Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning commission Study Session - May 6, 2014 CENTRAL POINT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May 6, 2014 - 6:00 p.m. I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Tim Schmeusser, Tom Van Voorhees, Susan Szczesniak, Craig Nelson Sr. and Kay Harrison III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES Review of Corrections to March 4, 2014 Planning commission Minutes Review and approval of April 1, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS A. Continued Consideration of Resolution No. 800 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve amendments to Chapters 17.05 Applications and Types of Review Procedure, 17.08 Definitions, 17.10 Zoning Map and Text Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the Zoning code, File No. 14002 B. Consideration of Resolution No. 801 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt ODOT Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP35) for the Seven Oaks Interchange Area, File No. 14005 VII. DISCUSSION A. Discussion of Interim Water Service and Development Standards for the Tolo Area urban reserve(CP-1B). File No. 14007 B. Discussion of draft Concept Plan for urban reserve area CP-4D. File No. 14008 VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 2014 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:05 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Susan Szczesniak, Tom Van Voorhees, Craig Nelson, Tim Schmeusser and Kay Harrison were present Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Don Burt, Planning Manager; and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE —None IV. MINUTES Mike Oliver noted that the minutes of March 4, 2014 omitted mention of a separate motion regarding recommending approval of Resolution 799 to the City Council in which both he and Susan Szczesniak voted "no". Mike Oliver made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 4, 2014 Planning Commission meeting with the changes mentioned. Susan Szczesniak seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mike Oliver, yes; Susan Szczesniak, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; Craig Nelson, yes, Tim Schmeusser, yes. Motion passed. Don Burt introduced the proposed changes to Chapter 17. He indicated that he had received input and corrections and the final draft will reflect those changes. He asked for any questions from the Commission. Mike Oliver asked for clarification of reference to Type I procedure on page 3. Don explained that a Type I procedure involves no discretion while a Type II did involve limited discretion and was appealable. Tom Humphrey explained that there have been two applications submitted to Jackson County to enlarge our urban growth boundaries and they have asked if the process we use to amend our comprehensive plan is legislative or quasi-judicial. The changes will make the code consistent so that the County can process the urban growth boundary applications as quasi-judicial in order to avoid an appeal or challenge as to whether or not we are being consistent with our own code. We have made changes to our code to reference the State Code rather than write it out. That way whenever the state code changes , ours will be consistent with it. Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 2014 Page 2 The Public portion of the meeting was opened. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES Jay Harland of CSA Planning addressed the Planning Commission . He stated that overall they supported the amendments. There were, however several small issues and one issue in particular that they were specifically concerned with. 1. On page 4 the wording "such as" should be stricken because the example may be too restrictive. 2. Page 18 item IX should be marked item VIII. 3. On page 18 the wording relating to continuances of hearings states "the hearing body shall grant the request at the initial hearing and states may grant the request at subsequent hearings. 4. Page 25 provides for an appeal of a Type III decision but if it involves a plan amendment it would only be a recommendation from the Planning Commission because the council has to make the decision in an ordinance. 5. Page 34 there is a parenthesis at the bottom stating the 120 day rule does not apply to type IV legislative decision. 6. Mr. Harland indicated his main issue of concern was about changes to the criteria for amendments, the first one being on page 48 regarding adding a 5 year requirement for plan amendments for public facility items. That would make almost any urban growth boundary amendment practically impossible due to the fact that the public facilities needs would not be defined yet in that 5 year period. He suggested that be removed from the plan amendment criteria. He stated that it would usually be a 20 year window to get a plan in place for the facilities to service an area. He added that with respect to the zoning he thought adding something regarding an interim service agreement would be beneficial. He thought that procedurally the changes make things much clearer regarding the procedures for specific applications. Don Burt addressed Mr. Harland's comments as follows: With regard to Comprehensive plan amendments, particularly land use, the 5 year capital plan referred to may be too aggressive. There is another term which is "Public Facilities Plan"which deals with water, transportation and sewer and goes out 20 years. Mr. Burt had no problem with deleting the 5 year reference and replacing it with "Public Facilities Plan. Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 2014 Page 3 With regard to zoning Mr. Burt felt the 5 year plan was preferable. His suggestion was that with regard to the zoning map, to leave the 5 year reference as is and with the other issues, change the wording to Public Facilities Plan. With regard to the 120 day rule, at the direction of the Planning Commission , Mr. Burt would add a category 3"b"to address those types of applications. On page 20, regarding the wording"shall"vs. "may", Mr. Burt agreed to change the wording from "shall" to "may". On page 4 regarding annexation he stated the wording is right out of Chapter 1.2. He also stated that the city has never done a blanket annexation and is not likely to do one. He suggested to let that one stay as it was. Mr. Burt indicated the language on page 4 regarding the example was directly from OAR & ORS. He just used it as it was. He indicated he has been working with Craig Stone regarding an interim water facilities ordinance. Other than the zoning he was agreeable to changing the reference from a 5 year capital improvement plan to the Public Facilities Plan. He suggested that the commission close the public portion of the hearing, direct staff to make changes and continue the resolution to the next meeting to review the changes. Craig Nelson made a motion to close the public hearing and make changes and continue the resolution to the next meeting . Mike Oliver seconded the motion Roll call : Mike Oliver, yes; Susan Szczesniak, yes; Tim Schmeusser, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed. Tom Humphrey introduced Police Chief Kris Allison to discuss medical marijuana grows in Central Point and the police perspective on them. He explained that currently the state has imposed a moratorium on the legalization of medical marijuana dispensaries for a year. At the end of one year they will have made a decision with regard to whether or not cities would be allowed to ban dispensaries outright. He said the City Council will most likely adopt the moratorium and postpone action on chapter 17. They will not be rescinding the Chapter 5 language that has already been put in place because there needs to be something in the code although the wording may be revised after discussion with the City Attorney. A question was raised as to which cities are currently adopting the moratorium. Chief Allison responded that most cities seem to not want dispensaries,but at this time there is not much direction from the state. With this buffer of the one year moratorium, most Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 2014 Page 4 cities would probably wait to see what the state does. To her knowledge, at this time Medford, Ashland, Eagle Point, Phoenix, Talent and Klamath Falls are adopting the moratorium. She added that Central Point has been on the forefront in implementing restrictions on dispensaries so as to be fairly protected should dispensaries be allowed. She informed the Commission that dispensaries and marijuana grows are completely different and are regulated completely differently. As far as the grows are concerned, with the state allowing medical marijuana use, it comes under the protection of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). This means that an individual can decline to give police any information regarding a grow because it would be in violation of HIPAA. HIPPA provides for protection of personal medical information. The police are unable to enforce or regulate anything regarding marijuana grows because of this. She indicated that at this time there is no regulation from the State and that is where ithe regulation needs to come from as they are the entity that issues the medical marijuana cards. There are still some gray areas with regard to Federal laws vs. State. She thought litigation would be the way the definitive answers would evolve. VI. BUSINESS VII. DISCUSSION VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Mike Oliver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Craig Nelson seconded the motion. All members said "aye". Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the April 1, 2014 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of , 2014. Planning Commission Chair CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO.800 FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 17.05 APPLICATIONS AND TYPES OF REVIEW PROCEDURE,17.08 DEFINITIONS,17.10 ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE ZONING CODE,FILE NO. 14002 Planning Department STAFF REPORT _ ~ CENTRAL Tom Humphrey,AICP, POINTCommunity Development Director STAFF REPORT May 6, 2014 AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14002 Consideration of Resolution No. 800 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve 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 Plan of the Zoning Code; Applicant: City of Central Point. STAFF SOURCE: Don Burt, Planning Manager BACKGROUND: At the March 4,2014 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 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 Plan of the Zoning Code. On April 1, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, during which seven(7) questions were raised. The public hearing was closed and final consideration was continued to the May 6th Planning Commission meeting at which time staff was directed to respond to the questions presented at the public hearing. The restated questions and staff response(italic)are: 1. 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 3 - 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 1 of 2 OL1 4. Page 20, Section 1.d replace"shall"with "may" Response:Replaced the term "shall"with "may"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 Ill zone changes that services are available, or will be available within five years. Response:Replaced the specific time reference with "or planned for construction in the City's public facilities master plans;" (Yellow Hi-Lite) 7. Page 50, Section 17.96.500.C, same concern as above. Response:Replaced the specific time reference with "or planned for construction in the City's public facilities master plans;" (Yellow Hi-Lite) ISSUES: None EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Attachment"A—Resolution No. 800 with Proposed Amendments" ACTION: Consider resolution forwarding a recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendments as proposed.. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 800. Page 2 of 2 0 4•1 ATTACHMENT "A" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 800 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE, SECTIONS 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 PLAN OF THE ZONING CODE. (File No: 14002) WHEREAS, on April 1, 2014 the Planning Commission of the City of Central Point, held a duly- noticed public hearing, at which time it reviewed the City staff report and heard public testimony on the proposed amendments to Sections 17.05 Applications and Types of Review Procedure, 17.08 Definitions, 17.10 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 17.96 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the Zoning Code, and 17.60.030 Accessory Uses, and determined that the amendments as proposed were in the public interest and that the general welfare of the public will benefit by the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the requested proposal and considering public testimony it is the determination of the Planning Commission that the proposed amendments as set forth in attached Exhibit "A" dated April 1, 2014 are minor adjustments that do not alter, or otherwise modify the uses and character of development and land use within the City of Central Point, and is therefore determined to be consistent with all of the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Central Point Planning Commission by Resolution No. 800 does hereby accept, and forward to the City Council a recommendation that the City Council favorably consider amending the City of Central Point Municipal Code as set forth in the attached Exhibit"A". PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 6th day of May, 2014. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 6th day of May, 2014. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. 800 (4/1/2014) Q( 3 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 Chapter 17.05 APPLICATIONS AND TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES Sections: 17.05.100 Purpose and applicability of review procedures. 17.05.200 Type I procedure(administrative). 17.05.300 Type 11 procedure(administrative). 17.05.400 Type III procedure(quasi-judicial). 17.05.500 Type IV procedure(legislative). 17.05.600 General provisions--One-hundred-twenty-day rule--Time computation-- Pre-application conferences--Acceptance and review--Planning official':,Community Development Director's duties--Amended applieatiensDecision Process—Resubmittal Process—City Council Review. 17.05.700 Special procedures. 17.05.800 Reserved 17.05.900 Traffic impact analysis. 17.05.100 Purpose and applicability of review procedures. A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard decision-making procedures that will enable the city,the applicant, and the public to review development permit applications and participate in the local decision-making process in a timely and effective way consistent with the Citizen's Involvement Element of the comprehensive plan. Table 17.05.1 provides a key to identify the review procedures applicable regulations,and the approving authority for particular apprevalsdevelopment permit applications. B. Applicability of Review Procedures. All landsed-development permit applications and-apprevalsidentified in Table 17.05.1, , shall be decided by using the appropriate procedures contained in this-chapter 17.05.The procedurale Page 1 of 52 0L ' EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 "typeType"assigned to each development permit application governs the decision- making process for that permit-er--appreval. There are four types-"Types"of p procedures: Type I, Il, III, and IV,which are . described as follows: •- .. __ •. t - . • • - -• __ •_ . •, • • preeedere(4 1. Type I . Type I decisions procedures ara-apply to administrative decisions made by the community development director or designee without public notice and without a public hearing. The Type I procedures is-are used only when there are clear and objective approval standards and criteria, the application of which does not require the use of discretion ity A Type I decision is the City's final decision. There are no appeals to a Type I procedural decision. 2. Type 1 1 . Type I I deci4ei:is-procedures apply to administrative decisions that involve clear and objective approval standards and criteria the application of which requires the use of limited discretion.Type Il decisions-and 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 II decision is treated as a Type Ill procedure,except that the scope of the hearing is limited as provided in Section 17.05.100(B)(3).and is considered heard -• - •, •: -. • - . - the city's final decision. 3. Type III . Type III deeiaiens-procedures are quasi- judicial decisions that involve the application of existingpolicies.Type III decisions generally use discretionary approval criteria,and do not have a significant effect beyond the immediate area of the application. Type III decisions are based on special studies or other information which will serve as the factual basis to support the decision. Type III decisions, when made by the planning commission,may be appealed to the city council. Page 2 of 52 ®5 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 4. Type IV Procedure-(begislat ). Type IV pxesed decisions apply-teare legislative mattersdecisions that establish by law general policies and regulations for future land use decisions, such as the adoption or revision of the comprehensive plan,and revisions to the zoning and the land division ordinance-Legislative policy(e.g.,that have widespread and significant impact beyond the immediate area,i.e. quantitative changes producing large volumes of traffic,or a qualitative change in the character of the land use itself,such as conversion of residential to industrial use; or a spatial change that affects large areas or many different ownerships. ::: •: : : . _ _ : - _ .• _ . _. . _ _• • _ Unless otherwise noted all Type IV decisions are considered initially by the citizens advisory committee and the planning commission,with final decisions made by the city council. ._ . _ : - - -- , . -•- Table 17.05.1 provides a key to identify the review procedure for each land development permit. TABLE 17.05.1 Annexation Quasi-Judicial Type 111 Chapter 1.20 City Council No Legislative Type IV Chapter 1.20 City Council No Page 3 of 52 6 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 Conditional Use Permit Type III Chapter 17.76 Planning No Commission Extensions Type I Procedures Type I Chapter Director No 17.05.200(G) Type II Procedures Type II Chapter Director No 17.05.300(H) Land Division Tentative Plans Type II Chapter 16.36 Director Yes Partition Tentative Plans Type Ill Chapter 16.10 Planning Yes Subdivision Commission Final Plat Type I Chapter 16.12 Director No Modification of Approval Major Type III Chapter 17.09.300 Planning Yes Commission Minor Type I1 Chapter 17.09.400 Director Yes Planned Unit Development Type 111 Chapter 17.68 Planning Yes Commission Site Plan and Architectural Review Minor Type I Chapter 17.72 Director Yes Maior Type 11 Chapter 17.72 Director Yes Tree Removal Type II Chapter 12.36 Director Yes Page 4 of 52 Dc 114 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 Zoning Map and Zoning and Land Division Code Text Amendments Minor Type III Chapter 17.10 City Council No Major Type IV Chapter 17.10 City Council No Table17.05.1 Appfovatsi Review—Procedures Auftenation Type-IV Chapter 1.20 Co Type II Chapter 17.11 Type IV Chapter 17.10 - _ ' _ . . _ • _ _ Type IV Chapter 17.96 Conditional i3c Permit Typc III Chapter 17.76 Eraension-Request Chapter 17.05 Meme-Oseupatien Type I Section 17.60.190 pe-III Chapter 17.68 - Minor Type II Chapter 17.09 - Major Type III Chapter 17.09 - —Quasi4pdioial Type Ill Section 17.12.030 Page 5 of 52 3G8 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 - Legislative Type-IV Chapter 17.96 ' .. -• - _. .. Type l - - -• ' •- -• ' = - Typpe-III Chapter 17.66 Nonconforming Tse Type-44 Chapter 17.56 - Partition - - Tentative Plan Type lI Chapter 16.36 - Final-Mat Type-1 Chapter 16.12 Land-Use-Review Tyne_I - Type ICI Chapter 17.72 - Saktivisieft - - - Tentative Plan Type-I41 Chapter 16.10 - Rinal-Plat T-513e4 Chapter 16.12 Type IV Section 12.28.020 Tree-Removal Type44 Chapter 12.36 Variance Type II or III Chapter 17.13 Type III Chapter 17.13 - der Type II Chapter 17.13 - SabilivisionsT Majef Type 111 Chapter 17.13 - Subdivisiens Minor Type II Chapter 17.13 conversion-Plan-Review Type II Chapter 16.32 4tpe-4l - * An applicant may be required to obtain approvals from other agencies, such as the Oregon I Department of Transportation, or Rogue Valley Sewer. The city may notify other agencies of applications that may affect their facilities or services. (Ord. 1941 §§1,2, 3,2010;Ord. 1874 §1(part), 2006). 17.05.200 Type I procedure Page 6 of 52 EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 A. Pre-Application Conference.A pre-application conference is not required for a Type I permit application. B. Application Requirements. 1.Application Forms. Type I permit applications shall be made on forms provided by the planning department. 2. Submittal Requirements. Type I applications shall include: a.4nettifile-theThe information requested on the application form; b. Findings addressing Address the Applicable Regulations per Table 17.05.1criteria•• . - -_ .• . •_ . . ._ •.-; and c. Be-f-fled-wi4h4lieThe required fee. BC.Administrative Decision Requirements. The community development director's or designee's decision shall address all relevantef the approval criteria and standards. Based on the Applicable Regulations(Table 17.05.1)criteria and the facts contained within the record,the community development director or designee shall approve or deny the requested permit-er-aehen. A written record of the decision shall be provided to the applicant and kept on file at City Wallin the Community Development Department. GD. Final Decision.A decision on a Type I decision-permit application is the final decision of the city and may not be appealedher. DE. Effective Date. A Type I decision is final on the date it is made per Section 17.05.200(C),and unless construction has been started and diligently pursued shall expire one-year from the decision date. F.Appeal.A decision on a Type I application may not be appealed. EG. Extensions. 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 that: Page 7of52 010 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 1. The land development permit authorizes extensions; 2.No changes are made to the original application as approved by the city; 23. There have been no changes in the zoning,land division cod;or applicable 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 request for extension maybe re-reviewed as a modification per Section 17.09.300; 34. The extension request is ale-filed on or before the expiration of the original or latest extension approvaper Section 17.05.200E 45. If the time limit expired and no extension request has been filed fanteel,the application shall be void. (Ord. 1941 §4, 2010; Ord. 1874 §1(part),2006). 17.05.300 Type II procedureiadministr'ative). A. Pre-Application Conference. A pre-application conference is optional fora Type II reviewspermit application. The requirements and procedures for a pre-application conference are described in Section 17.05.600(C). B. Application Requirements. 1. Application Forms. Type II applications shall be made on forms provided by the planning department for the land development permit requested. 2. Submittal In€efmatienRequirements. The A Type II permit application shall include: a.Inelude4keThe information requested on the application form; Page 8 of 52 EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 b. Findings addressing the Applicable Regulations per Table 17.05.1.: . _ ... •_. . • _ .._ Wig.Note: at the discretion of the community development director additional information may be required during the application process 17.05.1; c. Include one 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 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. The required fee. 3.Notice of Acceptance. Within fourteen(14)days of submittal the community development director or designee shall notify the applicant in writing of: a. The procedural type used for the application. In some circumstances,a Type II application may be referred to a Type III procedure. When such a referral is made it shall be made at the time of Notice of Acceptance, after which the application shall be processed as a Type III application. When a Type II application is referred to a Type 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 II "dministrative Decision. Page 9 of 52 3_L EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 1. Before making a Type II administfative-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 boundaries 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 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. 32. Notice of a pending Type II administrative decision shall: a. Provide a fourteen-day(14)day 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; Page 10 of 52 • EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 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 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 II 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 I I 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. Page 11 of 52 3.1_ 4 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 E. Notice of Decision. 1. Within five(5)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; b. Any person who submitted a written request to receive notice, or provides comments during the application review period; c. Any city-recognized neighborhood group or association whose boundaries include the site; and d. 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 time required by law. 3. The Type II 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; Page 12 of 52 .1 s. 6 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 c. A statement of where a copy of the city's decision may be obtained; d. 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. Effective Date. A Type II administrative decision is final for purposes of appeal when the Notice of Decision per Section 17.05.300(E)it is mailed by the city and becomes . ._ .. • . • - . . • •ffective on the ten(10) days from the date of mailing of the Notice of Decision . If an appeal is filed within the ten(10)day period,the decision is-does not become effective when-until the appeal is decided. G. Appeal. A Type II decision may be appealed to the planning commission as follows: I. Who May Appeal. The following people have legal standing to appeal a Type II administrative decision: a. The applicant or owner of the subject property; b. Any person who was entitled to written notice of the Type II administrative 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 subseetieli-Section 17.05.300(G)(1)-of is-section,may appeal a Type II administrative decision by filing a notice of appeal according to the following procedures; Page 13 of 52 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the community development director or designee within fearteenten(10)days e€-from 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 II adiffiRistr-atiNe-decision by a person with standing shall be a hearing before the planning commission. The appeal shall be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the Type II aElm.,:..t fatiyc review. 4. Appeal Procedures. Type Ill notice, hearing procedures,and decision process shall also be used for all Type Ile 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 11 administrative decision is the final decision of the city. (Ord. 1874 §I(part),2006). H. Extensions.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: 1. The land development permit authorizes extensions; Page 14 of 52 0 L EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 2.No changes are made to the original application as approved by the city; 3.There have been no changes in the zoning, land division code,or applicable 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 request for extension maybe re-reviewed as a modification per Section 17.09.300; 4. The extension request is filed on or before the expiration of the original or latest extension approval per Section 17.05.300(F); 5. If the time limit expired and no extension request has been filed,the application shall be void.. 17.05.400 Type III procedure{ Iasi-fu l). 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. 1. Application Forms. Type III applications shall be made on forms provided by the community development director or designee for the land development permit requested. ; - - - , • . ._ . .. •- - ' - - -. . . _. •-• 2. Submittal Requirements. When a Type III application is required, it shall include: Page 15 of 52 .L) EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 a. .._ _ _ ._ . , -•A completed application form with required attachments; b. ne 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 detail for review and decision- making.Note: additional information may be required under the specific applicable regulations for each approval as referenced in Table 17.05.1; c. The required fee; and d. Iffelude-eneOne set of pre-addressed mailing labels for all real property owners of record who will receive a notice of the application as required in Sections 17.05.400(C)_(1)(a)(i),(ii),(iv)and(v). The records of the Jackson County assessor's office are the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall 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. The failure of a property owner to receive notice as provided in Section 17.05.400(C)shall not invalidate such proceedings provided the city can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was given. C. NeHse-of HearingNotification Requirements. 1. Mailed Notice. The city shall mail the notice of the Type Ill actionhearing.The Notice of a Type III application-hearing or Typc II appeal hearing-shall be given by the community development director or designee in the following manner: a. At least twenty(20)days before the hearing date,or if two or more hearings are allowed,ten(10)days before the first hearing, notice shall be mailed to: Page 16 of 52 0 j..J l:. EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 i. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the property on the most recent property tax assessment role that is the subject of the application; ii. All property owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment role within one-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 intergovernmental agreement entered into with the city. The city may notify other affected agencies. The city shall notify the county road authority, or ODOT,and rail authority and-owner-for applications that are .. - - ' . ,,, _. ._ _ .. •-- 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 vicinity 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 with ORS 227.175. viii.At the applicants discretion notice may also be provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Page 17 of 52 o o EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 b. The community 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. 2. Content of Notice. Notice . ._ _ •- . • _ - • , eetice-of a Type Ill hearing shallte be mailed and--p hed-per SusesfienSection 17.05.400(C)(4--)of this section and shall contain the following information: a. An explanation of the The nature 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 zoning and subdivision development-code *, 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 hearing,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 Page 18 of 52 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 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 seven (7)days before the hearing, and that a copy shall be provided on request at a reasonable cost; 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 Hearing. 1. 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 Page 19 of 52 0 tir/4 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 body(hall may grant the request by scheduling a date to finish the hearing(a "continuance")per Section 17.05.400(E)(1),or by leaving the record open for additional written evidence or testimony per Section 17.05.400(E)(2). 2. If the planning eo....,i ion hearings body grants a continuance,the sempletion-e€-the hearing shall be continued to a date,time, and place at least seven (7)days 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 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 (7)additional days, so that they can submit additional written evidence or testimony in response to the new written evidence; 3. If the planning commi ion hearings body leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony,the record shall be left open for at least seven (7)days 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 left open. 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(E)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. For limited land use decisions Page 20 of 52 -1 4J c.> EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 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 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 III 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 Page 21 of 52 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 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; 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 a hearing 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: Page 22 of 52 3 ' 6 LL EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 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. 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 an opportunity is provided to dispute the evidence under Section 17.05.400(D)(5)(b). F. The Decision Process. 1. Basis for Decision. Approval or denial : . ._ . • . . of a Type III 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 Page 23 of 52 0.mob ti EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 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 plaffffiffg-somfaissieehearings body shall issue a final written order containing the findings and conclusions stated in Section 17.05.400(E)(2)of this section, which either approves, denies,or approves with specific conditions. The plaftfting-senwrissiefihearings body may also issue appropriate intermediate rulings when more than one permit or decision is required. If the application is for a quasi-judicial zone change,the planning eemmissieahearings body shall issue a denial as a final written order. However, if the platiffifigeenimissiefthearings body decides in favor of the zone change, it shall issue written recommendation to the city council, which shall hold a hearing and adopt either an order denying the zone change or an ordinance approving the zone change. 4. Decision-Making Time Limits. A final order for any Type-1-1-ailmiiiistfatiw appealer-Type Ill action shall be filed with the community development director or designee within ten (10)hasiness-days after the close of the deliberation; 5. Notice of Decision. Written notice of a - . • - • ,,_, ___ • . a-Type III decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to all participants of record within ten(10)mess-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 14-appeal-er•-any 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 Page 24 of 52 ry r.i 1 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 land use decision to the State Land Use Board of Appeals must be filed within twenty-one(21)days of the eit=f eaufteills.clate hearing body's written deeisiedecision is mailed by the city*. G. Appeal. A Type III decision may be appealed to the city council as follows: 1. Who May Appeal. The following people have legal standing to appeal a Type III decision: a. The applicant or owner of the subject property; b.Any person who was entitled to written notice of the Type Ill 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 s sestienSection 17.05.400(F)(I) s.sectieft, may appeal a Type I I 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 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 Page 25 of 52 EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 v. The applicable filing fee. 3. Scope of Appeal. The appeal of a Type III decision is limited to the issues and evidence in the record before the planning commission 4. Appeal Procedures. Type III notice, hearing procedure and decision process shall also be used for all Type 11I appeals,as provided in Sectionsubsestions 17.05.400(C)through(E)ef-t is-°see ie ; 5. Final Decision. The decision of the city council regarding an appeal of a Type III decision is the final decision of the city. (Ord. 1 874 §I(part),2006). H.Extensions.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: 1. The land development permit authorizes extensions; 2. No changes are made to the original application as approved by the city; 3. There have been no changes in the zoning, land division code, or applicable 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 request for extension maybe re-reviewed as a modification per Section 17.09.400; 4. The extension request is filed on or before the expiration of the original or latest extension approval per Section 17.05.400(F)(6); 5. If the time limit expired and no extension request has been filed,the application shall be void. Page 26 of 52 �� J EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 17.05.500 Type IV procedure. 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 Section 17.05.600(C). B. Timing of Requests. Acceptance timing varies for Type IV applications(see Table 17.05.1 for applicable section reference). -• : : - :: : - --• : - .. _. . _ _. , .. ! - . . . • !th;-providedr that-the C. Application Requirements. 1. 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(findings and conclusions)that explains how the application satisfies each and all of the relevant approval criteria and standards applicable to the specific Type IV application. D.Notice of Hearing. 1. Required Hearings. A minimum of two hearings, one before the planning commission and one before the city council, are required for all Type IV applications, t :t: . .. . •. . . - _ :• -- - . : _. •- Page 27 of 52 030 EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 2. Notification Requirements. Notice of public hearings fer the-request-shall be given by the community development director or designee in the following manner: a. At least twentyten(10)days, but not more than forty(40)days, before the date of the first hearing : . . . _ , , ,•, . • ._ - a notice, . ._ . _.. _. •- __ , _ • - ORS 227.175shall bed mailed to: i. Any affected governmental agency; trr�i. Any person who requests notice in writing; 227.175; - .. ._ . • .. . . . . .. . - - • . b. At least ten (10)days before the first _ : . -_ _. - public hearing date,and fourteen(14)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 Sectionsusectierr17.05.500(D)(2)(a)_€t s ses#en; and Page 28 of 52 3 R { 1 EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 ii. For each published notice, file in the record the affidavit of publication in a newspaper that is required in SectionsubsecHent l 7.05.500(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 prescribed by DLCDat-lei be-reseed. 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(s);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-mtb cctio., E of thi ti Section17.05.500(E)); and --• . . . _ . e . • - :•- -- . - - -. ... .. .. .• . _ • _ - • . . Page 29 of 52 • tJ EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 E. Hearing Process and Procedure. Conduct of Public Hearing 1. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of procedure adopted by the city council: a. The presiding officer of the planning commission and of the city council shall have the authority to: i. Regulate the course, sequence, and decorum of the hearing; ii. Direct procedural requirements or similar 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, termination 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 commission and of the council shall conduct the hearing as follows: Page 30 of 52 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 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 preliminary decision, such as a recommendation to the city council or the final decision of the city; 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 commission 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 Process. The recommendations by the citizen advisory committee,the planning commission and the decision by the city council shall be based on the applicable criteria as referenced in Table 17.05.1.•. ... _• • ... :, . . _ • - H. Approval Process and Authority. 1. The citizen advisory committee and planning commission shall: Page 31 of 52 t! `'i EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 a. The citizens advisory committee,after4fef notice and discussion at a public he meetin ,vote on and prepare a recommendation to the city council to approve, approve with modifications,approve with conditions, deny the proposed change, or adopt an alternative; and b,The planning commission,after notice and a public hearing,vote on and prepare a recommendation to the city council to approve,approve with modifications,approve with conditions,deny the proposed change, or adopt an alternative;and b. Within €eorteen-ten(I0)mess-days of adopting a recommendation,the presiding officer shall sign the written recommendation, and it shall be filed with the community development director or designee. 2. Any member of the citizen advisory committee or planning commission who votes in opposition to the planning eom__ io ;o„'s-majority recommendation 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 commission does not adopt a recommendation to approve, approve with modifications, approve with conditions, deny the proposed change,or adopt an alternative proposal within sixty (60)days 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 Page 32 of 52 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 b. Provide notice and put the matter on the city council's agenda for the city council to hold a public hearing and make a decision.No further action shall be taken by the citizen advisory committee or planning commission. 4. The city council shall: a. Consider the recommendation of the citizen advisory committee and planning commission; however, the city council is not bound by the committee'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 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. 1.A vote by a majority of the qualified voting members of the citizens advisory committee present is required for a recommendation for approval,approval with modifications,approval with conditions,denial or adoption of an alternative. 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. 23. 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(5)business days after the city council decision is filed with the community Page 33 of 52 0t, u V EXHIBIT "A—PROPOSED AMEND 6E 20S4 Dated: May 6, development director or designee. - ' ' e Type IV decision,if approved,shall take effect K.Final Decision and Effective Date. A Typ ordinance,or if not approved, upon the and shall become final as specified in the enacting date of mailing of the notice of decision to the app licant. L.Record of the Public Hearing. 1. A verbatim record of the proceeding shall be made by stenographic,mechanical, ectronic means. It is not necessary to transcribe an electronic r c paThe the or el art of the hearing s minutes and other evidence presented as a p 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 submitted 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 minutes 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(part),2006). rovisions prod-p — - 17.05.600 General __ • -- - � _ _ _ . page 34 of 52 n • I1 ILA 1 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 A. One-Hundred-Twenty-Day (120)Rule. In accordance with ORS 227.178 the The city shall take final action on all limited land use decisions as identified in Table 17.05.1, including resolution of all appeals •- , .- • • . .- •-. • • - .. _ , • _ ..•.: _ . . . . . ..._. ,within one hundred twenty(120)days from the date the application is deemed as complete, unless the applicant requests an extension in writing.Thee total of all extensions may not exceed two hundred forty-five (245)days. Any exceptions to this rule shall conform to the provisions of ORS 227.178. (The one-hundred-twenty-day rule does not apply to Type IV legislative decisions--plan and code amendments -- under ORS 227.178.) 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 run 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 runs until 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 Page 35 of 52 t� L) EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 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 Sectionly -' •. -. . seetien 17.05.600(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. 1. 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 Eperson(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 Ill) for the same one or more parcels of land,the proceedings may, at the option of the applicant,be consolidated for review and decision. Page 36 of 52 0 V EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 a. If more than one approval authority would be required to decide on the applications if submitted separately, then the decision shall be made by the respective approval authority having origin-jurisdiction over each type procedure . - . -. ... ._. •. _ . -: ._ . . - - b. When proceedings are consolidated: i.The notice shall identify each application to be decidedconsolidated; 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 en-for each consolidated 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. Page 37 of 52 40 EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 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 (30)days of receipt of the application and allow the applicant one hundred eighty (180)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 (180)days of the date the initial submittal was accepted per 17.05.600(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. Page 38 of 52 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 4. Changes or Additions to the Application . Once an application is deemed complete per 17.05.600(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 evidence submitted after 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 after 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 alternate,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(120)-day rule(sttbsestient 17.05.600(A`" „f this Gec`ion)on the existing application. If the applicant does not consent,the city shall not select this option; Page 39 of 52 0 e N EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 ii. Declare the application,based 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 separate check for acceptance and completeness and will be subject to the standards and criteria in effect at the time the new application is accepted. E.Community Development Director's Duties. The community development director or designee shall: I. Prepare 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 public hearing(Type III or IV process),the community development director or designee shall make the staff report available to the public at least seven(7)days prior to the scheduled hearing date, and make the case-file materials available when notice of the hearing is mailed,as provided by Sestien 17.05.300(C)(Type II), 17.05.400(C)(Type III), or 17.05.500(D)(Type IV); Page 40 of 52 0 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 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 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 staff 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 documentation which was considered by the decision-maker(s)on the application;and 8.Administer the appeals and review process. F.Amended Decision Process. 1. The purpose of an amended decision process is to allow the community development director or designee to correct typographical errors,rectify inadvertent omissions and/or make other minor 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(120)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. Page 41 of 52 EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 4. Modifications to approved plans or conditions of approval requested by the applicant shall follow the procedures in Chapter 17.09.All other changes to decisions that are not modifications under Chapter 17.09 shall follow the appeal process. G. Resubmittal of Application Following Denial. An application or proposal that has 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, unless 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 II or Type Ill 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 17.05.400(F), regarding appeals from Type Ill decisions. (Ord. 1874 §1(part),2006). 17.05.700 Expedited Land Divisions. An expedited land division(ELD)shall be defined and may be used as provided under ORS 197.360 through 197.380. 1. 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. Page 42 of 52 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 3. Appeal Procedure. An appeal of an ELD shall follow the procedures in ORS 197.375. (Ord. 1874 §1(part),2006). 17.05-800 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. IThis chapter establishes the standards for when a development proposal must be reviewed for potential traffic impacts; when a traffic impact analysis must be submitted with a development application in order to determine whether conditions are needed to minimize impacts to and protect transportation facilities; what must be in a traffic impact analysis; and who is qualified to prepare the study. A. 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: 1. If the application includes residential development,a TIA shall be required when the lend asedevelopment 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(20)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 TIA shall be required when a land use application involves one or more of the following actions: a. A change in zoning or a plan amendment designation; Page 43 of 52 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(20)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 meet minimum sight distance requirements, as determined by the city engineer,or is located where vehicles entering or leaving the property are restricted,or such vehicles queue or hesitate on the state highway, creating a safety hazard in the discretion of the community development director; or g. A change in internal traffic patterns that, in the discretion of the community development director,may cause safety problems, 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 §1(part),2006). Page 44 of 52 Fit 4 EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 Chapter 17.08 DEFINITIONS "Development"means making a material change in the use or physical appearance of a structure or land,dividing land into two or more parcels, including partitions and subdivisions as provided in ORS 92.010 to 92.285,and creating or terminating a right of access. •_. :1 _ .. Page 45 of 52 U L) EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 Chapter 17.10 ZONING MAP AND ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS Sections: 17.10.100 Amendments--Purpose. 17.10.200 Initiation of Amendmentsamen meats. 17.10.300—Major and Minor Amendments 17.10.400 17.10.400 Approval Criteria . .. . . •.. _ . . _ - ... 17.10.500 onditions of Approval. 17.10.600 Record of Amendments : :. . •• . ., . _ . - _ 17.10.100 Amendments Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for legislative-major and quasi- ittelieialminor amendments to this Code arm/or the Central Point city zoning map(zoning map). herein- These-y444-be-referred to as"map a-or text amendments." • • _ . • . ._ ___ . --_ changes in the law (Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006). 17.10.200 Initiation of Amendments. A proposed amendment to the Code or zoning map may be initiated by either: A.A resolution by the planning commission to the city council; B.A resolution of intent by the city council;or for zoning map amendments C. An application by one or more property owners (zoning map amendments only), or their agents, of property affected by the proposed amendment. The amendment shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property or properties affected; proposed findings of facts supporting the proposed amendment, justifying the same and addressing the substantive standards for such an amendment as required by this chapter and by the Land Conservation and Development Commission of the state. 17.05.300 Major and Minor Amendments There are two types of map and text amendments: A. Legislative Major amendments. Page 46 of 52 U . EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 Legislative Major amendments are legislative policy decisions made by city councilthat establish by law general policies and regulations for future land use decisions, such as revisions to the zoning and land division ordinance that have widespread and significant impact beyond the immediate area. They Major amendments are reviewed using the Type IV procedure in Section 17.05.500 and shall conform to the statewide planning goals, the Central Point comprehensive plan, the• • . - - • e.: • e, • • • • -• . . Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006). B4 amendments.• • •• -• • • = •- • - • .QuMinor amendments are those that involve the application of adopted policy to a specific development applications code•revision,and not the adoption of new policy(i.e., _ . • _ . :- Major Amendments).Quasi judicialMinor amendments shall follow the Type III procedure,as governed-set forth in 1y-Section 17.05.400. .., . ... . __ •. : . -_ . .- ... . . . . . ' . fellows= B17.10.400+Approval Criteria a.: • _ . • - _ . -.. .A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for aka text or map-amendment shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address all-of the following criteria: 1.Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals(Major amendments only); 2.Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan(Major and Minor amendments); Page 47 of 52 50 r EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 3. If a zoning map amendment findings demonstrating that adequate public services and transportation networks to serve the property are either available,or identified for construction in the City's public facilities master plans; and:.. _ _ • •- -: _• • •_ Major and Minor amendments); . .._ - . : _: : _: • . _ _ . - •._. • . .... • Z. .. . ., : ._ . . . _. _ : : •: - -:;ate 4. If an annexation findings demonstrating that adequate public services and transportation networks to serve the property are either available,or identified for construction in the City's public facilities masterplans;and(Major and Minor amendments); 5. The amendment -: . •• . - . .. . : : -•-_ - . . :_ __. • - -1 87680complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. (Ord. 1874 §3(part),2006). 17.10.440-500 Conditions of approval for quasi judicial amendments. A. Major amendments decisions may only be approved or denied. B.A-quasi-judicial Minor amendments decision may be for denial,approval, or approval with conditions. Conditions shall be based on applicable regulations and factual evidence in the record. - . - : - .- :.. : - - . (Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006). 17.10.500 600 Record of amendments. The city recorder shall maintain a record of amendments to the text of this code and the zoning map in a format convenient for public use.(Ord. 1874 §3(part),2006). Page 48 of 52 05.L EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 Chapter 17.96 ' • - • - - - • •- - ' - • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AMENDMENTS Sections: 17.96.010 17.96.100 Prresedure.Amendments—Purpose 17.96.200 Initiation of Amendments 17.96.020 17.96.300 Major Revisions and Minor Changes.••! ! • • - - . _ - - --, ••_.17.96.400 Submittal Timing of Proposals • -- . . ••_ • 17.96.050 17.96.500 Approval Criteria. 17.96.060 17.96.600 • .Record of Amendments 17.96.040-100 Amendments - PurposeProcedure. The purpose 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 convenience and general welfare requires.Amendments may be made to the comprehensive plan by following the procedural requirements set forth in 17.05.500 and this chapter. •• - - , . . . - -- - . •• • . . _ . (Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981). 17.96.0200 Initiation of amendments. A proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan or urban growth boundary may be initiated by either: A. A resolutionResoltnion of'tention ye€the planning commission to the city council; B. A resolutions of intention by the city council; or C. An application by one or more property owners,or their agents, of property affected by the proposed amendment. - _ ._ .__. .. ._ - . - . .._ Page 49 of 52 EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014• = -- -• ' " •- Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981). 17.96.930-300 Major revisions and minor changes Time for hearing.•- ' '' - • :- • '•-: • = - .-- :Proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan, including urban growth boundary amendments shall-beare categorized as either major revisions or minor changes-amendments as defined in 17.05.100.4. ._ . . -_ • _ • . _ .• Proposals for major revisions shall be processed as a Type IV procedure per 17.05.500,,as-provided-#or-in the . _ : _ _ . .. . - . _. . , : _-Proposals for minor changes shall likewise-be processed as a Type III procedure per 17.05.400. - •• •- - ! Ord. 1615 §60, 1989; Ord. 1 436 §2(part), 1981). 17.96.94-0-400 Se-hedule of public hcaringsSubmittal Timing of Proposals. Applications for an amendment to the comprehensive plan, or urban growth boundary, may be submitted at any time. Once accepted proposals shall be scheduled by the city council by 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. • •• - -• --• . - • • •• •-•- - • . - . -. Ord. 1533A(part), 1984; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981). 17.96.03.0-500 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 criteria: A. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals:, B.Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan:, Page 50 of 52 EXHIBIT"A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 C.For urban growth boundary amendments findings demonstrate that adequate public services and transportation networks to serve the property are either available,or identified for construction in the City's public facilities master plans Ma'or and Minor amendments); and D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule.•S ..' : t • - . .. . . . ... _. . . •• • , - • - , . • - -- - - • _ .. . '_ •.. •- . . 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(part), 1981). 17.96.600 Record of amendments. Page 51 of 52 V i EXHIBIT "A— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS" Dated: May 6, 2014 The city recorder shall maintain a record of any amendments to the comprehensive plan in a format convenient for public use. Page 52 of 52 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO.801 FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT ODOT INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN(TAMP 35)FOR THE SEVEN OAKS INTERCHANGE AREA,FILE NO.14005 Planning Department STAFF REPORT CENTRAL Torn Humphrey,AICP, POINTCommunity Development Director STAFF REPORT May 6,2014 AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14005 Consideration of Oregon Department of Transportation Interchange Area Management Plan for the Seven Oaks Interchange Area (IAMP35); Applicant: City of Central Point. STAFF SOURCE: Don Burt,AICP 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 1-5 interchange(IAMP35). Although ODOT is not required to obtain city approval of the IAMP35 they did coordinate their findings and proposed plans with the City. The final draft of the 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 commission adopted the IAMP35. As a condition of the City's Regional Plan Element it is necessary that the City"adopt"the IAMP35 prior to the expansion of the City's urban growth boundary into CP-1 B. Currently the City has before it a proposal in CP-1 B for inclusion of approximately 50 acres into the City's UGB. As a pre-requisite to the City final action on the UGB expansion it is necessary that the City approve the IAMP35. The purpose if the IAMP35 is to improve the I-5's performance and safety and protect the function of the interchange during the foreseeable future(2034). A copy of the IAMP35 is attached(Attachment"B"). IAMP35 concludes with a "Preferred Alternative"(page 27 of the IAMP35). The Preferred Alternative includes a list of proposed improvements to the: • I-5 Interchange; • Blackwell/Kirkland Rd. intersection; • Local street network north and south of the interchange; and • OR 140 The IMAP35 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: 1. Two new streets paralleling Blackwell Rd., 2. The rerouting of Dean Creek Rd. 3. Closure of the Seven Oaks RR-Xing and improvement of a local street network to serve the area. At the meeting the improvements will be discussed along with relevant policies. ISSUES: IAMP35 is an ODOT document. There are no issues relative to the City's approval of the IAMP35. It is recommended that in the near future(one year)that the City amend its Transportation System Plan(TSP)to include the IAMP35. EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Page 1 of 2 nriA Attachment"A—Draft Resolution" Attachment"B—IAMP35" ACTION: Discussion and consideration of Resolution No. 801 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 801 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve IAMP35. Page 2 of 2 t)v t ATTACHMENT "A" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.801 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SEVEN OAKS INTERCHANGE AREA(IAMP35). (File No: 14005) WHEREAS, in September 2013 the Oregon Transportation Commission adopted the Interstate 5, Exit 35 Interchange Area Management Plan(IAMP35); and WHEREAS, the City has participated in the preparation of the 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 the CP-1 B area;and WHEREAS,the City has pending an application to expand the UGB into CP-1B; and NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Central Point Planning Commission by Resolution No. 801 does hereby accept, and forward to the City Council a recommendation that the City Council favorably consider adopting IAMP35 as presented in Exhibit"A";and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission further recommends that the City to amend within the fiscal year 2014-15 budget year the Transportation System Plan (TSP) to include the projects,policies,and development standards set forth in IAMP35. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 6`h day of May,2014. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 6`h day of May, 2014. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. 800 (4/1/2014) 0 c U 4/ „ (. Jreon Department of Transportation Office of the Director,MS 11 r s s John A.Kitzhaber,MD,Governor 355 Capitol St NE Salem,OR 97301-3871 DATE: September 4,2013 TO: Oregon Transportation Commission FROM: Matthew L. Garrett Director SUBJECT: Agenda F—Adopt the Interstate 5,Exit 35 Interchange Area Management Plan(TAMP) �11Edr IAction Request to adopt the Interstate 5,Exit 35 Interchange Area Management Plan as 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. Bay 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 CQjies;(w/attachmentsj to: Jerri Bohard Dale Hormann Patrick Cooney Lisa Martinez Paul Mather Erik Havig McGregor Lynde Mike Baker Frank Reading Kelly Jacobsen Agenda F_5 Exit35 TAMP Ur.doc 9/3/2013 ro 0 'JJ Exhibit A Staff Report I-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(Int. 35 lAS). 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. The IAMP was developed with in coordination with the City of Central Point and Jackson County. Jackson County is in the process of adopting the IAMP. 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 (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 highway 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. Exhibit A Staff Report Page 1 1-5,Exit 35 IAMP September 2013 060 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 LAMP examined year 2008 and year 2034 traffic and safety conditions within the LAMP Study 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 RVITS 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 jurisdictionally transferred OR 140 to ODOT. Future approach roads or driveways will be consistent with or move in the direction of current standards. Exhibit A Staff Report Page 2 I-5,Exit 35 LAMP September 2013 0G 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 LAMP public involvement process utilized the standing City of Central Point Citizens Advisory Committee. Staff made regular presentations to the Committee regarding the IAMP 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 IAMP measures. Staff met personally with property and business owners and/or their representatives regularly during development of the IAMP. This included meetings with representatives of Erickson Air-Crane and Consolidated Freight. Summary of Draft Findings ODOT's State Agency Coordination Agreement requires that the OTC adopt findings of fact when adopting facility plans (OAR 731-015-0065). Pursuant to these requirements, ODOT has developed findings to support the OTC adoption of the 1-5, Exit 35 IAMP. 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 A Staff Report Page 3 1-5,Exit 35 IAMP September 2013 0Cr,i Exhibit B Findings I-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 fora transportation facility...". This I-5, Exit 35 Interchange Area Management Plan (LAMP) 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[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. (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 comprehensive 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 1-5,Exit 35 LAMP 0C 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 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. (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 provides the following findings to support the OTC adoption of the LAMP. 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 LAMP 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 LAMP and OR 140 Corridor Plan, on 7/27/11, 11/16/11 and 11/15/12. The open houses including graphic presentations and a Spanish-language translator. Exhibit B-FINDINGS 2 1-5,Exit 35 IAMP 0 6 :1 ODOT staff met several times with affected business and property owners and their representatives, including Erickson Air-Crane and Consolidated Transport. The meetings provided information to ODOT staff that reduced the impact to business and property owners. ODOT staff provided copies of the draft LAMP to Jackson County, the City of Central Point, DLCD and affected business and property owners. Comments received were addressed prior to finalizing the LAMP. A copy of the final IAMP,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 LAMP 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 IAMP. 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: (I) 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 35 IAMP C �� 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 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 would be substantially affected by the facility plan. Finding: The LAMP 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 LAMP 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 city 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 Goal 1—Citizen Involvement The IAMP 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 IAMP, 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. Exhibit B-FINDINGS 4 I-5,Exit 35 IAMP C 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 IAMP recommendations. Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning The IAMP is not a land use planning document. The IAMP relied upon the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Development Ordinance, and zoning plan for all land use assumptions. The IAMP does not recommend any land use changes. Statewide Planning Goal 3—Agricultural Lands The IAMP relied upon the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and zoning map to identify agricultural lands within the interchange management area. The IAMP recommendations have no impact to Agricultural Lands. Statewide Planning Goal 4—Forest Lands The IAMP 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. Statewide Planning Goal 5—Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic 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 ODOT 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 IAMP was developed in collaboration with Jackson County and was determined by Jackson County 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 Bear Creek Greenway, a bicycle/pedestrian path extending from the southern to northern boundaries of the Rogue Valley. The measures and improvements proposed in the IAMP do not impact the Bear Creek Greenway. Statewide Planning Goal 9—Economic Development Exhibit B-FINDINGS 5 1-5,Exit 35 1AMP 0 C t9 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 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 IAMP. 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 IAMP 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 IAMP. OAR 660-012-0030—Determination of Transportation Needs Exhibit B- FINDINGS 6 1-5,Exit 35 IAMP f ��?? `0 C� V The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan identifies land uses through the planning horizon. The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and population and employment 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. The IAMP evaluated transportation system management measures, and identified improvements to the local street network that were forwarded 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. However, 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 Goal 14—Urbanization This Statewide Planning Goal concerns the shift from rural to urban land and is therefore outside the scope of the IAMP. However, 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, including those lands that are expected to be urbanized through the planning horizon. Exhibit B-FINDINGS 7 1-5,Exit 35 IAMP 0 c Further, the LAMP relied on the local Regional Problem Solving assumptions and requirements. Specifically, the requirement that an LAMP 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 731-015-0065(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 8 1-5,Exit 35 LAMP ?V 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 IAMP 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 IAMP, 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 the jurisdiction 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 of 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 B-FINDINGS 9 1-5,Exit 35 IAMP t:" t .L (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. (See 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 LAMP, 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 10 1-5,Exit 35 LAMP t.9 ) t o Jackson County Transportation System Plan • Compliance o Statewide Planning Goals which specifically apply o Other Statewide Planning Goals that can be clearly defined • Consistency o Oregon Transportation Plan o Oregon Highway Plan o Highway Design Manual 2. Compatibility with Acknowledged County and City Comprehensive Plans The Draft LAMP 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 County'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 IAMP used the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan current and future land uses and zoning designations in identifying future traffic volumes and transportation facility needs. The IAMP 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 11 I-5,Exit 35 IAMP 4 eJ Planning); Goal 11 (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 IAMP 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 IAMP a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was utilized. The TAC, 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 are 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 1-5,Exit 35 LAMP 0 w4=#E Preparation of the IAMP 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 IAMP 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. The 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 IAMP 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 13 1-5,Exit 35 IAMP J • � The IAMP 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 OHP 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 IAMP 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 safe 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 IAMP 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 IAMP 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 IAMP,the land is identified in the Rogue Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan as future industrial. Exhibit B-FINDINGS 14 1-5,Exit 35 IAMP t4.± ti The IAMP identified transportation improvements necessary to ensure the adequate provision of transportation facilities supportive of 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, and the Highway Design Manual Oregon Transportation Plan The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) is a policy document developed by ODOT in response to the federal and state 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 IAMP 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 1: System Definition Policy 1A—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 IAMP has been prepared with the participation of Jackson County, The 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 B-FINDINGS 15 1-5,Exit 35 IAMP :1 e was composed of key staff members from Jackson County, the City of Central Point, ODOT, and the RVMPO. Policy 1C—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. Finding: Interchange 35 is located on 1-5, which is listed in the OHP as a Designated Freight Route. The LAMP 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 LAMP 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 LAMP includes future recommended improvements to the roadway to accommodate anticipated traffic 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: The 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 OHP. 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 16 1-5,Exit 35 IAMP 0 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 efficiency 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 1H—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 not justified and was not examined. Goal 2: System Management Policy 2A—Partnerships This policy directs ODOT 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 LAMP 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 I-5,Exit 35 LAMP ,.. ' `U i J 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, state agencies, and tribal governments have opportunities to have input into decisions that impact the state highway system. Finding: The exit 35 LAMP 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 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 LAMP considers a single interchange within the Rogue Valley. The LAMP 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: LAMP planning processes do not include education and enforcement analysis. The LAMP 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 1-5,Exit 35 TAMP 080 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 of the NHS system. The LAMP 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 LAMP 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 are consistent with approved transportation system plans. Finding: Traffic analysis conducted for the LAMP 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 IAMP identifies specific measures to manage access within the interchange influence area. The IAMP 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 19 1-5,Exit 35 IAMP Finding: This policy does not apply to the LAMP. 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 LAMP. The IAMP 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 IAMP 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 travel 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 are 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 state 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 B-FINDINGS 20 1-5,Exit 35 IAMP 0 6!J Demand Management measures. However, there is a policy in the LAMP 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 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 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 LAMP, as the LAMP does not include design, construction, operation or maintenance of the state highway system. Further,the LAMP 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: LAMP 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 LAMP Highway Design Manual The Highway Design Manual (HDM) implements OHP 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 State Highways. Chapter 10, Special Design Elements,prescribes planning standards for highway facilities. Finding: The HDM 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 B-FINDINGS 22 1-5,Exit 35 LAMP 0 6 I Exhibit C Contact Information 1-5, 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/outgoing/OTC September13 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 63 PROJECT LOCATION PI ODOT REGION 3 ....------ coe, s a. •••♦• ..—T.--- e ••• • m -_____ NEWLANQ RQ._....-__ 1 • wo J• • • • • • • MERITA TRAIL RD •• •' Jackson • • ``� County m Rogue Valley — 0 p ••: •; ACT _._ iPgCiFiC \ •• •7 \ •; _._ GIBBON RD LitiTt • • • w WILL SPRINGS RD • ■■aa■ 2-12 ,,,, 1 PROJECT LOC!\T ION t1� • • • ___._.,' L !ERIC) ,Q I AVE a I • o yG0‘ i -r, I z •H PTON w O} RD SCENIC AVE 2 ■ Q / N : 1 \\ - ( :. :a - ,1 re zi �' � I , 1 _ LEGEND PROJECT 1-5 EXIT 35 INTERCHANGE SITE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN STATE HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION INTERSTATE STATEWOE ------°°°' REGIONAL/DISTRICT 'This product is for informational purposes and may 0 0.35 Mlles not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, I engineering,or surveying purposes. Users of this REGIONAL BOUNDARY information should review or consult the primary data PRODUCED BY 0_DOT-GIS UNIT -------------- COUNTY BOUNDARY and information sources to ascertain the usability (503)988 3154-AUGUST 2013 �� ACT BOUNDARY at the information." GIS No.23-52 \\SS000E\GISWORK\GIS23 52 OTC_maps andyraphics\OTC_MAPS\OTC 13_MAPSWEGION3%MXD PROJECT VICINITY i" ODOT REGION 3 40QuA 0 4P• aRoedsport CP 4 _____________I ® - Lane CI I / coo. v L__, Bay � ,tit J, _ ti l Yom` I �� Lf UNnQUA vY © Coos I N0.13$ / ® I Roseburg I I I 11110''S6 CI 142 J S Douglas 270 v IN { NO� :.o \ I M„ I a r le ri—rf •CD, I / (I 0 . t / I SCE I. CP r f 1 i i f4 a Jackson no ),Grants Pass (i Josephine t�� e2, 270 l--_,i $6 —� V1MOODa“WY,IW t •--� r-• PlloJi c I Central ... Chi 41 Point Medford ,� �`'�N. 23I , . v 4).M l I Mhl '© b K a78K1Y0U OREGON,t,NYO�yEa ///yt,© NO. 73 CI --------- ‘11�--- - '--- 273 I 1-5 EXIT 35 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN LEGEND PROJECT LOCATION "This product Is for informational purposes and may 0 10 Miles not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, STATE HIGHVVAY engineering,or surveying purposes. Users of this —""—""—""—' COUNTY BOUNDARY Information should review or consult the primary data FoltiCE0311354Y ODOT-GIS UNIT and information sources to ascertain the usability -AUGUST 2013 ---''—"-- STATE BOUNDARY of the information" GIS No.23-52 \\5e000E\GISWORK\OIS23 52 O7C maps■ntl_praphies\OTC MAPS\0TC_13_MAPS\REGION 3\MXD\ .. . +.. Central Pt. r----- Blackwell Rd. -40. ......_ __. 4- STATE POLICE I +4 ,_.,.._ , I FY-1 rm, II _...- 1 , 7- .- ..,- 4 4 1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) Jackson County Interchange Area Management Plan Prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 3 3500 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, Oregon 97470 Prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. 2100 SW River Parkway Portland, Oregon 97201 September 2013 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 'a, DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC. TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Interchange Function 1 1.2. Problem Statement 1 1.3. TAMP Study Area 2 1.4. TAMP Goals and Objectives 4 1.5. Planning Process 4 2. EVALUATION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS 6 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 TAMP VOLUME 2: REFERENCE MATERIAL(COMPANION DOCUMENT) Technical Memorandum#1: Definition and Background Technical Memorandum #2: Review of Plans and Policies Technical Memorandum #3: Existing Traffic Conditions Technical Memorandum#4: Future Baseline Traffic Conditions Technical Memorandum#5: Concept Development Technical Memorandum #6: Interchange Management Actions Table of Contents TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) September 2013 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. TAMP 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 5. 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. TAMP 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. TAMP Improvements and Access Management Areas 38 Table of Contents ii rc-• ' , �. v ,� TAMP:I-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 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 TAMP are designed to accommodate proposed future development as well. This TAMP 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 Tolo 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 1 TAMP: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 26,000,2 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 I-5. The Tolo employment area lies primarily north of Interchange 35. Although the development density is currently low, its nearby access to I-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 I-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. TAMP Study Area The TAMP 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 TAMP study area is partially located within the City of Central Point's Urban Reserve Area CP-4D and Urban Reserve Area CP-1B. See Volume 2 for maps of Central Points Urban Reserve Areas. Although the TAMP 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 TAMP 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 TAMP study area. 1 Population Estimate, Portland State University,July 1, 2012 2 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008 to 2030, Draft July 18, 2008, page 14. Introduction 2 I.nd Rd �■ TO Wtirr CRY Central Oregon&Pacifi Railroad w Newland Rd II to o 0m / re �o �% `cF o' 4. lki-o p. mom. �, III c , '� Gibbon R• = 111 -NI\ li il li ow .rings Rd Ni,N I \ ;1 I 23 I `° i Willow Springs Rd I • Eric) ` c Ave I A L I . .. W i IS I -) - • r _ . 4 r-•m+! 16\1 1 c ! « NTRAL It\i 1� � 1 ` aPOINT , MEIN ■1 1,000 500 0 1'000 Feet Legend Figure 1 Source:Jackson County GIS aaa-IAMP Study Area IAMP Study Area Map Prepared By: CD Central Point UGB and Street Network ,k_ • Study Intersections I I 1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) DAVID EVANS ht■G ASSOCIATES „, Interchange Area Management Plan 1 (' .j ti 6, TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) September 2013 1.4. TAMP Goals and Objectives The goal of this TAMP is to maintain the function of Interchange 35 and maximize the utility of the recent investment in upgrading the interchange. The objectives of the TAMP 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 TAMP 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 TAMP, 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 lif 4 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 (RVTD). Introduction 5 ti., 11 TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) September 2013 2. EVALUATION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS This section summarizes baseline conditions in the TAMP 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 TAMP.)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 ODOT are all discussed below. 2.1.1. Operational Standards The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP)3 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 capacity and 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 1F 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/C] Ratio), Highway Design Manual, Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, OR, 2003. Evaluation of Baseline Conditions 6 . v TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) September 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.6 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 be 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 1/4 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.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ACCESSMGT/docs/DIVISION_51.pdf Evaluation of Baseline Conditions 7 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. 2.2.2. 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 Tolo 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-1B 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 8 100 11/4\hi . • ti. It...R■ . I ‘ti c- al 111 ' -- St , i3 • 0' MIMI 41 Itik . C 11 ' ti..••i ...II '4.50 111 !s Rd )1 illi I o I Central Point Comp Plan Designations I 73 $ I Agriculture I I 4111/ Commercial _.. Eric 410 Industrial II T-. Ave 't -*:,,,,, MF Residential I ei 4 . 41111 Mixed Use I v.) ets c IX Open Space I tn 1, --g; ..1C \\\.• OW Public I co -I B. 0 \ 111 SF Residential 111111111111111M111111 i ' .rk n Jackson County Comp Plan Designations Forestry/Open Space Land C% -i - Agricultural Land IF Mil killNe 411kb, —, illio Aggregate Removal Land MI 41110 Commercial Land CY 4110 Industrial Land • I r; 4 \ Rural Residential Land CD POINT Urban Residential Land 925 462.5 0 925 Feet Legend Figure 2 ormicommi 0 IAMP Study Area Source:Jackson County GIS Jackson County • Study Intersections Map Prepared By: CD Central Point UGB Comprehensive Plan 1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) DAVID EVANS ,Hr ASSOCIATES .c Interchange Area Management Plan • th•••a .I 4, 0'0 e.0'. 0■n T • r rc,ap omp'Ian .mxd Date:5/15/2012 Time:10:20:33 AM User:mmf a d II 6 • .,,,, 1,_ „ , ,,,,,,„.. ,...,, ,,,„;,,.,,,,. :,. „, . .,.. i0 , z , ,, 0, I__ ik c Is , • •• • [ • it 1 O 111144N Ss . OW ,s Rd )1101 Central Point Zoning Agriculture I o I Commercial I Industrial so ' MF Residential I •' Eric Mixed Use I Ave Open Space I z. fON Public I J r• ..,\., ii SF Residential Y 10 Jackson County Zoning o 0 _ _ • Aggregate Removal(AR) _ i k w,.41• General Industrial(GI) • Interchange Commercial(IC) `. Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) l - - ! kil■ Rural Residential 2.5(RR 2.5) s ,---r ilic INN Rural Residential-5(RR-5) I es NTRAL Woodland Resource(W c R) _POINT 1 0°Open Space Reserve(OSR,GI/OSR) Exclusive Farm Use(EFU) o r -- , 925 462.5 0 925 Feet Legend Figure 3 1.(T� 0 TAMP Study Area Source:Jackson County GIS Study Intersections Jackson County Map Prepared By Central Point UGB Zoning Designations IIIII C) 1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) pAV'O EVANS .+.c ASSOCIATES n. Interchange Area Management Plan .a. :• ••• eel IV. 4.r'• , • 'rcrapt oning .ma• Date:5/14/2012 Time:3:27:54 PM User:ala I C Id I . • ='� x ; ., `.1 ,tea` + , .et .> . .t D ..,s t• I -fT ,A r. .,„ 14 K WELLR . I • \: BLACr r r • 1 {l _... . * i.-,. -- •L; .CP-1B `.\ -. 5 - d • t r+1• „ r ' .r• l J ,5, p ✓$ r: ca ,'7 r �/ f f ✓j f r !/ /. 1 '�• '10 v . rra !• 1- \ /A !�.! r ! .//./,/r i / ir "+ • A M. `• ]•.N ! ,: • - / r/ .X• ', • f J ! • �� \\;.•/,///,--'//,,/,,/,////,///,/,/,/ // ' /. t x r f t /�rr /--//// / At.i r -f„ / /� / r fi \CP-4Di r••/ //--r -� ; ,: O r i % / Yl f� , y."//,',. J y f r t1 • . ,. �!/ ,1 /,.),(..-'.../../,-;,/,,',- \fi -! /% `*� � �.7.{. SCENIC AV /,, ,r!/%.., , `._ t6 /.i.'tCP-1C r ..\ _ _ ., -; /rl q / '•' 't. '•, •` i `,_: ,!* t,i i/ .ill 0• r. .. r j• F f /,.t'r!� -I j, te. • i awi � tµl », t• � �'/'/ rl #f .'L r YJ' -nte "...tin: �#�- �,•� /' c'<<, 2 7 '•�• t r ski r t %. ! r Ft r ram �� ^�' �� �`• Qne•Qwnsr Mile UGB Butter Urban Growth Boundary(UGB) , j ff`J/ y•.: "'1"2,'../'./.14/../11;/.//'/.' r J '• X, }i J : .1^ 1 Bulldog audios(2005) ° '` "'••TAY I ;1;r'�";✓� Y•�•' LOR RD ` ,ttrbani4es rvaa - ~. , . '-, central Point Tait lob 4y - _ •Y� f r.r>Q y•r /., %:" tR (•'.` }�.'"p`,,�. �i ,at�`i CnY tStttts • ! r S /! ��� E t it All [ Cdwse Study Areas 1 µ f e a1R ; . ` ft _ +.. r ' ( - t _ ` y a ti „ , ' i. , .- ti )4.Bounty Ccnterehmlys Plan •all Forestry/°pen Space Land ir;• .•l ' , ti .`., '..$ ' ..a t Aggregate Removal Land 1r » • = '. N 1 )1'4.. o /! , a Aggctdfurn[tend . ay r fr.,. y !Ccnm lane t • ' q f w~Y r`y i / f c ti y ' tt .1 i•w Jt i aej,yi/�y e y b , ✓• ,i iv.'1 ' ,= `f,.• i -= r all Lme Us*Land Z i —'Rural Residential Lend , ' .;` • F r .1• MI am Urban Residential Land • ._ „ Nr • 3,000 'f',500 0 3,000 Feet , % t r ti � ' uI Source Figure 4 Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. Existing Development Patterns Map, Central Point.November 2008. Existing Development Map Prepared By." Patterns Map IIII -5 Interchange O ) DAVID EVAN= ....ASSOCIATES Interchange Area Management 35 (Seven Plan t L 3 !MCI Jla Lc J, rat al ltcll IL., LVV•t, aI1V Q J41./�./�1.1111.1 U1.1A1 1_1.11..V.... ......4. v..,,.......r ....rrv•v, ., Bruce &Girard, 2004. Evaluation of Baseline Conditions 12 1-c' .I 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-1B (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 Tolo Area CP-1B 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. In 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 work8 prepared as part of the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) Ill that focused on replacing deficient bridges across the state. ' Existing Soils, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Narrative, David Evans and Associates, Inc., 2004. 8 Environmental Baseline Report for the OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program,Jackson County, ODOT 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 12 'C I TAMP:I-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 TAMP 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 I-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 TAMP 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 PLC; � 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 TAMP.) 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. TAMP 35 Study Area Roadway Inventory *ate - ' Cb r .Rosteii Riltht ' Si ldt ' */a.; Functional. Speed i#i ay Width Width Width. fl "ilerei Roadway _aassificatioe Classification (mph) (felt) . (feet) _ (feet) Lanes ODOT Jurisdiction NB:38 NB:6 1-5 Interstate Highway 65 250 4 SB:38 SB:6 OR 99 South of I-5 SB Ramps District Highway Arterial 451/55' 1051/80' 481/60' 6 31/42 OR 99 Between I-5 Ramps Statewide Highway/ Arterial 45 105 48 6 3 Freight Route Blackwell Rd/OR 140 Statewide Highway/ Minor Arterial 45 604 30-32 3-4 2 Freight Route Kirtland Rd/OR 140 Statewide Highway/ Minor Arterial 45 604 26 1-2 2 Freight Route Jackson County Jurisdiction Blackwell Rd(west of Rural Major Minor Arterial 45 60 32 4 2 Kirtland Road) Collector Willow Springs Rd Local Local not posted3 60 26 2 2 Seven Oaks Rd Local Local not posted3 60 26 2 2 Scenic Ave Minor Collector Minor 45 60 26 2 2 Collector Notes: 1. From Interchange 35 to Mile Point(MP)0.51(approximately 0.13 miles north of Eric Avenue). 2. From MP 0.51 to southern boundary of TAMP 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 safety and speed. 4. Widths may vary at realigned Blackwell Road/Kirtland Road intersection. 1-5 runs northwest to southeast through the study area. For the purposes of the TAMP, I-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(% mile) between on-and off-ramps and roadway intersections or driveways.This%- mile area is called the Influence Area of the interchange. Along the statewide section of OR 99 Evaluation of Baseline Conditions ': 14 TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) September 2013 and OR 140 the access spacing standard is 990 feet.9 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.11 Interchange 35 spacing on I-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 OHP 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 ODOT 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 ODOT spacing standard along Willow Springs Road. 9 Posted speed is 45 miles per hour north of Interchange 35. to Posted speed is 45 miles per hour south of Interchange 35. 11 Posted speed is 55 miles per hour south of Eric Avenue. Evaluation of Baseline Conditions 1111 15 Cr V. Tl r'e " 1 a 7 1 i. % u0 z?` god, " - — 0 r . t ~iY m - 1 • m .in i {1 7 ID m XS 4 m II 4 ' I,wk • i it �•O © p'. m© o , ■ M Ou m © J,,©m Ott' F ice: cri • p© 7i c ,m t± © m n u , • , c is Ca Ca • • © is w' u r Ca J M,••© , 1 ' f care © 1 r u I — m • © Y ■ n;..'-. ! i I-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks)TAMP Access Locations Figure 6 Existing Access Inventory 0 Private • Public 1 0 +, Note:Side of al out does not indicate skis of access locatlon. Vn=E hSx •op •••• 'we.• '•e,, • F.c'ep•cress°cations.mx, 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 m 9t W Y dti s l' �;. ✓a" 5 4 1 ,� •? "4 5 '. Le s ,s a -rr as x u^ - �• r+«: a ! a ) t°�.: N¢9 a a: �.,"� ,,.o.... .. ,#'. Id"ri i"u•{ z s.eP t�f4: � .,,3f ws�,r .Z4441 r Signalized Intersections I-5 Southbound Ramps at OR 99/Willow Springs Overall 0.67 23.0 C 0.85 Unsignalized Intersections Kirtland Road at Blackwell Road SB L/R >1.00 82.0 F 0.85 1-5 Northbound Ramps at Blackwell Road WB LT/R 0.58 17.0 D 0.85 OR 99 at Eric Avenue WB L 0.02 5.0 B 0.95 OR 99 at Seven Oaks Road EB L 0.04 8.0 B 0.95 Acronyms:NB=northbound,SB=southbound,EB=eastbound,WB=westbound,L=left-turn movement,T=through movement,R=right- turn movement. Two or more travel movements permitted in one lane group are indicated with a slash. Notes: 1. At signalized intersections,the critical movement is represented 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 from the Synchro macrosimulation analysis,which cannot account for the influence of signalized intersections on unsignalized intersection operations or reflect the effects of queue spillover from adjacent lanes or nearby intersections. 3. The delay is based on the SimTraffic 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 MPO)and 0.95 for OR 99(district highway in MPO) based on the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. Shaded results indicate where mobility standards are not met. Source:Synchro HCM Intersection Analysis Report and SimTraffic microsimulation 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 17 1 G Legend CM=Critical Movement I a Rd WH�E CITY ---4,=Critical volume-to-capacity ratio(unsignalized) TO Intersection volume-to-capacity ratio(signalized) Del=Critical movment control delay(unsignalized) Central Oregon&Pecifi;Railroad Intersection average control delay(signalized) F 1o% .. LOS=Critical movement level of service(unsignalized) Hv:g N Intersection level of service(signalized) I Arc& HV=Percent Heavy Vehicles Newland Rd CM:SB �....•.....It 95 v/c:>1.00 245 r . Del::F 180 LOS:F 220 HV:9% HV:10% , Blackwell Rd 4 Ct (� , Hv:10% Iiiiii: �e A i_-if) \ 't , CM:NIB 45 vk::0.58 5 rDp ` Del:17 45 LOS:D HV.7% HV.12% Ls ___V• S ��� I I-S NB•�• A8 Ramp ''ii 84 E -....%s\ \ Ili HV:7% HV 0% •' CM:WB C HV:8% v/c: 5 ; , o Del:5 5 OD 416 ,Nv'-LOS:B %% ow rin!s Rd Eric Ave t Tjr %%% �_ ` 4t,, OfRam. ._ Ir`� 80 ' ,%% •u, ... 55� �-5 $ o vM:0.87 215 •HV 10'. I ,,4e∎, 40 45 Det23 �- LOS:C HV.13°. fir Willow Springs Rd %, . Eric) Pangs 1 1 I C Ave Rd a I o ro ` L ' ,,#I c RV.7% 4'Ae% • to cm:ES IA sly INN III C R Lark Lo_ . t0.04 d NI ! sl:8 i CO LOS:B Scenic Ave I 11.1•" � Maul I ill \ n rt 11111 RI HV:o% as, �0'- I S. NTRAL CO I POINT I 11111 NCI i I IN 930 485 0 930 Feet Legend Figure 6 Irmamom (T� PuulAMP Study Area Source:Jackson County GIS .._, Year 2008 PM C.._�Central Point UGB Map Prepared By: Peak Hour Conditions 0 Study Intersections l J_ Stop Control 1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) DAVID EVANS ...a ASSOCIATES,... a Traffic Signal Interchange Area Management Plan 0 TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013 2.4.5. 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 I-5 or OR 99 near Interchange 35. 2.4.6. 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 IAMP.) 2.5.1. 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 19 TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013 2.5.2. Future Baseline Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Turning movement traffic forecasts for 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. Evaluation of Baseline Conditions 11111 20 ,.r Legend CM=Critical Movement Kirtland Rd WHnE Ct?Y --♦ v!c=Critical volume-to-capacity ratio(unsignalized) TO Intersection volume-to-capacity ratio(signalized) Del=Critical movment control delay(unsignalized) Central Oregon&Pacifi Railroad Intersection average control delay(signalized) ----ill, LOS=Critical movement level of service(unsignalized) 1 0, Intersection level of service(signalized) w 1� c � Newland Rd ........... CM:EB illiik p vk:0.63 0 ‘, ��� Del:43 �ed��� OS: m :� 1 A el my ` CM:WB 170 tit,. vDel:110 �35 p, Del:11 35 i__V LOS:F /s n � I-5 NB 1 , i4 Ramp 4 , CM:WB C vDel:II �5 > , Del:11 5 , ,LOS:B .� ow rin s Rd ` 4 .. 4 L I-5 SB trr Eric Ave ,•, Off Rem• ��.. 0 105 t vk1:70.95 I •., � 45� Ds2 35 LOS:D Wilow Spdng R Willow Springs Rd I ; Erich sp""°s I % I I C Ave Rd N•I•I ' ` G I •..• dp -♦ co C r ■••.` 4 I 0 IT-4 1 o !���� d L_rk Ln CM:EB D ` v/c:0.05 Del:6 y rim, 16\r`i cvt, LOS:C Ot Al + c ' RI NTRAL cN 1 POINT I IN MIN 10 980 480 0 980 Feet Legend Figure 7 I TAMP Study Area Future Baseline Conditions Source:Jackson County GIS Map Prepared By: L....!Central Point UGB 2034 RTP Scenario 0 Study Intersections PM Peak Hour fif Stop Control 1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) DAVaD EVANS w..aASSOCIATES INC. a Traffic Signal Interchange Area Management Plan 1 y 3 Legend CM=Critical Movement Kirtland Rd �, v/c=Critical volume-to-capacity ratio(unsignalized) TO WHITE CI'� Intersection volume-to-capacity ratio(signalized) Del=Critical movment control delay(unsignalized) Central Oregon&Pacifi Railroad Intersection average control delay(signalized) --,41 LOS=Critical movement level of service(unsignalized) 0, Intersection level of service(signalized) `i \ Newland Rd \.UII_Ia.I ........... Rd fM,1BB 7 I .. A� Del:97 ec LOS:F % , 1ryp0 �� tY �. 0 , o �a�� ,.0 t 6.-:i od vi '% \ \- c,1i CM:WB 295 vk::>2.0 10 Del:>500 70 ' __ • LOS:F • II lt 1 •• gg Ramp LO •" li Ramp �_ �.% CM:WB C \ II Del::52 ! 5 ; n Del:52 `}-- , i3 g i' LOS:C 5 `.� ow , •rip!s Rd Li Eric Ave `�, ` 4 1-5 SB ttv, _ OM Rem v> n 1 ,,`�II'.-� ... 35� ft f 90 4p 40� v/c:1.31 i40 or_1 30 Ds1:LOS:F Willow Springs Rd 1 ' Ericj Spiag Spnnys I C Ave Rd 1 I • I i •"""" Y e.1. r �...t 1 ��� O -va • t:EB $ moan�as>� d ' L:rk Ln eitA :0.08 7 •l:18 d LOS:C \ U) N. „its , .1. 1:5 re N.y. El NTRAL � � )POINT 8 970 485 0 970 Feet Legend Figure 8 I=TAMP Study Area Future Baseline Conditions Source:Jackson County GIS ,_� Map Prepared By: C•,_;Central Point UGB GBCVRP Scenario 0 Study Intersections PM Peak Hour _e_ Stop Control DAVID EVANS 1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) •hcASSOCIATES.wc. i' Traffic Signal Interchange Area Management Plan 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 Signalized Intersections -___- I-5 Southbound Ramps at OR 99/Willow Springs Overall 0.95 D 72 sec 0.85 Unsignalized Intersections Blackwell Road at OR 140(Kirtland/Blackwell Road) EB L/R 0.83 43 sec 0.85 1-5 Northbound Ramps at Blackwell Road(OR 140) WB L/T/R 1.33 11 sec 0.85 OR 99 at Eric Avenue WB L/R 0.03 11 sec 0.95 OR 99 at Seven Oaks Road EB L/R 0.05 8 sec 0.95 Acronyms:NB=northbound,SB=southbound,EB=eastbound,WB=westbound,L=left-turn movement,T=through movement,R=right- turn movement. Two or more travel movements permitted in one lane group are indicated with a slash. Notes: 1. At signalized intersections,the critical movement is represented 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 from the Synchro macrosimulation analysis,which cannot account for the influence of signalized intersections on unsignalized intersection operations or reflect the effects of queue spillover from adjacent lanes or nearby intersections. 3. The delay is based on the SimTraffic 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 MPO)and 0.95 for OR 99(district highway in MPO) based on the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. Shaded results indicate where mobility standards are not met. Source:Synchro HCM Intersection Analysis Report and SimTraffic microsimluation Under future baseline conditions, two of the study area intersections would not meet mobility standards: • The I-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 I-S northbound ramps at Blackwell Road would exceed the OHP 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. ODOT's 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 23 TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 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 q4. .ri,ii .: . n . .4 kitia , V ;'4 r . Signalized Intersections 1-5 Southbound Ramps at OR 99/Willow Springs Overall 1.31 266 sec 0.85 Unsignalized Intersections El- Blackwell Road at OR 140(Kirtland/Blackwell Road) EB L/R 1.67 0.85 1-5 Northbound Ramps at Blackwell Road(OR 140) WB L/T/R >2.0 >500 sec 0.85 OR 99 at Eric Avenue WB L/R 0.03 52 sec 0.95 OR 99 at Seven Oaks Road EB L/R 0.06 18 sec 0.95 Acronyms:NB=northbound,SB=southbound,EB=eastbound,WB=westbound,L=left-turn movement,T=through movement,R=right- turn movement. Two or more travel movements permitted in one lane group are indicated with a slash. Notes: 1. At signalized intersections,the critical movement is represented 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 from the Synchro macrosimulation analysis,which cannot account for the influence of signalized intersections on unsignalized intersection operations or reflect the effects of queue spillover from adjacent lanes or nearby intersections. 3. The delay is based on the SimTraffic 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 MPO)and 0.95 for OR 99(district highway in MPO) based on the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. Shaded results indicate where mobility standards are not met. Source:Synchro HCM Intersection Analysis Report 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 I-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 24 .��iJ 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 I-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 I-5 travel. Traffic simulations support this finding. Evaluation of Baseline Conditions 25 44th 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 I-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 26 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 ODOT 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 1/4 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 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 1111 28 dl n• Rd TO WHITE C01111111111111.111111171:---4P Central Oregon&Pacifi Railroad 1 r N ewland Rd m it 0 t 4 4h/* ...----All' \. 4.4.,,:::4-;--;")::: )* ,` , r- /. ,% , --- • S % I l-5 NB V1 J �' \ "0. , onion 0♦ , Ramp C ` , Ow •rin.sRd '11‘, Ili 1�J , l-5 s6 ' • Off Ramp --.. a ÷- 1/441low be— Willow Springs Rd ' I Erich Springs 1) .$ CAve Rd I OR 99 Intersection closed Y y d (no rail crossirq) \ ' ii o �� I asp m es L_rk L 0 \co N Scenic Ave r o mum. _- -r — NW . c • I � NTRAL \ Lei j POINT y 960 460 0 960 Feet Legend Figure 9 1 TAMP Study Area Source:Jackson County GIS Map Prepared By: C....1 Central Point UGB Preferred Alternative 0 Study Intersections if a Traffic Signal 1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) CAVIO EVANS ...c AS SOC I AT ES Iwo Interchange Area Management Plan i `_ 1AMP:1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) September 2013 1-5 Southbound Ramp Improvements 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 OHP 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 Tolo 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 Tolo area occurs. (Meeting preliminary signal warrants Concept Development and Analysis 30 r_ td 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 I-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 be 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 1-5.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 11111 31 1..,‘ 3 TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) September 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 Tolo 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 'A-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 %-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 Tolo 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 1AMP:1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 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 TAMP 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 62. 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 may be 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 OHP mobility targets. The applicable HDM standard for the v/c ratio for statewide freight route is Concept Development and Analysis 111, 33 ki TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013 0.85 and the standard for a 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 1-5 Southbound Ramps at OR 99/Willow Springs ----_ Phase 1—Add Northbound Through Lane Overall 0.71 C 1.00 E Phase 2—Add Westbound Left-Turn Lane Overall 0.59 C 0.90 F I-5 Northbound Ramps at Blackwell Road(OR 140) Phase 1—Add Westbound Left-Turn Lane WB L 0.92 >2.0 F Phase 2—Add Traffic Signal Overall 0.62 0.86 C BK Concept 1—Traffic Signal ---- Phase 1—Stripe Two-Stage Left-Turn Lane3 MEM 0.46 C 0.56 Phase 2—Add Traffic Signal Overall 0.46 A 0.58 B OR 99 at Eric Avenue(No Changes) 0.03 MI 0.03 C OR 99 at Seven Oaks Road(Closed) -- -- -- Acronyms:NB=northbound,SB=southbound,EB=eastbound,WB=westbound,L=left-turn movement,T=through movement,R=right- turn movement. Two or more travel movements permitted in one lane group are indicated with a slash. Notes: 1. At signalized intersections,the critical movement is represented by the overall intersection operations. 2. The v/c ratios and levels of service(LOS)are calculated from the Synchro macrosimulation 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. Shaded results indicate where HDM mobility standard of 0.75(statewide freight route)or 0.85(district highway)is not met. Source:David Evans 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. Concept Development and Analysis 34 TAMP:I-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013 Table 6. Preferred Alternative (TAMP Improvements) Phasing Summary ,''4 1-5 Southbound Ramp Improvements Phase 1: • Implement when traffic volumes increase resulting in • Restripe northbound right-turn lane to a 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 a 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 of the intersection area begins to develop for additional southbound receiving lane capacity I-5 Northbound Ramp Improvements Phase 1: • 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 I-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 Tolo 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 SPIS 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 Plan*: • Implement when crash rates,traffic growth,or • Widen to provide a 3-lane rural section(with development of the CP-1B 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 crashes. textured striping or rumble strips *See the 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 35 4. TAMP:I-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 iincept Cost(2011$) ODOT I;County I City 1 Private'. I-5 Southbound Ramp at OR 99 Improvements $1,200,000 Whether and to what degree the I-5 Northbound Ramp at Blackwell Road(OR 140) state,County,City,or private Improvements $1,100,000 development contributes to Blackwell/Kirtland Road Intersection Improvements $500,000 improvements will need to be determined as traffic volumes Local Street Network Enhancements North of the increase or safety Y conditions Interchange warrant. Cost allocations based on Local Street Network Enhancements South of the $50,000 development will need to be Interchange negotiated at the time of TOTAL $9,650,000 improvement. Concept Development and Analysis 36 12$ TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013 4. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES An integral part of the TAMP 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 TAMP 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 TAMP must balance the competing needs for compatible land uses, private access, and the function of the transportation system. This access management measures for this TAMP 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, a4 Jackson County and the City of Central Point to protect the facilities. 4.1.1. Access Management Plan and Enhanced Local Network The TAMP 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 TAMP 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 37 1.; Access Management Measures: E A.Consolidate/close driveways along Blackwell Road(between the northbound ramp terminal and X mile north)as properties redevelop and alternative access becomes available B.Limited/no new access to ` Blackwell Road between the northbound ramp terminal and the /� Blackwell/Kirtland `AvD intersections C C.Consolidate/close driveways along OR 99 (between the southbound ramp terminal and Eric Avenue)as properties redevelop and alternative access becomes available D.Close access from OR 99 to Seven Oaks Road and Railroad crossing E.Limited/No new access to WO a OR 99 between the southbound ramp terminal and Eric Avenue Enhance Local Street Network: @ 1. Develop a local road �� network north of the - interchange to the east and west of Blackwell Road to provide access to undeveloped parcels as well as developed parcels . adjacent to Blackwell Road ' 2. New developments north of the interchange should be accessed via a network of new streets linked to Blackwell Road 3. Extend and reroute the existing Dean Creek Road north K mile Prepared By: Legend Figure 10 Access consolidation/closure Access Management Plan and —'Y' ■ New street connections Enhanced Local Street Network • • • • • Limited/no new direct access DAVID EVANS Close Access/RR Crossing 1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) A s S O c I AT E s ...: interchange Area Management Plan I c V TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 2013 4.1.2. Access Management Actions The following actions are recommended as part of the TAMP 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 %-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 %-mile access spacing from the interchange as well as spacing standards for a statewide freight route (OR 140). However, meeting the 'A-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 { 39 4eS 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 Tolo 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 I-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 TAMP will require the following actions by ODOT, Jackson County, and the City of Central Point. Management Strategies 40 —eJ IJ TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35(Seven Oaks) September 2013 ODOT Actions • 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 for 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 Practical 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 41 _ ; J TAMP:1-5 Interchange 35 (Seven Oaks) September 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 TAMP. 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 (TAMP)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. Management Strategies 42 INTERIM WATER SERVICE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE TOLO AREA URBAN RESERVE (CP-1B)FILE NO.14007 Planning Department STAFF REPORT CENTRAL Tom Humphrey,AICP, POINTCommunity Development Director STAFF REPORT May 6,2014 AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14007 Introduction of draft Interim Water Service Standards Ordinance permitting interim water services for lands within the Tolo Area(CP-1 B) urban reserve; Applicant: City of Central Point. STAFF SOURCE: Don Burt,AICP BACKGROUND: Currently the City has before it a proposal for inclusion of approximately 50 acres to the City's UGB. The area is within CP-1 B and is designated for industrial development per the City's Regional Plan Element. It is the applicant's objective to include the properties in the UGB (2014),annex(2015), rezone(2015),and develop the property (2016)for traded sector industrial purposes(trucking).A major impediment to the applicant's objective is the availability of public water,which is a requirement of development in the City. Based on the City's Master Water System Plan the City's water service will not be extended to this urban reserve area until 2028. The estimated cost to extend water service to the proposed UGB area is $4,200,000. City CIP funding for the extension is not scheduled until, at the earliest, 2020. This cost includes an additional estimated $800,000 owner responsibility to extend the water main the remaining distance to service their property. At this point the options for the continued pursuit of the developer's objective are: 1. Require developers to bear the total cost of the water system and extensions. Given the cost of a water system to service the area this is not a financially feasible option for any one developer. 2. Have the City bear the cost of the extension and allocate the costs to future projects. To undertake this option the City would have to raise its water rates, with the additional costs borne by the existing residents. Of all the land uses(residential,commercial, industrial) industrial has the slowest absorption rate. 3. Allow an interim solution,such as presented in the draft Interim Water Service Standards Ordinance. This option would allow for development and a binding commitment to the construction of a public water system when financially feasible. The Interim Water Service Standards Ordinance requires developers to acknowledge: a. That they are aware of their ultimate responsibility to financially participate in an improvement district for a public water system when available;and b. That there are interim water system standards that must be met as a condition of development. ISSUES: CP-1 B is the City's most significant area for traded sector development and family wage job creation. Without an interim solution to the provision of water for domestic and fire safety the area cannot be developed and the City will lose family Page 1 of 2 .__3 wage job opportunities. The Interim Water Service Standards Ordinance applies only to CP-1 B and is limited to industrial/commercial land uses. EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Attachment"A—Draft Ordinance" ACTION: Discussion and direction RECOMMENDATION: Schedule for public hearing at the June 3, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT"A—DRAFT ORDINANCE" CENTRAL POINT INTERIM WATER SERVICE/DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS April 25,2014 Draft 17.60.220 Interim Service and Development Standards. A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish regulations to govern interim water service for new development within CP-1B where the municipal public water system cannot be immediately extended but where traded sector and support uses will produce economic growth and development. B. Applicability.This Section shall apply exclusively to lands located within the area shown on the below map(the eligible lands)and which have been included in the City's Urban Growth Boundary and annexed to the City as employment lands. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent the repair or replacement of existing domestic wells which supply existing dwellings, nor shall it prevent the issuance of well permits for residential uses where such land is under the jurisdiction of Jackson County and zoned to permit residential uses. oilli6e4,AO L'141111111111p.1111.1 It . `* .. vim MI . Service Area i■ •. . " 2 Urban Reserves Ni , deD , ` C. Interim Water Service Needs Agreement. Before eligible lands are included within the City's Urban Growth Boundary the owner of the land shall enter into an Interim Water Service Needs Agreement on forms that the City will provide which acknowledges that: 1. A public water system is not available and that it is the owners responsibility,at time of development,to demonstrate the owners ability to provide, both physically and financially, adequate private water service for the proposed development; 2. At such time as a public water system becomes available it will be the owner's responsibility,at the owner's sole cost and expense,to connect to the public water system as provided in this section; and Page 1 .' i v i ATTACHMENT"A—DRAFT ORDINANCE" 3. Prior to issuance of a Development Permit the owner will apply for and obtain an Interim Water Service Agreement pursuant to Subsection D. D. Interim Water Service Agreement.At time of a development proposal the owner shall enter into an Interim Water Service Agreement with the City. The Agreement need not be entered into until development has been approved by the City but shall be entered into prior to final plat approval for a partition or subdivision,or the issuance of a building permit, and shall comply with the following standards: 1. After consulting with Fire District#3,an Applicant for interim water service shall cause the preparation and submittal of engineered plans to Fire District#3. The engineered plans shall identify the minimum domestic and fire suppression water needs;the proposed water source, storage and distribution facilities necessary to meet the minimum water needs for both domestic use and fire suppression.The engineered plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed in Oregon that bears his/her professional stamp and seal and shall include an engineer's estimate of the cost to construct the water system per the approved engineered plans. 2. The engineered interim water service plans shall be submitted to Fire District#3 which will have sole authority to determine,on behalf of the City,whether the plans comply with the following standards and provided that reasonable and appropriate conditions may be attached by Fire District#3 to the approved plans : a) Minimum Water Source,Water Storage,and Water Pressure Standards.The engineering plans shall comply with and be governed by Oregon law, including the 2010 Oregon Fire Code, as amended,with respect to water source,water storage, minimum water pressure for domestic and fire suppression purposes,and for any other matter concerning the engineering and delivery of interim water service pursuant to this Section. An applicant shall provide evidence sufficient to establish a lawful right to use ground or surface water to supply interim water service. b) Water Purity. Water supplied by groundwater for interim water service and which is intended for human consumption shall be delivered or treated as necessary to meet State of Oregon water purity standards for drinking water. Wells shall be tested annually for purity in accordance with Oregon law with reports furnished to DEQ. c) Approval of Engineered Plans for Interim Water Service. Fire District#3 shall approve the final engineered plans within 60 days of submittal when such plans are deemed to comply with the standards for service set forth in above Subsections (D)(2)(a)and (b). Fire District #3 will transmit a copy of the approved engineering plans and cost estimate to the City promptly following its approval,along with any conditions recommended to be incorporated into the Interim Water Service Agreement. The City may then enter into an Interim Water Service Agreement with the property owner. Page 2 ATTACHMENT"A—DRAFT ORDINANCE" d) As a condition of the Interim Water Service Agreement the Applicant shall be required to provide security in the form of a bond, a letter of credit in a form acceptable to the City,or cash in lieu of a bond to the City assuring completion of the interim water system per the approved engineered plans.The security shall be secured prior to final approval of a development permit. E. Limitations on Interim Water Service. Interim water service in accordance with this Section and as a prerequisite to the issuance of Development Permits shall only be approved for industrial, commercial and institutional uses and supporting uses thereof. Residential uses other than those in conjunction with permitted industrial, commercial and institutional uses are not eligible to receive approval for interim water service. However, nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent the repair or replacement of existing domestic wells which supply existing dwellings, nor shall it prevent the issuance of well permits for residential uses where such land is under the jurisdiction of Jackson County and zoned to permit residential uses. F. Duration of Interim Water Service. Once an Interim Water Service Agreement is approved by the City, interim water services may be installed by the owner and continued to be used in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and this Section until such time that: 1. A permanent public water supply and delivery system is installed in the area and adequate water supply mains are located within 300 feet of the property authorized for interim water service. At such time as a public water system is available the City will provide written notice to the owner who shall then have ninety(90) days or such greater time as the parties may agree to properly abandon the interim water system,and connect to the public water system. Such connection shall be at the owner's sole cost and expense. It is further provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent the City from permitting the continued use of interim water for landscape irrigation or for any other lawful purpose after connection to a permanent public water system. Where it is proposed and lawfully permissible to interconnect the interim and public water systems, proper backflow prevention device(s)shall be installed;and 2. Additional development is proposed on the property,or additional off-site development that will jointly use the interim water system approved by the Agreement, at which time an amended Agreement will be required. G. Shared Services. Authorized interim water service provided by one or more wells located on a parcel may be permissibly shared with other adjacent and nearby properties subject to an amended Interim Water Service Agreement, prepared in accordance with Section D,that includes all affected properties.. H. Transferability of Authorized Interim Water Service. Approval by the City of an Interim Water Service Agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon successors in interest. Page 3 ATTACHMENT"A—DRAFT ORDINANCE" I. Binding Agreement. Approval of an Interim Water Service Needs Agreement and an Interim Water Service Agreement by the City shall be in the form of a binding,civilly enforceable legal contract between the City and owner of the property for which interim water service approval is sought. Both the Interim Water Service Needs Agreement and the Interim Water Service Agreement shall be recorded and run with the land. Page 4 ... `1 Planning Department STAFF REPORT CENTRAL Torn Humphrey,AICP, POINT Community Development Director STAFF REPORT May 6,2014 AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14005 Consideration of Concept Plan for CP-4D; Applicant: City of Central Point. STAFF SOURCE: Don Burt,AICP BACKGROUND: The City's Plan Growth Element includes a provision that prior to expansion of the urban growth boundary into an urban reserve area it was necessary to adopt a concept plan for the affected urban reserve. A concept plan is required to identify: 1. Conceptual land use plans,addressing targeted residential densities and land use distribution; 2. Conceptual transportation plans addressing significant transportation corridors; and 3. Mixed Use/Pedestrian Friendly Areas With the pending urban growth boundary application into CP-4D it is necessary that a concept plan be prepared and adopted for CP-4D. At the meeting the first draft of the Concept Plan CP-4D will be presented for Planning Commission discussion,after which it will be forwarded to the RVMPO,affected irrigation districts,Jackson County, and ODOT for their review and comment. The Concept Plan will also be scheduled for review by the public. A final draft of the Concept Plan CP-4D will then be presented to the Planning Commission for their final review and recommendation to the City Council. ISSUES: At this time the concept plan for CP-4D is being introduced to the Planning Commission only. Pending the Planning Commission's direction the draft will be completed with findings and distributed to affected agencies for their review and comment,after which it will return to the Planning Commission for further review and recommendation to the City Council. EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Attachment"A—CP-4D Draft Concept Plan" ACTION: Discussion only RECOMMENDATION: Authorize distribution to affected agencies and the public for review and comment. Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT "A — Draft Concept Plan" BEAR CREEK AREA CONCEPT PLAN A CONCEPTUAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR CP-4D AN URBAN RESERVE AREA OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT City of Central Point Adopted by City Council Resolution No. xxxxx,August xx, 2014 Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT "A — Draft Concept Plan" PART 1. INTRODUCTION As part of the Regional Plan Element'it is required that the City prepare and adopt for each of its eight(8) urban reserve areas a Conceptual Land Use Plan'and a Conceptual Transportation Plan3prior to inclusion in the City's urban growth boundary.The contents of this document present both of these conceptual plans,which are herein collectively referred to as the CP-4D Concept Plan ('Concept Plan'). CP-4D's relationship to the City and the other urban reserve areas is illustrated in Figure 1 (Blue Area) The Concept Plan illustrates the Figure 1 City's basic development program for CP-4D is presented '�T in Part 2 of this document.The C641 remainder of the document (Part 1 i . n 3) is dedicated to providing *_ ` °= -, t .I ' a background information used in ;oiii I r _'3 , l ;_ preparation of the Concept Plan, i . r '� : ' ` '=F 3 - including findings of compliance t �` ,' � T tom: with the Performance Indicators "I- `i",; ` alling r.-1 .,„, ., in the City's Regional Plan . Element. s 0 r 111.1 =._ In summary the Concept Plan has ii.--- been prepared in accordance r',` "��- with the Regional Plan Element Loped p;, ,„'"""` T ;;' ' r 49: 4 and complies with all applicable• Na▪ �1•��- m performance indicators set forth EM▪ 1,41Maalleml w,•,,,,„,,,, r ,, *.�__° in the City's Regional Plan 111:::::'."1%.• '4'T? , j 1 �,, I Element 4.The development ▪ °p`"`"" concept for CP-4D compliments Coning►.Int Urban Obse ess&us and supports local and regional objectives relative to land use distribution and needed transportation corridors identified in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. 1 City of Central Point Ordinance 1964 2 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan,Regional Plan Element,Section 4.1 Performance Indicators, subsection 4.1.7 3 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan,Regional Plan Element,Section 4.1 Performance Indicators, subsection 4.1.8 °City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan,Regional Plan Element,Section 4.1 Performance Indicators Page 2 of 5 1_'f3 ATTACHMENT "A — Draft Concept Plan" PART 2. THE CONCEPT PLAN The long-term objective for CP-4D is two-fold. First,to provide the physical connection between the City and a major future employment area (CP-1B)as that area develops and becomes a part of the City.The second objective is to provide enhanced opportunities for open space and recreational uses that will take advantage of a regional recreation source,the Bear Creek Greenway. The Concept Plan is comprised of two elements: a. THE CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN ('LAND USE PLAN' . The primary objective of the Land Use Plan is to refine the land use categories and spatial distribution of those categories throughout CP-4D. This is necessary because the Regional Plan Element only addresses land use in terms of general land use types, i.e. residential,employment, etc., and percentage distribution of the land use. The Regional Plan Element distributes land uses within CP-4D into two basic land use classifications;Open Space/Parks (99%), and Residential (1%).The Land Use Plan for CP-4D refines these land use allocations by aligning them with the appropriate Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning designations in the City's Comprehensive Plan.Those designations are illustrated in Figure 2. The Very Low Density Residential designation of a single one(1)acre parcel was applied on the basis that: • It respects the existing Residential Low Density(R-L)zoning for the area to the east(Boes Subdivision); and • This parcel abuts EFU zoned lands to the north and will be subject to the agricultural buffering requirements of CPMC 17.71. At such time as the parcel is annexed it will be rezoned R-L, or an equivalent future zoning district, consistent with development to the east. The Open Space and Parks designation is consistent with the Regional Plan Element and allows for the continued use and improvement of the Bear Creek Greenway system. It also provides opportunities for passive recreational/open space use, i.e. hiking trails, picnic areas, Frisbee golf, that will both serve the community and compliment the Bear Creek Greenway. Page 3 of 5 i e* I ATTACHMENT "A — Draft Concept Plan" A CENTRAL POINT op i IN r... E , 3- 1 1iiiI■ 1 1"111411� ' I.. .. . 1 �iiii f N.A.. 1 .., fitia .„„„..,- Olphi '; �'s It '�Nail' P r ..1 A, iii,- IIII 6.. 7 rill 'in ? ,• P it ii luny j. : : := in I Mill 1 mirk \ Tr lb I monommu af„ter': . -slirvs,11117—• • , I MI Si ili:24 %N.':rlif• *41 - ' . . .' I '' vc111 1111111 1111 �� 111.1..1....g � 7E411 /�=. •1 N AConcept Plan Legend �.� :.•Public SI Land Ube T�Concopt Plan ol - cP ao - per Creek Ower.ey Path r--1 Os•Open Space Perk. ,,,.,,Apiwleel luau l__i 144.•very Lew Oerwly ar.blenMN P Public Petting Dote:4/25/2014 Page 4 of 5 4 ATTACHMENT "A — Draft Concept Plan" b. THE CONCEPTUAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN ('TRANSPORTATION PLAN') The only regionally significant transportation corridor affecting CP-4D is the Bear Creek Greenway.The Concept Plan identifies the Bear Creek Greenway as an element of the plan (Figure 2). C. IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES Policy CP-4D.1:At time of inclusion in within the City's urban growth boundary(UGB)the property shall be shown on the City's General Land Use Plan Map in accordance with the CP-4D Concept Plan. Policy CP-4D.2:At time of annexation lands designated for Open Space/Parks shall be zoned as Parks and Open Space District (OS)and subject to the standards set forth in CPMC 17.30. Policy CP-4D.3:At time of annexation lands designated for Very Low Density Residential shall be zoned as Residential Low-Density District (R- L)and subject to the standards and criteria in CPMC 17.16. Policy CP-4D.4: Proposed development activity within the Open Space/Parks designated areas shall be consistent with and complement and enhance the County's Bear Creek Greenway Plan as it applies to CP- 4D. Policy CP-4D.5:With the exception of the public streets shown on the Concept plan no roadways for vehicular use are to be extended North, South, East,or West from CP-4D. PART 3. SUPPORT FINDINGS The findings present in this section provide both background information and address the Regional Plan Element's performance indicators. (IN PROGRESS) Page 5 of 5