAMP. 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
Table 6. Preferred Alternative (TAMP Improvements) Phasing Summary
Descriptron
Phase Timing/Trigger
1-5 Southbound Ramp Improvements
Phase 1;
Implement when traffic volumes increase resulting in
• Restripe northbound right -turn lane to
substandard operations
through -right lane
• Estimated need in 10 -15 years
• Widen the north leg of intersection to receive
two northbound through lanes, tapering to a
single lane prior to the bridge structure.
Phase 2:
• Implement when Phase 1 improvements no longer meet
• Restripe southbound off -ramp (westbound
mobility standards or queue lengths on the off -ramp no
approach) to include one left turn lane and
longer provide safe stopping distance for traffic exiting 1-5
shared left- turn /through /right -turn lane
Not needed In 20 year planning horizon unless the Tolo
• Widen /restripe the south leg fthe intersection
area begins to develop
for additional southbound receiving lane
capacity
1.5 Northbound Ramp Improvements
Phase l:
Implement when traffic volumes increase resulting in
• Widen northbound off -ramp to add a left -turn
substandard operations or when queue lengths along the
lane
off -ramp no longer provide safe stopping distance for
• Retain STOP control
traffic exiting 1-5
• Estimated need in 5 -10 years
Phase 2:
Implement when traffic signal warrants are met or when
• Install traffic signal
queue lengths along the off- ramp no longer provide safe
stopping distance for traffic exiting 1 -5
• This is not expected to occur within the next 20 years
unless substantial development in the Toio area occurs.
Kirtland /Blackwell Road Improvements
Phase 1:
Implement when traffic volumes increase resulting in
• Restripe median on north side of intersection to
substandard operations, or when the crash rate results in
encourage two -stage left- turn from eastbound
this becoming a 5Pl5 site.
STOP - controlled approach
Phase 2:
• Implement when traffic volumes increase resulting in
• Install traffic signal
substandard operations and traffic signal warrants are met.
OR 140 Corridor Plam:
• Implement when crash rates, traffic growth, or
• Widen to provide a 3 -1ane rural section (with
development of the CP -10 area warrants.
setbacks for 5 lanes) and modify curves for
higher design speed
OR 140 Corridor Plan-:
Implement when there occurs a pattern of run- off -the-
• Install additional roadway delineation such as
road crashe,
textured striping or rumble strips
*Seethe OR 140 Corridor Plan for a detailed description of the improvement and analysis.
3.3.4. Cost Estimates
Cost estimates were developed for the Preferred Alternative. These estimates were broken out
by the location of the deficiency being addressed by the improvements. Phasing of these
improvements, where identified, would assist with funding limitations and allow improvements
to be made as they are needed, in response to growth and development in the area. Estimates
Concept Development and Analysis
CAP050814 Pg. 128
35
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
are preliminary and include engineering and construction. The estimates include a contingency
factor but do not include right -of -way costs, and may change as the design is refined. In
addition, the estimates do not account for utility costs or the potential costs of environmental
analyses or environmental mitigation. Cost estimates are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Preferred Alternative Preliminary Cost Estimates
Concept
Cost (2011$)
MOT I County I City I Private
I -S Southbound Ramp at OR 99 Improvements
$1,200,000
Whether and to what degree the
state, County, City, or private
1 -5 Northbound Ramp at Blackwell Road (OR 140)
Improvements
$1,100,000
development contributes to
Blackwell /Kirtland Road Intersection Improvements
improvements will need to be
$500,000
—
determined astraffic volumes
Local Street Network Enhancements North of the
$6,800,000
increase orsafety conditions
Interchange__
warrant. Cost allocations based on
Local Street Network Enhancements South ofthe
$50,000
development will need to be
Interchange
negotiated at the time of
TOTAL
$9,650,000
improvement.
Concept Development and Analysis
CAP050814 Pg. 129
36
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Ooks) September 2013
4. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
An integral part of the IAMP process is providing a strategy and plan to protect the function of
the interchange and its influence area. Management actions can extend the life of the
interchange and provide for incremental implementation of Interchange 35 area
improvements, allowing individual components to be funded and built when needed. Given the
funding constraints and statewide demand for interchange improvements, it will likely require
several years for ODOT, The Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, Jackson County,
and the City of Central Point to develop a funding package and construct all the improvements
recommended in the TAMP.
4.1. Access Management Plan
Access management is an essential tool for protecting the operation of interchange, access to
and from the interchange, and maintaining capacity, traffic flow, and safety in the vicinity of the
interchange. Implementation of access management measures has the effect of protecting the
public investment in an interchange and enabling it to accommodate traffic volumes safely and
efficiently into the future while ensuring circulation necessary for good access to the freeway.
The IAMP acknowledges the vital need of adjacent and nearby property owners to maintain
roadway access to their businesses and residences. However, driveways and minor street
intersections near a freeway ramp terminal can increase conflicts, causing operational
problems, reducing the capacity of the intersections, and generally degrading service for all
system users. Hence, the IAMP must balance the competing needs for compatible land uses,
private access, and the function of the transportation system.
This access management measures for this IAMP form an Access Management Plan, which
represents medium - /long -term measures that may be triggered as land use changes occur (new
development or redevelopment), as future improvements are implemented, or as safety and
operational issues arise. It includes access management actions that can be taken by ODOT,
awd Jackson County and the City of Central Point to protect the facilities.
4.1.1. Access Management Plan and Enhanced Local Network
The IAMP calls for local street network enhancements to the north and south of the
interchange. This new configuration will greatly increase the distance between the access
points and the ramp terminals, thus reducing access conflicts and improving safety at the
Interchange 35. Figure 10 shows the IAMP Improvements and % -mile influence area for the
interchange, excluding ODOT right -of -way.
A draft concept plan for a frontage road was developed and is contained in Volume 2. Although
the nature and pace of development may require changes, the concept frontage road plan
provides a snapshot of what ODOT believes will be required as congestion and safety issues
occur.
Management Strategies
CAP050814 FS 130
37
I
[he northbound ramp 1 ea, y
terminal and the t Y icy .!x _
Blackwell /Kirtland \ (� KZ', ♦ A,113 ' i
intersections t `K Y� • sx A B ~
C. Consolidate /close
driveways along OR 99
(between the southbound
ramp terminal and Eric
Avenue) as properties
redevelop and alternative 3 t
access becomes available
D. Close access from OR 99 to
Seven Oaks Road and
Rtcrossing •�•?•�� '*—+s j� f M•,••
E. Limited/No new access to
between the ••Y"a
southbound ramp terminal W]Ipw3pAngs Rd
and Eric Avenue
21 �*
p t
Enhance Local Street
Network:
1. Develop a local road '. —. •i� C E .E .,
network north of the "•� t
intercha nge to the east
and west of Blackwell Road
to provide access to
undeveloped parcels as iii' , A//`, '•
adjace tto Blackwell parcels i
2. aew eneo Blackwell Road developments north
of the Interchange should
be accessed via network
new streets linked to
Blackwell IY
Blackwell Road', ""'
3. Extend and Dun Road _ :w A`
existing Dean Creek Road t �. ak � � � ,,�r..y ¢•'P19
north %mile �•' fit. ' f � i r
e{yat
h'
I. L'•c F v ;1
Prepared By. Legend Figure 101
Access consolidation /closure Access Management Plan and
m-----► New street connections Enhanced Local Street Network
• • • Limited /no new direct access Y
kClose Access /RRcrossing 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
Interchange Area Management Plan
CAP050814 Pg. 131
.aweuati ��
Access Management
�
1
Measures:�•�f
A. Consolidate /close
•'
��✓
driveways along Blackwell
5
Road (between the
•'.�
northbound ramp terminal
H `�
and 'A mile north) as
J
properties redevelop and
_
-- 1
t
I lternative access becomes
•
. •� 1 p
available
4
S
;••, 1*
B. Limited /no new accessto
Blackwell Road between
It.
I
[he northbound ramp 1 ea, y
terminal and the t Y icy .!x _
Blackwell /Kirtland \ (� KZ', ♦ A,113 ' i
intersections t `K Y� • sx A B ~
C. Consolidate /close
driveways along OR 99
(between the southbound
ramp terminal and Eric
Avenue) as properties
redevelop and alternative 3 t
access becomes available
D. Close access from OR 99 to
Seven Oaks Road and
Rtcrossing •�•?•�� '*—+s j� f M•,••
E. Limited/No new access to
between the ••Y"a
southbound ramp terminal W]Ipw3pAngs Rd
and Eric Avenue
21 �*
p t
Enhance Local Street
Network:
1. Develop a local road '. —. •i� C E .E .,
network north of the "•� t
intercha nge to the east
and west of Blackwell Road
to provide access to
undeveloped parcels as iii' , A//`, '•
adjace tto Blackwell parcels i
2. aew eneo Blackwell Road developments north
of the Interchange should
be accessed via network
new streets linked to
Blackwell IY
Blackwell Road', ""'
3. Extend and Dun Road _ :w A`
existing Dean Creek Road t �. ak � � � ,,�r..y ¢•'P19
north %mile �•' fit. ' f � i r
e{yat
h'
I. L'•c F v ;1
Prepared By. Legend Figure 101
Access consolidation /closure Access Management Plan and
m-----► New street connections Enhanced Local Street Network
• • • Limited /no new direct access Y
kClose Access /RRcrossing 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks)
Interchange Area Management Plan
CAP050814 Pg. 131
TAMP: I -S Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
4.1.2. Access Management Actions
The following actions are recommended as part of the IAMP and will be included in local TSPs
when adopted:
• Construct a local road parallel and east of Blackwell Road to serve development with
connections to Blackwell Road that move toward meeting a A -mile access spacing from
the interchange as well as spacing standards for a statewide freight route (OR 140).
However, meeting the % -mile access spacing from the interchange may be neither
feasible or necessary and the exact location of the access will need to be determined as
part of a collaborative effort between ODOT, Jackson County and property owners.
The local road network will be developed in increments as property is developed.
• Construct a local road parallel and west of Blackwell Road to serve development with
connections to Blackwell Road that move toward meeting a Y -mile access spacing from
the interchange as well as spacing standards for a statewide freight route (OR 140).
However, meeting the Y -mile access spacing from the interchange may be neither
feasible or necessary and the exact location of the access will need to be determined as
part of a collaborative effort between ODOT, Jackson County and property owners.
The local road network will be developed in increments as property is developed.
• Extend existing Dean Creek Frontage Road to connect with the new local road east of
Blackwell Road. Coordinate with Jackson County to identify an alternative access for the
current connection immediately north of the interchange should operational or safety
issues warrant.
Extension should occur concurrently with adjacent development and should be
coordinated with other network improvements.
• Orient new driveway connections along these newly created parallel routes north of the
interchange.
Modifications to driveways may occur with construction of local network improvements
or as properties redevelop.
• Close the Seven Oaks Road connection to OR 99.
Closure should occur when the Twin Creeks railroad crossing is constructed and the
Scenic Road railroad crossing and connection to OR 99 is improved. These projects are
independent of the TAMP.
In addition to these specific actions, driveway consolidation or closure within % -mile of the
interchange should be considered as properties in the vicinity of the interchange are either
developed or redeveloped.
4.2. Transportation Demand Management Measures
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures are designed to reduce vehicle demand,
especially for commuter trips in the peak periods. Goals and policies of the State of Oregon, the
Management Strategies
CAP050814 Fs 132
39
TAMP, 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013
Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), Jackson County, and the City of
Central Point contain provisions that embrace TDM measures.
TDM measures include strategies that shift modes like carpooling, vanpooling, transit, bicycling,
and walking programs; strategies that shift trips to non -peak periods, such as flexible work
schedules and off peak shifts; and telecommuting, which eliminates trips. TDM strategies are
most effective in areas with high concentrations of employment and where a robust transit
system exists. Generally, the strategies are easiest to implement where there are large
employers or where a transportation management association (TMA) has been established to
pool the efforts of many smaller employers. The Rogue Valley TMA, encompassing the Medford
metropolitan area (including the City of Central Point) was established in 2002 but has been
inactive in recent years. Funds for the program are identified in the RTP and are programmed
in the current Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). The funding would
come from a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant.
The current low density development in the vicinity of Interchange 35 does not support many
TDM measures; however, with development of the Told area, as identified in the GBCVRP,
some TDM strategies should be considered for implementation as development occurs in the
vicinity of the interchange.
4.3. Transportation System Management Measures
Transportation System Management (TSM) measures are designed to make maximum use of
existing transportation facilities. A number of TSM measures have been included in the
preferred alternative including traffic control, restriping, and additional turn lanes needed to
address future operational deficiencies at the interchange. Traffic signal optimization and
coordination between signals were assumed for the future analysis of the interchange study
area.
Facility management measures, such as ramp meters, preferential lanes, and signal priority, will
not likely be considered at Interchange 35 in the short term since freeway congestion is not
expected to be a concern in 2030. If 1 -5 should become congested in the future, metering of
interchange ramp terminals throughout the Rogue Valley region may become necessary.
In addition to these TSM measures, coordination with the Rogue Valley Intelligent
Transportation Systems ( RVITS) plan is recommended. Completed in 2004, the RVITS plan is a
20 -year plan that identifies advanced technologies and management techniques that can
relieve traffic congestion, enhance safety, provide services to travelers, and assist
transportation system operators in implementing suitable traffic management measures.
4.4. Summary of Recommended Actions
The implementation of the Interchange 35 IAMP will require the following actions by ODOT,
Jackson County, and the City of Central Point.
Management Strategies
CAP050814 Pg. 133
CEO
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven
ODOT Actions
2013
• Coordinate with Jackson County and the City of Central Point to plan for local road
improvements to maintain and enhance access and protect the operation of the
Interchange as development occurs.
Improving the local street network in the vicinity of the interchange is essential to
maximizing the life of Interchange 35. To the north, two new streets that parallel
Blackwell Road (OR 140) and the rerouting of Dean Creek Frontage Road to the east are
identified. To the south, a new local network may be needed far the closure of the Seven
Oaks Road railroad crossing. Local street development will be incremental, as properties
are developed.
• Apply TSM measures when adding new traffic signals to the state highway or local road
network in the vicinity of the interchange.
Signal interconnect, coordination, and optimization should be included when future
signals (Interchange 35 north ramp terminal and Blackwell /Kirtland Road) are designed
and constructed.
• Include Interchange 35 in the implementation of the RVITS Plan.
Interchange 35 should be included in the implementation of the RVITS Plan, and ramp
metering should be considered at Interchange 35 as part of the long -term management
of the freeway system. The ultimate decision about the deployment of ramp metering
and other ITS measures would belong to ODOT, but would benefit from the cooperation
of Jackson County and the City of Central Point.
• Encourage the use of and incorporate by reference ODOT Procticol Design policies and
guidelines by all agencies.
Jackson County Actions
• Require the improvement of the local street network by future development to support
future development and address access in the vicinity of the interchange and coordinate
the planning, design, and construction of these improvements with ODOT and the City
of Central Point.
Improving the local street network in the vicinity of the interchange is essential to
maximizing the life of Interchange 35. To the north, two new streets that parallel
Blackwell Road (OR 140) and the rerouting of Dean Creek Frontage Road to the east are
identified. To the south, no new local network is needed for the closure of the Seven
Oaks Road railroad crossing.
Local street development will be incremental, as properties are developed.
• Consider and Implement, as needed, TDM strategies in coordination with ODOT and the
City of Central Point for the local road network in the vicinity of the interchange.
TDM strategies that encourage the use of carpools, vanpools, bicycling, and walking
should be continued. Reactivation of the Transportation Management Association
(RVTMA) should be pursued to promote travel options, coordinate shared rides, obtain
Management Strategies
CAP050814 Pg. 134
41
TAMP: 1 -5 Interchange 35 (Seven
2013
grants, advocate for transit service, and provide incentives to participants. Jackson
County and the City of Central Point may wish to establish a mechanism by which
employers of a certain size are required to participate in a TMA, or provide incentives to
employers who choose to participate in a TMA.
• Approve and adopt the IAMP.
GBCVRP Performance Indicator 2.9.1 CP -1B requires that, prior to the expansion of the
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary into the CP -1B area, ODOT, Jackson County, and
the City of Central Point shall adopt an Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) for
the Seven Oaks Interchange Area.
City of Central Point Actions
• Coordinate with ODOT and Jackson County, as applicable, the planning and design of
improvements to the local street network to support future development and address
access issues in the vicinity of the interchange.
Improving the local street network in the vicinity of the interchange is essential to
maximizing the life of Interchange 35. To the north, two new streets that parallel
Blackwell Road (OR 140) and the rerouting of Dean Creek Frontage Road to the east are
identified. To the south, no new local network is needed for the closure of the Seven
Oaks Road railroad crossing. It is anticipated that Jackson County will maintain
ownership and control of the Dean Creek Frontage Road and access.
M
v
c
v
m
Q
O
c
3
v
K
Management Strategies
CAP050814 Pg. 135
42
.�
urego nl
''° luhn A xilzhabeq MD, Coverer
DATE: September 4, 2013
TO: Oregon Transportation Commission
FROM: Matthew L. Garrett " '` V
Director
Department of Transportation
Office of the Director, MS 11
355 C,.pitol St NE
Sa:em, OR 97301 -3871
SUBJECT: Agenda F— Adopt the Interstate 5, Exit 35 Interchange Area Management Plan (LAMP)
Reauested Action
Request to adopt the interstate 5. Exit 35 Interchange Area Management Plan w an element of the
Oregon Highway Plan and adopt the findings in support of this action. The adoption of this plan
implements Policy 3C of the Oregon Highway Plan. Findings in support of this action are found in
Exhibit B. Adoption of the plan will constitute an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan.
Backeround
The plan was prepared in coordination with the City of Central Point, Jackson County and the Rogue
Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) worked with these jurisdictions to develop a plan that protects the function of the system and
identifies needed improvements. The county is in the process to adopt the IAMP into its
comprehensive plan and implement ordinances into its land use code. A notice of intent to adopt and a
copy of the plan were sent to Jackson County and the Rogue Valley MPO. No comments were
received. Region planning staff contacted Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD), which indicated support for the plan; however, no written correspondence was received.
Attachments:
• Exhibit A — Staff Report
• Exhibit B— Findings
• Exhibit C — Contact Information
• Location and Vicinity Maps
• PowerPoint Presentation
Conies Wattachments) to:
Jerri Bohard Dale Hermann
Paul Mather Erik Havig
Frank Reading Kelly Jacobsen
Agenda F_ 15_Fxi05_IAMP Llr.d
9/3/2013
Patrick Cooney Lisa Martinez
McGregor Lynde Mike Baker
CAP050814 Pg. 136
Exhibit A
Staff Report
1 -5, Exit 35 Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP)
September 2013
Requested Action
Region 3 requests that the OTC adopt the 1 -5. Exit 35 interchange Area Management
Plan (IAMP) to implement Policy 3C of the Oregon Highway Plan.
Background
This Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) for interchange 35, is a follow -up to the
Interstate -5 (1-5) Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) Improvement Project Interchange Area
Study Hot, 35 IAS).
This project summarizes information contained in the prior study, develops new traffic
baselines for current year conditions and forecast traffic conditions, identifies system
problems and solutions, develops a local street network, and other measures necessary to
ensure the safety and mobility of traffic on and around interchange 35 through the
planning horizon.
Phe IAMP was developed with in coordination with the City of Central Point and
Jackson County.
Jackson County is in the process of adopting the [AMP. Notices of Intent to Adopt and
consistency determination requests were sent to Jackson County and DLCD, and no
responses were received.
Plan Purpose and Function
Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) is principally a rural interchange that connects Interstate 5
(I -5) with Oregon Highway (OR) 99 to the south and Blackwell Road to the north. OR 99
is a district level highway that serves the nearby community of Central Point to the south.
Blackwell Road serves some employment lands northeast of the interchange and provides
a connection with White City to the southeast. Blackwell Road serves significant truck
trips between the interchange and White City, and is part of the OR 140 highway
connecting OR 62 and I -5.
The intended function of Interchange 35 is to safely and efficiently accommodate future
traffic demands. 'typically, the traffic demands are based on the current rural and limited
future employment land uses in the interchange vicinity. However, as a result of the
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (GBCVRP), the interchange improvements
outlined in this IAMP are designed to accommodate proposed future development as
well. This IAMP is not intended to facilitate major commercial or residential
development in the interchange area.
Exhibit A Staff Report Page 1
1 -5, Exit 35 IAMP
September 2013
CAP050814 Pit 137
Plan Goals and Objectives
The goal of this LAMP is to maintain the function of Interchange 35 and maximize the
utility of the recent investment in upgrading the interchange.
The objectives of the LAMP are to:
• Protect the function of the interchange as specified in the Oregon Highway Plan
(OHP) and Jackson County Transportation System Plan (TSP).
• Provide safe and efficient operations on 1 -5 and OR 99 as specified in the OHP
and Jackson County TSP.
• Identify system improvements and management techniques that would not
preclude connection to the newly designated OR 140 to the OR 62/140 junction.
• Develop an access management plan that provides for safe and acceptable
operations on the transportation network, and meet OHP requirements and the
access spacing standards in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734 -051.
• Incorporate the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan into the design and
management systems for Interchange 35, including recommended strategies for
land use control.
• For areas outside of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, identify future
land uses that would be inconsistent with the operation and safety of the new
interchange and develop strategies for recommended land use controls.
Traffic Analysis
The ]AMP examined year 2008 and year 2034 traffic and safety conditions within the
IAMP Stud} Area.
Management Measures
The following management measures were developed:
• ODOT shall coordinate with Jackson County and the City of Central Point to plan
for local road improvements to maintain and enhance access and protect the
operation of the interchange as development occurs.
• Apply Transportation System management measures as needed.
• Include Interchange 35 in the implementation of the RV ITS plan.
• Require the improvement of the local street network as development occurs.
• Consider and implement Transportation Demand Management strategies.
Access Management Measures
The access management plan provides the framework for ODOT decisions to permit
approach roads within the interchange management area. It inventories existing approach
roads and identifies minimum spacing standards for future approaches. The OR 140 and
OR 99 standards were based on existing approach roads, driveways and local street
connections that existed when Jackson County jurisdietionally transferred OR 140 to
ODOT. Future approach roads or driveways will be consistent with or move in the
direction occurrent standards.
Cxbibit A Staff Report Page 2
I -5, Exit 35 IAMP
September 2013
CAP050814 Pg. 138
The access management plan met the spirit and intent of Senate Bill 408 by ensuring that
affected property owners and Jackson County were aware of the planning concepts,
including implications to private approach roads, driveways and local street connections.
Property /business owners and Jackson County staff participated in the planning process.
Additionally, ODOT staff sent a direct mailing inviting property owners abutting OR 140
to the public open house, advising them that some of the planning concepts may impact
their approach roads or driveways including, but not limited to, closure, consolidation or
realignment.
Public Involvement
The ]AMP public imolvement process utilized the standing City of Central Point
Citizens Advisory Committee. Staff made regular presentations to the Committee
regarding the TAMP and recommended measures. All meetings were advertised, open to
the public and held at an ADA- accessible facility.
The IAMP was presented to the public at three open houses, providing information and
soliciting opinions on the ]AMP measures.
Staff met personally with properq and business owners and /or their representatives
regularly during development of the DAMP. This included meetings with representatives
of Erickson Air -Crane and Consolidated Freight.
Summary of Draft Findings
ODO'F's State Agency Coordination Agreement requires that the O FC adopt findings of
fact when adopting facility plans (OAR 731 -015- 0065). Pursuant to these requirements,
ODOR has developed findings to support the OTC adoption of the 1 -5. Exit 35 [AMP.
For all applicable policies, the plan has been found to be compliant with adopted state
and local policies.
Exhibit B Findings of Compliance for the plan is attached and address compatibility
and /or compliance with state and local plans, policies, and ordinances /statutes/rules.
Exhibit Staff Report
1 -5, Exit 35 TAMP
September 2013
CAP050814 Pg. 139
Page 3
Exhibit B
Findings
1 -5, Exit 35 Interchange Area Management Plan
September 2013
The adoption of facility plans is governed by Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 731-
015 -0065, Coordination Procedures for Adopting Final Facility Plans. A "facility plan"
is defined by OAR 731- 015 -0015 as "... a plan for a transportation facility..:'. This I -5,
Exit 35 Interchange Area Management Plan (]AMP) is a long -range management plan for
the Interchange 35 transportation facility. As such, it meets the definition of OAR 731-
015 -0015, and OAR 731 -015 -0065 applies.
OAR 731 - 015-0065 Coordination Procedures for Adopting Final Facility Plans
(1) Except in the case of minor amendments, [ODOT] shall involve Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) and affected metropolitan planning
organizations, cities, counties, state and federal agencies, special districts and other
interested parties in the development of amendment of a facility plan. This
involvement may take the form of mailings, meetings or other means that [ODOT]
determines are appropriate for the circumstances. [ODOT] shall hold at least one
public meeting on the plan prior to adoption.
(2) [ODOT] shall provide a draft of the proposed facility plan to planning representatives
of all affected cities, counties and metropolitan planning organization and shall
request that they identify any specific plan requirements which apply, any general
plan requirements which apply and whether the draft facility plan is compatible with
the acknowledged comprehensive plan. If no reply is received from an affected city,
county or metropolitan planning organization within 30 days of [01301's] request for
a compatibility determination, [ODOT] shall deem that the draft plan is compatible
with that jurisdiction's acknowledged comprehensive plan. [ODOT] may extend the
reply time if requested to do so by an affected city, county, or metropolitan planning
organization.
(3) If any statewide goal or comprehensive plan conflicts are identified, [ODOT] shall
meet with the local government planning representative to discuss ways to resolve the
conflicts. These may include:
a) Changing the draft facility plan to eliminate the conflicts;
b) Working with the local governments to amend the local comprehensivc
plans to eliminate the conflicts; or
c) Identifying the conflicts in the draft facility plan and including policies
that commit [ODOT] to resolving the conflicts prior to the conclusion of
the transportation planning program for the affected portions of the
transportation facility.
(4) [ODOT] shall evaluate and write draft findings of compatibility with acknowledged
comprehensive plans of affected cities and counties, findings of compliance with any
statewide planning goals which specifically apply as determined by OAR 660-030 -
0065(3)(d), and findings of compliance with all provisions of other statewide
planning goals that can be clearly defined if the comprehensive plan of an affected
Exhibit B - FINDINGS
1 -5, Exit 35IANIP
CAP050814 Pg. 140
city or county contains no conditions specifically applicable or any general
provisions, purposes or objectives would be substantially affected by the facility plan.
(5) [ODOT] shall present to the Transportation Commission the draft plan, findings of
compatibility with the acknowledged comprehensive plans of affecting cities and
counties and findings of compliance with applicable statewide planning goals.
(6) The 'I7ansportation Commission shall adopt findings of compatibility with the
acknowledged comprehensive plans of affected cities and counties and findings of
compliance with applicable statewide planning goals when it adopts the final facility
plan.
(7) [ODOT] shall provide copies of the adopted final facility plan and findings to DLCD,
to affected metropolitan planning organizations, cities, counties, state federal
agencies, special districts and to others who request to receive a copy.
Findings of Compliance with OAR 731- 015 -0065
Pursuant to the requirements of OAR 731 - 015 -0065. ODOT prov, ides the following
findings to support the OTC adoption of the ]AMP.
Requirement: OAR 731- 015 - 0065(1)
Except in the case of minor amendments, [ODOT] shall involve DLCD and affected
metropolitan planning organizations, cities, counties, state and federal agencies, special
districts and other interested parties in the development of amendment of a facility plan.
This involvement may take the form of mailings, meetings or other means that [ODOT]
determines are appropriate for the circumstances. [ODOT] shall hold at least one public
meeting on the plan prior to adoption.
Finding:
To develop the [AMP ODOT established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
composed of local and state staff, utilized the established City of Central Point Citizens
Advisory Committee for public input, met individually with affected businesses and
property owners and provided opportunities to comment to local and state agencies.
The TAC included representatives of Jackson County, the City of Central Point, the
Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) and ODOT. The TAC met
regularly to review and comment on materials, provide direction and oversight for the
plan, and to reach consensus on system improvements and recommended measures.
Regular public presentations and opportunities for input were made to the established
City of Central Point Citizens Advisory Committee. Committee meetings were
advertised, open to the public and held in an ADA- accessible facility.
The IAMP was presented to the public at a series of open houses for both the IAMP and
OR 140 Corridor Plan, on 7/27/11, 11/16/11 and 1 ]/15/12. The open houses including
graphic presentations and a Spanish - language translator.
Exhibit E - FINDINGS
1 -5, Exit 35 IAMP
CAP050814 Pg. 141
ODOT staff met several times with affected business and property owners and their
representati% es, including Erickson Air -Crane and Consolidated I ransport. The meetings
provided information to ODOT staff that reduced the impact to business and property
owners.
ODOT staff provided copies of the draft [AMP to Jackson County, the City of Central
Point, DLCD and affected business and property owners. Comments received were
addressed prior to finalizing the TAMP.
A copy of the final [AMP, request For consistency determination and notice of intent to
adopt were sent to Jackson County and DLCD. No comments were received from
DLCD. Jackson County requested that one policy be removed, and it was. After
removing the policy Jackson County had no further comments.
Requirement: OAR 731- 015- 0065(2)
[ODOT] shall provide a draft of the proposed facility plan to planning representatives of
all affected cities, counties and metropolitan planning organization and shall request that
they identify any specific plan requirements which apply, any general plan requirements
which apply and whether the draft Facility plan is compatible with the acknowledged
comprehensive plan. If no reply is received from an affected city, county or metropolitan
planning organization within 30 days of [ODOT's] request for a compatibility
determination, [ODOT] shall deem that the draft plan is compatible with that
jurisdiction's acknowledged comprehensive plan. [ODOT] may extend the reply time if
requested to do so by an affected city, county, or metropolitan planning organization.
Finding:
ODOT provided draft IAMPs to Jackson County, the City of Central Point, the RVMPO
and DLCD, along with a notice of intent to adopt and a request For a determination that
the draft TAMP is compatible with the acknowledged comprehensive plan.
One comment was received from Jackson County regarding a proposed notification
procedure that would require Jackson County to coordinate with ODOT and land use
proposals and zone changes. It was determined that the proposed procedure was already
addressed by the Transportation Planning Rule and that the proposed procedure was
therefore redundant. The proposed procedure was removed and is not included in the
final [AMP.
Requirement: OAR 731 - 015 - 0065(3)
If any statewide goal or comprehensive plan conflicts are identified, [ODOT] shall meet
with the local government planning representative to discuss ways to resolve the
conflicts. These may include:
(1) Changing the draft facility plan to eliminate the conflicts;
(2) Working with the local governments to amend the local comprehensive plans to
eliminate the conflicts; or
(3) Identifying the conflicts in the draft facility plan and including policies that
commit [ODOT] to resolving the conflicts prior to the conclusion of the
Exhibit B - FINDINGS 3
1 -5, Exit 351AMP
CAP050814 Pg. 142
transportation planning program for the affected portions of the transportation
facility.
Finding:
No conflicts were identified with any statewide planning goals or acknowledged
comprehensive plans.
Requirement: OAR 731 -015- 0065(4)
[ODOT] shall evaluate and write dran findings of compatibility with acknowledged
comprehensive plans of affected cities and counties, findings of compliance with any
statewide planning goals which specifically apply as determined by OAR 660-030 -
0065(3)(d), and findings of compliance with all provisions of other statewide planning
goals that can be clearly defined if the comprehensive plan of an affected city or county
contains no conditions specifically applicable or any general provisions, purposes or
objectives would be substantially affected by the facility plan.
Finding:
The TAMP will be adopted as an amendment to the Jackson County Transportation
System Plan, an element of the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan. As part of the
OTC adoption process, Jackson County Planning Department staff conducted a
compatibility determination, determined the IAMP compatible with the Jackson County
Comprehensive Plan and will recommend adoption by the Jackson County Board of
Commissioners.
Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals which specifically apply as determined by
OAR 660 - 030- 0065(3)(d): "A state agency shall adopt findings demonstrating
compliance with the statewide goals for an agency land use program or action if ... a
statewide goal or interpretive rule adopted by the [Land Conservation and Development
Commission] under OAR chapter 660 establishes a compliance requirement directly
applicable to the state agency or its land use program .... ". .
Findings of compliance with all provisions of other statewide planning goals that can be
clearly defined if the comprehensive plan of an affected cit} or county contains no
conditions specifically applicable or any general provisions, purposes or objectives would
be substantially affected by the facility plan
Findings
Statewide Planning Coal 1— Citizen Involvement
The TAMP was prepared in collaboration with Jackson County, the only other
transportation provider in the interchange management area. Regular updates were
provided to the Cit}' of Central Point Citizens Advisory Committee regarding the TAMP,
proposed transportation s; stem improvements and measures. The City of Central Point
Citizens Advisory Committee meetings are advertised, open to the public and held in an
ADA- accessible facility.
Exhibit 3 - FINDINGS 4
1 -5, Exit 35 1ANIP
CAP050814 Pg. 143
Targeted outreach was conducted to local business and property owners, including
Erickson Air -Crane and Consolidated Transport. Regular meetings and correspondence
were held with representatives to ensure a minimal impact of the [AMP
recommendations.
Statewide Planning Goal 2 — Land Use Planning
The [AMP is not a land use planning document. The [AMP relied upon the Jackson
County Comprehensive Plan, Land Usc and Development Ordinance, and zoning plan for
all land use assumptions. The [AMP does not recommend any land use changes.
Statewide Planning Goal Agricultural Lands
The TAMP relied upon the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and zoning map to
identify agricultural lands within the interchange management area. The TAMP
recommendations have no impact to Agricultural Lands.
Statewide Planning Goal 4 — Forest Lands
The [AMP relied upon the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and zoning map to
identify forest lands within the interchange management area. The IAMP
recommendations have no impact to Forest Lands.
Smlewide Planning Goal 5— Natural Resources, Scenic and Lli.sloric Areas, and Open
Spaces
The IAMP includes and inventory of natural resources, scenic and historic areas and open
spaces in the interchange management area. Transportation system improvements
recommended in the IAMP avoided all natural resources, scenic and historic areas and
open spaces.
Statewide Planning Goal 6 —Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
This Statewide Planning Goal addresses waste and process discharges from future and
current development. The IAMP does not contribute to waste and process discharges.
Prior to implementation of improvements identified in the IAMP, the appropriate COOT
business line will secure all necessary permits relative to this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 7 — Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
Interchange 35 was not identified as an area subject to natural hazards. The TAMP was
developed in collaboration with Jackson County and was determined by Jackson Count)
staff to be compatible and consistent with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan.
Statewide Planning Goal 8— Recreational Needs
This Statewide Planning Goal addresses the quantity, quality and location of recreational
areas. There is one recreational -type facility in the interchange management area: the
Rear Creek Greenway, a bicyclelpedestrian path extending from the southern to northern
boundaries of the Rogue Valley. The measures and improvements proposed in the IAMP
do not impact the Rear Creek Greenway.
Statewide Planning Goal 9— Economic Development
Exhibit B - FINDINGS 5
I -5, Exit 35 IAMP
CAP050814 Pg. 144
The LAMP identifies transportation system deficiencies and improvements to correct
those deficiencies through the planning horizon. The ]AMP identified deficiencies based
on land use assumptions contained in the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, which
itself identified those lands necessary for the economic development of the area. The
improvements identified in the IAMP therefore accommodate the economic development
being proposed in the interchange management and surrounding area as expressed
through the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan.
Statewide Planning Goal 10 — Housing
The IAMP identifies transportation system deficiencies and improvements to correct
those deficiencies through the planning horizon. The IAMP identified deficiencies based
on land use assumptions contained in the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, which
itself identified those lands necessary for the housing in the area. The improvements
identified in the IAMP therefore accommodate the housing types being proposed in the
interchange management and surrounding area as expressed through the Jackson County
Comprehensive Plan.
Statewide Planning Goal 11 — Public Facilities and Services
This Statewide Planning Goal concerns public facilities that are not transportation. Non -
transportation public facilities are outside the scope of the [AMP. See Statewide
Planning Goal 12 for transportation public facilities.
Statewide Planning Goal 12 — Transportation
The IAMP is a transportation plan addressing the transportation deficiencies and
improvements for Interchange 35 through the planning horizon. The IAMP considered
all modes of transportation available in the interchange management area, including auto,
bicycle and pedestrian. The IAMP is based on and is determined by Jackson County staff
to be compatible and consistent with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use
Development Ordinance, zoning maps and population and employment growth rates.
The IAMP inventoried lands and population, but found no concentrations of
transportation disadvantaged people in the interchange management area. The IAMP
avoids reliance on one mode of transportation (auto) by referring to the Oregon Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan standards in the provision of transportation facilities. The ]AMP
identifies a series of low -cost improvements that may be phased in over time as funding
allows. The IAMP has no impact on energy. The IAMP improvements are shown by
traffic analysis to preserve the operations and safety of the interchange through the
planning horizon and facilitating the flow of goods and services thereby. The IAMP
complies with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, as evidenced by the local
determination of compatibility.
The Transportation Planning Rule implements Statewide Planning Goal 12. The
following provisions apply to the state transportation plan, including facility plans such
as this LAMP.
OAR 660 -012 -0030 — Determination of Transportation Needs
Exhibit B - FINDINGS
I -5, Exit 35 IAMP
CAP050814 Pg. 145
The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan identifies land uses through the planning
horizon. The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and population and emplo} menl
growth rates were used to determine transportation needs at the interchange through the
planning horizon. Transportation needs includes the need to accommodate motor vehicle
traffic, which includes meeting state and local transportation needs for the movement of
goods and services to support industrial and commercial development. They also include
the needed improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The improvements to Interchange 35 are based on the 20 -year forecasts of motor vehicle
traffic which are based on 20 -year forecasts of population and employment. These
forecasts are consistent with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan.
OAR 660 -012 -0035 — Evaluation and Selection of Transportation System Alternatives
The IAMP evaluated improvements to system alternatives and identified a series of
phased improvements that accommodate anticipate transportation needs through the
planning horizon. The IAMP evaluated new facilities, and included an expansion of the
southbound ramp terminal and enhancements to the local street network as necessary
future system improvements. fhe IAMP evaluated transportation system management
measures, and identified improvements to the local street network that were for"'arded to
Jackson County Planning Department for consideration in the next transportation system
plan update. The IAMP evaluated transportation demand management measures but,
given the rural nature and low population near the interchange, determined none to be of
benefit. The IAMP evaluated a no -build alternative but found it did not meet the
transportation needs of the anticipated users through the planning horizon.
The IAMP supports urban and rural development by providing a transportation facility
appropriate to the anticipated land uses and population and employment needs through
the planning horizon and as expressed in the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan.
Interchange 35 is not located in an urban fringe.
Statewide Planning Goal 13 — Energy Conservation
This Statewide Planning Goal concerns land uses and land use planning which are
outside the scope of the IAMP. I lowever, the IAMP relied upon the Jackson County
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Development Ordinance, zoning maps, and population
and economic forecasts for all land use assumptions.
Statewide Planning Coal 14 — Urbanization
This Statewide Planning Goal concerns the shift from rural to urban land and is therefore
outside the scope of the TAMP. However, the ]AMP relied upon the Jackson County
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Development Ordinance, zoning maps, and population
and economic forecasts for all land use assumptions, including those lands that are
expected to be urbanized through the planning horizon.
Exhibit B - FINDINGS 7
I -5, Exit 35 [AMP
CAP050814 Pg. 146
Further, the [AMP relied on the local Regional Problem Solving assumptions and
requirements. Specifically, the requirement that an ]AMP be developed for interchange
35 prior to any proposed urbanization.
Statewide Planning Goal 15 — Willamette River Greenway
Interchange 61 is not located within the Willamette River Greenway.
Statewide Planning Goal 16— Estuarine Resources
Interchange 61 is located inland, far removed from estuarine resources.
Statewide Planning Goal 17 — Coastal Shorelands
Interchange 61 is located inland. far removed from coastal shorelands.
Statewide Planning Goal 18 — Beaches and Dunes
Interchange 61 is located inland, far removed from beaches or dunes.
Statewide Planning Goal 19 —Ocean Resources
Interchange 61 is located inland, far removed from ocean resources.
Requirement: OAR 731- 015- 0065(5)
[ODOT] shall present to the Transportation Commission the draft plan, findings of
compatibility with the acknowledged comprehensive plans of affected cities and counties
and findings of compliance with applicable statewide planning goals.
Finding:
This Exhibit B constitutes ODOT's findings of compatibility with acknowledged
comprehensive plans of affected cities and counties and findings of compliance with
applicable statewide planning goals. The specific findings are listed immediately below,
in Requirement: OAR 73 t -015- 0065(6).
Requirement: OAR 731- 015- 0065(6)
The Transportation Commission shall adopt findings of compatibility with the
acknowledged comprehensive plans of affected cities and counties and findings of
compliance with applicable statewide planning goals when it adopts the final facility
plan.
Finding.
This requirement will be completed upon adoption of the facility plan and Findings by the
Oregon Transportation Commission.
Requirement: OAR 731- 015- 0065(7)
[ODOT] shall provide copies of the adopted final facility plan and findings to DLCD, to
affected metropolitan planning organizations, cities, counties, state federal agencies,
special districts and to others who request to receive a copy.
Finding:
Exhibit B - FINDINGS g
1 -5, Exit 35 TAMP
CAP050814 Pg. 147
This requirement will be completed upon adoption of the facility plan and findings by the
Oregon Transportation Commission.
Coordination Procedures for Adopting Final Facility Plans
(1) Except in the case of minor amendments, the Department shall involve DLCD and
affected metropolitan planning organizations, cities, counties, state and federal agencies,
special districts and other interested parties in the development or amendment of a
facility plan. This involvement may take the form of mailings, meetings or other means
that the Department determines are appropriate for the circumstances. The Department
shall hold at least one public meeting on the plan prior to adoption.
Finding
The ]AMP was prepared in collaboration with Jackson County, the only other
transportation provider in the interchange management area. Regular updates were
provided to the City of Central Point Citizens Advisory Committee regarding the LAMP,
proposed transportation system improvements and measures. The City of Central Point
Citizens Advisory Committee meetings are advertised, open to the public and held in an
ADA- accessible facility.
Targeted outreach was conducted to local business and property owners, including
Erickson Air -Crane and Consolidated Transport. Regular meetings and correspondence
were held with representatives to ensure a minimal impact of the LAMP
recommendations.
Finding: The interchange lies within thejurisdiction of Jackson County. Jackson
County was sent a Notice of Intent to Adopt and consistency determination request. No
comments were received.
A copy of the IAMP was sent to the Department oC Land Conservation and Development
Planning Coordinator and Region 3 Field Representative requesting a determination that
the plan was compatible with statewide plan. No comments were received.
(3) If any statewide goal or comprehensive plan conflicts are identified, the Department
shall meet with the local government planning representatives to discuss ways to resolve
the conflicts. These may include:
(a) Changing the draft facility plan to eliminate the conflicts;
(b) Working with the local governments to amend the local comprehensive plans to
eliminate the conflicts; or
Exhibit - FINDINGS
1 -5, Exit35IAMP
CAP050814 Pg. 148
(c) Identifying the conflicts in the draft facility plan and including policies that commit
the Department to resolving the conflicts prior to the conclusion of the transportation
planning program for the affected portions of the transportation facility.
Finding: No statewide goal or comprehensive plan conflicts have been identified with
the draft Facility Plan.
(4) The Department shall evaluate and write draft findings of compatibility with
acknowledged comprehensive plans of affected cities and counties, findings of
compliance with any statewide planning goals which specifically apply as determined by
OAR 660- 030- 0065(3)(d), and findings of compliance with all provisions of other
statewide planning goals that can be clearly defined if the comprehensive plan of an
affected city or county contains no conditions specifically applicable or any general
provisions, purposes or objectives that would be substantially affected by the facility
plan.
Finding: These draft findings are submitted for the Commission's consideration. These
findings address compliance with applicable statewide planning goals and the
comprehensive plan of the affected county. (Sec findings in Section 2 below).
(5) The Department shall present to the Transportation Commission the draft plan,
findings of compatibility with the acknowledged comprehensive plans of the affected
cities and counties and findings of compliance with applicable statewide planning goals.
Finding: The Final Draft Facility Plan is attached for the Commission's consideration.
These findings address compliance with applicable statewide planning goals (See Section
2 below).
(6) The Transportation Commission shall adopt findings of compatibility with the
acknowledged comprehensive plans of affected cities and counties and findings of
compliance with applicable statewide planning goals when it adopts the final facility
plan.
Finding: These draft findings are submitted for the Commission's consideration and
adoption. These findings address compliance with applicable statewide planning goals
and compatibility with the local comprehensive plan of the affected cities.
(7) The Department shall provide copies of the adopted final facility plan and findings to
DLCD, to affected metropolitan planning organizations, cities, counties, state and federal
agencies, special districts and to others who request to receive a copy.
Finding: The Department will provide copies of the Adopted TAMP, including all
required findings, to DLCD, the affected local jurisdiction and others who request a copy.
The remaining findings are organized into three categories:
Compatibility
Exhibit B - FINDINGS
I -5, Exit 351AMP
CAP050814 Pg. 149
10
o Jackson County Transportation System Plan
Compliance
• Statewide Planning Goals which specifically apply
• Other Statewide Planning Goals that can be clearly defined
Consistency
o Oregon Transportation Plan
o Oregon Highway Plan
o I Iighway Design Manual
2. Compatibility with Acknowledged County and City Comprehensive Plans
The Draft TAMP was sent to Jackson County and the RVMPO.
Jackson County Comprehensive Plan
The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan is the official long -range land use policy
document for Jackson County. The plan sets forth general land use planning policies and
allocates land uses to resource, residential, commercial, and industrial categories. The
plan serves as the basis for coordinated development of physical resources and the
development or redevelopment of the county based on physical, social, economic and
environmental factors. the comprehensive plan establishes the purpose, map
designation, criteria and the basis for determining the appropriate zoning for each land
use.
The Jackson County Transportation System Plan (TSP) establishes a system of
transportation facilities and mobility standards that is adequate to meet the Count} "s
transportation needs. The Jackson County TSP includes a determination of future
transportation needs for road, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, air, water, rail and pipeline
systems; policies and regulations for the implementation of the Jackson County TSP; and
a transportation funding program.
Finding: The TAMP used the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan current and future
land uses and zoning designations in identifying future traffic volumes and transportation
facility needs. The TAMP preferred bridge configuration and future improvements are
tailored to the planned land uses contained within the Jackson County Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed improvements are consistent with the Jackson County Comprehensive
Plan. The only aspect of the IAMP implicating the Jackson County TSP is the enhanced
local road network. Identification and inclusion of the enhanced local road network was
developed in coordination with Jackson County Planning and Roads Departments staff'.
3. Compliance with Applicable Statewide Planning Goals
Relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) include: Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement); Goal 2 (Land Use
Exhibit B - FINDINGS I I
I -5, Exit 35 TAMP
CAP050814 Pg. 150
Planning); Goal I I (Public Facilities Planning); Goal 12 (Transportation); and Goal 14
(Urbanization).
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement.
Requirement: "the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning
process."
Finding: The Exit 35 TAMP process used an open and ongoing public and agency
involvement process which included the City of Central Point, Jackson County and
numerous interested citizens. An integrated, interdepartmental (local and state) planning
and decision- making procedure completed the public process. Public information and
involvement were project priorities, as evidenced by public meetings, TAC committee,
and meetings with business and property owners.
Committees
During development of this ]AMP a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was utilized.
The LAC, which was composed of key staff members from the Oregon Department of
Transportation, City of Central Point, Jackson County, and the Rogue Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organization was established specifically to guide this study. The
committee provided guidance on both technical issues and policy issues.
During development of this IAMP the established City of Central Point Citizens
Advisory Committee was utilized. The committee provided guidance on policy issues and
served as the primary mechanism for public input. All meetings were advertised, open
public and held in an ADA- accessible facility.
Property Owner Outreach
ODOT staff met regularly with local business and property owners, including Erickson
Air -Crane and Consolidated Transport,
Goal 2: Land Use Planning.
Requirements: "Establish a land use planning process and policy framework as the basis
for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basis
for such decisions and actions."
Findings: The only potential impacts to land uses arc those related to the preferred
interchange design, and those related to recommended future transportation
improvements.
Land use planning in the IAMP was the coordinated efforts of ODOT, Jackson County
and the RVMPO. Further, and as noted above, public input on the plan was solicited at a
series of public meetings. The IAMP document contains all information required for
implementation, with supporting documentation in appendices.
Exhibit B - FINDINGS 12
us, Exit 35 [AMP
CAP050814 Pg. 151
Preparation of the TAMP was based on a series of broad phases, from the general to the
specific. The first phase was development of a project description, and purpose, goals,
and objectives for the interchange.
The second phase entailed an examination of the regulatory framework within which the
interchange operates. An ]AMP study area was set pursuant to OAR 734 -051, with
consideration of the local street network and local land uses. Further, state and local
regulations, plans and policies were examined to ensure the plan was developed to be
compatible, compliant, or consistent, as appropriate.
I he third phase consisted of assembling existing conditions. Conditions inventoried
include: transportation facilities operations; geometric conditions; safety and crash
analyses; land uses near the interchange, and natural and historic resources.
The first three phases laid the foundation for the land use and transportation planning.
The fourth phase detailed planning area improvements and developed future
transportation forecasts. The methodology for the TAMP included a multi -step approach.
The first was to evaluate approximate development potential by land use category. The
second involved approximating the peak hour traffic generation potential of those areas.
The third step involved comparing the trip generation potential with the traffic growth
indicated in the Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Model. The last step was to
conduct a sensitivity analysis that illustrates the effect of different growth rates on the
need to implement various capacity - increasing improvements. Land use decisions and
actions were based upon the land use planning and input from affected local jurisdictions
and citizens.
The fifth phase dealt strictly with access management. Standards were culled from OAR
734 -051 and the OHP. Existing accesses and permits were inventoried. Finally, an
access management plan was developed.
The final phase identified necessary future improvements to the transportation network to
accommodate anticipated future traffic growth within the interchange influence area.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services.
Requirements: "a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development."
Findings: The stated goal of the IAMP is to preserve the investment being made in the
new interchange facility and to maintain the interchange's intended function, which is to
safely and efficiently accommodate future traffic demands associated with current and
planned land uses consistent with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan over the
planning period.
Exhibit B - FINDINGS
I -5, Exit 351AMP
CAP050814 Pg. 152
13
The ]AMP documents the current and future transportation needs in the vicinity of
Interchange 35 and identifies a design alternative that details appropriate future
improvements to meet these needs.
Identified transportation improvements were based on population and employment
forecasts, growth rates, vacant and underdeveloped, and site specific growth in the
interchange management area. Transportation improvements were designed to be
adequate to serve the future needs of Jackson County and the Rogue Valley urban and
urbanizable land uses, while conforming to the requirements of the C HP and either
conforming to or moving in the direction of the requirements of OAR 734 -051.
Goal 12: Transportation.
Requirements: "Provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system."
Findings: The TAMP documents existing and future conditions for Interchange 35 and
identifies deficiencies. The IAMP includes an access management plan (recommended
medium- and long -term actions) to ensure the sate and efficient operation of the
transportation system in the vicinity of the interchange.
Improvements to the interchange area were initially focused upon the interchange ramp
terminals. The proposed improvement addresses deficiencies and will address other
operational deficiencies within the interchange area. The improvement will enhance safe
and efficient access to particular undeveloped industrial sites supporting the long term
economic goals of the area. In developing these plans ODOT analyzed current and future
safety conditions. The safety analysis shows that none of the intersections in the study
area has a crash rate significantly greater than that of the surrounding area or average
State Highway Crash Rates. Further, the TAMP proposes an enhanced local road network
that will provide greater access management and ensure safe and efficient movement of
vehicles in the interchange management area.
The TAMP documents the current and future transportation needs in the vicinity of
Interchange 35 and identifies future build transportation improvements to meet these
needs. These adopted improvements allow for phased implementation to provide
capacity as needed.
Goal 14: Urbanization.
Requirements: an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries,
ensuring efficient use of land, and providing for livable communities.
Findings: Interchange 35 is located within rural Jackson County, with the City of
Central Point approximately two miles south. As noted in the TAMP, the land is
identified in the Rogue Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan as future industrial.
Exhibit B - FINDINGS
1 -5, Exit 35 IAMP
CAP050814 Pg. 153
14
The LAMP identified transportation improvements necessary to ensure the adequate
provision of transportation facilities supportive or uses identified in the Jackson County
Comprehensive Plan and Rogue Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan.
4. Consistency with the Oregon Transportation Plan and applicable modal plans,
,,:nd the Highway Design Manual
Oregon Transportation Plan
The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) is a policy document developed by ODO I in
response to the federal and stale mandates for systematic planning for the future of
Oregon's transportation system. The OTP is intended to meet statutory requirements
(ORS 184.618(1)) to develop a state transportation policy and comprehensive long -range
plan for a multi -modal transportation system that addresses economic efficiency, orderly
economic development, safety, and environmental quality.
Findings: The OTP does not specifically address improvements to interchange 35, but
offers a broad policy framework and standards for improving state highway systems. The
]AMP has been developed to be consistent with the OTP, specifically the Oregon
Highway Plan, which is an element of the OTP (see section below).
Oregon Highway Plan
Goal l: System Definition
Policy lA —Highway Classification
This policy calls for ODOT to apply the state highway classification system to guide
priorities for system investment and management.
Finding: The interchange is located on Interstate 5, which is part of the NHS interstate
system. The interchange connects OR 140, OR 99 and Interstate 5. The IAMP includes
recommendations for improvements to interchange 35 consistent with the highway
classifications in the OHP to determine mobility performance standards applicable to the
intersections. and then incorporates improvements to achieve compliance of the planning
period. The performance mobility standards and the Access Management Plan are based
on the classifications.
Policy 1B —Land Use and Transportation
This policy recognizes the role of both the State and local governments related to the
state highway system and calls for a coordinated approach to land use and transportation
planning.
Finding: The TAMP has been prepared with the participation of Jackson County, 1 he
City of Central Point, the RVMPO, ODOT and with input from a variety of stakeholders
and the general public. During development of this IAMP a Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) was utilized to provide technical guidance and oversight. The TAC
Exhibit R - FINDINGS
I -5, F.xit 35 IAMP
CAP050814 Pg. 154
15
was composed of key staff members from Jackson County, the City of Central Point,
ODOT. and the RVMPO.
Policy 1 C — State Highway Freight System
This policy recognizes the need for the efficient movement of freight through the state. I-
5 is listed as a Designated Freight Route.
Firming: Interchange 35 is located on 1 -5, which is listed in the CHIP as a Designated
Freight Route. The IAMP includes recommended improvements to Interchange 35 that
will improve safety and mobility for freight movement. The proposed improvements
meet Highway Design Mobility standards with future anticipated traffic volumes and
modern design standards. The TAMP includes and Access Management Plan that
maximizes improves operations at the interchange by minimizing conflicts from traffic
operations at nearby driveways and intersections with nearby streets. The TAMP includes
future recommended improvements to the roadway to accommodate anticipated trallic
volumes that ensure the future efficient movement of freight
Policy 1D — Scenic Byways
This policy is intended to preserve and enhance scenic byways.
Finding: There are no scenic byways within the interchange influence area.
Policy 1E — Lifeline Routes
This policy is intended to provide a secure lifeline of transportation routes that facilitate
emergency services response and support rapid economic recovery after a disaster.
Finding: 'fhe recommended system improvements improve the safety and efficiency of
the interchange and local road network. The improved safety and efficiency of the
transportation system facilitates improved emergency services response and support
economic recovery after a disaster.
Policy 1F— Highway Mobility Standards
This policy addresses the state highway performance expectations, providing guidance
for managing access and traffic control systems related to interchanges. This policy sets
mobility targets for ensuring a reliable and acceptable level of mobility on the highway
system by identifying necessary improvements that would allow the interchange to
function in a manner consistent with the Of IP. The OHP sets volume -to- capacity ratio
targets that are not to be exceeded for state highways.
Finding: The interchange design and future recommended improvements meet the
volume-to- capacity ratio and mobility targets through the 20 -year planning horizon.
Policy 1G — Major Improvements
This policy directs ODOT to maintain highway performance and improve safety by
improving system efficiency and management before adding capacity.
Exhibit B - FINDINGS
1 -5, Exit 351AMP
CAP050814 Pg. 155
16
Finding: Given the rural nature of the interchange influence area, and the lack of
developable commercial property near the interchange. land use and access management
measures were determined to have an insignificant impact on the efficiency and safety of
the preferred interchange alternative.
'the enhanced local road network improves system el7iciency and safety by shifting the
first full access away from the northbound ramp terminal, and moves the closest full
access point in the direction of Division 51.
Policy 1 H — Bypasses
This policy provides guidance to ODOT and local governments in determining whether a
bypass is justified.
Finding: Traffic analysis shows that interchange 35 primarily serves intra- regional,
commuter traffic and industrial uses in the surrounding areas. Further, interchange 35
serves as a connector to OR99 and OR140. Given the primary functions of interchange
35, a bypass is notjustified and was not examined.
Goal 2: System Management
Policy 2A — Partnerships
I his policy directs ODO't to establish cooperative partnerships with state and federal
agencies, regional governments, cities, counties, tribal governments and the private sector
to make more efficient and effective use of limited resources to develop, operate, and
maintain the highway and road system.
Finding: The exit 35 IAMP process used an open and ongoing public and agency
involvement process which included Jackson County, the City of Central Point, the
RVMPO, ODOT, an established local citizen involvement committee, and interested
business and property owners. An integrated. interdepartmental (local and state) planning
and decision- making procedure was used to complete the process.
Policy 2B — Off - System Improvements
This policy identifies when the State of Oregon should provide financial assistance to
local jurisdictions to develop, enhance, and maintain improvements to local
transportation systems when they are a cost - effective way to improve the operation of the
state highway system.
Finding: There are no improvements to the local road system that are likely to require
state funding. The proposed enhancements to the local road network are recommended to
be funded and constructed by property owners and developers as development of
individual parcels occurs.
Policy 2C— Interjurisdictional Transfers
This policy provides standards for considering Interjurisdictional transfers of roads and /or
roadway segments between the State of Oregon and local governments.
Exhibit B - FINDINGS 17
1 -5, Exit 351AMP
CAP050814 Pg. 156
Finding: There are no roads or roadway segments proposed by the LAMP for
interjurisdictional transfer.
Policy 2D— Public Involvement
This policy provides standards for ensuring that citizens, businesses, regional and local
governments, stale agencies, and tribal governments have opportunities to have input into
decisions that impact the state highway system.
Finding: The exit 35 TAMP process used an open and ongoing public and agency
involvement process which included Jackson County, the City of Central Point, the
RVMPO, ODOT, an established local citizen involvement committee, and interested
business and property owners. An integrated, interdepartmental (local and slate) planning
and decision - making procedure was used to complete the process.
Policy 2E — Intelligent Transportation Systems
This policy provides standards for the consideration of Intelligent Transportation Systems
to improve system efficiency and safety in a cost - effective manner.
Finding: One of the standards for consideration of Intelligent Transportation Systems is
that they should be used in "corridor and transportation system plans and [Intelligent
Transportation Systems] proposals in the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program process..."
This ]AMP considers a single interchange within the Rogue Valley. The TAMP study
area does not include an area large enough for the consideration of Intelligent
Transportation Systems.
Policy 2F — Traffic Safety
This policy directs the continual improvement of safety for all users of the highway
system using solutions involving engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency
medical services.
Finding: ]AMP planning processes do not include education and enforcement analysis.
The ]AMP preferred interchange alternative included improvements to operations and
safety for all users. Traffic engineering identified a preferred lane configuration for
through traffic. Providing a wide shoulder on the bridge, consistent with the Oregon
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, for bicyclists and pedestrians. Finally, by using traffic
engineering to examine different stop - control options for the northbound and southbound
ramp terminals that took into account the needs of all users. Improvements to operations
and safety of the interchange enhance the ability of emergency medical services'
response times.
Policy 2G — Rail and Highway Compatibility
Exhibit B - FINDINGS 18
I -5, Exit 351AMP
CAP050814 Pg. 157
This policy directs the improvement of safety and transportation efficiency through the
reduction and prevention of conflicts between railroad and highway users.
Finding: There are no railroads within the interchange management area.
Goal 3: Access Management
Policy 3A — Classification and Spacing Standards
This policy addresses the location, spacing and type of road and street intersections and
approach roads on state highways. The adopted standards can be found in Appendix C of
the Oregon Highway Plan. It includes standards for each highway's importance or as
posted speed increases.
Finding: The LAMP compared existing spacing to the standards in the OHP for the
specific roadways based on their classification. The interchange is located on Interstate
5, which is part orthe NHS system. The IAMP includes recommendations for
improvements consistent with the standards set for Interstate 5 and Local Interest Roads.
Specifically, the future improvements and access management plan directs the
development of an enhanced local street network. Once the local street network is
completed, it will provide the first full access at a point further from the interchange than
currently exists. The IAMP provides that the local street network will be constructed
over time, by individual developers and property owners as development occurs.
Policy 3B — Medians
This policy directs the management and placement of medians and the location of median
openings to enhance the safety and efficiency of the highways and support land use
development patterns that arc consistent with approved transportation system plans.
Finding: Traffic analysis conducted for the IAMP did not find a need for medians
Policy 3C — Interchange Access Management Areas
This policy addresses the need to plan for and manage grade- separated interchange areas
to ensure safe and efficient operation between connecting roadways.
Finding: The [AMP identifies specific measures to manage access within the
interchange influence area.
The [AMP future improvements include the expansion of the southbound ramp terminal
to provide for safe and efficient operations, and the development of a local street network
to provide for improved access.
Policy 3D — Deviations
This policy provides for the management of requests for state highway approach permits
that require deviations from the adopted access management spacing standards and
policies.
Exhibit B - FINDINGS
1 -5, Exit 35 IAMP
CAP050814 Pg. 158
m
Finding: This policy does not apply to the ]AMP. Any deviations required for the
identified future improvements will be acquired prior to construction.
Policy 3E — Appeals
This policy provides for the management of appeals for denied requests for approach
roads and /or deviations.
Finding: This policy does not apply to the TAMP. The TAMP does not prescribe
alternate standards for the denial of a request for approach and /or deviation.
Goal 4: Travel Alternatives
Policy 4A — Efficiency of Freight Movement
This policy emphasizes the State's role in managing access to highway facilities in order
to maintain functional use, safety and to preserve public investment.
Finding: The LAMP includes recommended improvements to the interchange and local
road network that will provide for the safe and efficient movement of freight. The
recommended improvements have been analyzed and compared to mobility targets and
safety standards.
Policy 4B — Alternative Passenger Modes
This policy advances and supports alternative passenger transportation systems where
lraN cl demand, land use, and other factors indicate the potential for successful and
effective development of alternative passenger modes.
Finding: Interchange 35 is located within rural Jackson County. The interchange
influence area currently has no major attractors or generators of traffic. For those
reasons, land uses and travel demands near the interchange do not support alternate travel
modes.
Policy 4C —High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities
This policy promotes the utilization of HOV facilities to improve the efficiency of the
highway system in locates where travel demand, land use, transit, and other factors we
favorable to their effectiveness.
Finding: Interchange 35 is located within rural Jackson County. The interchange
influence area currently has no major attractors or generators of traffic. For those
reasons, land uses and travel demands near the interchange do not support HOV facilities.
Policy 4D — Transportation Demand Management
This policy supports the efficient use of the stale transportation system through
investment in transportation demand management strategies.
Finding: Interchange 35 is located within rural Jackson County. The interchange
influence area currently has no major attractors or generators of traffic. For those
reasons, land uses and travel demands near the interchange do not support Transportation
Exhibit li -FINDINGS zp
1 -5, Exit 35 IAA1P
CAP05e914 Pg. 159
Demand Management measures. However, there is a policy in the IAMP providing that
Jackson County should review Transportation Demand Management measures as
development occurs.
Policy 4E — Park - and -Ride Facilities
This policy encourages the efficient use of the existing transportation system and seeks
cost - effective solutions to the highway system's passenger capacity through development
of park- and -ride facilities.
Finding: Interchange 35 is located within rural Jackson Countl . The interchange
influence area currently has no major attractors or generators of traffic. For those
reasons, land uses and travel demands near the interchange do not support Park - and -Ride
facilities.
Goal 5: Environmental and Scenic Resources
Policy 5A — Environmental Resources
This policy supports the natural and built environment by establish standards for the
design, construction, operation and maintenance of the state highway system.
Finding: This policy does not apply to the TAMP, as the IAMP does not include design,
construction, operation or maintenance of the stale highway system. Further, the ]AMP
is not a "corridor plan', as the term is used in Action 5A.17.
Policy 5B — Scenic Resources
This policy provides for scenic resources management.
Finding: IAMP does not include transportation facility designs, and therefore does not
include transportation facility aesthetics. Further, no scenic resources were identified.
Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan implements the Actions recommended by the
Oregon Transportation Plan, guide ODOT and local governments in developing bikeway
and walkway systems, explains the laws pertaining to the establishment of bikeways and
walkways, fulfills the requirements of the Transportation Planning rule, and provides
standards for planning, designing, and maintaining bikeways and walkways.
Finding: The intended function of the interchange is to safely and efficiently
accommodate future vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic demands generated by
population and employment growth in the region.
Interchange 35 is located in rural Jackson County, and the interchange influence area has
a small population. The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identifies wide shoulders as
an appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facility in sparsely populated rural areas. The
improvements identified in the plan includes wide shoulders for bicyclists and
pedestrians.
Exhibit B - FINDINGS 21
1 -5, Exit 35 [AMP
CAP050814 Pg. 160
Higheav Design Manual
The Highway Design Manual (HDM) implements OI IP policies and is a multi -modal
design manual. Chapter 9, Intersection and Interchange Design, covers the design
standards, guidelines, and processes for designing road approaches, signalized and
unsignalized at -grade intersections, and interchanges for Slate Highways. Chapter 10,
Special Design Elements, prescribes planning standards for highway facilities.
Finding: The IIDM was used in alternatives analysis and development of the preferred
alternative and future improvements. The preferred alternative and future improvements
meet mobility performance standards prescribed in the HDM through the planning
horizon.
Exhibit H -FINDINGS
I -5, Exit 35 IAMP
CAP050814 Pg. 161
m
v
c
v
m
Q
O
c
3
v
K
22
Exhibit C
Contact Information
I -5, Exit 35 Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP)
Copies of the I -5, Exit 35 Interchange Area Management Plan can be obtained by
downloading:
ftp:// ftp .odot.state.or.us,/outgoine/OTC Septcmbcd3
or contacting:
John McDonald
Planning and Programming Unit
ODOT Region 3
3500 NW Stewart Parkway
Roseburg, OR 97470
541- 957 -3688
john.mcdonald@odot.state.or.us
odot.state.or.us
CAP050814 Pg. 162
CAP050814 Pg. 163
PROJECT LOCATION
ODOT REGION 3
m
NewurvD RD
Y
0
Jackson p
MERITA TRAIL RD
' County
_ Rogue Valley
_ 99 B ACT
- PAC/P,
_ GIBBON RD
¢ WILLGYi SPRINGS RD
O
99 �oN Y
ERIC
AVE
i
c
rc ��m �♦
< yGF
0
. -...._
4 UPTON
SCENIC AVE RD
w pml�t�` M0
3.
'Op
^ e
Central Point
i e ORTH DR AoTh
� s}
0
LEG"ND
PROJECT 1 -5 EXIT 35 INTERCHANGE
SITE AR EA MANAG E M E NT P LAN
STATE HIGHWAY CLASSFICATION
INTERSTATE
STATEWIDE
-------- —_ —.
"TN¢GrmuclofiriMa�me�lonal
REGiONALr DISTRICT puryaem em mer o o.35 M11e5
om n..e Dean pepwm mro,alpu, ermlgal, �/�
Tlah n9oreu morwn 8. Umrs NN'u '[I
REGIONAL BOUNOART YROrmeem enoulO rwl ry0e pnirery Gale PROWCEO BV ODOT -GIS UNIT
- - - - - -- COUNTTBOUNDART mGINonMion ¢owras to eamruln ma ueenelry (5�99B3915i- gUGUSTR013
JJL`I
ACTROUNDMY aRryeiMmmmort' GISN..01]
CAP050814 Pg. 163
CAP050814 Pg. 164
PROJECT VICINITY "
ODOT REGION 3
i
°W s qe�
a..a.
� a g.
Lane
coo. /�_'
a.r
4p las it
COOS
PomEwB
py
1.0
a0. NOgEedWO
F
Douglas 21a
{ s�
I
4
� 7
lax
i i_ Jackson
b�s
101 Curry yfs�a0
S Josephine 8g` � m 4^
woods mnlW. oo
,rei p
irW dd.
iP��
2.
`�
am S
�pHQ
W 916IWOY mNO. ]i]
1 -5 EXIT 35 INTERCHANGE
AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
LEGEND
pROJER Lc ATION 7Napru]uatafor Info— landFWma —rarm, o 10 wruea
mr nave man PapWatlwrorm awbemwr mqa,. ^1 1
S UNTY BOUN and mm�nanan an yinBpuadaran UWn NbLL 'I�u
-- - -- CAUNIV eOUNWRY nM,meLOn syoulE rer'awo onaulr Na ptlmery tlare pgODUCEU BV OOOT -GIS UNIT
and lMOrmerlonemmee0 emrbin 1peux >Ifty
(W9)gB39151�AUGU5T2019
J
- - -' -- -- STATE BOUNMRV of Nnlnbrmetion" GS NO. 29b2
CAP050814 Pg. 164