Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 5, 2016 packetCENTRAL POINT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA April 5, 2016 - 6:00 p.m. I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members Chuck Piland (Chair), Mike Oliver, Tom Van Voorhees, Susan Szczesniak, Craig Nelson Sr., and Kay Harrison III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES Review and approval of February 2, 2016 Minutes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS A. Consideration of a Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Area CP -3. VII. DISCUSSION A. Costco Conditional Use Application update B. Urban Renewal -East Pine Street Streetscape update VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 2016 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:05P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Chuck Piland, Craig Nelson, Tom VanVoorhees, Susan Szczesniak, and Mike Oliver were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Chris Clayton, City Manager, Kim Parducci, Traffic Engineer, Dan O'Connor, City Attorney, Matt Samitore, Public Works director, Don Burt, Planning Manager, Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE III. CORRESPONDENCE None IV. MINUTES Craig Nelson made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 5, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. Tom VanVoorhees, seconded the motion: ROLL CALL: Craig Nelson, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Susan Szczesniak, yes; Mike Oliver, yes. Motion passed. Kay Harrison arrived at 6:12p.m. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES None VI. BUSINESS A. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application for the construction of a 161,992 square foot membership warehouse and fuel facility on an 18.28 acre site at the southwest corner of Hamrick Road and Table Rock Road. The Project site is within the Federal Way Business Park Subdivision in the Industrial (M-1) zoning district, and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 12B, Tax Lots 213, 214, 215 and 216. Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 2016 Page3 Mike Oliver asked for clarification regarding requests from the City of Medford for Costco to share a proportionate cost of additional traffic mitigations they identified at Airport Road and the intersection of Morningside and Biddle Road. Ms. Holtey answered that the issue had been addressed in conditions 3 & 4 of the conditions of approval, indicating that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant needs to provide evidence that they have contributed toward construction of the requested improvements in an amount not to exceed the amount requested by the City of Medford. Tom Van Voorhees requested clarification regarding the mitigation at Airport Road and why it went from a raised median to a traffic signal. Ms. Holtey responded that the Airport was not in favor of the median because it conflicted with their plans for future development so the mitigation cost was based on signalization rather than a median. Matt Samitore stated that when the median was proposed the City did not have information from the airport regarding their master plan and that the intersection was a delivery route to the airport. Also, there are plans for future expansion of the airport which include a signal at that intersection, so a median simply would not work. He also stated that the City of Medford and Jackson County have jurisdiction over that intersection so they would be the ones to decide what will be done there. Tom VanVoorhees, made the comment that the traffic issues now are particular to this application only and should other issues arise in the future regarding any traffic impact from future projects, those issues would be addressed separately. Ms. Holtey affirmed that at issue at this time is Costco's impact to the system on the day of opening. If other applications in the future would have an impact on traffic, those would be addressed separately. Kim Parducci stated that future development would go through this same process. Tom Humphrey explained that when every city prepares its transportation system plan it does so projecting future buildout of property within its urban growth boundary for 20 years. Public improvements are scheduled based on that plan and are implemented as growth occurs. Kay Harrison stated that there would be significant impact all along Hamrick Road and mentioned that although the main traffic routes had been evaluated, there was no study as to how traffic would affect residential areas and getting in and out of neighboring subdivisions. Matt Samitore said that some of the intersections along Hamrick had been evaluated and that there was no projected impact on them. Also there was already a signal scheduled to be constructed at Beebe and Hamrick Roads no later than 2017. Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 2016 Page4 Mike Oliver made a motion to approve Resolution 827 as conditioned. Tom Van Voorhees seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Susan Szczesniak, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Mike Oliver, yes. Motion Passed. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS None IX. MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey Informed the Planning Commission that the application for the Vietnam Memorial Wall has been withdrawn. Their filing fee will be refunded to them and they are pursuing other venues. Kay Harrison asked what the status was regarding the applications for the lot consolidation and sign variance for Costco. Dan O'Connor answered that those Resolutions had been approved upon condition of the conditional use application being approved, so no further action was necessary. Tom Humphrey said that he was in the process of preparing a concept plan for CP -3, the urban reserve area off Penninger Road, just south of the Expo. He said in addition to the input from the Planning Commission, he had gotten input from the Citizens' Advisory Committee and would be using the data to help prepare the plan. Mike Oliver asked about the status of the Twin Creeks Crossing. Matt Samitore answered that an engineering firm had been hired and the project was tentatively scheduled to begin this time next year. X. ADJOURNMENT Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to adjourn. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. All members said "aye". Meeting adjourned. The foregoing minutes of the February 2, 2016 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of -----.2016. Planning Commission Chair CONSIDERATION OF A CONCEPTUAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR URBAN RESERVE AREA CP -3. STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: File No. 15030 CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT Apri1S, 2016 Planning Department Tom Humphrey,AICP, Community Development Director Consideration of a Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Area CP -3; Applicant: City of Central Point. STAFF SOURCE: Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director BACKGROUND: The City's Regional Plan Element includes a provision that prior to expansion of the urban growth boundary into an urban reserve area it is necessary to adopt conceptual land use and transportation plans for the affected urban reserve. The City received a request to add Urban Reserve Area CP -3 to the City's UGB for additional job creation. The City Council responded to this request by passing a Resolution of Intent to initiate a UGB Amendment. City staff conducted a preliminary discussion with the Planning Commission in November to create a concept plan that reflects local land use expectations and remedies for traffic congestion that land uses may generate. The Commission and the Citizen's Advisory Committee each participated in a planning 'charrette' to come up with land use and transportation scenarios for the concept plan. Staff has crafted two land use plans in Attachment A for the Commission to consider. ISSUES: The City agreed to an employment/open space split in the Regional Plan (42% and 58% respectively). Of the 36 acres in CP -3 there are 15acres that can be considered for employment under the Regional Plan and 21 acres for open space. Upon further reflection, it appears that the City should advocate for 1.88 acres of residential given the existence of multi -and single-family homes between Gebhard Road and Bear Creek. If pursued, the question is whether to take residential acreage out of the employment total or out of the open space total. The Commission will be asked for their inputs about the alternative uses being proposed on pages seven (7) and eight (8) of Attachment A. Consideration should be given to the various constraints that exist in this area (e.g. natural, physical and political boundaries). Under Implementation Guidelines (page 5), staff is also interested in policy recommendations the Commission might like to make to the City Council. Public Comment on the CP -3 Conceptual Plan will also be received at the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) this month. EXHffiiTS/ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" -East Pine Street Area Concept Plan (CP -3) ACTION: Discuss the draft Conceptual Plan and 1) support it as presented; or 2) support it with revisions. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to disseminate the East Pine Street Area Concept Plan to affected agencies for comment and return in May for a formal recommendation to City Council. Page 1 ofl Tuesday April 5, 2016 Draft EAST PINE STREET AREA CONCEPT PLAN A CONCEPTUAL LAND USE AND •� z��:�rrrrr�i�.� • - �� CP -3 AN URBAN RESERVE AREA OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT City of Central Point Adopted by City Council Resolution No._, June, 2016 Page 1 of 23 PART 1. INTRODUCTION As part of the Regional Plan Element 1 it is required that the City prepare and adopt for each of its eight (8) Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) a Conceptual Land Use Plane and a Conceptual Transportation Plan 3prior to or in conjunction with an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) amendment within a given URA. This document addresses both conceptual plans, which are collectively referred to asthe CP -3 Concept Plan {'Concept Plan). Figure 1 illustrates CP -3's relationship to the City and the other URAs. CENTRAL POINT AN Legend c::::::JUGB Urban RtUI'Vf ArtU CP -3 CP 18T.W-d CP -I CSc-1cRoad CP 213 W iMn Road CP -40 Bear C—k CP 5A Grant Road GP -6A Taylor Road CP -&8 &.11 lane df,5 Figure 1.CentralPoint Urban Roso D -Areas As used in this report the term 'concept plan' refers to a document setting forth a written and illustrated set of general actions designed to achieve a desired goal that C will be further refined over time as the planning process moves from the general (concept plan) to specific site development. In the caseof CP-3,the goalto be achieved is a first generation refinement of how the land use distributions and applicable performance indicators of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (GBCVRP) will be applied. The concept plan is a general land use guide prepared in accordance with, and intended to facilitate implementation of the Regional Plan Element. It does not address compliance with the Oregon Statewide Land Use Planning Goals, applicability of land use planning law, or comprehensive plan compliance. 1 City of Central Point Ordinance 1964 2 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan,Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1Performance Indicators, subsection 4.1.7 3 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan,Regional Plan Element,Section 4.1Performance Indicators, subsection 4.1.8 Page 2 of23 These items will be appropriately addressed at some other time as the area's planning proceeds through UGB amendment, annexation, zoning, site plan approval, and ultimately development, with each step being guided by the Concept Plan. The Concept Plan illustrates the City's basic development program for CP -3; which is presented in Part 2 of this document. The remainder of the document (Part 3) is dedicated to providing background information used in preparation of the Concept Plan, including findings of compliance with the land use distribution and applicable Performance Indicators in the City's Regional Plan Element. In summary the Concept Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Regional Plan Element and Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan including all applicable performance indicators set forth in these documents. The development concept for CP -3 compliments and supports local and regional objectives relative to land use distribution and needed transportation corridors identified in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. PART 2. THE CONCEPT PLAN The long-term objective for CP -3 is that it will develop in uses that are complimentary to those in the immediate area such as Bear Creek Greenway, open space and tourist commercial uses. The URA's proximity to the 1-5 interchange, Bear Creek and the Jackson County Expo both restrict and invite active and passive uses. The small portion (1.9 ac) on the east side of Bear Creek is residential, is an exception to the Regional Plan allocations and seems better suited to the City's residential zoning east of Gebhard Road. 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 -3. 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 -3 into two basic land use classifications; employment (42%) and Open Space/Parks (58%). Employment land includes three categories: retail, industrial, and public. The Land Use Plan for CP -3 refines these 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, and tabulated in Table 1 as follows: Page 3 of23 Industrial. The Comprehensive Plan's industrial designation is intended to 'establish a strong and diversified sector' and to 'maximize new development opportunities'. Land Use is broken down into a new industrial category that was used in another URA. L:1 Business Park (Business Offices and Service Commercial) which is compatible with and closely related to uses permitted in the City's Wand M-2 zoning but is developed independent of those zones. ii. Commercial.The Comprehensive Plan's commercial designation in this case is intended to meet the needs of the traveling public and local entrepreneurs. However, an East Side Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Commercial designation can also be assigned given the URA's proximity to mixed use zoning. ❑ Tourist and Office Professional District, intended to provide for the development of concentrated tourist commercial and entertainment facilities to serve both local residents and traveling public and also for the development of compatible professional office facilities; ❑ General Commercial (TOD-GC), Commercial and industrial uses are primarily intended for this district. Activities which are oriented and complementary to pedestrian travel and transit are also encouraged. Public. Parks and Open Space designation is consistent with the Regional Plan Element and allows for the continued use and improvement of the Bear Creek Greenway system, natural drainage and agricultural buffers. It also provides opportunities for passive recreational/open space use. Acreage Future Zoning Future Comp Plan C ,3 1.88 TOD-MMR TOD Residential 14.45 6-P/i0D•6C Business Park/ Commercial 19.67 Bear Creek Public/Open Space Greenway 36.00 I Page 4 of23 b. The Conceptual Transportation Plan ('Transportation Plan') The regionally significant transportation documents affecting CP -3 are Interstate 5 (1-5), Interchange Area Management Plan (TAMP-33)and the Bear Creek Greenway Management Plan. The Concept Plan identifies these plans (Figure 2, CP -3 Concept Plan) and includes policies that encourage the thoughtful development of the interchange and surrounding properties. c. Implementation Guidelines The following guidelines are intended to serve as future action items: Policy CP -3.11 -and Use: At time of inclusion in the City's urban growth boundary (UGB) the property will be shown on the City's General Land Use Plan Map as illustrated in the CP -3 Concept Plan, Figure 2 except where the concept plan depicts a designation that does not currently exist in the City's Comprehensive Plan. In such cases, the City may apply a designation it deems appropriate under its current map designations. Policy CP -3.2 Transportation: At time of inclusion in the City's urban growth boundary (UGB) the local street network plan, road alignments and transportation improvements identified in various state plans will be included in the City's Transportation System's Plan (TSP) as illustrated in the CP -3 Concept Plan, Figure 2 and where feasible. The City has adopted IAMP 33 as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Policy CP -3.3 Adjacent Transit Oriented Development (T00) district land uses: CP -3's proximity to the Eastside T00 allows the City to consider both T00 and conventional land use designations. Policy CP -3.4: Committed Residential Density:At time of UGB Expansion into CP-3,the county zoned residential land will be designated higher density residential land to afford property owners more options for future development and to be compatible with adjacent city designations. Land designated for residential use was not originally contemplated for CP -3 but land owner participation in recent development proposals suggest it is better to preserve their land as residential uses rather than change it to Open Space/Park designations. Page 5 of 23 Policy CP -3.5 Forest/Gibbon Acres Unincorporated Containment Boundary: The City and Jackson County will have adopted an agreement (Area of Mutual Planning Concern) for the management of Forest/Gibbon Acres. Policy CP -3.6 Agricultural Mitigation/Buffering: At time of UGB Expansion into CP -3, the City and County will coordinate with RRVID to identify, evaluate and prepare potential mitigation. The City will implement agricultural buffers in accordance with adopted ordinances at the time of annexation. Page 6 of 23 Ak CENTRAL POINT N AFigure 2. Land Use CP -3 Concept Plan Legend —i,& eex&uEn on. us CPURAI ac" Ganer,ICommmtiti (TOO) eTOOMM CP -J OSopen 5p— Par1\'5 Document Name: CP -3 Land Use Page 7 of 23 Aik CENTRAL POINT N AFigure 2- Land lJse Legend —see^emha CMI.:akc— —y CP URAo !j. Cd= T01J1b.l.nd Offid!' C: iij ET00005.. CP J OS = open spm e'Paft Document Name: CP -3 Land Use CP -3 Concept Plan Page 8 of23 PART 3. SUPPORT FINDINGS The findings present in this section provide both background information and address the Regional Plan Element's Performance Indicators. a. Current Land Use Characteristics This section describes the general character of CP -3 in its current condition. Natural Landscape: CP -3 is traversed by Bear Creek which bisects the URA from the northwest to the southeast. Environmentally sensitive land straddles the creek on the east and west. Topographically, the land in CP -3 rises 10 to 15 feet from Bear Creek which runs through the URA. In spite of the creek and wetlands present in the URA,a significant percentage of two tax lots are subject to the flood hazards as shown in Figure 4. Those areas that are subject to flood zones will be required to perform mitigation if developed in land use other than Greenway or Open Space. The County's land use designation of Aggregate Resource (AR) undoubtedly anticipated mining and gravel extraction. Cultural Landscape: CP -3 is principally oriented to Bear Creek and the Interstate S (I -S) interchange. Aggregate quarries operate south of the boundaries of CP -3. Limited farming is done east of Bear Creek but the area is all within the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary. Jackson County Expo property is located to the northeast of the URA and none of the County property is part of a future URA. Future Expo development is guided by a master plan and the land uses within CP -3 could support activities at the fairgrounds (i.e. hotels/motels, restaurants, etc.). Page 10 of23 Ak CENTRAL POINT I Legend Flood Zones ` r . mn�-1 A Zone (100 yr) CP -3 CJ X Shaded (500 yr) Irr. vv Figure 4.Flood Hazards CP -3 Concept Plan Page 11 of23 b. Current Land Use Designations & Zoning Jackson County zoning acknowledges the unique geographic features of CP -3 by designating land for both General Industrial and Interchange Commercial uses. The area's proximity to the interstate and the railroad justified these land use designations originally and they are expanded in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan under the general category of Employment land. The land uses in the County's plan are as shown in Figure 5. Page 12 of23 ri� CENTRAL POINT N AFigure 5. Zoning Legff-d CP - 3 Concept Plan 11111 Jackson Co Zoning Z.nino 11 S $666666666 1 1 6 AIZ URI CP -3 EFU A comparison of the existing and proposed land uses are reflected in Table 2. I 1.S8 RR -5 TOD•MMR TOO i 11.4 AR BCG 36.0 Page 13 of23 The proposed city zoning will be exclusively employment based in keeping with the Regional Plan. c. Existing Infrastructure Water Currently, public water service is available to CP -3 from Beebe Road and E Pine Street. Sanitary Sewer CP -3 is in the RVSS service area and there is a trunk line that runs north and south through the Bear Creek Greenway and it ties in to one on Beebe Road (Figure 6). More lines will have to be extended to the area to serve employment based needs. Storm Drainage CP -3 does not have an improved storm drainage system and relies upon natural drainage and drainage from road improvements to channel water to Bear Creek. Street System CP -3 is accessed via 1-5 Exit 33, East Pine Street and Peninger Road with the expectation that the Beebe Road/Gebhard Road connection will be extended west across Bear Creek in the vicinity of an old bridge alignment. TAMP 33 and the City's TSP dictate the nature of improvements over the next 20 year period. These documents call for an internal circulation plan which the concept plan proposes in Figure 2. The Bear Creek Greenway will be extended through URA CP -3 by taking advantage of open space and floodways in Jackson County that is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation. Irrigation District CP -3 is located within the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District (RRVID). Irrigation water is transferred via natural means. There are no dedicated irrigation canals within the URA. Page 14 of23 Ak CENTRAL POINT N AFigure F Utilities Legend **@@ *@@ @ @ # # # @ @ CenoalP0ln[Watennes CP -3 <ouothlfYumM> CP - 3 Concept Plan Page 15 of23 d. Performance Indicators Implementation of the Regional Plan Element is guided by a series of twenty- two {22) primary and twenty-one {21) secondary performance indicators, not all of which are applicable to all urban reserve areas. Table 3 identifies the primary Performance Indicators applicable to the CP -3 Concept Plan. Description Yes No Cqungl AAKIkin_ _ X City Adoption x Urba X Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement x Camra es -Td `"" +� X Minimum Residential Density Standards X Mixed-Use/Pedestrian Friendly Area C X� Comelftuall Trangw0ation (Plan X Transportation Infrasl Conceptual Land Use Plan X Target Residential Dei ft X A Land Use Distribution X -:JOWL Ir Mixed Use/ Pedestrian Friendly Areas X CP -18, lAMP Requirement X fiction C13-411), Roadways Restriction X CP -68, fnstitetti sid Restric� Central Point URA, Gibbon/Fr, es _ A&. i,u;... a; oufferinis — Regional Land Preservation Strategies X Housing Strategies Urban Growth Boundary Amendment X UGS Expansions Outside of U144 Land Division Restrictions X Minimum Lot Size Cluster Developm Land Division & FUkrKvfTgL— _ _ — J _ X . C Land Divisions & Transportation Land Division Deed Restrictions ,1 ------ Rural Residential Rule x Greater Coordination with RVMPO X 4 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Regional Plan Element, Section 4.1 Performance Indicators Page 16 of23 Prepritton of CorwepWal Trw%4wWdon j r - Protection of Planned Transportation x Infrastructure Reponfly:sign TMMOWU 10 Supplemental Transportation Funding X Fut+za Cood[n�tice iirit RVC - - - - ] ^ Expo x :.APICIANUiatTa* f or+p - -- - . X . ]. Park Land X Buitleiailie �ncis 8ef#nit��i � . - - � . X I e. Applicable Performance Indicators The following addresses each applicable performance indicator per Table 3: 4.1.2. City Adoption. The City has incorporated the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (GBCVRP) into the Central Point Comprehensive Plan as the Regional Plan Element. Finding: The GBCVRP has been taken into account in the preparation of this Conceptual Plan. Conclusion 4.1.2: Complies. 4.1.3. Urban Reserve Management Agreement. An URMA was adopted by the City when it adopted its Regional Plan Element. Finding: The URMA has been taken into account in the preparation of this Conceptual Plan. Conclusion 4.1.3: Complies. 4.1.4. Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement. The UGBMA between Central Point and Jackson County was revised to institutionalize and direct the management of Forest/Gibbon Acres as an Area of Mutual Planning Concern. Other changes in the agreement add an intent and purpose statement, align procedural language with the County Comprehensive Plan and obligate the City and County to involve affected Irrigation Districts in the land use planning process. Finding: The UGBMA has been taken into account in the preparation of this Conceptual Plan. Conclusion 4.1.4: Complies. 4.1.5. Committed Residential Density. land that is within allRA or currently within an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but outside the existing City limit shall be built, at a minimum,to the following residential densities. This requirement can be offset by increasing the residential density in the City limit. Page 17 of23 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre Dwetllna Units per Gross Acre .&A"QP _112836-2060 6.9 7.9 4.1.5.1. Prior to annexation, each city shall establish (or, if they exist already, shall adjust) minimum densities in each of its residential zones such that if all areas build out to the minimum allowed the committed densities shall be met. This shall be made a condition of approval of a UGB amendment. Finding: Of the 36 acres in CP -3 the Regional Plan doesn't reserve any acreage for residential use. The 1.88 acre area being proposed consists of three parcels (36 2W 02 TL 2600, 2601, 2602). which are currently developed in both multi- and single-family residential use. The Concept Plan applies the City's TOO -Medium Mix Residential (TOD-MMR) land use and zoning to this property on the basis that the MMR zoning: F-1 Is consistent with the existing Residential land use designation and zoning for the area immediately to the east (White Hawk Mixed -Use Master Plan); and F-1 The property abuts rural residential lands to the north and west which is in the county and outside of a URA and a UGB. The MMR zoning district has a minimum density of 11.0 dwelling units per gross acre, which is above the committed average minimum density required in the Regional Plan Element (See Table 4 above). In Table 5 an accounting of the Gross Buildable Acreage within the City/UGB by zoning,current minimum allowable density per gross acre for each zoning district, minimum dwelling unit yield, and the average minimum density per gross acre defines the City's current minimum build -out density. Based on current zoning the City's Gross Buildable Acreage is capable of accommodating a minimum build -out density of 7.1 units per gross acre, which exceeds the current planning period's minimum 6.9, but is less than the long-term planning period's 7.9, required in the Regional Plan Element. Table 5 further illustrates (Adjusted Totals) that the use of MMR zoning in CP -3, when added to the City's current gross buildable acreage, does not reduce but rather contributes to the average minimum gross density. Conclusion: Complies. With the use of the MMR zoning the City's committed density is essentially unchanged and remains compliant with the current planning period's required minimum residential density standard. The City acknowledges that in order to maintain both the current and long-term planning period's minimum density requirement that: 1) Higher density zone changes may need to occur within the City as necessary to increase the average minimum density identified in Table 5; 2) Future residential densities in the remaining URA Conceptual Land Use Plans will need to either meet or exceed the minimum established densities in the Regional Plan Element; or 3) Acombination of the above_ Page 18 of23 CP 3 MMR Yleli:l Acne 14.63 18 1.2 101 36.16 83 2.3 1- 14.20 67 4.7 72.33 340 4.7 601 25.05 545 23.4 339.04 2.435 4.1.6. Mixed Use/Pedestrian Friendly Areas. For land within a URA, each city shall achieve the 2020 Benchmark targets for employment (Alternative Measure No.6) as established in the most recently adopted RTP. Finding: The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Appendix B, Page 10 lists a 44% mixed use employment target for new development by 2020. New land use categories in the Conceptual Plan can be adapted to create walkable/mixed use neighborhoods in CP -3 Conclusion 4.1.6: Complies. 4.1.7. Conceptual Transportation Plans. Conceptual Transportation Plans shall be prepared early enough in the planning and development cycle that the identified regionally significant transportation corridors within each of the URAs can be protected as cost-effectively as possible by available strategies and funding. A Conceptual Transportation Plan for a URA or appropriate portion of a URA shall be prepared by the City in collaboration with the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, applicable irrigation districts, Jackson County, and other affected agencies, and shall be adopted by Jackson County and the respective city prior to or in conjunction with a UGB amendment within that URA. 4.1.7.1. Transportation Infrastructure. The Conceptual Transportation Plan shall identify a general network of regionally significant arterials under local jurisdiction,transit corridors, bike and pedestrian paths, and associated projects to provide mobility throughout the Region (including intra -city and inter -city, if applicable). Page 19 of23 Finding: The regionally significant transportation project within CP -3 is the Beebe Road extension and bridge over Bear Creek. Additionally, the Interchange Area Management Plan for Exit 33 (TAMP -33) identifies public improvements and projects that have been taken into consideration as part of the CP -3 Conceptual Plan. The Bear Creek Greenway system, which is predominantly pedestrian and bicycle oriented affects part but not all of CP -3. The Concept Plan acknowledges the proximity of the Bear Creek Greenway system. The plan generally represents an enhanced local street network and access management improvements that are proposed in IAMP-33. Conclusion 4.1.7.1: Complies. 4.1.8. Conceptual Land Use Plans:A proposal for a UGB Amendment into a designated URA shall include a Conceptual Land Use Plan prepared by the City in collaboration with the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, applicable irrigation districts, Jackson County, and other affected agencies for the area proposed to be added to the UGB as follows: 4.1.8.1. Target Residential Density: The Conceptual Land Use Plan shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate how the residential densities of Section 4.1.5 above will be met at full build -out of the area added through the UGB amendment. Finding: See Finding 4.1.5. Conclusion: Complies. 4.1.8.2. Land Use Distribution. The Conceptual Land Use Plan shall indicate how the proposal is consistent with the general distribution of land uses in the Regional Plan, especially where a specific set of land uses were part of the rationale for designating land which was determined by the Resource Lands Review Committee to be commercial agricultural land as part of a URA Finding: As illustrated in Table 4 the proposed land use distributions in the CP -3 Concept Plan are consistent with those presented in the Regional Plan Element. Conclusion 4.1.8.2: Complies. ,Residential Aggregate Resource 0% (0 Ac) 5% (1.9 Ac) 0% (0 Ac) 0% (0 Ac) Open Employment Total Space/Parks _ 58% (21 AC) 42% (15 Ac) 100% (36 At) 0% (0 Ac) 0% (0 Ac) 55% (19.6Ac) 40% (14.5Ac) 100% (36 Ac) I I All acreage figures rounded to nearest whole number. Page 20 of23 4.1.8.3. Transportation Infrastructure. The Conceptual Land Use Plan shall include the transportation infrastructure required in Section 4.1.7 above. Finding: The required transportation infrastructure per 4.1.7 is included in the CP -3 Concept Plan (see Finding 4.1.7). Conclusion 4.1.8.3: Complies. 4.1.8.4. Mixed Use/Pedestrian Friendly Areas. For land within aURA, each city shall achieve the 2020 Benchmark targets for employment (Alternative Measure No.6) as established in the most recently adopted RTP. Finding: The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Appendix B, Page 10 lists a 44% mixed-use employment target for new development by 2020. New land use categories in the Conceptual Plan can be adapted to create walkable/mixed use neighborhoods in CP -3. Conclusion 4.1.8.4: Complies 4.1.9. Conditions. The following conditions apply to specific Urban Reserve Areas: 4.1.9.5 Central Point URA,Gibbon/Forest Acres. Prior to the expansion of the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary into any Urban Reserve Area,the City and Jackson County shall adopt an agreement (Area of Mutual Planning Concern) for the management of Gibbons/Forest Acres Unincorporated Containment Boundary. Finding: The City has coordinated with Jackson County and entered into an Area of Mutual Planning Concern Agreement prior to a UGB expansion into CP -3. Conclusion 4.1.9.5: Complies 4.1.10. Agricultural Buffering. Participating jurisdictions designating Urban Reserve Areas shall adopt the Regional Agricultural Buffering program in Volume 2, Appendix III into their Comprehensive Plans as part of the adoption ofthe Regional Plan. The agricultural buffering standards in Volume 2, Appendix III shall be adopted into their land development codes prior to a UGB amendment. Finding. CP -3 does not adjoin EFU zoned lands along any of its borders (see Figure 5). Natural buffering occurs along the natural stream channel of Bear Creek and along public rights-of-way. Some buffering has been shown in the Concept Plan in the form of Bear Creek Greenway land use (see Figure 2). During the design/development phase, the City will implement its Agricultural Buffering Ordinance to mitigate potential land use conflicts. Conclusion 4.1.10: Complies. Page 21 of 23 4.1.13. Urban Growth Boundary Amendment. Pursuant to ORS 197.298 and Oregon Administrative Rule 660-021-0060, URAs designated in the Regional Plan are the first priority lands used for a UGB amendment by participating cities. Finding: The Regional Plan Element includes a provision that requires adoption of a concept plan prior to urban growth boundary expansion into an urban reserve area. The area coming into the UGB is part of the urban reserve for which this Conceptual Plan has been prepared and therefore complies with the Regional Plan and the priority system of the ORS and OAR. Conclusion 4.1.13: Complies. 4.1.14. Land Division Restrictions. In addition to the provisions of Oregon Administrative Rule 660-021-0040, the following apply to lots or parcels which are located within a URA until they are annexed into a city: 4.1.14.4. Land divisions within a URA shall not be in conflict with the transportation infrastructure identified in an adopted Conceptual Transportation Plan. Finding: The CP -3 Concept Plan was prepared in collaboration with Jackson County and the RVMPO. Policies in the City -County UGBMA ensure continued notification and coordination of infrastructure with proposed land divisions. Conclusion 4.1.14.4: Complies. 4.1.17. Greater Coordination with the RVMPO. The participating jurisdictions shall collaborate with the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Organization (RVMPO) to: 4.1.17. I. Prepare the Conceptual Transportation Plans identified in Section 4.1.7 4.1.17.2. Designate and protect the transportation infrastructure required in the Conceptual Transportation Plans identified in Section 4.1.7 to ensure adequate transportation connectivity, multimodal use, and minimize right of way costs. 4.1.17.3. Plan and coordinate the regionally significant transportation strategies critical to the success of the adopted Regional Plan including the development of mechanisms to preserve rights-of-way for the transportation infrastructure identified in the Conceptual Transportation Plans; and 4.1.17.4. Establish a means of providing supplemental transportation funding to mitigate impacts arising from future growth. Page 22of 23 Finding: The RVMPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) determined that Conceptual Plan CP -3 complies with the Regional Plan Part 3- Goals, Policies and Potential Actions. The TAC voted unanimously to endorse CP -3 and to support its implementation. Conclusion 4.1.17: Complies. 4.1.18. Future Coordination with the RVCOG. The participating jurisdictions shall collaborate with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments on future regional planning that assists the participating jurisdictions in complying with the Regional Plan performance indicators. This includes cooperation in a region -wide conceptual planning process if funding is secured. Finding: The CP -3 Concept Plan was prepared in collaboration with the RVCOG. Conclusion 4.1.18: Complies. 4.1.20. Agricultural Task Force. The Agricultural Task Force shall develop a program to assess the impacts on the agricultural economy of Jackson County arising from the loss of agricultural land and/or the ability to irrigate agricultural land, which may result from Urban Growth Boundary Amendments. The Agricultural Task Force shall also identify, develop and recommend potential mitigation measures, including financial strategies to offset those impacts. Appropriate mitigation measures shall be applied to Urban Growth Boundary Amendment proposals Finding: The efforts of the County's Agricultural Task Force were considered in the preparation of this plan. The CP -3 Concept Plan is consistent with the Regional Plan Element, is consistent with the City - County UGBMA (which directs consultation with affected irrigation districts during UGB planning) and is also consistent with new policies found in Jackson County's Agricultural Lands Element resulting from ATF recommendations. Conclusion 4.1.20: Complies Page 23 of 23